With the exception of a batch of new wagons built for a specific purpose, all of the Great Eastern Railway’s loco sand wagons were created as required from withdrawn high-sided wagons described in parts 1-4 of this series.
Photograph © Adrian Marks
As they travelled a very limited mileage it was deemed economical for the Locomotive Superintendent to purchase and convert a wagon withdrawn from revenue earning stock, give the underframe and running gear a thorough overhaul, repair or construct new bodywork and paint them in Departmental green. As a consequence many sand wagons were unique, and in later years the advent of newer types of axleboxes, buffers and brake regulations added to their disparate nature.
The exception can be found in the Locomotive Committee proceedings, where on 17 November 1896 it is recorded that:
Sand Wagons for Locomotive Depot from Locomotive Superintendent re supply of sand from Mr Boam of Lynn. 100 tons per week at 1/- per ton ready for use. 30 new wagons required for this work at £1800 cost.
These wagons were constructed the following year and incorporated the standard 15ft steel underframe as used on the contemporary Diagram 17 opens.
Much of the limited information on Great Eastern sand wagons in the public domain comes from a wagon discovered by John Watling (GER Soc. President & HMR Soc. GER Cariage & Wagon Steward) in the yard at Ipswich during August 1957. At that time access to General Arrangement drawings and official documents held by British Railways was out of the question, and there was little information on wagons available to the public. As a consequence, whenever it was possible, measurements of ex-GER wagons were taken by John and a drawing produced, and in the case of the sand wagons, a short history was written and published in the Model Railway News in February 1959.
Since the early 1970s much information has come to light, mostly thanks to diligent research carried out by John which included finally gaining access to and making copies of hundreds of rolling stock drawings held at Stratford, so now there is a vast wealth of information which can be gleaned from both the Great Eastern Railway Society and from the GAs held at the NRM. Of course these official documents highlight any errors John made in his drawings, most of which are no more than conjecture of pre-Grouping features no longer extant on the wagons he saw during the 50s and 60s.
It is unfortunate then, that his flawed drawing of a GE period sand wagon was reproduced in Peter Tatlow’s recent book, although to be fair to the author there is still nothing comparable and its inclusion does at least serve to show the type of wagon the company used. However, it is far more regrettable that the high quality 7mm Connoisseur kit is based upon the same drawing.
The Ipswich wagon, LNER number 600023, was originally a round-ended open (as seen in Part One) built in 1873, and withdrawn from capital stock in 1895. As with many of these wagons, on delivery to the Locomotive Department the body was removed, the underframe overhauled, and a new body constructed with a pitch roof incorporating double-doors.
Although the overall dimensions in the drawing are correct, on the pre-Grouping variant John made some assumptions as to its livery and some of the details, and the errors can be summed up thus:
- The lettering style (even for post-1903) and wording is wrong.
- The running number 23 incorrect and should be in the 2001 – 9999 range.
- The combined rectangular build/tonnage plate wrong – separate ellipse plates should be fitted.
- The short buffers should be mounted on 12” square by 3” thick oak blocks.
All of these errors appear in the Connoisseur kit which I built as intended, and at least I am in good company as the late, great model maker Geoff Pember scratchbuilt his delightful 7mm model of No.29 from John’s drawing with these errors…which we now know wasn’t really wagon no.29 after all…
When I became aware of these problems in the spring of 2006 I decided I wanted to backdate the wagon to the pre-1902 livery, but procrastinated over stripping the paint and making the alterations and it’s very fortunate I did, or I might be preparing the model for another trip to the cellulose baths.
Last year I bought an old photograph, now long out of copyright, which shows hitherto unknown lettering present on the sides of these wagons in the GE period.
The photograph is a portrait of Class D56 No.1857 at Liverpool Street, sitting almost underneath Pindar Street bridge on the East Side. In the background, by the retaining wall, parked in the long headshunt to the platform 18 loco bay, are two loco sand wagons. Other contemporary photographs show that this siding was their usual spot, often alongside a raft of loco coal wagons, but it seems that it is the first photograph from this period in which the wagons are seen close-up, as this location is usually seen in the distance.
A high-res scan and enlargment of the relevant portion of the photograph has revealed some lettering which was previously unknown, and at last we also have two genuine running numbers. All is not completely resolved, thanks to the inconsiderate position of the loco chimney, but following discussion with John, we have postulated what is missing.
Photograph © Public Domain
On the right sits no.4254 which appears to be a 5-plank wagon without diagonal bracing and is therefore likely to be a replacement body on an overhauled underframe in a similar vein to the four-plank 600023 seen by John in 1957. However, it is the wagon on the left which is of most interest; no.6741 is a three-planked, outside framed example, the bodywork of which bears a remarkable similarity to round-ended wagon 9419 described in Part One, indicating that at the time of withdrawal from revenue earning stock the body was in sufficiently good condition to not need replacing. One presumes the side doors have been nailed shut, and possibly lined on the inside to prevent the egress of sand and ingress of rainwater, and the rounded ends have been altered or replaced to facilitate the typical peak-roof. Fascinating stuff so far, but it is the lettering which is the game-changer:
……TRUCK
……STREET
Which is significantly different to what was previously believed the wording would be (seen on the model above).
