• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BR Designed Coal Wagons

Status
Not open for further replies.

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Hi everyone,

I'm curious to know why BR only ever built two axle based coal wagons when the LMS had built bogie coal wagons to serve a power station in north London.

Your thoughts would be very welcome.

Thanks for reading this.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
Others will be along with more knowledge, but IMO, 2 axle wagons survived on BR because sidings were often unsuitable for longer bogie wagons.

In the case of coal, whilst the power station facilities were renewed, often the colliery end wasn't so treated.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
This is really two questions.

The first is why BR built 2-axle mineral wagons in the 1950s. I think the answer is to do with loading and unloading facilities not being suitable for hopper wagons.

In the 1960s BR then built the HAA and other hopper wagons, which obviously required modernized facilities at both colleries and power stations. The second question would be why these were two-axle. After privatization they were replaced by bogie wagons, apparently without big changes to the facilities, which suggests that there was some other reason two-axle was preferred in the 60s which had changed by the 90s.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
This is really two questions.

The first is why BR built 2-axle mineral wagons in the 1950s. I think the answer is to do with loading and unloading facilities not being suitable for hopper wagons.

In the 1960s BR then built the HAA and other hopper wagons, which obviously required modernized facilities at both colleries and power stations. The second question would be why these were two-axle. After privatization they were replaced by bogie wagons, apparently without big changes to the facilities, which suggests that there was some other reason two-axle was preferred in the 60s which had changed by the 90s.
Which brings me back to the point about colliery loading. In the 1960s there were many more loading points many of which were not modified. Loading was often done by a face shovel, hence the prevelent damage to wagon tops.

Perhaps a case could have been made for a dual fleet of 2 and 4 axle wagons, the latter being confined to suitable collieries, but it looks like the flexibility of a single fleet won the day.

By the 1990s most collieries had gone and replacements could be bogie wagons.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Which brings me back to the point about colliery loading. In the 1960s there were many more loading points many of which were not modified. Loading was often done by a face shovel, hence the prevelent damage to wagon tops.

Perhaps a case could have been made for a dual fleet of 2 and 4 axle wagons, the latter being confined to suitable collieries, but it looks like the flexibility of a single fleet won the day.

By the 1990s most collieries had gone and replacements could be bogie wagons.
But why is a bogie hopper wagon any more difficult to load than a two-axle hopper of the same width and height? A bogie wagon is probably also less prone to derailment on bad (twisted) track - look at some of the conditions they tolerate in America.

As with many things about BR in the 60s maybe conservatism was the answer, even though merry-go-round was a pretty radical concept for the time. Bogie wagons were confined to a few specialist operations like the one the OP mentioned and the ICI trains from the Peaks down to Northwich, plus the handling of items physically too large to fit on a four-wheeler. The first widespread application outside these limits was the 100 tonne oil tanks and they didn't come in until a few years later. So maybe the two-axle was simply the default and no alternative was seriously considered, and it took the American influence on EWS at privatization to drive the switch to high-capacity bogie coal wagons.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
As with many things about BR in the 60s maybe conservatism was the answer,
Possibly. I was just thinking "we've always done it this way". Sidings, loops and other things were measured in SLUs (standard length units, where 1SLU=1 wagon) so a fleet of short wagons fits the prevailing systems well.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
It was down to what the shipper wanted. A lot of coal went to local coal merchants, who used the wagons as convenient storage (it also saved one stage of unloading to store and then loading for dispatch, they moved the coal straight from wagon to sack or lorry). They paid by the day for each wagon kept, a charge called Demurrage, until it was reported empty and ready for collection. A bogie wagon would be twice as expensive and all other things being equal take twice the time to discharge.

Because merchants did not just order "coal". They would order say five different wagonloads of five different coal specs and qualities, in terms of lump size, different burning qualities from different coal seams, etc. They didn't want huge wagonloads of each.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
But why is a bogie hopper wagon any more difficult to load than a two-axle hopper of the same width and height? A bogie wagon is probably also less prone to derailment on bad (twisted) track - look at some of the conditions they tolerate in America.

As with many things about BR in the 60s maybe conservatism was the answer, even though merry-go-round was a pretty radical concept for the time. Bogie wagons were confined to a few specialist operations like the one the OP mentioned and the ICI trains from the Peaks down to Northwich, plus the handling of items physically too large to fit on a four-wheeler. The first widespread application outside these limits was the 100 tonne oil tanks and they didn't come in until a few years later. So maybe the two-axle was simply the default and no alternative was seriously considered, and it took the American influence on EWS at privatization to drive the switch to high-capacity bogie coal wagons.
Loading wasn't the problem, it was track geometry in the confined spaces of facilities built many years ago when 10ft wheelbase was king, centre throw being particularly difficult on long bogie wagons.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Weighbridges were a particular constraint. Obviously every colliery needed to know how much it was actually despatching and the railway needed to know that a wagon wasn’t overloaded. They were effectively all configured for short wheelbases.
 

