WFPettigrew

Sorry I will miss you.

On another topic. Any frequent fliers on here going to Scalefour Crewe this weekend? I am spending the day there tomorrow if anyone else is there? First proper show of the largely complete Slattocks Junction is the headline act. All the best Neil

And in the next exciting installment of "Stephen goes to the National Archives".... ... hopefully!

Not sure Nick - I had always wondered if it was to stop a naughty school boy running along the far side taking brakes off as fast as the goods guard/shunter put them on! Bit fanciful perhaps but being serious, the crew would know which side they had walked down to pin down, and it would be their responsibility to release those brakes at some point. Having a system where you can only do that from the place where you started from does make sense in terms of ensuring the guard retained control over what happened, and couldn't miss one. Or maybe there was some truth in the conspiracy theory about "let's enforce what the big companies already have" and it was a canny move to stop some upstart engineer try and patent a brake that could be taken off from the far side?!

... which would not be unusual - it was normal practice as I understand it to specify how many wagons out of a train of a given weight should have the brakes pinned down for a particular gradient. So it wouldn't be all of them, and unlike the concept of the "fitted head" which was where it was in the train simply because of the available pipework, the braking of the train would be more effective if those pinned-down wagons were spread out along the length of the train to keep all the couplings stretched out.

And therein lies the difficulty: the brakes had to be able to not only be applied but also stay applied including when in traffic (brakes pinned down on a gradient) when there would be various forces and vibrations that would tend to loosen a brake unless it was secured in the on position. And this with the other requirements such as able to be applied with one hand which generally is easiest achieved with big levers. I am not going to say it's impossible to have a system to pin down brakes on one side that can then later be unpinned from the other side and then that original brake lever returned to the off position, but it would certainly be an engineering challenge, would add some siginificant metalwork to the chassis and therefore dead weight for the loco to haul, and may well not be able to be/remain engineered to the sort of precision to meet the fail safe requirements of the railway. A further thought: there is no doubt that lives were saved by having a brake lever on both sides of the wagon, either Morton or independent either side brakes, as shunters no longer had to repeatedly cross from one side of a rake of wagons to the other to pin down brakes, with those wagons sometimes on the move at the time. But the net result of having a lever on both sides means that all the brakes applied on a given train would all be pinned down on the same side, and therefore it would be easy to take those brakes off again - and there would be no need to go to the other side. The only value in having brakes that can be released from either side would be on a set of wagons in a siding which may have arrived at different times, and so the brakes were applied variously from one side or the other when they were dropped off. So all in all IMHO the idea of either side release probably got dropped because there was no major need for it, and achieving it would have been more trouble than it was worth. All the best Neil

The expanded version of Tourrett's Petroleum Tank Wagons book does have a photo of 202 on page 203, but note that this photo in the book is captioned as being April 1947, so far from pre-grouping. I will scan you a copy and send on DM but for the sake of people on here, the Bachman livery follows the picture up to a point. The 202 on the tank end appears to be very good. IMHO the "OCO" lettering is about the right shape but is too large and wrongly spaced (should be more spread out, with the lefthand O being right above and only same width as the word "Olympic", you cannot see on the photo what is above the number on the tank side (somethere there but its too mucky to tell what), the LOAD 14 TONS is spot on, but the TARE etc is further to the left on the solebar, ending just to the left of the lefthand axlebox. The fast star is about right, but without wading through loads of text to remind myself, I think such things are from the post grouping era. Oh and the wagon is a different type to the model - the prototype is one of the breed that has the bracing rods bolted onto the sole bars ending up at the top of the legs of the V hanger (so they don't cross). Hope that helps. Neil

With half my ancestry coming from just north of Maidenhead, you've taken me back! My grandfather and great aunt always called them cheeselogs, but I haven't heard that since my childhood!

@Chas Levin going back into the midsts of time (two pages ago) and wagon knees. I can heartily recommend the late John Hayes' The 4mm Coal Wagon book for this and, as they might say on certain white vans, "all aspects of" prototype wagon construction. It's very well written, very clear, and with the aid of jigs he knocks up a tapering side knee in a matter of minutes from styrene strip. It's not all about coal wagons, and it's not all about that post-modernist world of "grouping" and even "nationalisation" either.

301 now!

