81F Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Dear All, please can I check my facts before I "overload" a model wagon? Am I correct in thinking that the weight painted on steam era wagons was the weight of the cargo alone and the Tare weight was the weight of the wagon empty? Therefore a fully loaded BR 16T mineral wagon would actually weigh 16T plus 6T, 17CWT Or is it the case that the 16T is the weight of the wagon and load and therefore its capacity would be 16T minus 6T, 17CWT which I think is 9T, 5.4CWT? Also regardless of the answer, have I got my maths right when subtracting 6T, 17CWT from 16T? Many thanks to anyone who can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
37lover Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 81F, Sorry I cannot answer the tare vs gross weight but I always thought there were 20 cwt to an imperial ton in which case subtracting 6t 17cwt from 16t would give 9t 3cwt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Spare Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Whether correct or not I do not know but I have always taken a '16 ton mineral wagon' to indicate a 16 ton load capacity with the (tare) weight of the wagon itself additional to that. In your example, the total gross weight of a correctly fully loaded wagon would be 22 tons 17 cwt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB51 Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Tare weight is unladen weight. R- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What About The Bee Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) The entirety of the problem is as simple as can be. Standards, as in, it would have been nice to have some. CWT is either 100 lbs or 112 lbs. This varied geographically within the UK. For the LMR this was 112 lbs. A ton has three definitions of measure. This makes the unadorned word "ton" to be functionally useless as a unit of measure. Long (Imperial) ton, short ton or metric ton; please be specific. As to the gross or tare weight, for the early LMR, the gross tonnage limit was 4 tons. I think that was a 2000 lbs ton but cannot be sure. It could have been the imperial ton at 2240 lbs. I know there was a railway scale near the pig station by Manchester. As specified, it was a gross limit. Everything was included. I think the question requires quite a bit more definition 81F. Just the arithmetic part of your question has 6 different answers, depending upon which ton and which CWT. Maybe you can dispense with a metric ton, but that merely reduces the quantity of solutions to four. When it comes to the limits painted on the side, you should know the exact railway practice for the era. Bee Edited April 28 by What About The Bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Spare Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 As far as I can recollect, in England there has never been anything (putting aside weights below an ounce) in general imperial measure other than 16 ounces (oz) to the pound, 28 pounds (lb) to the quarter, 4 quarters (qtr) to the hundredweight and 20 hundredweight (cwt) to the ton, plus in human weights 14 lbs to the stone. Thus, 1 ton is 20 x 4 x 28 (2240) lbs. Buses, for example, showed their legal unladen weight such as 8 tons, 4 cwt, 2 qtr. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What About The Bee Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) Hello Going Spare I have no technical discussion that can conflate your assertion. For 20th century England, what you assert is the standard. For my interest and era, many standards were not standard or were in the infancy of becoming a standard. From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton "Before the 20th century there were several definitions. Prior to the 15th century in England, the ton was 20 hundredweight, each of 108 lb, giving a ton of 2,160 pounds (980 kg). In the 19th century in different parts of Britain, definitions of 2,240, or 2,352, or 2,400 lb were used, with 2,000 lb for explosives; the legal ton was usually 2240 lb." [Emphasis added] From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight "The hundredweight has had many values. In England in around 1,300 different hundreds (centum in Medieval Latin) were defined. The Weights and Measures Act 1835 formally established the present imperial hundredweight of 112 pounds (50.80 kg)." Bee Edited April 29 by What About The Bee Missing " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Spare Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 @Bee - Most interesting, as your posts always are, but a little (about a century) before my time and that of the 16 ton mineral wagon! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What About The Bee Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Fair point @Going Spare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What About The Bee Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 From: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co205956/16-ton-mineral-wagon-railway-wagon "Railway wagon, British Railways, 16T mineral wagon, No B227009, 1955 ... capable of carrying up to 16 tons of product." ~~~ With the standards portion of the question completely settled by Going Spare, the conclusion is simply to add 16 tons to the tare weight. Example: tare listed 7T 15cwt. Gross weight is 16T + 7T 15cwt = 23T 15 cwt Bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now