Jump to content
 

magmouse

2,936 views

For this first wagon build write-up, I thought I'd start with this GWR 4-plank. For my 1908 period, these represented around 40% of the GWR wagon fleet, so I can hardly have too many. Certainly, whenever I add something exotic, such as a Macaw bolster wagon, I probably need to make a couple more of these...

 

pic1.jpg.89920b36edb2926512d2d4e83dd15b2d.jpg

 

Given that I need several of these 4-plankers, it is very handy that PECO make an excellent 7mm scale kit for them. The mouldings are crisp, well-detailed and fit together nicely, and the design even includes compensation, with one axle pivoted in a sub-assembly. There isn't much to say about the main part of the build, and everything went smoothly until I got to this point:

 

pic2.jpeg.62f2c8c0ea8908194829c63d7d912f51.jpeg

 

My plan was to do this wagon in the earlier red livery - my 1908 period was selected to allow a mix of red and grey wagons, on the basis that the change of livery was in 1904 (see the many threads covering the various debates about the date of the switch if you are interested!). I sprayed the body with a red oxide primer as an undercoat, which came out a bit rough, so I rubbed down the main areas, as you can see in this picture.

 

I also painted the inside as an experiment with techniques for painting bare, distressed wood. I hadn't planned to use this finish, as I was going to give the wagon a sheeted load of hay, based on @Mikkel's 4mm scale model. However, I rather liked the wood effect I managed to achieve, so I changed my plans - which led to a lot of research and a certain amount of heartache...

 

My next idea was that the wagon would be left without a load, but I would add a sheet rail. It is unclear if any 4-plank wagons were built with sheet rails, but they certainly were retro-fitted, with one third having them fitted by 1910 according to @Chrisbr:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113035-more-pre-grouping-wagons-in-4mm-the-d299-appreciation-thread/&do=findComment&comment=3828158

 

I made the sheet rail using 1.6mm brass wire, and some strip and sheet brass. To get the flat section at either end, the wire is annealed to red heat and allowed to cool to soften it, then flattened somewhat in a vice, after which it is filed and bent to shape:

 

pic3.jpeg.bedb5adde11dc0ad831983c27e783088.jpeg

 

pic4.jpeg.72ecbd3f4371f962411aa3f989604a40.jpeg

 

The rail fits to the body with a short piece of 1mm wire acting as a pivot, in holes drilled in each end of the wagon. I used the drawings of the RCH standard sheet rail as a basis, as this seems very similar to the GWR pattern - they are available here:

 

http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~adrian/steam/RCHWagons/images/rch1028.PDF

 

A couple of things to note - the vertical part of the rail needs to be the right size so the rail rests exactly on the top edge of the wagon side, and the blocks that space out the semi-circular guide are deeper on GWR versions than the RCH drawing shows, so reference photos are important to get this right.

 

At this point, the next issue arose. I had used the cast number and 'GWR' plates on the wagon provided in the kit - a common feature on new-build wagons in the late 1890s and early 1900s. However, the number plates on the wagon ends were in the way of the sheet rail apparatus. I started searching for wagons that had cast plates and rails, to see how things were arranged, I found examples of 5 and 7-plank wagons, which have the rail mounted higher and so have room for the plate as well, but no 4-plank examples. The only conclusion I could draw was that 4-plank wagons were not fitted with sheet rails and cast plates at the same time, so I decided to remove the plates.

 

The semicircular guides were made from brass L-angle, bent around a suitable round object. It was quite a struggle to stop the metal twisting while the curve was being formed, and the L-shape tended to open up and had to be bent back. I realised afterwards it would be much easier to form the guide from T-section, and then file off one arm of the T to leave the L-section profile required. I have since tried this method and it is indeed much more straightforward to get the required shape.

