• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Railway Earth Wagon Capacity Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andy873

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
1,421
Can we roughly come to some sort of capacity figure for a Victorian standard gauge contractor's railway earth wagon?

After years of searching, I finally came across an account of a contractor using 10 earth wagons and one engine for constructing a line in 1870 for the L&Y. Apparently this engine made 10 trips a day carrying earth from a cutting to an embankment, each time all 10 wagons were used.

I'm going for standard gauge because the L&Y specified you had to lay their rails as soon as possible - it also allows you to speed up construction (something the L&Y allowed).

So, 10 wagons X 10 trips = 100 wagon loads of earth per day.

How much earth do you think each wagon might have carried?
And if the answer is X tons, can we convert this to cubic yards?
Do we know of the typical lengths of these earth wagons in the 1860s & '70s etc? 10 feet? 12?

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

RailUK Forums

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,332
Depends what you are cutting, earth or stone etc. And significant is how wet it is that day. However, for a VERY loose relationship, 1 cubic yard = 1 ton = 1 cubic metre. In the USA nowadays, they don't measure ready-mixed concrete etc in cubic metres, but still in cubic yards.

Significant in the wagon capacity is how high the sides are. The higher they are the more it holds. But the higher they are the more difficult it is to lob the material over the sides, in the days before excavators when it was navvies doing it all by muscle.

And, fairly obviously, how many trips per day the wagon can make is dependent on how far it is going. The "cut" and "fill" sites may be a good distance apart.
 
Last edited:
Joined
1 Jul 2024
Messages
187
Location
Derbyshire Dales
Very much a piece of string. Knowing how many trips, with what load, would be part of the contractor's informed guesswork when tendering. Get it right, you're in profit. Wrong, and you join the thousands who went bust. Don't forget:

Temporary track, so capacity less than "mainline" standard - but safety margins lower too.
Freshly dug soil, so loose, can be anything from dry sand to waterlogged clay.
An embankment has to be compacted to support traffic, so capacity of wagon doesn't translate directly to cubic measure of embankment, and depends on soil type too.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
6,043
Depends what you are cutting, earth or stone etc. And significant is how wet it is that day. However, for a VERY loose relationship, 1 cubic yard = 1 ton = 1 cubic metre. In the USA nowadays, they don't measure ready-mixed concrete etc in cubic metres, but still in cubic yards.
It does vary significantly with the type of "soil", but I'd have gone a bit heavier than that. Loosely dumped into a wagon, I'd allow between 1.2 t/m3 and 1.8t/m3 depending on the material and whether it self-compacts or not. That's about 0.9 to 1.4 t/yd3.

As dug from natural ground, or compacted in an embankment, density is between about 1.7 and 2.0t/m3, so Andy would need to allow for a bulking factor between bank volume (as dug) and volume in the wagon.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,332
but I'd have gone a bit heavier than that.
This is what comes of condensing 4 years of a university course, plus n years on site and in the office ... into one sentence :) .

Only yesterday I was observing exactly this, 2025 style, from an Up MML train at Millbrook, south of Bedford, crawling past a signal failure. Excavators and fleets of dump trucks moving it all around, on an enormous site.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
6,043
This is what comes of condensing 4 years of a university course, plus n years on site and in the office ... into one sentence :) .

Only yesterday I was observing exactly this, 2025 style, from an Up MML train at Millbrook, south of Bedford, crawling past a signal failure. Excavators and fleets of dump trucks moving it all around, on an enormous site.
I go back far enough that I started as a graduate engineer working in among a fleet of twin-engined motor scrapers (TS24s) ... not seen any of those for decades now. Within a few years everything had switched to backacters and artic dump trucks. Nearly all owned in-house in those days too - fun times, including an occasional chance to try driving some of them, unofficially of course.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,332
I go back far enough that I started as a graduate engineer working in among a fleet of twin-engined motor scrapers (TS24s) ... not seen any of those for decades now. Within a few years everything had switched to backacters and artic dump trucks. Nearly all owned in-house in those days too - fun times, including an occasional chance to try driving some of them, unofficially of course.
Do you know, I almost wrote above about scrapers, they were an early introduction too in university times, from a specialist company in Edinburgh called Tractor Shovels. They were extensively used on the reclamation of the old oil shale mine heaps and colliery tips in West Lothian. The coal tips would occasionally spontaneously combust from the coal content being exposed, but the scraper drivers just carried on through the fumes and occasional flames. I believe after I left Scotland they worked on both road and rail diversion routes after the Penmanshiel tunnel collapse, and doubtless given their proximity and timescale would have earlier levelled Millerhill marshalling yard.
 
