Jump to content
 

GWR 2-plank open wagon


magmouse

1,003 views

The GWR adopted iron, and later steel construction for underframes quite early, compared to most other railway companies. For reasons of variety and aesthetics, I wanted to have a mix of wooden and metal underframed wagons, and my 1908 period was partly chosen for this reason - there were still a few GWR wooden underframed wagons around.

 

pic00.jpg.9915f310cec0b9abd2d2dbdd039bee3c.jpg

 

One such is this 2-plank open, built from the WEP etched brass kit. Overall, it is a nice kit, and I built it pretty much as intended, but there are one or two issues with it that needed attention, and opportunities to upgrade, that I will discuss here. The build, and especially the buffer modification was inspired by @wenlock's build:

 

 

I didn't take a series of photos during the build with this one, so I will go through a few pictures of it taken when it was physically complete but before it was painted, and comment as we go.

 

pic01.jpeg.f6dfdbfc46938cfaa04314379938e223.jpeg

 

There are a few weaknesses with the kit. The top edge of the sides and ends is made by a thin strip that folds down from the outer faces of the sides and ends, supposedly to meet the inner sides and ends. I found they didn’t meet very well, and as a result, there was a kind of groove along the inside corner. I decided to make a virtue of this, filing it to a consistent shape all along with a square needle file, with the idea it might suggest the capping strip of the prototype.

 

I found the inside bearing units (one of which is pivoted to provide the compensation) made the wagon sit at different heights at each end. I had to rebuild the non-pivoting one to reduce it’s height. Overall I don’t much like these compensation units; they seem fragile and error-prone.

 

Another weakness is the way the solebar details (washer plates, etc.) are etched as outlines into the metal, rather than being separate pieces added on. I added etched crown plates (the semicircular ones over each axlebox) from Ambis, and plasticard washer plates for the others. Because the Ambis crown plates were a slightly different size to the etched outlines for them, I used a bit of filler once all the soldering was done, which you can see as a white area below each crown plate.

 

The kit gives a representation of the spring bump stops, over the centre of each spring, but it is 2D and at the back of the solebars. I added bump stops made in plasticard. I also made label boxes from plasticard, and the horse hook was added from brass wire.

 

The kit's etched detail for the shoes that take each end of the springs represents the later type, with a gap between the solebar and the end of the spring. On these earlier wagons, the shoes were a different type, with a solid face, so I used a bit more filler here, and filed the face flat, which gives a reasonable representation of the prototype.

 

A challenge faced by the kit designer is to use etched brass, which is a thin, sheet material, to make the chunky volumes of a wooden wagon. Actually, the kit is quite clever in this regard, and it mostly works well, though it took some careful fettling to get the sides, ends, floor and solebars in the right relationship. The ends of the headstocks in particular require care, with a bit of filler needed afterwards here and there to ensure the prominent ends look like they are made from solid wood, rather than the hollow metal structure they actually are.

 

pic02.jpeg.79b367b9ffb34455d2e4234ddd6fe714.jpeg

 

On the brake side of the wagon, all the same solebar detail work was needed. The vee-hanger in the kit is on the back face of the solebar, when it should be on the front face. I replaced it with an etched brass one, and added some nuts from plasticard. The brake lever in the kit is straight, and the ones in prototype photos I have seen are curved. I was able to form the curve by very careful bending with pliers. The lever is too long, taking it in front of the end of the buffer beam. I shortened the lever at the ‘wide’ end, which was a mistake because it meant the joggle where the lever fits around the axle box is in the wrong place. Next time I would use a different lever, or shorten it at the handle end, and rebuild the handle.

 

One other thing to say, visible in this photo, is that the location of the door hinges and side knees is etched into the main side metalwork, as a guide to positioning. This is helpful for getting these parts in the right place, but the etched lines form an outline outside, rather than under, where the added part goes, and so are still visible when it's all complete. I didn't attempt to fill these etched lines, as I thought I would end up just filling all the other detail and making a mess. The etched grooves aren't too prominent, especially once everything is painted.

 

pic03.jpeg.76b8cf7bc691d68e0a512ba0f4fceeb9.jpeg

 

The kit is supplied with whitemetal buffers. I decided to replace these as I wanted turned steel heads. This was also an opportunity to attempt the heavy ribbed type of buffer guide, rather than the plain ones provided.

