LMR: The alternate Livestock Wagon

[What About The Bee]

While examining LMR details in the period Ackermann prints, I realized that there was an alternate Livestock Wagon portrayal. It differed in the location of the vertical posts.

So while I'm waiting for the "engineering samples" of the primary Livestock Wagon to be sent to me from Shapeways, I decided to create the CAD model of the alternate.

Let me begin with the period artwork. First, we have the Ackermann print of 1831. We can observe three men along with some pigs. The wagon is preceded and trailed by sheep wagons. The men are wearing hats and their coats have tails! The horizontal rails are inside of the vertical posts, and some posts are directly in the corners.

The Ackermann print of 1833 merely duplicates the print of 1831 in the details of this wagon. The only thing of note is how the artist colored in the jacket tails and the trailing wagon is now a Horse Box.

The Ackermann print of 1834 has redrawn the alternate Livestock wagon. You will see the primary Livestock wagon just in front, showing the two post arrangements, and where my moment of epiphany occurred. Further, the men have been removed from the alternate. Of interesting note, the artist who recreated the drawing of 1834 did not understand how the posts and slats should be arranged. It is poorly redrawn and unlikely to be based on a view of the actual wagon.

From this assessment, I infer that the wagon was not common, perhaps only in the first year or two of the LMR's existence, and that the other design was easier to use in railway practice. Where do the bolsters go? If on the outside of the floor plate, then the slat posts on the ends interfere with the buffers. If the posts are on top of the floor plate, then the corner bolster becomes very complicated. They cannot go inside the chassis either.

I started the CAD model deciding that each fence section would be its own body. That is, the slat ends and slat sides would, in actual practice be manipulated as an entity. How then to make the four slat sides overlap in the corner. I eventually came to this.

An isometric and top plan view are presented. The purple ends are separate from the blue sides. The corner posts have a similar appearance to the 1831 Ackermann print. An LMR worker could remove a side, or end, and the structure is still possible.

I decided to tab the sides to the floor, much like the Hornby Sheep and Horse Wagons. Square tabs in square holes. This eliminates any bolster design issues. There are none.

The problem with this approach is that the square holes are immediately above the standard Hornby chassis. Therefore, the square tab is only the thickness of the floor. This may make the slat ends and slat sides very unstable. They may simply fall over. On the primary Livestock wagon, I set the posts inside the chassis and thus can be 4x longer, no issue there.

To add stability, the tops of the posts in the corners will interlock with another square tab, square hole arrangement. I may even have to glue the slats on this wagon. 

In any event, the CAD model for the alternate Livestock wagon will not be submitted to Shapeways until I see the actual prints on the first. Similar clearances and tolerances are present there, I may learn something from that.

Bee

[Simon-372339]

What is the mechanics for loading/unloading the livestock?

[threelink]

Lift off one side or end and use a pointy stick?

[LTSR_NSE]

For the real wagons, remove a side and use a ramp. However with models a Subbuteo finger flick could also work! wink

[What About The Bee]

Hello Simon

In very broad brush, both LT&SR_NSE and ThreeLink have it right. Remove a side, or end, and take the animals down a ramp.

The record is remarkably thin when it comes to period recorded details. 1) There is the livestock station at Ordsall Lane in Ordnance Survey maps. There is a structure trackside, and there could be animal chutes going right up to the rails. 2) there are the sheep wagon drawings which show doors on the sides and on the ends. 3) There is the Reynolds sketch, showing the sheep wagon with a plank style ramp on the side.

So we must use logic and reasoning to understand details.

A) I will suggest that side loading and unloading is more efficient than end loading. No need to uncouple the wagon, roll the wagon to the ramp, load and then recouple. Just align the ramp and wagon, unload, without uncoupling or coupling.

In particular, the sheep wagons that show doors on the ends are early drawings, the primary one by Booth, 1830. The later Ackermann prints all show side doors. Efficiency.

B) large animals, such as horse and cattle, would need an firm fixed ramp. Having lead horses up and down both fixed earth ramps and plank style ramps, I can tell you their preference: firm footing.

Making a plank style ramp stiff enough to support large animals would be massive and difficult to move around. Far easier to roll the wagon to the fixed ramp.