I suspect that the higher sides aren't just good for capacity but also for the stability of the load as goods trains became heavier and (a bit) faster. A load of barrels stood on end on a 1 plank in a shorter train crawling along probably wouldn't come to grief. Put the same load on the same wagon in a longer train with a more powerful loco on the front that sets off with determination, and the snatch on the coupling as the wagon goes from stationary to some miles per hour in an instant could well send barrels flying. (As frequently used to happen to the poor hapless goods guards, knocked off their feet by the bumps and crashes of the misfortune of their lot.) Put that load in a high sided wagon, and the barrels are staying put. Absolutely. I was musing on spare parts for wagons or locos, and if any were kept in stock, then given the size of the fleets, the works foreman at Barrow say would just know that if loco 104 is coming in, that this was a North British radial tank, and the right springs for these was that stored over there... Etc. The spring probably wasn't even labelled. He'd just know because there weren't that many different types in use.

Exactly. And only in the very largest companies - the MR and the GWR having been extensively discussed over on the D299 thread for example. The FR diagram books were only produced for the new LMS, there is no evidence of any form of detailed classification of rolling stock before that date. I can see how at the MR there would be a need: when you are building 66,000 D299s and numerous other types of wagon alone, this will generate some paperwork, not just at the works creating and using the drawings, but also amongst the accountants and financial controllers, and right up to the various management committees and the Board of Directors. That sheer volume and complexity requires breaking down into manageable units. I think for a line like the FR with 7 thousand odd wagons on the books in total, that wasn't anywhere near so necessary. For a smaller more rural line like the WNR, even more so.

You rang, m'lud? There is certainly some murkiness about how all these locomotives were referred to back in the day when the Furness and Cambrian were using them. Certainly the "D1" and "E1" nomenclature referred to my learned friend above would have been a complete mystery to anyone at the FR from cleaner up to General Manager: this is an ordering system created by railway enthusiasts (credited to the late ACW Lowe) and popularised by the late Robert Rush in his books. This classsication is beset with contradictions: just two illustrate, Pettigrew's final 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos, and his 0-6-0Ts, the "K4", "D5" and "G5", were actually what LNER would have classified as K4/1 and K4/2, and D5/1 and D5/2, as the initial locos in both had shorter boilers than the later ones, while the tanks had some significant differences with the boilers too so would have been G5/1 and G5/2. Etc. There were various rebuilds of the Sharpies Stephen is right to be cautious about Rush: he was working at a time before the internet made sharing of information easier, but it seems he relied on the memories of railway workers to write his books, usually just a single source, and memories are sadly fallible. When he was asked by CRA historian Ron Allison how he had come by a series of wagon numbers for one particular type of FR wagon that he quoted in the book, and for which there even now is absolutely no other evidence for, his reply was "I cannot remember". As far as I know, the FR referred to the Sharp Stewart 0-6-0s as "Sharpies", the Baltic tanks as "Jumbos" and the Sharp Stewart banking 0-6-0Ts as "Neddies" - and its likely that the "Seagull" and "Large Seagull" for the first two types of 4-4-0 date back to FR days. But even that is rather lost in the midst of time. My own opinion is that a line with never more than 133 locomotives probably generally referred to each locomotive by its number. The shed foreman and indeed all the crews at each shed would have known which loco was rostered for each job, and the only real need to refer to a loco would have been in the event of a failure or an engine needing to go to the works for overhaul, etc. and which one would be standing in on the job in the meantime. In similar vein I expect the goods managers would have simply been asking for a 2 plank wagon for a load of slate, limestone or pig iron, but a high sided wagon and tarp for a merchandise load, rather than quoting diagram numbers (which were only created at the very end of the old company, so the LMS knew what it was inheriting). As for the question of the number of Sharpies: leaving aside Rush, the late Peter Robinson had the total as 55, which is also the number quoted by Howard Quayle in his Furness Railway: a view from the past but Ken Norman's The Furness Railway: a Recollection has the total as 53! A definitive history (or as definitive as it can be) of FR locomotives is needed, but is not available. So yes, these were by far the most common Furness locomotives, followed by the 2-4-0s.

If Thomas ends up 200 feet down an iron ore working, a blown fusible will be the least of the driver's worries...! 😂

I guess another possible risk re getting the brass to fit snugly against the printed body would be any tightness on the insides of the solebars causing the brass to get stuck and sit off slightly? (Don't ask me how I know this....)