 

The basis was a set of Slaters Midland Railway buffers, which have moulded plastic bases, turned brass guides, and turned steel heads. I added the ribs from slivers of plasticard. The first stage was to cut a strip of 10 thou, with the width of the strip the same as the length of the buffer guide, between the base and the wider part at the outer end. Triangles were cut off from the end of the strip, and the right-angle corner of each triangle trimmed off so the rib could fit neatly where the base of the brass guide flares and meets the plastic base.

 

The brass guide was held in a vice, and each rib added, holding it with tweezers, dipping its long edge into a small puddle of thin CA glue, and placing it on the guide. Once they were all attached, the whole buffer was flooded with more CA glue to fix everything solid. When set, the slight curve to the ribs was carved with a sharp scalpel.

 

pic04.jpeg.1727dd81a8b405950186a205c65a9647.jpeg

 

There isn't much to say about the wagon interior, except the kit gives some nice detail.

 

There are some aspects of the kit which aren't quite right, but which are not really fixable. There seems to be too much space between the top of the springs and the solebars, so the axle boxes are too low. This is difficult to fix as the spring position is set by the axle guard / solebar etch. The solebars seem too far apart. On the prototype the body doesn't have much overhang past the solebars, but the kit has very little at all. The difference is subtle, but it slightly affects the character of the wagon.

 

I painted the wagon with a red oxide primer from a spray can, which formed the basis of the GWR red livery. The lettering was done with Pressfix transfers, and weathering was a mix of dry-brushing with pinks and greys, to give the slightly faded look, and washes of greys, browns and black for the dirt and escaped axlebox grease.

 

I haven't given this wagon a load, and the plan is it will act as a runner for a couple of 4-plank wagons carrying overhanging loads of deals, yet to be built.

 

Despite the various issues with the kit, I very much like the character of this wagon, which is so different to the later, metal-framed GWR types. The wooden brake shoes, curved lever, and massive ribbed buffer guides, with the all-wood construction, are firmly 19th century, at least in GWR terms, and contrast with the later wagons described in previous posts. I am grateful that WEP have produced a kit for this relatively obscure prototype, for all it's weaknesses - it nicely fills an important position in my wagon plan for Netherport.

 

pic05.jpg.a91a9a023935cf5037e8cc7ce6f3f2bd.jpg

 

pic06.jpg.c91cb1a38843d02e46b39b50c0544a12.jpg

 

pic07.jpg.d432d2e744eac64a4d1fca20d50ad738.jpg

 

pic08.jpg.12fdcb3240cde6630317be8a0592d26a.jpg

 

Nick.
 

Edited by magmouse
I found my build notes after posting, so I could add some more detail to the description.

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 16
  • Round of applause 2

19 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Gold

Really excellent Nick!   The extra solebar detail, along with door retaining chains really add to the wagon.

 

I’m thoroughly enjoying reading this series of wagon posts, very inspirational stuff. 
 

BW

 

Dave

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, wenlock said:

Really excellent Nick!   The extra solebar detail, along with door retaining chains really add to the wagon.

 

I’m thoroughly enjoying reading this series of wagon posts, very inspirational stuff. 
 

BW

 

Dave

 

Thanks, Dave - Sherton Abbas has been a big inspiration for me (and many others) too! Hopefully at some point I can build a layout that begins to approach your level of quality consistently across all aspects of the layout, which you do so well.

 

Nick.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Annie said:

Excellent work and very nicely done Nick.


Thanks, Annie - much appreciated.

 

Nick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Nick,

As others have said, I too am really enjoying seeing and reading about your wagon stock. Very inspirational!

Ian

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Netherport's wagon stock is turning out to be a tour de force. Achieving a consistent standard across a fleet of vehicles is no easy thing and seems to need a wide range of skills, not least the nicely worn/weathered look (beautifuly photographed too).

 

I'm interested in the spring question - I've encountered a similar problem but in the opposite direction - springs too deep that won't fit between sole bar and top of axle box. It set me to wondering how far the springs flex when a load is applied?  Do the ex-works photos/shop drawings (unloaded) show a marked difference to the in-service (loaded) shape of the spring? I've been looking but haven't reached any conclusion - I guess the springs flex more with age in any case.