 

The spacer blocks were made from Evergreen strip of the required dimensions. The brass guide, the spacer blocks and the end of the wagon were drilled through with a fine drill, and track pins used to attach the assembly to the wagon. Thin cyano glue bonded everything, and the pin heads and ends inside the wagon could then be cut off. Here is the finished assembly on the completed wagon:

 

pic5.jpeg.b31b3f098e0931e63f9ab278a8ebc3cc.jpeg

 

I finished painting the wagon with Vallejo acrylic paints - a mix of 70.957 Flat Red, 70.829 Amaranth Red (actually orange) and a touch of 70.822 German Black Brown. There is yet another big debate to be had about the red colour used by the GWR, and how it weathered, but for another time...

 

I used the HMRS Pressfix transfers for the lettering, but while I was looking at photos to work out the placement of the various elements, another issue arose - I could not find any photo of a 4-plank open with oil axle boxes, small lettering "G.W.R" and a sheet rail. This led me down a major rabbit-hole, discussed at some length in this thread, for those who might be interested:

 

 

The conclusion was that the particular combination of features and livery I have modelled was either rare or non-existant. I could repaint it in grey livery with large 'GW' lettering, but I have decided to live with it, at least for now. The moral - yet again - is to work from a photograph of a specific wagon you want to model. At least I think that's the moral. Maybe it's "don't worry, be happy"...?

 

pic6.jpg.4f09fc9a68985c758998ae8ddfbce684.jpg

 

pic7.jpg.51866e1191034e0988006aa6d8b30bbe.jpg

 

pic8.jpg.7d12d7831236a2fb5e2a6df88fb2a281.jpg

 

 

Nick.

  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 19

72 Comments


Recommended Comments



  • RMweb Premium

This certainly withstands the scrutiny of very close-up photography! 

 

Is this 0 or S7?

 

How does the Peco (ex-Webster?) kit compare with the Slaters (ex-Coopercraft) kit?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
47 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This certainly withstands the scrutiny of very close-up photography! 

 

Thanks - though a lot of the credit must go to whoever made the masters and moulds. It really is an excellent kit.

 

48 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Is this 0 or S7?

 

The wheels are standard fine scale ones, as supplied in the kit. The spokes are a bit finer than the Slaters ones I generally use, which is nice, but the rims are still too thick, so you still don't quite get the visual delicacy of the prototype. I've thought about going to S7 standards, but it seems to me the benefit is quite a lot less than the move from OO to P4, which I did when I was modelling in 4mm scale many years ago. In the case of the wheels on this wagon, the finer flanges of S7 still wouldn't deal with the thickness of the rims, which I think are the reason the wheels look too 'heavy'. When I look at the photos of the prototype wagons, I am struck by how they seem almost to be on tip-toes, with a lightness to everything below the sole bar. The effect comes, I think, from the single-sided brakes, the 4-leaf springs, and the openness of the wheels. This is the one aspect of the prototype the model doesn't really capture, and I can't see how to do it without making my own wheels - further than I am prepared to go!

 

59 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

How does the Peco (ex-Webster?) kit compare with the Slaters (ex-Coopercraft) kit?

 

Yes, I believe PECO's GWR wagons are the old Webster kits. Compared with the Slaters, ex-Coopercraft, kits, I would say the quality of the mouldings is on a par. The PECO ones have the built in compensation, which is nice, and are more accurate to the prototype than the Coopercraft in various respects. Coopercraft used the same underframe for all the kits, which was accurate for some (leaving aside the brake push-rods, which should be inverted for DC1 brakes) but not others. It means for example the three-plank wagon is too long (16' instead of 15'6") and has the wrong brake-gear (should be conventional lever, not DC1). I haven't tried the Coopercraft 4-plank, as the PECO one is available, and because so few 4-plank wagons were built with DC brakes.

 

I have built the Coopercraft 5-plank (which is good pretty much as it comes) and the loco coal wagon (which needs some major changes to accurately represent the digram N13 type it claims to be). Both will feature in upcoming blog posts...