C) sheep and pig are smaller animals. The ramp could be either style, fixed or plank. The Ackermann print, showing the pig handler lifting the animal by the hind quarters is illustrative. Not all pigs are that small, but that one was.

D) The fixed ramp could be wood or earth. Either style is possible. The earth is simply dirt piled next to a retaining wall, next to the track. That will require periodic maintenance, throwing some more dirt on top. A fixed structure of wood could put the ramp right up to the very side of the wagon, just like the retaining wall. But the wood would require periodic replacement, large volumes of animals walking on wood, would destroy it. I think earth is more efficient.

Hope this helps!

Bee

[What About The Bee]

Simon

Here is the Ordnance Survey detail of the livestock yard near Ordsall Lane, Salford. The Manchester end of the line.

The rail is definite, at this scale we see two rails for a single track. My interpretation of the retaining wall and the animal chutes is less certain.

Bee

[Simon-372339]

The chutes was also a ramp up to the height of the retaining wall, allowing loading straight into the wagon.

Feature A: the chute sides are 'full length' as is the one on the far right, assumed as safe working space for the swine herder.

Wagon: from the remaining 'pig chutes' we have a door opening of 6ft. There isn't enough room for a drop down door it would foul the chutes, so it must be sliding either up or down. If we consider that loading ramps weren't a std width and the engine driver couldn't position the wagon to an accuracy of 1ft or may be less, two sliding doors may have been used allowing different door widths and position. For straight loading the wagon would be approximately 8ft wide.

Missing: the cattle yard is marked but no cattle pens.

NLS map : https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=21.8&lat=53.47872&lon=-2.26659&layers=117746212&b=1

EDIT: a bit of subconscious bias has crept in with regards to wagon design, I was considering a closed type wagon, if we consider a simple open wagon more possibilities arise.

[What About The Bee]

Hi Simon

Thank you for your reply.

From Wood, Practical Treatise .. we have the width of an early flatbed. 2.3 meters / 7 feet 6 inches. I will suggest that flatbed wagons were converted to livestock wagons in actual practice. If we assume equal clearances on either side, then the side of the livestock wagons were appropriately 3" / 7.5 cm from the retaining wall. Your dimension of 8 feet makes perfect sense.

Wood shows the length of that wagon at 3.15 m / 10 feet 4 inches. How does that align with the length of the pig chutes along the track?

About the cattle yard. The opening to Oldfield Road suggests it is just one yard, no pens required. Of course, interpreting fine details is tricky. I note that the retaining wall goes the length of the rail spur. An earthen ramp could be anywhere along that.

Bee

[Simon-372339]

I think the OS man would have drawn an earthen ramp.

Map is 1848, had wagon design changed much by then?

[Simon-372339]

More thoughts: the opening to the wagon is likely to be narrower than the total combined chute width to create a pinch point to stop Mr. Piggy trying to leave the wagon during loading.

This would give an estimated wagon opening of 4.5-5ft. The door could be held in the upright/open position by a simple pin mechanism, once loaded, pin removed door drops down, a one person operation ie our stick man.

Of course all hypothetical, the jigsaw piece fits but the picture may be wrong.

Other considerations:

If we look at the local area the industrial/urban landscape is well developed it may be at the time the map was made the 'station' was purely a destination with the livestock bound for local consumption. The possibility should also be considered as it had a cattle yard labelled but no pens it was no longer used for cattle.

[What About The Bee]

There are some bits of evidence which may help our understanding. 

The first is the conservative nature of the LMR. During the first years, there was quite a bit of experimentation. But even as late as the Victoria Station opening at Hunt Bank in 1845, there were issues in interchange of carriages, because the LMR turntables were too small to turn Manchester and Leeds rolling stock. What you see for livestock transportation in 1831-34 is almost assuredly what you will see in 1848.  

With one very notable exception. Sheep wagons were scrapped in 1839 as worn out, unserviceable. Sheep were encouraged to use the same wagons we see pig and cattle in. 

The coupling system of freight and livestock would have been slow to adapt to the 1836 Booth patent. That was designed for passenger comfort. A dumb buffer system with chains means individual wagons can be adjusted along the rails without moving adjacent wagons. So align livestock wagons to the chutes by hand.