Last edited:

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,710
Location
Hope Valley
Quite often the construction wagons would need to be hauled by a single horse, individually, rather than in neat and standard trains with a locomotive. Depending on the topography it might be necessary to haul material up a gradient for some distance (or indeed gravitate it downhill on another section). I would be wary of trying to ascribe a ‘one size suits all’ approach to a particular local scheme.
 

Andy873

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
1,421
Very much a piece of string. Knowing how many trips, with what load, would be part of the contractor's informed guesswork when tendering. Get it right, you're in profit. Wrong, and you join the thousands who went bust.

It does vary significantly with the type of "soil", but I'd have gone a bit heavier than that. Loosely dumped into a wagon, I'd allow between 1.2 t/m3 and 1.8t/m3 depending on the material and whether it self-compacts or not. That's about 0.9 to 1.4 t/yd3.

As dug from natural ground, or compacted in an embankment, density is between about 1.7 and 2.0t/m3, so Andy would need to allow for a bulking factor between bank volume (as dug) and volume in the wagon.
It did cross my mind that it was like how long is a piece of string?

Regarding what was moved from three cuttings:

Cutting 1, the first to be dug was described as "running sand" and "Quicksand" - 180,000 cubic yards.

No. 2, (next to cutting 1) was blue boulder clay, rock hard when dry, super slippery when wet. 200,000 cubic yards.

No. 3, (almost 0.5 miles away) was a mixture of blue boulder clay, flag rock, and shale. 300,000 cubic yards. All cuttings are made on an upward gradient.

The long embankment needed was in the other direction in a downward gradient.

Using the prices tendered on a nearby L&Y line construction (not this one) as a model, a figure of just over 1 shilling per cubic yard was quoted to dig, transport and tip earth / materials. 4s 6d was a labourers cost per day, so under this model a labourer has only to shovel 4.5 cubic yards in a day, anything more and you, the contractor are making money on top of the charge for moving all of it.

According to John Marshall, digging began 5th of April 1870, and the newspaper article from the middle of August (same year) has the following snippets:

A lot of men are involved in the construction - Frustratingly it doesn't say how many.

About two miles of the railway have been formed - It doesn't state the formation work along that length is actually completed to specification, just that it stretches roughly about two miles.

An engine can now be seen running backwards and forwards making ten trips a day, hauling 10 waggons each time - It doesn't state the capacity of the waggons, only that they are earth waggons, nor does it state the length of the track being used.

The engine takes the waggons from Harwood (station area and first cutting) to Harwood Valley where it is tipped - The geography around Gt. Harwood is that where the station is to be, to your left you have hills, to your right, the land slopes down to the river Calder.

I would be wary of trying to ascribe a ‘one size suits all’ approach to a particular local scheme.
Totally agree with that.

This section of the line (6.75 miles) was contracted to Mr. Stone, the easter shorter section (2.25 miles) was done by Mr. Gregson who went bust doing it. Because he went bust in 1874, I decided to look at what items he was selling by auction at his base in Padiham:

Firstly, 8 horses and various equipment associated with the build. What's interesting is that also on the list are twenty three, 2 yard earth waggons. Do you think they mean 2 cubic yard waggons? @DelW's calculations suggest he's not far wrong?

Obviously different contractors might employ different tactics regarding a build but common sense dictates there must be some similarities. Perhaps Gregson's approach was to use horses to move the wagons, whilst Stone's approach might have been a combination of engine and horses.

Going back to Mr. Stone's section, the one in question with the engine - It could very well be it was his own temporary track that was used, however, the obstacle regarding gauge was the L&Y's insistence that as soon as a suitable length of formation work was complete (300 yards, and 300 feet away from any works), their track be laid. Now regardless of the engine, you can't run narrow gauge wagons on L&Y standard gauge track, surely? and that track is in your way.

One point to note - The newspaper article is written only four and a half months after work began, and with about two miles of formation work noted, Mr. Stone seemed to be getting on with things as fast as possible, taking advantage of the (hopefully) better weather from Spring to Autumn. The point of getting more done Spring to Autumn is something many of you have previously told me about and indeed does look to be the case.

And @ThirteenArches points out, get you calculations wrong and you are in danger of going bust, as happened to Mr. Gregson, the other contractor.

What I do find confusing is the newspaper article mentioned is the only article I can find regarding any of the on going works during the line's construction? only after the line opened do we see articles about it. I'll keep looking.
 

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
1,123
What's interesting is that also on the list are twenty three, 2 yard earth waggons. Do you think they mean 2 cubic yard waggons?

Most likely. Using "yard" as an abbreviation for "cubic yard" when speaking of quantities of earth, sand etc. is pretty common practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top