 

The Slaters upgrades to the old Coopercraft kits are great - sprung buffers with turned steel heads in brass guides, and lost-wax cast coupling hooks. The PECO couplings aren't quite so nice, but serviceable, and they also provide metal, sprung buffers. The Slaters kits are a bargain by O-gauge standards, given the quality and provided you select the prototype-accurate kits, or are prepared to make the changes needed for the others. The PECO kits are more expensive, but high quality out of the box.

 

Nick.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

As I'm sure you've seen, Mike Osbourne @airnimal uses the Slaters S7 wheels which he improves by, I think, thinning the back of the spokes, which inevitably have a V-profile for release from the mold. It's all a question of how far one is willing to go! (And hardly for an 00 bodger such as myself to pontificate on.) But I agree, one can get away with a lot more on wagons with double-side brakes, tiebars, etc. where the general business distracts the eye.

Link to comment

The plates/straps on the insides of the ends (to match the supporter bits) are very logical, but I haven't spotted them on any prototype pics yet.

 

 

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

The plates/straps on the insides of the ends (to match the supporter bits) are very logical, but I haven't spotted them on any prototype pics yet.

 

These are derived from the RCH drawing linked. It's perfectly possible that this drawing follows an existing railway company drawing - possibly delving in TNA RAIL 1080/387-9 might reveal something. The 1923 drawing is for a 17' 6" wagon so is presumably a revision of an earlier drawing; the SECR was using this pattern of sheet support from the late 1890s so I'll risk suggesting it was an invention of Wainwright's and not a Great Western innovation at all!

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

The plates/straps on the insides of the ends (to match the supporter bits) are very logical, but I haven't spotted them on any prototype pics yet.

 

 

 

As @Compound2632 says, the washer plates on the inside are based on the RCH drawing, which - in general terms - seems very similar to the GWR pattern of sheet supports. I therefore took a punt and assumed the GWR ones had similar plates.

 

Since building the wagon, I have seen this photo on page 36 of Atkins and Hyde ‘GWR Goods Services: an introduction’:

 

IMG_1840.jpeg.b189ee43f9fa23b5ce46a1d74d700a7a.jpeg

 

And no sign of washer plates, though there must have been something on the inside where the bolts holding the spacer blocks on ended up. Equally, there is no sign in the picture of the bolt-heads and washers for the T-irons, so it may just be the photo isn't resolving what is there.

 

Do you have any better pictures that might show the relevant detail? Thanks -

 

Nick.

 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

These are derived from the RCH drawing linked. It's perfectly possible that this drawing follows an existing railway company drawing - possibly delving in TNA RAIL 1080/387-9 might reveal something. The 1923 drawing is for a 17' 6" wagon so is presumably a revision of an earlier drawing; the SECR was using this pattern of sheet support from the late 1890s so I'll risk suggesting it was an invention of Wainwright's and not a Great Western innovation at all!

 

According to Atkins, et al., in the 'bible', it is a Williams patent sheet supporter. Apparently, an alternative design by Marillier was tried but not adopted - there is a photo of this. Anyone know who Williams was? Or a way to get hold of the patent? A quick online search didn't produce anything.

 

Nick.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

That interior finish was worth all the complications that followed from it!

 

A useful illustration of the Peco kit too. Does the exterior wood effect come with the kit, or is it your modification?

 

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, magmouse said:

And no sign of washer plates, though there must have been something on the inside where the bolts holding the spacer blocks on ended up. Equally, there is no sign in the picture of the bolt-heads and washers for the T-irons, so it may just be the photo isn't resolving what is there.

 

I think an L-shaped washer plate for the inside top of the corner can just be made out but otherwise the Great Western (and the SECR) made great use of coach bolts that required no additional washer at the head end and were, I think, countersunk into the woodwork, so are well-nigh invisible.

 

37 minutes ago, magmouse said:

Apparently, an alternative design by Marillier was tried but not adopted - there is a photo of this. Anyone know who Williams was? Or a way to get hold of the patent? A quick online search didn't produce anything.

