WFPettigrew

Explains the colour of canal water perfectly...

I am pretty sure you wouldn't need to remove the axlebox to replace a spring, just jack the body up enough to get the spring free of the top of the box and underside of the solebar. I think the removed axlebox is on the ground behind the ?foreman? and the first of the workers (left hand end). Quite why removal of the entire box was needed I am not sure. On later oil boxes you can slide the bearing out - I don't know if that's the case with the Ellis grease box? The turned down section of axle visible at its right hand end is the journal, the bearing surface of the axle. Quite why there are what appear to be 3 plates or cards on the axle, as well as possibly a bit of oily cloth, I am not sure. Maybe the plates were shims that went behind the box for some reason? But I spotted this when the photo was first posted and couldn't work out what I was seeing. Not sure that helps at all!

Also the 5 link coupling chain, which predates it to before the RCH 1887 regulations I think I am right in saying?

Jol, I was actually thinking of this photo on the LNWR Society Facebook when I wrote that - https://www.facebook.com/groups/109619289726001/permalink/1280754605945791/ - with what are almost certainly a pair of Furness Railway "timber trucks" as they called them (Diagram 38 was assigned to these when the FR was writing up its stock for the incoming LMS in 1922) loaded relatively lightly with timber rather than a massive tree trunk. The point I was trying to make wasn't about the bolster rotating, but what happened if the two wagons tried to move relative to each other longitudinally, one cause of which would be the track geometry depending on the design of the connection between the pair. In the photo, you can clearly see the chain securing the load, but I don't know whether the combination of the total weight of the load plus the chain would have been enough to stop at least part of the load sliding around if the two bolsters did not stay a fixed distance apart. All the best Neil

Going back to the wiki article, it would appear that the curved ends would need to be part of an ellipse rather than a true radial curve.

I think this will depend what is slung across the bolster. 20 tons of oak tree trunk or steel rails is not going to be going anywhere without significant provocation- which is why the idea of using a 3 link coupling or a screw link has some merit - if the track geometry does change the distance between the ends of the wagons, having a flexible linkage would allow the load to stay put on the bolsters without any force trying to slide it one way or the other. But if the load is relatively light - some deal planks well short of the maximum for the pair of wagons - then they are likely to be sliding around all over the place. I guess this is why bogie bolsters were invented...!

Thank you, and now finally it makes sense, thanks to the animations on that link. Notably the section on gear design under applications. Fascinating!!

Pinned into a slot, or pinned beyond some sort of catch? There does seem to be the latter shown on the side elevation, but with the pin being in or behind the edge of the piece of metal. But there is nothing on the plan view. Granted if there is some sort of pinning then yes it could corner - but with a bit of slack that would be needed. so yes there would have to be a gap between the wagons, and with lightly laden or unladen then that could be quite a snatch loading onto whatever is providing the restraint? I suppose in the real world the actual degree of curvature will be small, especially with such short wheelbase wagons. But then, if that's the case, the drawbar's failing that you point out would be less of an issue? Sorry, still confuddled... Maybe I should shut up and let Mike complete his wagon and he will then prove to me how it works!

How does it (the prototype as much as the model) go round corners if those bars are fixed at both ends? I have been puzzling over this since you first posted the drawing. If the two metal bars were actually an angle (i.e. each one starts and ends on the same wagon) then with a pin where they overlap it would work, but the side elevations suggests that is not what is happening. It would work if the pins were in slots, but that also does not appear to be the case. I also don't really see why, if they wanted a fixed linkage between the two wagons, that they didn't just have a dirty great piece of iron/steel as per drawgear running through underneath a wagon, etc. Why not simpy put in a pivoted rod that runs longitudinally and centrally? I must be missing something, but I don't know what it is... All the best Neil

If you did want original Dinghams, these are soon to go on sale from the Scalefour Stores. Not that I am wishing to detract from Marc's reworking of them. But more importantly, wishing you a speedy recovery. All the best Neil

If ever there was evidence that the originating party would try and keep the load "in house" (or in the house of one of a joint line's owning parties) even if that meant sending it on a longer route. By a very very rough calculation usins the Google Maps measuring tool, the route via Chinley (then Sheffield and Leeds) would be at least 130 miles whereas if they had passed the traffc onto the LYR at Manchester, you'd be looking at 90 miles tops. That said, keeping it in one company would have probably reduced the delays handing traffic from one company to another at exchange yards, and so this might not have been a significantly slower journey?