I initially wondered whether we might not be looking at a sand wagon at all but something entirely different, and although he said that the GER had rubbish wagons similarly constructed, John pointed out that all refuse from the station and hotel was handled in the arches beneath the hotel. I therefore suggested, and John was in agreement, that if these were indeed sand wagons the complete wording might read:
SAND TRUCK
LIVERPOOL STREET
Until further information comes to light, that is the extent of our knowledge regarding the wording on these wagons. To be able to disseminate this new historical information lost in the mists of time for almost century is something I have to admit I’m rather pleased with, and is one of the raisons d’être of this journal.
The use of the word ‘truck’ might cause some raised eyebrows amongst serious modellers, but for those not familiar with Great Eastern terminology, the word truck in relation to a wagon had legitimate usage; a wagon was loaded open goods vehicle, and a truck was an empty one.
In relation to Basilica Fields, the model above (once re-liveried) will be an important feature of the loco depot at Angel Yard in The Rookery. I’ve built it with a working brake lever so that once shoved up its siding the brakes will be put on before being uncoupled. All good fun and will add to the verisimilitude of the scene.
July 22, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Lovely piece of work… especially the interpretation of the photograph. If “truck” is applied to an empty goods vehicle then that suggests that the GER employed “wagon name changers” to re-paint from “sand truck” to “sand wagon” at Lynn and vice-versa at L.St. etc.. !
100 tons of sand per week? That is an awful lot of sand to use each week… say 20 to 25 wagon loads of 5 tons per wagon. Whilst one might expect a high usage of sand in the winter months the demand would be much less in the summer… so where did the GER stock-pile the stuff?
July 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm
There was no stockpiling. The larger depots such as Stratford, Peterborough, Ipswich, March et al had big sand driers – brick buildings with a furnace to ready the sand for use in locomotives. Itinerant wagons from the main depots visited the 80+ smaller sheds where waterproof sand bins were situated which were in need of regular topping up.
A report in 1881 states that Lowestoft loco shed used 5000 tons that year…that’s an average of 96 tons a week!
I don’t know how many locos were allocated there that year, but the following year a new shed was requested to house 12 locomotives, but as it was quite a hive of activity there would obviously be more locos standing outside, and others coming in from routes up and down the coast, from London and across East Anglia which could all be topped up with coal, water and sand if required.
Compare with Stratford which by the Edwardian period was not only had over 380 locos allocated, but another 10 each week going through the works (repairs, rebuilds and new builds) requiring sand as they were sent out on test runs, sometimes for up to four weeks before being handed over to the running department.
Also worth bearing in mind that some of the larger 0-6-0s could carry four and a half cubic feet of sand in each sandbox, and in later years had eight sandboxes in total. That’s a whopping 1.3 tons of sand.
It would seem that the contract with Joseph Boam was no more than a mere bucketful on the beach of sand used by the Great Eastern!
July 30, 2012 at 10:48 am
I should say firstly I’m not an expert on the GER or pre-grouping wagons.
But looking at the spacing – is it more likely the lettering is “L’POOL STREET” (rather than “Liverpool…”) The lettering looks equally spaced either side of the mid-point strapping on the top door. So that suggests to me that “LIVERPOOL” is too long a word to fit in the area obscured by the locomotive chimney, whereas L’POOL would fit more neatly.
Tom
July 30, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Thanks for your comments Tom. No need to be an expert (I’m not either!) , but very useful to have an outside opinion as it’s easy to become blinkered.
L’POOL was a suggestion which I discussed with John Watling when this photo first emerged, and we agreed it was certainly a possibility. The reservations I had at the time were based on the fact that I’d not seen any similar contractions of long words on GER wagon lettering, the only exception being on one of the three Diagram 14 refrigerator vans for Italian butter set aside for POLENGHI BROS (the last three letters in underscored superscript). Instead they seem to have preferred making a word smaller to fit, or reducing the space between lettering to the absolute minimum.
In the end, it may not be something I have to resolve for the model as it would seem there were wagons branded for specific locations, but others were based at a depot and sent to top up the bins in the sub-sheds, and these may still have carried the Return to (Home Depot) on them. It seems very unlikely that my little loco yard would have a wagon permanently assigned to it, but would instead have a Stratford wagon making regular visits.
It’s certainly an area which needs a lot more data!
November 14, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Liking the level of research here and it is inspiring me to try and model one in 4mm. I’d just like to confirm the colour though. Were GE departmental wagons actually painted green as I’ve never come across such information anywhere else? If so then the livery certainly adds to the appeal of modelling one!
James
November 15, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Thanks James. Yes, the Locomotive Department’s wagons were indeed painted green with (where appropriate) grey roofs and white lettering.
I think the first mention of it I remember seeing was in an article on the wagons by John Watling (now President of the GER Soc. and HMRS Wagon Steward) originally written in the 60s.
#Presumably with the access to official Registers and documents he’s had over the years his was a primary source, but there are several other tertiary sources I know of, including Tatlow Vol.1.
November 15, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Thank you for your reply. It will certainly be an interesting wagon to try and model!