 

There is a biography of Frank Marillier (1885-1928), who was Swindon Carriage & Wagon Works Manager from 1902, in Tony Wood's Saltney Carriage & Wagon Works (GWSG / Wider View, 2007). This includes a table of his patents, including the cattle truck gate lock, held jointly with Frederick Wright, the Locomotive Works Manager, but nothing on sheet rail supports. The references Wood gives for these are in the TNA RAIL 252 series - the GWR documents series. As far as I can find, Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 3 (OPC, 2000) makes no particular mention of the origin of the sheet supporter on the SER/SECR though they record Maunsell's appointments of G.H. Pearson and Lionel Lynes from Swindon as Works Manager and Chief C&W Draughtsman, which accounts for the GW features of SECR wagons from the Great War onwards, with steel frames and external knees etc. 

 

No sign of Williams!

Edited by Compound2632
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

A useful illustration of the Peco kit too. Does the exterior wood effect come with the kit, or is it your modification?

 

It's part of the kit. I can't say I like it much - it's the thing I like least about the kit, actually. In most lighting conditions it doesn't show, or it looks innocuous, but every so often you see it clearly, and it looks quite fake. I'd rather try to create texture - if needed - with paint, such as dry brushing. Photos of real wagons rarely show wood grain, and if they do, it is with wagons that are very old and weathered - not right for well-maintained pre-grouping stock, which might be dirty and a bit battered, but not with paint peeling off, etc. You do though see planks that are not flat, with a slightly dished profile (presumably the timber was not sufficiently seasoned before being sawn) - I've never seen that modelled...

 

Nick.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I think an L-shaped washer plate for the inside top of the corner can just be made out but otherwise the Great Western (and the SECR) made great use of coach bolts that required no additional washer at the head end and were, I think, countersunk into the woodwork, so are well-nigh invisible.

 

I agree about the corner washer plate - not usually modelled on these types of wagon (including by me!). The coach bolt explanation makes sense, and stands as a warning not to 'assume' the RCH standard followed the GWR in detail.

 

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

No sign of Williams!

 

Another mystery!

 

Nick.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

That led me down a rabbit hole. No clear results though. 

 

There are four Williams listed hereOf these, Charles and  Frederick seem possible. I found the orbituaries for both (here and here), but no mention of sheet supporters. 

 

So I searched Google Patents for "sheet support" and "tarpaulin support". It helps to sort them by oldest first. There are hits back to pre-1900, including a 1913 patent by a J. Mabbett for an "improved tarpaulin support for railway wagons".  I wonder if another search term might help, but can't think of one.

 

Anyway, I had a bit of fun and now know all sorts of things about, e.g. bathroom installations and early bicycle tubes which I chanced upon on the way. Never a dull moment in this hobby. 

 

PS: Google Patents does have Wright- Marrilier's partition locking bar as mentioned by Stephen, seen here when I built my W2:

 

image.png.4ccbf449e94b05dc5d9d46a55184244c.png

 

 

PPS: ...and that led me to the patent for Marrilier's own sheet support bar, which was tried by the GWR before the Williams one, as quoted in the Atkins et al bible: "The Marillier patent sheet supporter was tried on an undiagrammed four-planker, but unlike his cattle truck partition device (with F.G. Wright) it was not adopted. Some four-plankers received supporters later …” (p 276). Strangely the Marillier  patent wasn't filed until 1916 according to Google, but perhaps that was an improved version.

 

Marrilier's patent gives us the patent classification for tarpaulin supports, which is:

B61D39/006 - Opening and closing means

>B - PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
>>B61 - RAILWAYS
>>>B61D - BODY DETAILS OR KINDS OF RAILWAY VEHICLES
>>>>B61D39/00 - Wagon or like covers; Tarpaulins; Movable or foldable roofs

 

But still no Williams!

