sulzer27jd

3 hours ago, GWR_Modeller said:

I do not think there is any disagreement about the advantage in being able to apply a vehicles hand brake from both sides.  But the explicit ruling against being able to release it from either side would in principle require there to be some disadvantage, or perceived disadvantage, in having that ability.

 

Being able to organise a workplace and tasks in such a way that there is no benefit in having a brake releaseable from both sides would remove the benefit of such a brake but is it not a significant step further to actually prohibit it?

 

It is interesting the exception made for DC brakes, the introduction of which seems to preceed the rules.  Might the disadvantage be that mechanical reliability of either side brakes was a concern and, in absence of a positive advantage as explained by The Stationmaster, that was the deciding factor in the prohibition?  

There was no explicit ruling against it, only that any such system had to meet with BoT approval.

None of the pre-existing systems were deemed to be sufficiently satisfactory to recommend them for general adoption. 

The deciding factor was not advantage or disadvantage of any braking system but was determined by the way in which railways could best reduce the number of accidents, this was in the opinion of the Committee, fitting brakes to both sides of wagons at cross corners.

John

Remember also there was use of single sided wagons, that is, vehicles with doors or drop sides on only one side. In the period we are discussing there would be a need for shunters to cross under/through/between wagons in order just to do their job. If the priority was safety, which according to the Committee that looked at this was a key factor, then the reduction of that necessity would have a significant impact. 

It would seem that the Committee took their priority to be reducing accidents rather than deciding wagon specifications.  They happens to consider though, that by fitting brakes to both sides the number of crossing movements by staff would be reduced reduced. It would be interesting to see if there was a reduction in injuries and deaths over time.

18 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

My guess is that once either-side brakes were investigated in more detail, some probelm was found which resulted in the 1911 rules. The wording of the 1900 Act covers any rule concerning "Brake levers on both sides of waggons", and although I think that at the time the Act was passed the only thought was about making either-side brakes compulsory, by 1911 the situation had changed.

5 hours ago, sulzer27jd said:

The trials found that none of the brake systems trialed was "considered sufficiently satisfactory to warrant our recommending it for general adoption."

 

They also considered the risk that because the either side lever acted simultaneously on both sides of the wagon there was actually a risk of a shunter on one side being injured by the application of the brake lever on the other.

 

The Committee examined the number of accidents there had been and came to the determination that, " the majority of accidents would be avoided if every wagon had a lever on each side, by which a brake or brakes could be applied, even though it could only be released from the side on which it had been applied."

Some problems were indeed found.

One of the problems we face is in the use of language. "Either side" could be taken as meaning you can put the brakes on or off from both sides of the wagon and it makes sense that if you put them on using side 1 then you could only release them from side 1. By definition you could equally put the brakes on using side 2 and release them using side 2 but would not be able to apply the brakes on side 1 and release them on side 2. The arrangement of on side 1, off side 1 etc. is what the Committee deemed to be brakes that could be applied on "both sides" and the arrangement of on side 1 and off side 2 is what the Committee deemed to be "either side."

The previous BoT specification ordered railways to adopt brake gear that could be applied from either side. That appears to have been interpreted (rightly or wrongly but we must assume that someone at least asked) as requiring the ability to apply from side 1 and release from side 2. The Committee were specific that whilst 172,000 wagons had brakes on both sides, 33,000 had brakes that could be applied from either side.

The Caledonian Railway attempted to meet what was perceived to be this "either side" requirement by using the McIntosh Patent Brake. In its documentation it specifies the ability to apply or release the brakes from either side [that doesn't help clarify] but it refers to the ability to hold the brakes in position without the aid of pins, wedges or other means usually employed. As you could not have pinned a brake lever down on on side and expect to release it anywhere else, I think think this gives us a clue that McIntosh brake was intended to have the ability to be applied on side 1 and released on side 2. Wagons so fitted would fall into the 33,000 either side category.

I don't know if the Royal Commission was established as such or if the BoT Committee did the work in its place. It was made up of Mr R Turnbull (LNWR), Lieut-Col Yorke (Railway Inspector BoT) and Mr R Bell MP. Its first report was November 1906.

John

The wording of the Committee's recommendation was that "No wagon for service to be fitted with an either-side brake as defined at the commencement of this report,* unless it has been approved by the Board of Trade on the advice of this Committee." It was therefore not an outright ban, but the practicalities effectively ended the use of such systems for hand brakes.

* The report talks of trials of 'either side' brakes as being the ability to apply and release.

The trials found that none of the brake systems trialed was "considered sufficiently satisfactory to warrant our recommending it for general adoption."

They also considered the risk that because the either side lever acted simultaneously on both sides of the wagon there was actually a risk of a shunter on one side being injured by the application of the brake lever on the other.

The Committee examined the number of accidents there had been and came to the determination that, " the majority of accidents would be avoided if every wagon had a lever on each side, by which a brake or brakes could be applied, even though it could only be released from the side on which it had been applied."