Quite a lot of luck and considerable patience in my experience! Careful if you do the bending over of the ends of the wire - especially as you say that the amount of spring wire is not on the overly generous side. Bending the spring wire at both ends them limits the amount of springing that is possible. And if the bend is right up against the retainer on both sides, it won't really spring at all. If it's the same thickness of spring wire, it should have the same springiness. HTH

Out in curiosity @Andy Vincent how thick is the printed floor on your wagons? I think I am right in saying that things like the Finney/Brassmasters underframes and similar kits/W irons assume a 1mm floor as per the common kit manufacturers. All the best Neil

I am far from an expert and far from being able to show I have made better - but my eye was immediately drawn to the crosshead jumping around like a box of frogs. These clearly have far too much clearance with the slidebars on both sides and there is a point in the first video where the piston rod changes angle dramatically. If that extra slop is replicated in the crankpins and elsewhere, then any one of those sloppy points could be causing something to nip up and be a tight spot. Trouble is you got this one cheap so I presume you cannot just send it back to the retailer and politely request one that wasn't built on a Friday afternoon? Good luck...

Thanks for looking @jamie92208 and many thanks for finding @Compound2632 ! A scan would be very gratefully accepted. And those are lovely @Adam - thanks for sharing. The tar streaks on the completed wagons are superb. I have the Tourret "big book" and had found the drawings and am in the process of choosing a prototype wagon - albeit one that was used by a different company given the dearth of images of Sadler rectangular tanks. Depending on prototype I may be adding the extra straps over the top, as you have done on two of yours. I had already come to the conclusion that I want to replace the rather low-rise access hatch on the kit with something a bit taller. I was musing on embossing a string of rivets on some scrap etch and then annealing and rolling it (this latter is a hypothetical as I have never done that before..) - what did you use, as that looks like plastic? All the best Neil PS There was a lovely bit of history discovered under the floorboards of the old goods shed in Keswick by long-standing Cumbrian Railways Association Peter Holmes: a series of letters and telegrams from early 1923 between the goods staff in Keswick and their counterparts in Ulverston about claims by Sadlers that they had been overcharged for a load of their wagon No 9 heading from Keswick to their site at North Lonsdale Crossing, Ulverston. This went backwards and forwards slowly developing the idea that maybe the wagon wasn't entirely empty when it had been loaded, and both goods agents decided they would both weigh it empty and full. But Sadlers had kept hold of the wagon at their site preventing the Ulverston goods yard people to weigh it. Sadlers then weighed it empty themselves - and by May this was sent to Keswick: "Sadler & Co say tared by them 7.14.2, but will have to wait until we can catch it coming out of works for testing purposes." Cue mental image of goods clerk lurking in the undergrowth down at North Lonsdale Crossing with a large pair of binonculars...! The wagon eventually did get to Ulverston goods yard later that month, and yet another letter was sent to Keswick: "Now sent out empty it leaves here today newly steamed out and tared by us here to 7.9.1 Sadler's weight gross same as us 17.4.2 and their tare after discharge was 7.14.2 the difference in tare is accounted for by being steamed out so you might note and test on arrival with you before unloading." So five hundredweight of tar/pitch and goodness knows what else was steamed out in the goods yard at Ulverston. Imagine being the poor goods porter who had to clear up that mess! The dispute was eventually resolved with an overcharge invoice issued, and possibly a verbal reminder to staff in Keswick and at Sadlers not to be lazy and assume a tare on a wagon that was very difficult to completely empty.

Thanks so much. I think you're probably right...

My apologies, I should have been clearer about scale - 4mm. And rectangular. All the best Neil

Changing the subject. Today I took delivery of one of the Slaters Chas Roberts tank wagon kits, after getting a good price on eBay. That good price does reflect the fact that the box is missing both decals and instructions. However everything that is important (i.e. the bits of plastic!) appears to be present. I can cope without the decals - my plan has been to model one of the tanks that were used to take tar from local gas works to the Sadler's processing works at Ulverston (far from HQ in Middlesboro) rather than any of the provided lettering. I can cope without the instructions, but if anyone has them and had the time to scan a copy, it might mean I avoid any obvious pitfalls. And does anyone has any information on how Sadler's would/might letter such wagons? There are no known photographs of the Sadlers works in Ulverston nor of its wagons nor of its locos. The works is now a delightful small caravan park which I regularly walk past, wondering if the current temporary occupants are aware of the decidely industrial, smelly and chemical laden past of the site! There are a few images of Salder's wagons in the HMRS collection, but these are of an RCH 1923 mineral wagon (also the subject of a POWsides transfer which aside from having black shaded white lettering I fear will be too long as RCH 1923 wagons were 16'6" as I understand it (bloomin' modern post grouping grumble grumble) and even allowing for 12" of corner plates on both ends, the lettering is likely to be more than scale 15' long while the little tank body is 14'6 between the end rivets) and cylindrical tank wagons, one of which is very post modern i.e. 1940! All help gratefully received. All the best Neil