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

The sheet supporters fitted to the 100 Midland D299 wagons lettered for return to Six Pit in 1906 were of the Williams Patent type, according to the relevant Traffic Committee minute. The one known photograph shows that these lacked the semi-circular guide, the arrangement being repeated for the D304 Carr's biscuit wagons authorised the following year:

 

88-G5_36.jpg

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of Midland Railway Study Centre item 88-G5/36.]

 

I have not found any drawing in the C&W Drawing Register that would apply to the fitting of supports to the D299 wagons. The Study Centre does have Drg. 2820 for the D304 wagons, item 88-D1092, but I have not yet seen this.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Did you see this patent?

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/GB102553A/en?q="tarpaulin+support"&q=B61D39%2f006&q=B61D39%2f006&sort=old

 

It describes the Marillier (and Godsell) sheet supporter, which didn't make the grade with the GWR. The date of 1916 is some years after the GWR trials, curiously, so perhaps there was later update to the mechanism. Or perhaps a bit of a patent war broke out in the 1913-16 period, since there is also the Mabbett application: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB191316955A/en?q="tarpaulin+support"&q=B61D39%2f006&q=B61D39%2f006&sort=old

 

And the Chick patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB191507944A/en?q="tarpaulin+support"&q=B61D39%2f006&q=B61D39%2f006&sort=old

 

All of which seem fairly similar from the descriptions. It's a shame there seems to be no way of seeing the drawings, unless I'm missing something?

 

 

Nick.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The sheet supporters fitted to the 100 Midland D299 wagons lettered for return to Six Pit in 1906 were of the Williams Patent type, according to the relevant Traffic Committee minute. The one known photograph shows that these lacked the semi-circular guide, the arrangement being repeated for the D304 Carr's biscuit wagons authorised the following year:

 

88-G5_36.jpg

 

[Embedded link to Midland Railway Study Centre item 88-G5/36.]

 

I have not found any drawing in the C&W Drawing Register that would apply to the fitting of supports to the D299 wagons. The Study Centre does have Drg. 2820 for the D304 wagons, item 88-D1092, but I have not yet seen this.

 

My last post crossed with yours...

 

I wonder if there is some confusion here? If this is the Williams supporter, then the GWR type is something else. The Chick patent (linked in my last post) refers to a "semi-circular angle-iron bracket a secured to the end of the vehicle" which sounds like the GWR type. Is the info in the 'bible' incorrect?

 

And I have just found another one from 1916:

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/GB104060A/en?q="tarpaulin+support"&q=B61D39%2f006&q=B61D39%2f006&sort=old

 

This Jones and Bishop type has the 'rest' position of the bar down by the sole bar, so the doors on both sides of the wagon are clear when the support is not in use.

 

Clearly open wagons with sheets were seen as the cutting edge of transport technology in the mid 1910s...

 

Nick.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I wonder if there is some confusion here? If this is the Williams supporter, then the GWR type is something else. 

 

Well, my authority for saying the type used by the Midland was Williams' patent rests on that Traffic Committee minute. The cost in 1906 was £3-8-0 per vehicle, nothing being mentioned about royalties. The minute relating to the Carr's biscuit wagons makes no mention of sheet supports: "Resolved that ten open goods wagons fitted with passenger undergear and automatic vacuum brake complete be built for running on express goods trains in accordance with the plan produced in lieu of the same number of ordinary goods wagons on the broken up list the additional cost being estimated at £33-10-0 per vehicle or £335 for the ten trucks."

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, my authority for saying the type used by the Midland was Williams' patent rests on that Traffic Committee minute. The cost in 1906 was £3-8-0 per vehicle, nothing being mentioned about royalties. The minute relating to the Carr's biscuit wagons makes no mention of sheet supports: "Resolved that ten open goods wagons fitted with passenger undergear and automatic vacuum brake complete be built for running on express goods trains in accordance with the plan produced in lieu of the same number of ordinary goods wagons on the broken up list the additional cost being estimated at £33-10-0 per vehicle or £335 for the ten trucks."