The scale of the problem was significant for two reasons;

1 - as an example in 1900 the Caledonian Railway had 1 in 197 shunters killed and 1 in 13 injured in shunting accidents.

2 - in 1906 (during the Committee's examination) the UK railways had 750,000 vehicles of which 172,000 had brakes that could be applied on both sides, with 33,000 fitted with either side brakes. There were an additional 650,000 wagons belonging to private traders, giving a total of 1,400,000 wagons.

The implications of fitting an either side system, in cost and delay, were balanced against the option of fitted levers to both side that could apply the brakes even though they could only then be released from the same side. The committee concluded (specifically mentioning "delay" and "in the interests of the men") that the best option was to go for brakes fitted with a lever at cross corners.

The recommendation were that;

1) new build wagons be fitted with cross corner levers

2) wagons with one sided lever only be fitted with an additional lever within 7 years.

3) wagons fitted with two levers but with them at a single end have them rearranged within 10 years.

4) as above re either side and requiring approval.

Committee appointed April 1906

John

On 08/01/2021 at 20:19, John M Upton said:

Sadly not, SP.

 

I have gone ahead and ordered Railroad Roman lettering/numbering from the K4 Decals site plus a couple of other sheets where I have not only got a discount but the postage (ordinary letter rate) was just $1.14.

 

What I still need to find is a SP for the front nose of a GP30 I am giving the once over, I guess Microscale are the only decal manufacturer who have the licence?

If you are still after SP decals drop me a PM

john

It is no surprise to any of us who are regularly inflicted by BBC Scotland but their report on this last night barely even formed coherent sentences. They seemed more focused on linking these to the Carmont derailment than actually reporting any facts. Possibly the same people who previously tried to suggest the driver of the derailed train was exceeding the speed limit.

It's hard to tell if it is an anti-rail agenda or just the usual standard of so called journalism that passes for news reporting in Scotland.

I use very fine soil, almost to the consistency of dust and blow that over freshly planted grass. The soil works best if it is dried and then ground down to a very fine powder.

John

Agree with Quarryscapes, it can be done, but requires a experience and even then cannot tackle some of the jobs. if you want to build your kit with confidence, invest in a temperature controlled soldering iron. 

John

The first recorded use of painted tare weights was on the Dundee & Newtyle Railway which opened in 1831. On the way to unloading the wagons passed a weigh bridge which gave a reading in the nearby office and the painted tare weight allowed the clerks to note this from within their office and calculate the load. 

John

On 22/11/2020 at 21:30, class26 said:

 

I love the way you have placed the railway into the landscape and used the width of the baseboards to to build the scene. Others would have jammed that full of track. You are developing a model of a railway rather than a 'model railway' and doing a particularly fine job. I'm looking forward to watching this progress.

John

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

No, the double arrows was definitely designed to be a modern logo, s

Very much a leader in what would now be described as corporate image. The same logo was (and to some extent still is) used throughout the railway, on equipment, on buildings, on paperwork and throughout advertising and promotion. To the point where if you show the symbol to most people they will instantly recognise it is something to do with railways. During the recent upgrade of Haymarket station in Edinburgh the logo was cleverly set into a galvanised metal screen, followed even more recently with its use on Glasgow Queen Street refurbishment, these uses confirm that is still very much intrinsically linked to the railway system.

It may, at least in terms of the UK, be one of the most successful logos ever.

6 hours ago, scottystitch said:

 

So many projects, so little time.

 

I hear you and share your pain!

This looks like it will be of interest. Keep us up to date with progress please.

All the best with this project.

John

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

The thing is, whatever research you do will apply reasonably accurately to a specific location at that particular time of the year, maybe even a specific line, but not really be generalisable to anywhere else.

This point is very well made. Different parts of our group of nations would generate very different traffic, the different railway companies, districts or divisions of that railway all the way down to different lines and even individual stations. Seasonal traffic and market days will have a major impact on the flow of goods. I think the point for modellers would be to do the research on what traffic you are trying to represent and then work back from there.

A topic that has been highlighted on one of the other threads is that prior to the pooling of wagons there would be a considerable traffic in foreign empty wagons being moved off the property. This is something that we ought to consider more fully when we think about wagon numbers in our fleet.

John

Quote

But to go back to the topic, these developments were yet to come at the period when some companies' wagons bore the so-called illiterate symbols, which is the period I'm interested in modelling.

In our modelling we look to strike the right balance of home and 'foreign' wagons and that will of course vary dependent on a range of factors including where we are modelling and the time period involved. It may be that a chosen location will have more wagons of a particular type because of a local industry and that will skew the visual representation. What this conversation has highlighted is that in the period prior to WW1 the number of empty wagons is also a significant factor that we should be taking into account. It is certainly something that I am giving  thought to as the number of sheeted wagons and therefore the number of empty wagons will be of particular interest and may require a fleet of more or less equal split.

