More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[billbedford]

The latest batch of these frets have been updated. The problem was that the swan neck lever was too short. This has been corrected. 

[kitpw]

 

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

609?

BARNET CHURCH - Whetstone - North Finchley - East Finchley - Highgate Stn - Archway - Holloway Road - Highbury Corner - Upper Street - Angel - City Road - FINSBURY SQUARE

[Miss Prism]

Ah, I think I understand Penrhos' point now. One of the cross-shaft supports should be truncated in length for later 3-shoe DCI. (DCIX needs two truncated supports.) 

 

[Regularity]

42 minutes ago, kitpw said:

 

BARNET CHURCH - Whetstone - North Finchley - East Finchley - Highgate Stn - Archway - Holloway Road - Highbury Corner - Upper Street - Angel - City Road - FINSBURY SQUARE

But not, be it noted, Mornington Crescent…

[Western Star]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

609?

Pardon?

[Compound2632]

40 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Pardon?

 

I've never quite got my head around all the permutations of the Dean and Churchward brake, only the simple form with both levers at the same end being relevant to my modelling period, so when I see DCIX, my first thought is that it's a number written in Roman numerals, in this case 500 + 100 -1 + 10.

[Western Star]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I've never quite got my head around all the permutations of the Dean and Churchward brake, only the simple form with both levers at the same end being relevant to my modelling period, so when I see DCIX, my first thought is that it's a number written in Roman numerals, in this case 500 + 100 -1 + 10.

609? too smart for me.

 

Here is a reminder of how Dave Stone (@wenlock) produced a wagon with DC1X brake gear.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Western Star

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I've never quite got my head around all the permutations of the Dean and Churchward brake, only the simple form with both levers at the same end being relevant to my modelling period, so when I see DCIX, my first thought is that it's a number written in Roman numerals, in this case 500 + 100 -1 + 10.

 

31 minutes ago, Western Star said:

609? too smart for me.

 

Here is a reminder of how Dave Stone (@wenlock) produced a wagon with DC1X brake gear.

Sodomus non sapiens!

[Compound2632]

54 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Here is a reminder of how Dave Stone (@wenlock) produced a wagon with DC1X brake gear.

 

There is a mention in there by you of that prototype cross-cornered Dean and Churchward braked-wagon being "submitted to the brake trials according to the photograph album in Kew". I'm wondering whether there is any further information on these "brake trials", whether they were a purely Great western thing or an inter-company endeavour under the auspices of the RCH or BoT. The Midland had a number of D299s fitted up with various patent brakes (Hague, Spencer, etc.) around this time. All this experimentation was, I suppose, in response to the concerns raised by the Royal Commission on the Causes of Accidents, Fatal and Non-Fatal, to Servants of Railway Companies and of Truck Owners, which reported in 1900, and the subsequent legislation, the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, which empowered the Board of Trade to make regulations, although the regulation on either side brakes was not made until 1911. That delay, I suspect, was to allow time for these experiments, as well as consultation with the relevant parties.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Compound2632

[Western Star]

46 minutes ago, Regularity said:

 

Sodomus non sapiens!

So that is what Viv Stanshall is telling us when talking about greengrocers...  (Platinum, MIke Oldfield)

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Western Star

[Western Star]

Stephen,

 

The album in TNA, Kew, has photos of wagons from several pre-grouping companies.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Western Star said:

The album in TNA, Kew, has photos of wagons from several pre-grouping companies.

 

RAIL 1053/249: Either-side brakes: wagons of various companies, photographed at Edge Hill. Includes 34...

Either-side brakes: wagons of various companies, photographed at Edge Hill.

Includes 34 photographs depicting: Railway wagons fitted with either side brakes. Dated 1904.

 

RAIL 1053/250: Either-side brakes: wagons of various companies. Includes 111 photographs depicting:... 

Description:

Either-side brakes: wagons of various companies.

Includes 111 photographs depicting: Photograph album of wagons, some belonging to the London and North Western Railway, fitted with various types of brakes: either-side patent brakes, single lever brakes, a double-block brake, a coupling stick and a brake stick. Dated [1904].

 

I'll add that to the list for a future visit!

Edited June 27, 2022 by Compound2632

[wagonman]

On 27/06/2022 at 10:20, Compound2632 said:

 

I've never quite got my head around all the permutations of the Dean and Churchward brake, only the simple form with both levers at the same end being relevant to my modelling period, so when I see DCIX, my first thought is that it's a number written in Roman numerals, in this case 500 + 100 -1 + 10.

 

The 'X' is a cross – as in 'cross cornered brake'. Alles Klar?

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

The 'X' is a cross – as in 'cross cornered brake'. Alles Klar?

 

I have now (re)read Jim Champ's essay on the subject, where it is suggested that "the Dean and Churchward brake, as described in Specification Number 202, of 1902, if arranged as a cross-cornered brake"* was only applied to diagram V5, and that retrospectively, not as built.

 

*to use the wording of the exemption, Schedule II (e), to the Prevention of Accidents Rules, 1911.

[Miss Prism]

Don't blame JIm, blame me. I added that section on the Board of Trade rulings a while ago (whose text, and historical extract, was based on what has been posted in this thread). Although I have added a pic of the underside of Dave's 4-planker a couple of days ago, what I left open in the text is to reflect the small number of 4-plankers of lot 374 that also were fitted with the 'experimental-era' DCIX, which only came to light from Graham's (Western Star) posts a couple of years ago.