Flying Phil

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2016
Messages
1,924
Additionally, the 16T mineral wagons, with the end door, could be emptied just by lifting the other end up. The coaling towers at engine sheds were also designed for 4 wheel standard wagons.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
But why is a bogie hopper wagon any more difficult to load than a two-axle hopper of the same width and height? A bogie wagon is probably also less prone to derailment on bad (twisted) track - look at some of the conditions they tolerate in America.

As with many things about BR in the 60s maybe conservatism was the answer, even though merry-go-round was a pretty radical concept for the time. Bogie wagons were confined to a few specialist operations like the one the OP mentioned and the ICI trains from the Peaks down to Northwich, plus the handling of items physically too large to fit on a four-wheeler. The first widespread application outside these limits was the 100 tonne oil tanks and they didn't come in until a few years later. So maybe the two-axle was simply the default and no alternative was seriously considered, and it took the American influence on EWS at privatization to drive the switch to high-capacity bogie coal wagons.

As previously mentioned old small weighbridges were an obvious problem, but also the size had become standard for unloading, which caused two serious barriers to using longer vehicles. Firstly coal merchants usually had coal drops or yards set up for a certain size, a bogie wagon would end up filling two separate bunkers which would usually be used for different grades of coal. Perhaps the biggest unloading issue is where wagons were tipped, either on end or rotated 180degrees on either axis, such equipment would have to be totally replaced to take bigger wagons. Rather than replace, a dockyard or power station might just decide to switch to road haulage.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Unloading was also an issue once the locomotive left. The depots and merchants were used to moving both full and empty wagons around, one at a time, with a lorry or tractor and a length of rope. You could even move an empty wagon with a pinch bar. Bogie vehicles would be too large for that.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
So the answer may be different for different types of coal traffic.

The major flow was colliery to power station and my previous posts have focused on that. Clearly all such facilities needed a major rebuilt to go from traditional mineral wagons to block trains of much taller hoppers, and even the HAA with its long wheelbase would have had problems with the tightest curves and existing weighbridges. So the re-building would have got rid of these, and I don't think a re-building for bogie wagons would have cost much extra - as shown by the lack of further re-building when bogie wagons eventually came in. There would have been a lesser re-building a decade or two before to transition from traditional wooden private owner wagons to the new and larger steel wagons (MCO and similar) but I guess the facilities that wanted to stay competitive just had to repeat the process. Even the most advanced facilities for emptying box wagons were far less efficient than MGR, requiring the train to be uncoupled and re-formed and wagons moved around individually.

I agree the traditional domestic coal merchants would have been unhappy about a larger wagon being the minimum unit of order, especially as the demurrage charges would no doubt have increased as well. Most of them gave way to "coal concentration depots" receiving their deliveries in HEA hoppers with bottom discharge onto moveable conveyors to drop the coal onto the correct heap. A HEA was several times the capacity of a MCO but the depots were larger too, though perhaps bogie wagons being larger still would have been unsuitable for this flow.

I agree also dock flows were special cases and these were the last users of traditional box mineral wagons, up to around 1990 at Swansea (though the final types were larger than the MCO). The North East was an early adopter of bottom discharge and maybe the "coal staithes" at harbours there would have been a model for re-equipping ports elsewhere. This would however have been hugely expensive and would probably just have served to highlight the uncompetitiveness of British coal exports against bulk shipments from opencast mines in countries with lower costs and fewer scruples. That trade would have disappeared only a few years before it actually did.

The other coal traffic, to numerous engine sheds with various types of facility not easily adaptable to hoppers, simply disappeared with the end of steam.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
So the re-building would have got rid of these, and I don't think a re-building for bogie wagons would have cost much extra - as shown by the lack of further re-building when bogie wagons eventually came in.
A two-axle HAA is a 50 ton loaded weight wagon, more or less. In earlier times, that kind of weight needed a bogie wagon to spread it over four axles. That's six sets of bearings, one for each axle and one for each bogie. A four-wheel wagon is just two sets of bearings, which is cheaper to build and maintain, and will have less resistance under some conditions. The bogie wagon would also be heavier for the same capacity because of the additional running gear and structure. For freight use - at least at modest speeds - fewer wheels is better, provided that the four-wheeler will get around the corners and doesn't wreck the track.

It's notable that when bogie coal hoppers came in, they didn't mess around - the wagons jumped pretty much straight from 50-ton, four-wheeled wagons, to 100-ton, eight-wheeled bogie wagons.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
A two-axle HAA is a 50 ton loaded weight wagon, more or less. In earlier times, that kind of weight needed a bogie wagon to spread it over four axles. That's six sets of bearings, one for each axle and one for each bogie. A four-wheel wagon is just two sets of bearings, which is cheaper to build and maintain, and will have less resistance under some conditions. The bogie wagon would also be heavier for the same capacity because of the additional running gear and structure. For freight use - at least at modest speeds - fewer wheels is better, provided that the four-wheeler will get around the corners and doesn't wreck the track.