I currently manage coal loads with removable foam blocks so allow full and empty movements, own company opens can be sheeted in two directions but I will need to give further thought as to representing incoming loaded and outgoing empty 'foreign' wagons. I could simply replace them between operating sessions as I think having removable sheeting would be tricky!

To bring us back to the wagon symbols, we have - at least so far - not seen any evidence that the purpose of these markings was in any way related to illiteracy. What we have seen in fact leads us away from that purpose, as much of what has been put before us indicates that the railways of the day required a reasonable degree of literacy from its employees. We can get distracted by individual examples or arguments around terminology but the facts - and I repeat, so far - bear out the reality that the railway functioned with people of all grades reading instructions. That might be as simple as a shunter setting a wagon into a train that will take it back home. The shunter determining that the wagon with the CR on its side had to go north and the one with LSWR had to go south but none the less that is probably easier that trying to remember that the one with a diamond goes west and the one with the clover thing goes east. 

More complicated was the distribution of coal wagons. In his book, Operating the Caledonian Railway Vol 1, Jim Summers has included an image showing the list of junctions at which wagons coming from the north for the various collieries had to be left off. The list has 6 yards serving 115 collieries. Making sure that wagons got to the right destination was clearly not a simple task. The same process would be repeated throughout many railways in many locations. In the days before the pooling of wagons the specific instructions for the return of empties, often written on the wagon body, would need to be followed or a cost would be incurred. I remain unconvinced that the symbols painted by some companies on their wagons were meant to serve the purpose of assisting illiterate shunters. The NB actually painted the quatrefoil between its letters anyway. 

Hopefully someone can access a contemporary record which will shed some light on this question as without it I suspect we will simply continue going round in a circular fashion. 

John

It looks like 2021 will be an expensive year.

4 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I think that is a very pertinent question John and we might get some understanding if some of the undoubted experts here could indicate when each company started to use the symbols and equally important, if someone can point to when the term "illiteracy mark" first came into use or common usage.

It may also be useful to know when lettering started to be used to identify ownership. Was it perhaps a case of, “well why don’t we just write our name on them?”

Another thing that hasn’t really been accounted for are the private owner wagons, many of which had return instructions written in full. Might the term illiteracy mark possibly be a red herring? A creation of the model railway press perhaps? 

None of which clarifies the purpose of the symbols on railway wagons. It would be nice to know why they were used.

John

The choice designs between will be best determined by how you plan to use the trains stored in them but the key thing you don't show is how you will cross over between running lines. I would spend some time thinking about your operating sequence and what order you need trains and the type length that they are. If you plan around your longest sets (the MGRs?) how many sets will you have? what length will other trains be? Can you take the holding roads for your MGR out of the equation by separating them?

When I designed Balbeggie Sidings I only used a training cross-over at each end, that way trains that needed to reverse could return on the opposite line and those that worked in a continuous directions would be ready for their next run. The loaded and empty MGR trains used the 2 by-pass loops but could just as easily have used the two long centre roads. I didn't need every road to be the same length. By using a trailing cross-over every road in the fiddle yard could reach the left hand running line but I removed the need for a facing, double or a scissor cross-over, which reduced the length they took up.

The two short lines were for a DMU services that shuttles back and forth.

John

It's got to the point where some things are unwatchable. Constant interruptions for adverts has totally spoiled YouTube and I find now that I am using it less and less. In fact I have all but abandoned it.

John

16 minutes ago, MartynJPearson said:

No, they were the old ones - although I did talk to someone at a show who was running long MGR trains and they said they were using the newer ones and had no issues. I did replace the wheels too which helped, but it seemed to be the chocking of the bogies which solved the problem.

If you are talking about the old HAA wagons with the internal pivot for the axles, I found that locking them up and fitting new metal wheels helped with running quality. 

John

2 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Oops, yes, forgot about that, but then it was based in that City in the East I almost named somewhere earlier. 

 

Jim 

I suspect that railway was simply ashamed of its name. Unlike the proper Scottish railways which must of course have been better educated!

John

Earlier this week, I had my first trip to Waverley for a few months. Yours is definitely better.

John

One resource that is helpful is the large scale mapping from the National Library of Scotland (which covers England and some parts of Wales as well). This goes down to farm names which might be the nearest habitation to a possible station/location on a route. When I built Balbeggie Sidings that took its name from the nearest farm. 

If I am developing an idea, I tend to sketch out a rough route of a line, then have a look at what names are available nearby. Local landowners often had stations built as concessions to the railway using their land so I keep an eye out for big houses, estates etc. as these would often be used to name the station, even if a little distant from the line itself.

I have certainly found that scrutiny of large scale maps can led to more naturally suitable names as someone has already done the work for you. I used this for my Auchenreoch layout which was based on the existing Inchbare Station, but as it wasn't an actual model of the location I wanted to change the name. On the map the station is of course shown as Inchbare but right above it in large lettering is Auchenreoch. Job done!