 

Of course, by the time DCIX was 're-discovered' much later (as a quick fix to make some DCI vehicles comply with the rules), DCIII had been well established, and was compliant with the rules, which probably explains why DCIX was rare.

 

A few quick edits needed to tidy up, so I'll do that tomorrow. Maybe the page should be titled "There's no such thing as a beginner's guide to...."

[Compound2632]

Nearly five years ago, only a year into this topic, there was discussion of a photo of Ynysygeinon Sidings on the Midland's Swansea Vale line, in which were identified some Midland D299 wagons sporting sheet support bars - something which, as far as those contributing to the discussion were concerned, was previously unknown. The full photo, held by the NRM, is reproduced in J. Miles, K. Thomas, and T. Watkins, The Swansea Vale Railway (Lightmoor Press, 2017) p. 129. @Western Star posted the relevant section of the photo, which I re-post here:

 

 

The hypothesis advanced by Graham and others was that sheet support bars might be required in connection with spelter traffic, the Swansea Vale line serving a number of zinc smeltinc works and it being especially important to keep either the zinc ingots free of moisture and / or dust, as I understood the discussion.

 

I spent another day at TNA today, working through the Midland Carriage & Wagon Committee minute books. I have been working through books 9 and 10 [TNA RAIL 491/258-9]. Right near the end of the former is minute No. 4561 of 14 June 1906:

 

Sheet support for wagons

               Read Traffic Committee minute No. 34334, as follows:-

              "Resolved that one hundred wagons, to be lettered “To be returned to Six Pit” be fitted with Williams’ Patent Sheet Supporter at a cost of £3:8:0 per vehicle, or a total of £340, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee."

               Ordered

                              To be referred to the General Purposes Committee.

 

The General Purposes Committee was with one with the power to approve additional expenditure; it did so by its minute No. 13741, as recorded by Carriage and Wagon Committee minute No. 4567 of 6 July 1906.

 

I have not looked a any of the Traffic Committee minute books. It is possible that more information on the traffic for which these wagons were required is contained therein.

 

The minute say the wagons were to be lettered "To be returned to Six Pit"; the evidence of the photo is that the wording was different. Various suggestions were made: "Swansea Vale Sidings/District/ Junction". I'm now inclined to think the wording is "To be returned to Swansea Vale Junction" as that location is essentially the same as Six Pit Junction:

 

 

The RCH Junction Diagram calls it "Swansea Valley Junction", which is also the name given on the Midland Railway Distance Diagram, but I think the middle word on the wagons is too short to be "Valley" so is probably "Vale".

 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Compound2632

[Andy Hayter]

But looking at the script layout, I think the wording on the two wagons are different.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

But looking at the script layout, I think the wording on the two wagons are different.

 

I see what you mean, looking at the two nearest the camera in the line of D299s - the one loaded with pit props isn't clear enough. But the second one of that pair is freshly painted whereas the nearer one has clearly been in traffic for a while, so I would argue for it being the same wording, differently set out by different signwriters.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Compound2632

[Andy Hayter]

It could be and certainly that could apply to the top line but the second line the middle word looks to be significantly longer on the older painted wagon than on the newer one - could this be valley versus vale?   

 

I doubt we will ever know for sure.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Andy Hayter
typo

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

It could be and certainly that could apply to the top line but the second line the middle word looks to be significantly longer on the older painted wagon than on the newer one - could this be valley versus vale?   

 

Yes, I see that. 

[Mikkel]

 

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Right near the end of the former is minute No. 4561 of 14 June 1906

 

That must have been a satisfying find!

 

Thanks for undertaking this work Stephen.

 

[Rail-Online]

Great find.  You must be itching to look at the Traffic Committee minute books!

 

Well done

Tony

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Rail-Online said:

Great find.  You must be itching to look at the Traffic Committee minute books!

 

Well done

Tony

 

The next couple of visits should finish off transcription of wagon-related entries from the C&W Cttee minutes. Then I want to work through the early Loco Cttee minute books for wagon stuff - I've done from late 1866 to the start of the separate C&W Cttee. At the moment I'm managing every other Wednesday on average, but I'm ramping that up to weekly visits this month.

 

Then it will be a question of following up the Traffic Cttee, also in some cases the Way & Works Cttee. What I haven't tracked down is the Private Wagon Purchase Cttee minutes...

Edited July 7, 2022 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

Were these wagons very restricted in their routing, or did they get around a lot?

[Western Star]

Stephen @Compound2632,

 

You wrote earlier:_

 

"The hypothesis advanced by Graham and others was that sheet support bars might be required in connection with spelter traffic, the Swansea Vale line serving a number of zinc smeltinc works and it being especially important to keep either the zinc ingots free of moisture and / or dust, as I understood the discussion."

 

Satisfying to read that you understand the difference between hypothesis and theory; all I did was to talk to others who had appropriate / relevant knowledge and then put forward an idea as to the reason.  You have the credit for "proving" the hypothesis by way of the evidence (aka proof) of my idea.

 

What a pity that Bob Essery (RIP) is not able to read about your efforts, efforts that shall expand our knowledge of Midland wagons.

 

regards, Graham