I have a plea for help or a pointer in the right direction please. A small group of members of the Cumbrian Railways Association including myself have been trying to piece together the history of some of the Furness Railway wagons that didn't make it into LMS ownership, and so predate the Diagram Book drawn up in the dying days of the pre-grouping company. There were two types that were bogie wagons with US connections - the two "jumbo" ore hoppers that @MarcD has models for, and some "tubular frame" bogie bolsters used for carrying newly made rails from Barrow steelworks to the docks for export. These latter had frames made of tubes, rather obviously, which were threaded so could be put together by someone knowledgable about plumbing or pipe-fitting, but did have the pitfall that they could unscrew themselves.... One of the means of cross-referencing the rather sparse information about FR wagons has been the RCH 1904 Instructions, which have a section listing the "special" wagons of each pre-grouping company which could carry loads of "unusual bulk or weight". Does anyone know if there are any later versions of this document, and can anyone either tell me where to find them, or even better does anyone have a copy and could share a scan of the page about the FR? I have heard that the RCH stopped publishing this list perhaps after 1906 so there may not be much data out there, but can anyone enlighten please? Thanks in advance for any help! Neil

It is a dangerous game, i.e. difficult to prove one way or the other as to who was worst affected - but it is certainly true that Furness had massive issues with the impact of the Great War (Barrow shipyard, the Furness, Hodbarrow and West Cumberland iron ore mines, the numerous resulting ironworks that were putting new furances into blast on a monthly basis, acting as an alternative route to Shap for the Jellicoe specials traffic to Scapa Flow, etc) and all with pretty much no support from their new Government masters and - unlike the bigger companies like the Midland or LNWR - not having gone into the conflict with the same degree of overall capacity / strength in depth in resources of locos, rolling stock and men - plus when they did ask for help they were generally ignored, which may have in part been because they didn't have the lobbying power of one of the bigger companies. Another issue was that the wartime revenue was based on I think 1913 returns, and the FR, ever reliant on the iron and steel industry for whether it had a bumper year or not, saw trade drop somewhat in 1913.

And not just more, ahem, round - but also markedly taller and therefore also longer limbed, needing more elbow room, even before we think about the impact of added girth..

I suspect that the onward route would depend which of these two got their hands on the loaded wagon ie which way it came out of the colliery. Upthread we were discussing routing and the general feeling was the originating railway would keep hold of the wagon for as long as possible to maximise their share of the revenue. So either via Skipton or Rose Grove, and possibly even varying from over week to the next.

And a mahoosive brake lever guard, with the brakes being single wheel clasp on both sides - possibly independent, I cannot tell.. Poor thing that really is rather sad.

Or is it the C that is a bit low? If it helps, I didn't spot that til you pointed it out.. Lovely set of wagons...

Yes indeed. Just some of the very numerous Victorian 2 planks that were so prevalent on the FR due to the traffic demands (pig iron from the various ironworks, lime stone to the ironworks, slate from the quarries - all of which dense loads meant anything more than 2 planks was wasted). Types here are the D15 fast side (nearest the camera and 3rd along) and D16 drop side (behind the contestant and the 4th along). Shame the photographer didn't get the number of the D15 and the D16 cannot be read even at the best resolution available. The location is alongside the FR's Barrow goods warehouse (a building which still stands, long without tracks and marooned between Tesco and B&Q!) between it and Devonshire Dock (on the part now filled in for the BAE Systems submarine building hall). The view is looking north. So they are there for the competition not because they are queued up awaiting shopping in the works, which was a mile to to the south of here. FR wagons began to be painted with the "FR" on the sides around 1895/6, prior to that company identification was through the brass plate on the solebar, as visible on the D16. These in Victorian times were oval, initially with F.R.C. over the top and the build date around the bottom with the wagon number in the centre. Later - as in the D16 - it became Furnes on top, build date on bottom, and right at the end of the oval plate phase (1900) the build date was replaced with Railway. Later the FR moved to a rectangular plate with FURNESS and the number below, and later still to a rectangular plate with the bottom corners nibbled off so it fitted between the tops of the V hangers. We don't know the date for this photo - the wagon coupling competitions were certainly running in the first decade of the 20th century and another photo in the same batch of negatives shows a 1904 built loco at Ramsden Dock station in Barrow. The D15 has a very faint "F" visible, and the FR certainly did not repaint wagons until they really needed it. It is impossible to tell I think whether these wagons are in well weathered paint, or worse bare wood, and whetherh the likes of the D16 has carried lettering that has been lost, or is a survivor of the old paint scheme without the lettering. Hope this helps. Neil