I can only relay what is in the article. Prior to the 1913 change to annual reporting, he says the FR submissions explicity listed the tip wagons as their own category, i.e. "Barrow ore wagons" (which included those inherited from the WC&ER - they also had "Ulverston ore wagons" which were those which had been inherited from the Ulverston and Lancaster Railway). Ron says he does not have figures for 1913, and that the change from 1913 meant different detail was recorded, and the Barrow and Ulverston ore wagons were not longer listed in their own right. He echoes your point about the different loading categories for mineral wagons - and says he us "unable to make much sense" of the 1913 figure for under 8 ton mineral wagons - which was 1,116. This must include the some of the remaining side tip wagons (which were variously 5 ton, 7 ton (probably ex WC&ER) and 10 ton) - but the FR did not have numerous other featherweight wagons - yes some 8 ton ones but not over 1000 in total. He wonders if some of the original 10 ton wagons had been downgraded. Maybe the FR was going over and above what it was required to do, for some reason, but stopped with the new regs in 1913?

Yes it is the Cumbrian Railways picture that I shared off line with you. I have had another look and found the original article by Ron Allison, who is the expert on FR wagons. So.. Ron says that Pennington Pit only opened in 1903 so ithe photo is later than that, and he has a date of 1912 for the closure of Lowfield Pit not 1914 (latter coming from a local history website for Lindal which drew its information from The Red Earth, a well reseasrched history of iron ore mining in the Furness area). But either way with Lowfield pit open we are looking at pre-war. Ron also points out that there are no visible FR side tip wagons - the pretty much unique design for a "mainline" railway company in mainland Britain (only the neighbouring Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont used them other than the FR). This is significant: they were photographed in significant numbers at Lindal in 1907. (The hopper wagons seen in this photo in the siding beyond the Monckton and Old Silkstone PO wagons to the near right are dumb buffer metal bodied hoppers of unidentified ownership along with one of the Carnforth ironworks at the nearest end - both Carnforth and North Lonsdale Ironworks in Ulverston used similar small metal bodied hopper wagons.) The FR side tip wagons were phased out in the 20th century - there were only 470 in use at the end of 1911 and unfortunately we cannot be sure of numbers after that because of a change in the reporting to the Board of Trade. There were still some in use in 1915, because they are referred to in the Sectional Appendix on how they should be marshalled into trains because of their below standard buffer height. The same sectional appendix does also cover the use of dumb buffer wagons on the FR even though in theory they were illegal by 1914. Put all that together and it is sometime between 1903 and 1914, and probably later given the rapid demise of side tip wagons at that point. Ron suggests "about 1910". IMHO I think the picture will be taken after the 1908 addition of the sons into the WHD business - but probably/possibly within a repainting cycle of a wagon. Does that help?

This is the photo, or rather a link to when it was posted (not by me) to a Facebook group for old railways in the Furness area: WHD wagon is just to the right of centre. What we are looking at here is the summit of the Furness at Lindal looking east. The Lindal Ore Depot which processed iron ore coming in from the numerous mines in the Lindal and Lindal Moor area is out of shot just to the left. The whitewashed building with the chimney behind is the gas works. The round topped building centrally is a wagon repair depot (some of the PO wagons from the Barrow area e.g. some of those of the fleet of T.F. Butler coal merchant were inscribed "Repairs Lindal Ore Depot, Furness Railway") and then you have the up sidings, the FR mainline towards Ulverston and Carnforth, and then more sidings, in which are numerous MR wagons including D299s! The photo can be dated by the fact that both Lowfield pit (the mine centre right) and Pennington pit (the distant chimney above the wagon repair shop) are both in operation (a better quality scan shows both chimneys are issuing smoke). I cannot currently find the article with the date of the closure of Pennington Pit but it was only a few years before the Great War, memory suggests 1912 but don't quote me on this, but Lowfield Pit definitely closed in 1914. So the picture is definitely pre-war.