 

Well, I would trust an original document over Atkins et al, who could fairly easily mistake one of a flurry of sheet support designs for another. It seems more likely they are mistaken than the Traffic Committee that was actually specifying the things. There isn't an indication in Atkins of the source of their information.

 

Unless Williams was the manufacturer of one or both types, not the patent holder?

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

I'm now with Mikkel down the rabbit hole...

 

Bixley et al in An Illustrated History of Southern Wagons part 1 (LSWR and S&DJR) offer this:

 

IMG_1841.jpeg.55392d844c6d9dd3867531b5d156d41b.jpeg

 

It's described as a Williams patent sheet rail. It certainly looks to be the same design as the GWR type, though not identical. There is text on the semicircular guide, which I can't quite read - possibly something 'patent', but the something doesn't quite look like 'Williams'.

 

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

Edited by magmouse
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, magmouse said:

There isn't an indication in Atkins of the source of their information.

 

A general problem not just with Atkins but with similar learned tomes on Great Western subjects, I find. My unproven suspicion is that it's bound up with a lot of official Great Western documentation having made its way into private collections, which is very bad practice from the point of view of conservation.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, magmouse said:

but the something doesn't quite look like 'Williams'.

 

I'd say it is WILLIAMS - just the W isn't very clear. Certainly the ILLIA. Clearer than PATENT!

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'd say it is WILLIAMS - just the W isn't very clear. Certainly the ILLIA. Clearer than PATENT!

 

It's very dependent on the level of zoom, I find. I could be persuaded it's Williams. I could be persuaded otherwise...

 

If it is Williams, then the MR wagon type is a curiosity. Could there have been two types of Williams support rails? GWR 5-plank wagons to diagram O4, built between 1902 and 1904, had the Williams supporters, according to Atkins, over two years before the MR Traffic Committee mention. The one in the MR photo looks less sophisticated than the GWR/Williams type. Could the TC have specified Williams, but an alternative (cheaper?) type have been actually fitted?

 

Edited by magmouse
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
Just now, magmouse said:

Could the TC have specified Williams, but actually an alternative (cheaper?) type have been actually fitted?

 

I feel the need to have sight of Drg. 2820...

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, magmouse said:

 

Could there have been two types of Williams support rails?

 

 

Perhaps developments of the design?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

I think this might be our man Williams? Or rather, both of them:  Llewellyn Wynn Williams and Owen Richard Williams:

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/GB190111564A/en?q=williams+tarpaulin&assignee=Llewellyn+Wynn+Williams&sort=old

 

The date seems to fit, 1901 initially, with subsequent improvements.

 

If you click on their names, you can see the other patents they had.

 

Edit: A bit more digging finds that Llewellyn Wynn Williams and Owen Richard Williams seem to have been part of a family of railway engineers which also included Henry Williams,  inventor of the spring-loaded switch point. Apparently a family disagreement led to them splitting up into different companies, but later they must have teamed up again as Llewellyn and Owen are listed as directors in the company Henry Williams by 1922. I assume that that company is the same as the current Henry Williams, still working in the rail industry.

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
58 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

I think this might be our man Williams? Or rather, both of them:  Llewellyn Wynn Williams and Owen Richard Williams:

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/GB190111564A/en?q=williams+tarpaulin&assignee=Llewellyn+Wynn+Williams&sort=old

 

The date seems to fit, 1901 initially, with subsequent improvements.

 

If you click on their names, you can see the other patents they had.

 

Edit: A bit more digging finds that Llewellyn Wynn Williams and Owen Richard Williams seem to have been part of a family of railway engineers which also included Henry Williams,  inventor of the spring-loaded switch point. Apparently a family disagreement led to them splitting up into different companies, but later they must have teamed up again as Llewellyn and Owen are listed as directors in the company Henry Williams by 1922. I assume that that company is the same as the current Henry Williams, still working in the rail industry.

 


Good sleuthing!

 

Elementary, my dear Watson….

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...