 

Are you working to S7 standards or 31.5/32mm?  The degree of inset of sole bar relative to the wagon side is obviously affected by the placing of the W irons (axle guards) which are attached to the sole bars.  I've noticed that if the sole bar/W irons are set correctly for the prototype, the wheel face with a less than prototype track gauge (31.5mm in my case) is too far behind the W irons - I think it's more obvious on some vehicles than others. But you seem to have the opposite question on the 2 plank wagon if I've understood correctly!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, kitpw said:

I'm interested in the spring question - I've encountered a similar problem but in the opposite direction - springs too deep that won't fit between sole bar and top of axle box. It set me to wondering how far the springs flex when a load is applied?  Do the ex-works photos/shop drawings (unloaded) show a marked difference to the in-service (loaded) shape of the spring? I've been looking but haven't reached any conclusion - I guess the springs flex more with age in any case.

 

A good question, that I haven't given much thought to. This picture is perhaps an extreme case of spring compression under load:

 

lnwr_oldmil1446b.jpg

[embedded image from https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwr_oldmil1446b.htm]

 

I assume the bump stops fitted above the centre of wagon springs were designed to limit spring deflection under excessive load at a point prior to the spring breaking or being permanently deformed. That doesn't mean that the spring deflection under normal, maximum loading would be as much as that, however. There was some discussion recently (on the D299 thread?) of buffer heights, and how they seem to have varied quite a bit, which presumably relates to both spring deflection both under load, and over time as they aged.

 

None of which quite addresses the question of how we should reflect all this in our models...

 

2 hours ago, kitpw said:

Are you working to S7 standards or 31.5/32mm?  The degree of inset of sole bar relative to the wagon side is obviously affected by the placing of the W irons (axle guards) which are attached to the sole bars.  I've noticed that if the sole bar/W irons are set correctly for the prototype, the wheel face with a less than prototype track gauge (31.5mm in my case) is too far behind the W irons - I think it's more obvious on some vehicles than others. But you seem to have the opposite question on the 2 plank wagon if I've understood correctly!

 

Wheels are normal O-gauge finescale, mainly from Slaters and sometimes Peco. When I get to building track, I plan to work to 31.5mm gauge, for the visual benefit of finer flange ways on turnouts. The spacing of solebars and w-irons is something I have been fretting about a fair bit recently. You may have seen my thoughts on this, and subsequent discussion in the comments, in my blog post about the sheeted 5-plank, built with the Slaters (ex Coopercraft) kit.

 

I am currently working on a scratch built 1-plank open, with wooden underframe. I don't have a detailed drawing, just the basic diagram drawing in the bible, with detail measurements scaled from photos. Working inwards from the overall width (known exactly from records), an estimate of the thickness of the curb rail and solebars gives a spacing between inside faces of the solebars which seems excessive. I realise I may have made a mistake in not allowing for a packing piece between the curb rail and the solebar, which I have seen in drawings of other wagons - after completing this part of the build, naturally.

 

I'll describe all this in more detail when I write up the current build, but the short version, for now, is I don't feel confident I am always getting these dimensions correct. And as you point out, working to a compromised gauge means the positioning of the wheel face relative to everything else will always be wrong (though slightly compensated for by the width of the wheel treads). S7 is the only answer to that...

 

Nick.

 

 

Edited by magmouse
  • Like 3
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, magmouse said:

my thoughts on this, and subsequent discussion in the comments

...I'll re-read:  I obviously wasn't concentrating hard enough first time around! (Too busy looking at the pictures...)

 

29 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I plan to work to 31.5mm gauge

I've wondered from time to time whether S7 would have been a better bet but, all in all, I think the 31.5 gauge was a sensible compromise.  I made some test track about the time that MRJ No 0 was published (1984?) and found 32mm gauge gave a distinct bump at the crossing.  Simple arithmetic showed (based on Slater's wheels) that 31.5 would cure the problem, which it did (using some aluminium gauges filed up to suit, as none available commercially).  I did no more on modelling railways for over 30 years and was surprised (I shouldn't have been) to discover that 31.5 had become a "fine scale" standard.  One small thing, though, I do set down the point nose by a few strokes of a file to allow for the coning of the wheels: I believe this is done on the prototype for the same reason. 

 2843.jpg.50ebe8ec0b0cc3dbcab71d8c9e4be990.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, kitpw said:

I've wondered from time to time whether S7 would have been a better bet but, all in all, I think the 31.5 gauge was a sensible compromise.

 

Me too. In my youth, I went from OO to EM and then to P4. At each stage the improvement was well worth the additional work - the difference from OO to EM is huge, but implies you have to re-wheel everything. EM to P4 is a smaller gain visually, but since you have already committed to re-wheeling, the extra work isn't that great (mainly compensation for some locos and longer wheelbase stock, as a minimum). It became obvious P4 was a no-brainer*, and visually transformational compared with OO.