Have you or your silent contributor worked out whether this is a D305 or a D818? My amateurish reading of Essery suggests the former but?

More of the 903 were seen in the photo at North Lonsdale Ironworks that I posted this morning (now a page ago). But that doesn't answer your question. Will go digging..

Agree. I think it is likely that Swarthmoor and Ulverston would have used the wagon repair shop at Lindal for planned workshop visits, although that is not totally a given. It would have required a 2 mile journey in the wrong direction to get there - and if Beadmans quoted a good price on the route back to load up again, then using them to do some repairs would make some sense. I should have added earlier - No 2 when new was sent to Pope and Pearson's Altofts Colliery at Normanton, according to the Turton article. Whether the Coop retained that pit as a supplier by the time of your photo is of course open to some question.

Jamie, the local coop was the Swarthmoor and Ulverston (Swarthmoor being a village just to the west of Ulverston and one of the birthplaces of the Quaker movement which is probably significant in the setting up of the coop!). There is apparently a photo in Turton's 14th of what is probably No 2, for those who have these things - but Keith Turton wrote an article about the Coop No. 2 in the Journal of the Cumbrian Railways Association (Vol 11 No 9, Feb 2015). In this article he states that the coop was established in 1861 and owned two ships during the 1880s and 1890s, but bought its first wagons in 1896. Orders were placed with Chas Roberts between 1896 and 1910 and they were delivered new to various collieries in Yorkshire (again showing the preference for Yorkshire house coal in the Furness area even though the Lancashire and West Cumberland coalfields were closer). The first wagon ordered in 1896 was No 3 along with Nos 9 and 10 later that year! Four years later 11 and 12 were purchased. Then in 1901 along came 7, then 4, then 1, in three separate orders! No. 2, the one whose Chas Roberts works portrait survives, was buit in 1910. And - as per my earlier comment - this one had cupboard doors, one of very few Chas Roberts ever produced. So all the previous ones had conventional (for England) drop side doors. Turton says it was painted lead colour with black ironwork and white letters shaded black. But a follow up letter in the next Journal cites a differing history in Bill Hudson's Private Owner Wagons Vol 1 drawing on information sourced from the coop itself. That states that the livery of No 2 was "light green" with black ironwork, but some wagons were painted brown. The letter writer Robert Heywood suggests that the chaotic number sequence in the Chas Roberts orders was down to replacing life expired wagons. Now, I don't know whether Robert Heywood is correct - if the Coop had bought wagons as well as ships in 1861, then some of these would be become life expired around the time of the Chas Roberts orders. Equally though, it may be that this is another example of a private owner numbering a fleet to look bigger than it actually is. I am not sure we will know. POWsides do a transfer, only in 10mm seemingly currently, and they at least have gone with green for number 2. https://www.powsides.co.uk/product.php/swarthmoor__ulverston_co-operative_society/?k=:::5727944:0 Not sure whether this helps or just adds further confusion?! All the best Neil Hope this helps.

Admitting almost complete ignorance on LNWR wagon matters, are these (D32 and D33) roof door? That one in Ulverston has prominent bands on the roof which look like they are runners for a roof door, but of course might not be?

I think you mean the one Stephen referred to above - it's marked LNWR on the sides, and the number is 54630. Stephen says it is a D32 or D33 van.

Yes it is. Sorry I was going to double check it before I posted the picture then forgot! It's a FR Diagram 38 horsebox dating back to the 1870s. This drawing by the late Ross Pochin is part of the Cumbrian Railways Association Shillcock collection.