Common User Wagon Pool

This forum is for the discussion of the LNER, its constituent companies, and their histories.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

Post Reply
colinh58
GER J70 0-6-0T Tram
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Glasgow

Common User Wagon Pool

Post by colinh58 »

I wonder if anyone has a record of how many wagons each of the big four companies contributed to the common user pool in the late 1930's?

I have approximate figures from 1923 of LMS 217,000 LNER 170,000 GWR 65,000 & SR 29,000, but do not know if this figure remained constant. Overall number of wagons owned would have reduced over the next 15 years by about 10%, but additional types of wagon would also have been added to the pool in that time.

As a secondary question, were the hopper wagons used in the NE area regarded as common users. Most published sources only refer to end door minerals being part of the pool, but I have never seen a photo of a hopper marked with non common user symbols unless it was constructed for a specific traffic.
D2100
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: Common User Wagon Pool

Post by D2100 »

colinh58 wrote:

As a secondary question, were the hopper wagons used in the NE area regarded as common users. Most published sources only refer to end door minerals being part of the pool, but I have never seen a photo of a hopper marked with non common user symbols unless it was constructed for a specific traffic.
Interesting point. I suspect they were not common user simply because there was no call for such a vehicle elsewhere*, and that they weren't branded for much the same reason (little chance of being confused with other wagons). After 1948, that would change as the 21 tonner was adopted as a BR standard and built in its thousands.

* Other than very specialised flows for which dedicated wagons had already been constructed.
Ian Fleming

Now active on Facebook at 'The Clearing House'
Hatfield Shed
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Common User Wagon Pool

Post by Hatfield Shed »

colinh58 wrote:I have approximate figures from 1923 of LMS 217,000 LNER 170,000 GWR 65,000 & SR 29,000, but do not know if this figure remained constant. Overall number of wagons owned would have reduced over the next 15 years by about 10%, but additional types of wagon would also have been added to the pool in that time...
Many years ago, I compiled from sources various the likely origin ratio of general merchandise company wagons surviving in service in the BR steam period, and it came out roughly 16:13:5:2, in the same order as your figures. Whatever the numbers in service the ratio had to stay reasonably constant as it was defined by the traffic volume. There was a big shift in general merchandise types through the grouping period: general merchandise opens significantly diminished in number, displaced by an expanding fleet of general merchandise vans; as the need for weather protection for manufactures increased during that period
colinh58 wrote:...As a secondary question, were the hopper wagons used in the NE area regarded as common users...
I agree with Ian that they were not. The higher capacity 17T and 20T wagons were actually unusable at most UK pits, where the clearance in the loading screens continued to define the height dimension to the top of the wagon side to the detriment of potential load capacity, well into BR operation. Another factor that may have influenced their staying on home turf is the unique non-RCH design; this could have impeded their quick repair elsewhere.
colinh58
GER J70 0-6-0T Tram
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: Common User Wagon Pool

Post by colinh58 »

Hatfield Shed wrote: Many years ago, I compiled from sources various the likely origin ratio of general merchandise company wagons surviving in service in the BR steam period, and it came out roughly 16:13:5:2, in the same order as your figures. Whatever the numbers in service the ratio had to stay reasonably constant as it was defined by the traffic volume. There was a big shift in general merchandise types through the grouping period: general merchandise opens significantly diminished in number, displaced by an expanding fleet of general merchandise vans; as the need for weather protection for manufactures increased during that period
.
Thank you both for your input.

It is interesting that your percentage figures post nationalisation are almost identical to the 1923 figures in my original post. I would have expected the proportions of general merchandise wagons & vans to remain fairly constant, but have always assumed that the figures at grouping included mineral wagons from both LNER & LMS Scottish constituents, as these were common user by that time.

I was interested in finding out percentages from the late 1930's, as I would have expected further increases in the LNER & LMS share due to the inclusion of new build 12T minerals & English constituent minerals from 1926 onwards. The GW & SR would not have increased their shares in the pool in this way.

Also, the LNER pursued a more vigorous programme of building vacuum fitted general merchandise stock, around 1/4 of all opens & vans compared with 1/8th for LMS & GW, which may also have had the effect of reducing the LNER's share of the pool.
D2100
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: Common User Wagon Pool

Post by D2100 »

colinh58 wrote:[
Also, the LNER pursued a more vigorous programme of building vacuum fitted general merchandise stock, around 1/4 of all opens & vans compared with 1/8th for LMS & GW, which may also have had the effect of reducing the LNER's share of the pool.
I'm not sure how it would affect your calculations, but it may well be that that growth was for the benefit of the company's own Green Arrow express freights. I also seem to recollect (open to correction) that the well known LNER steel opens were initially branded non-common user.
Ian Fleming

Now active on Facebook at 'The Clearing House'
1H was 2E
GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: The Shires

Re: Common User Wagon Pool

Post by 1H was 2E »

A few comments which I hope are relevant.
I've looked at the wagon history books of the other three companies for references to the pooling of wagons, and those of the LMS (Essery) and the 5-vol Southern are silent on the subject. A History of GWR Wagons(Atkins et al) does however give a more rounded history. It gives wagons in the scheme by company at the Grouping which conforms to the data given earlier in the thread but goes on to give a breakdown as far as the GWR is concerned from which it is clear that only unfitted opens (5 plank size) and vans were originally included. It also states that, "GWR single bolster and cattle trucks were added in 1927, but cattle trucks were withdrawn at the end of that year" - that logically does not necessarily mean that the other companies followed suit, of course.
With regard to the move from open wagons to vans; this might not, in my opinion, relate to a change in the character of merchandise traffic suggested by Pennine MC (indeed, the more vulnerable traffic may have been the first to be lost to road). Photos of goods trains before WW2 often show the composition to be much more opens than vans, but many of the opens are sheeted. The GW book also explains the preference of that company for open wagons to be fitted with sheet supports because of the difficulty (due to pin holes - explained at some length) of ensuring that horizontal sheets do not leak and the change may have been finally to overcome this problem.
The GW book is concise to the point of brevity but I infer from remarks in it that a wagon fitted with 'D-plates' (the wagon owner/no plates shaped like a D rotated through 90 degrees) indicated that it was built to RCH spec. There were certainly wagons about that had oval (e.g. SR brake vans) or rectangular plates (LNER timber bogies) but I am not sure if this is true.
And, as has already been pointed out, although the 21t coal hopper was a standard design it was unknown on the southern part of the LMR until CCDs replaced coal merchants in station yards.
Sorry to have to refer to the GWR but only the book about their wagons covers the subject (however, a book about Highland wagons mentions that, once pooling was introduced, their small fleet of wagons was never much seen on that railway!)
Post Reply