It's notable that when bogie coal hoppers came in, they didn't mess around - the wagons jumped pretty much straight from 50-ton, four-wheeled wagons, to 100-ton, eight-wheeled bogie wagons.
Modern bogie coal wagons have a better ratio of load to tare and load to length than the HAA, helped by the increase in axleload from 22.5 to 25 tonnes (HAA was actually 45 tonnes gross). I don't think the hardware of running gear has changed that much in 50 years, so a purpose-designed bogie coal hopper on a 22.5t axleload would still have come out better than a HAA in terms of ratio of load to tare.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
This article about goods depots in South London in 1960 has a photo halfway down of a newly constructed modern depot where bogie wagons would have been completely inappropriate for the layout, which covers yet another factor - location too small for bogie vehicles.

http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/ForeignDepotsofSthLondon.pdf
It's actually a reconstructed depot on a very confined site in South London - but even so probably a good example of the sort of thinking that was building massive hump yards elsewhere for traffic that was about to disappear.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Having been very closely involved with the Merry-Go-Round fleet for a while I am totally unconvinced that bogie wagons would have had any advantages in the circumstances of the day. Any coal wagon had to fit under traditional ‘screens’ as well as modern overhead bunkers. So there was next to no chance of getting up to 25t axle load. The MGRs made excellent use of length, both on weighbridges and in run-round loops and headshunts. Bogie hopper wagons lose usable space over the wheels when steep valley angles for sticky coal are essential. Although there were some exceptions like Didcot most MGR trains were limited to 30 wagons. Later on a lot of work had to done to get up to 34 on classic Aire Valley flows. There is no way that bogie wagons could have carried as much in the same length.
Don’t be misled by what subsequently became possible at brand new import facilities like Hunterston.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,082
Hi everyone,

I'm curious to know why BR only ever built two axle based coal wagons when the LMS had built bogie coal wagons to serve a power station in north London.

Your thoughts would be very welcome.

Thanks for reading this.

did BR actually build completely new 2-axle wagons? Or did they simply rebody existing underframes and running gear?
 

etr221

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2018
Messages
1,037
did BR actually build completely new 2-axle wagons? Or did they simply rebody existing underframes and running gear?
The quick answer is yes - by the 100,000... (One early target for BR was replacement of the quarter of a million grease lubricated wagons in fairly short order)

In 1948 the railway freight operation was largely - there were some exceptions - geared around 9-10ft wheelbase, 20-25ton gross, non-continuous brake fitted, loose coupled wagon (of which it had over a million), worked essentially by attaching a destination label and putting on a train going in the right direction, with terminal working (loading and unloading) based on manual handling into horse and cart - as it had been for over a century.
A busy operation of that size could not be quickly or cheaply reoriented - but the Railway Executive (and successors) can be both - to some extent - excused and criticised for its failures over doing so. What was probably needed, but not done, on nationalisation was a complete rethink by the BTC on how it provided its service - rather the easier option of continuing 'as things are' with only limited advances was followed.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
The railway moved the wagons, and in BR days provided them (not always pre-nationalisation, when the majority were private owner). But the shipper commonly provided the loading facilities, and the recipient did the unloading. What may have been convenient and maximised efficiency for the railway was not necessarily so for the other parties in the chain.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Quite. In the spirit of the original question BR provided wagons that suited the consignor’s loading and despatch arrangements and the consignee’s reception and unloading arrangements.
This may have been technically conservative and ‘given in to inertia’ but was fairly understandable. More specifically the new, nationalised Coal Board has plenty of other investment priorities in terms of pit safety and efficiency.
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
This may have been technically conservative and ‘given in to inertia’ but was fairly understandable. More specifically the new, nationalised Coal Board has plenty of other investment priorities in terms of pit safety and efficiency.
There was apparently a very considerable friction over Merry-go-Round working between three then nationalised organisations, National Coal Board, BR, and the Central Electricity Generating Board, over who should pay for the installations needed. Apparently the Prime Minister had to adjudicate between different Whitehall departments.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
The railway moved the wagons, and in BR days provided them (not always pre-nationalisation, when the majority were private owner). But the shipper commonly provided the loading facilities, and the recipient did the unloading. What may have been convenient and maximised efficiency for the railway was not necessarily so for the other parties in the chain.
Indeed - while railways in other places may have contracted for the delivery of 500 tons of coal from Colliery A to Yard B, the British railway system was designed around delivering fifty wagons from Yard A (which happens to be adjacent to a colliery) to Yard B. Arranging the wagons was the responsibility of whoever the load belonged to.

Although it's interesting that when the Tyne Dock to Consett trains were being modernised, the steelworks wanted big (I think 100-ton capacity) bogie hoppers based on American practice, and British Railways wanted to keep using 21-ton, four-wheel hoppers. Evidently standardisation was seen as being worth something to the railway. A compromise was reached with 56-ton bogie hoppers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top