Would that be possible? Yes. Early weight limits were 4 tons. With a rolling coefficient of friction as poor as 0.01, the force to move the loaded wagon is only 80 pounds of thrust. Modern rolling CoF is an order of magnitude smaller, making the thrust an astonishing 8 pounds!!

I think your idea of blocking off pig escape quite relevant. I would take that one step more. There is no need to use all the chutes at any one time. Pick the single chute that best aligns with the opening to the livestock wagon.  

How do I think this worked? The cattle and pig wagons illustrated by Ackermann (and others) do not show doors. But an entire side could be lifted out of the bolsters and then moved along the wagon. So the locomotive moved the livestock wagon into general location. The workers lift and move the slat side, creating a small opening in the corner of the wagon.  They pick the chute that most closely aligns to that corner. Maybe they adjust the wagon to the chute, because the drag chains permit this. The single chute is opened and the animals directed through.  

A door system could certainly be present, on the chute side. Makes perfect sense. 

You theorized that the livestock station was for local consumption. Agreed, no issues. Manchester must be fed. I would expect that there would be an abattoir nearby.

As to the cattle yard, the absence of pens does not bother me. A farm down the road from me occasionally keeps cattle in paddock. They do not try to escape, but do like to wander about inside the paddock. The cattle yard on the map is smaller compared to the paddocks.

Bee

[What About The Bee]

I've painted and assembled the alternate livestock waggon.  This was shown hauling pigs.

The alternate livestock waggon has corner bolsters, with the posts on the outside of the rails.  I do think the bolt heads are sturdier than previous attempts, none were missing upon delivery.  I'm still having a bit of issue coloring them black, they are terribly tiny.  The high magnification of still images shows every detail.

We can compare this wagon to the prototype.

The standard livestock waggon on the left, in-floor bolsters without corner posts. The alternate livestock wagon on the right, with corner posts.  The Ackermann aquatint illustration has these livestock waggons in the same positions, for your reference. 

The subtle difference between these two types provides visual interest and supports the experimental nature of early railway waggons.  Not everything was decided or standard.  

Overall, I'm fairly happy with this result.  

Bee

[LTSR_NSE]

They look marvellous, congratulations Bee. 👏

 

48 minutes ago, What About The Bee said:

I'm still having a bit of issue coloring them black, they are terribly tiny.

What are you using to paint/colo(u)r the bolt heads with?

might the tip of a bodkin, pin, or needle (with aid of magnifier) be appropriate?

[What About The Bee]

Hi @LTSR_NSE

Thank you for the compliment.  I am working very hard to get all of these right.  

I'm using a black permanent marker.  Extra fine point.  The problem is getting the marker to flow whilst controlling the tip of the marker.  

I will give your ideas a try.  The pin with the tiniest drop of black paint may work.  And a giant magnifier!

Bee

[Rana Temporia]

I use one of these for close-up work. Since getting it from a swap meet I’ve found it invaluable. It’s a non-branded version that was around £5 with half a dozen lenses. The trick is to get the bit of the model you want at the focal point but I don’t know how I managed without it. There is a light on it but it’s rubbish. 

[What About The Bee]

Thanks @Rana Temporia  for the suggestion.  

At 0.8 mm in diameter (¹/₃₂"), I can see them, but controlling the tip is difficult.  More resolution would be helpful

Bee

 

[What About The Bee]

In the immortal words of Norma Desmond,  "Mr. DeMille, I am ready for my closeup".  

I tried LT&SR_NSE's suggestion to paint with a pin.  I used one of my glass head pins,  1⅜" long × ~¹/₆₄" barrel diameter.  The point is obviously much finer than the barrel of the pin, what I actually painted with.  This should be referenced to the model bolt head of ¹/₃₂" or 0.8mm.

I used black acryllic paint.

Not only did the black paint provide better coverage than permanent marker, the glass head pin, with its spherical head, afforded precise control.  Zoom the image to inspect individual bolts.  In my view, this is a vast improvement.  An unquestionably superior result was obtained using this method.   

Thanks again LT&SR_NSE, the suggestion was stellar.   Touching in fine details with a pin works a treat!

Bee