 

With 7mm scale, though, there is a useful but not massive visual advantage in going from finescale to S7. The amount of work isn't too great if you are kit or scratch building, as I mainly am, but you loose interoperability with other layouts. If I was part of a group of S7 modellers with shared interests, it would make sense, but right now, I would rather keep a wider compatibility in case I get involved with a club or group at some point in the future.

 

Nick.

 

* This is strictly a personal view - no disrespect intended towards people who make other choices, that suit what they want out of their modelling and their situation.

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

I am slightly surprised that someone who previously modelled in P4 when going upscale to 7mm would choose to adopt 31.5mm track. But as you say it is a personal choice which I respect. 

I am aware that the vast majority who model in 7mm have far more opportunities to join clubs or groups and run there pride and Joy's with other like minded individuals.  

I myself tried to model in finescale but became disappointed with my local groups who appeared to be quite happy to accept kit built wagons without internal details that bowed in alarmingly going around a test track for a couple of hours. A couple of my wagons with different springs. 

20230306_111715.jpg

20230306_125216.jpg

20220226_150214.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, airnimal said:

I am slightly surprised that someone who previously modelled in P4 when going upscale to 7mm would choose to adopt 31.5mm track.

 

Thanks, Mike. I think I'm also surprised, when I think about it... I'm not totally convinced it is a settled question in my mind at the moment, though the prospect of trying to re-wheel the stock I have built so far makes me feel a bit queasy. Unlike you, I haven't built them to be removable. OTH, if I am going to change, the sooner the better...

 

Perhaps I need to do a trial. Where do you get your wheels from?

 

Nick.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Nick,

I use Slaters wagon wheels. I do use them as they come or modify some of them by trimming the back of them to remove the heavy look so they are more like worn wheels after years in service. 

Loco wheels are a mixture of Slaters or cast iron from various sources.  Slaters provide wheels to the S7 society but all the Slaters range can be reprofiled by a member of the society. Slaters provide a 10% discount to S7 society members. 

 

Mike

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Just in case...  to avoid confusion...

 

Slater's Plastikard produces wheels for O-gauge (31.5, 32.0 mm) and wheels for S7 track (33mm gauge).  Mike, like me, uses the S7 wagon wheelsets from Slaters, the range of wheels for wagons and coaches is here:-

 

https://slatersplastikard.com/wheels/scale7/S7CandW.php

 

The S7 carriage and wagon wheels are available to all, the S7 loco wheels for 33mm gauge track are available only from the S7 Group Stores.

 

regards, Graham

Edited by Western Star
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
On 06/03/2023 at 11:04, magmouse said:

There was some discussion recently (on the D299 thread?) of buffer heights, and how they seem to have varied quite a bit, which presumably relates to both spring deflection both under load, and over time as they aged.

I happen to notice on a set of drawings (available here https://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~adrian/steam/RCHWagons/images/rch1018.PDF) for RCH wagons that the design spring deflection under load is give as 3/8" per ton. With a load of say 5 tons, the deflection would be the best part of 2": at max capacity, it could be as much as 4" and with a worn spring more than that. As you say, how one might interpret that on a model is an interesting question but it must account for some of the buffer height differences noted on another thread recently.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Thanks, Kit - it's very interesting to have that figure for the design deflection. However, is it 3/8" deflection per ton for the total load, or the load per spring? Even a 12T open only has 3 tons per spring, if it is evenly distributed, and the rulebooks note how wagon capacity has to be derated when the load is towards one end (such as overhanging timber loads).

 

Nick.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, magmouse said:

is it 3/8" deflection per ton for the total load, or the load per spring?

The drawing isn't particular on that although it does have notes about tests on draw and buffer springs.  It simply states 3/8" per ton. I'm probably wrong, but in the static condition, it would be assumed that only three of four wheels would be load bearing at any given moment (as is assumed with any load carried on 4 columns) , so the division of the load would be by 3, not 4:  as a dynamic loading, I think you'd have to assume that the whole load could bear on a single spring and allow for deflection on that basis. More research needed!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Sorry, only just found this. (That, I find, is the trouble with a blog vs. a continuous topic.) Splendid wagon and interesting discussion. I need to up my work rate to make sure I consistently get to the wagons I have in mind before you big boys get there!

  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

You can subscribe to the blog, not just individual posts, which should give you notifications of new posts?

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, magmouse said:

You can subscribe to the blog, not just individual posts, which should give you notifications of new posts?

 

I think I'm now doing that. Thanks.

  • 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...