Jump to content
 

GWR 1-plank (part 1)


magmouse

1,608 views

This wagon is a 'first' in two respects: it is my first wagon with Scaleseven wheels - though it didn't start that way - and it is my first scratch-built wagon in 7mm scale (and for at least 30 years...). The build was also at several points an object lesson in why one shouldn't assume, as we will see.

 

pic00.jpg.297cee37a76e2351c57d8c5c824bd439.jpg

 

If it is a scratch-build, where to start? There's not kit to work from, respond to or rebel against. There are not, as far as I know, detailed drawings for these 1-plank wagons, though Atkins et al's GWR Goods Wagons has an outline drawing. The GWR 1-plank wagons came in a bewildering range of lengths and widths. I elected to build one of the 18ft over headstocks, 7'8" over side sheeting types, as this is what the drawing showed, and these seem to have survived in reasonable numbers to and beyond my 1908 period. There are a couple of pictures, in Atkins and in Russell's GWR Wagons Appendix, showing a number of detail differences between the two examples. I decided to mix and match a little, for variety and interest, rather than follow a specific example precisely.

 

When building these wooden wagons, and in the absence of detailed drawings, it really helps to understand how the prototype was made, and follow that. The spacing between the solebars is determined by the distance between the axle journal centres, since the bearing springs are centred on the journals, and the solebars on the springs, so the weight of the wagon and its load is transmitted vertically down to the journals.

 

The side, or curb, rails run down each side of the wagon, attached to the solebars but sticking up above them by the thickness of the floor planks. The side planks then sit on top of the curb rails. The dimensions of the curb rails determine the width of the floor, and this is where I made my first mistake. I knew the overall width, across the side planks and curb rail, from the drawing. The end of the curb rail is visible at the end of the wagon (notched to accommodate the headstock), so I could estimate its width. That would then determine the distance across the solebars.

 

What I didn't realise until I looked at a drawing of another wooden-framed wagon is that there is a packing piece between the solebar and the curb rail, increasing the overhang of the curb rail and wagon body relative to the solebars. As a result of this misunderstanding, on my model the solebars are too far apart, and the overhang is too little. It isn't much, and not too obvious, as the packing piece is fairly thin, but it is an error.

 

Based on this incorrect assumption, I cut the floor from 80 thou plasticard, with planks scribed on and the top surface roughened with coarse sandpaper to give some texture, which helps when painting the dirty-bare-wood interior later.

 

pic01.jpeg.d8fda82dba1819b2c95afca9fc4ec45a.jpeg

 

pic02.jpeg.f495cd8ec05082a76d5d35fd4629476a.jpeg

 

Next were the curb rails, made from Evergreen strip - having a good stock of various sizes really mades these kinds of build much easier, as the strip comes cut accurately to size and square.

 

The curb rails have a distinctive chamfer along the bottom edge, except where the bolts are that hold everything together. I marked it all out in pencil and used the edge of a scalpel blade to scrape the chamfer:

 

pic03.jpeg.381e3f7cdc673fb98cd267da8d735b50.jpeg

 

The bolts were made with plastic rod, cut overlength and then trimmed to protrude the same amount using a piece of scrap brass etch with a hole drilled in:

 

pic04.jpeg.9e9eb6a0b50c06bb113e7b9a3d259576.jpeg

 

pic05.jpeg.11aff939144e00bed8aafb6053e87b1f.jpeg

 

I glued the curb rails to the floor, and while that assembly was drying, I made the headstocks:

 

pic06.jpeg.d532120338c5890adcde2cc7f3dfcb39.jpeg

 

pic07.jpeg.82f06466b7b741b8056d14f461362e9c.jpeg

 

The curb rails need to be notched to take the headstocks:

 

pic08.jpeg.99b2cebf4fff161129f1892304fd162e.jpeg

 

Oh, yes - they are the second set of headstocks, as I made the first pair from the wrong thickness material. Don't assume that the strip of plastic sitting on the bench is the piece you previously got out of the packet to make the headstocks. It might be an imposter...

 

One thing to keep an eye on once assembly starts is that on the prototype, the top edges of components was often given a chamfer, to help rainwater to run off and not be drawn into the cracks. This applies to the top edges of the headstocks, the side curb rails and the end rails (represented on the model by the end edge of the floor piece). This is easy to do with the edge of the scalpel, as long as you do it before assembly. Reference to photos guided where and how much to do.

 

A feature of GWR wagons of this period (1870s or so) is that the running number and 'GWR' were incised into the solebar, and I wanted to replicate this. For more discussion of techniques and the prototype context, see:

 

My first attempt was with the point of a pair of dividers:

 

pic09.jpeg.2767d5ae3fb49808069bbfa233cfed6d.jpeg

 

A bit of a mess, but not too bad when painted:

 

pic10.jpeg.b3c8efdca05ebc1a7703bd780ef492ce.jpeg

 

For my second test, I used a sewing pin sharpened to a small chisel shape on an oilstone:

 

pic11.jpeg.d7fe8e5b042f3ccd9c7648ecfe742f8f.jpeg

 

pic12.jpeg.80d91da9e8438923ef6f05ef3de5e9de.jpeg

 

I did also order a set of punches, which with a bit of practice gave quite a good result:

 

pic13.jpeg.82c5392e0869606ad6d562b595bdd8e2.jpeg

 

However, I decided the shapes of the letters were too far from those of the prototype, and I stuck with my miniature chisel. I first drew out the letter forms, looking at photos, and then started cutting the straight lines with the chisel and a ruler. The curves were done last, freehand. The choice of running number, 4171, with all straight lines, was not an accident...

 

pic14.jpeg.5208bcd5a987c50137f0143bac0950b1.jpeg

 

pic15.jpeg.355cfeef757d811837c5ba370e85dc81.jpeg

 

Next were the ends, starting with the stanchions. These were made of strip, chamfered as before, and the washer plate and nuts added from more strip of the relevant size:

 

pic16.jpeg.b916019b7e5f249b5739357085bfa85c.jpeg

 

The end plank was made from more strip, and the stanchions attached:

 

pic17.jpeg.47e160236646f6ba01d9499eb7bc366c.jpeg

 

I made the corner plates from a strip of 10 thou, so I could glue on all the nuts before attaching them to the ends and sides, which I find easier. Here are the ends with the corner plates attached, and the strip - marked out in pencil - in the background. Can you spot the next error?

 

pic18.jpeg.399b57a3e69bf2d117511b19a8dc15de.jpeg

 

Yup - the end at the top of the picture has the corner plates the wrong way round. I removed the unwanted nuts and added new ones. Don't assume you made the corner plates on the strip in the orientation they go on the wagon. Mutter, mutter, scrape, scape, glue, glue.

Because the sides sit in between the ends, and the ends are located by the stanchions, I didn't want to make the sides until the ends were glued in place. Before I did that, I wanted to sort out how the wheels and axleguards would be attached.

 

I aim to provide compensation on wagons were this is straightforward to do, and I wanted to try making my own system. I had some axleguards from a WEP etch, so I made these unto units with a piece of double-sided PCB cut to the right size:

 

pic19.jpeg.4a92b09f0acd40e8ae77f654e978a4d4.jpeg

 

pic20.jpeg.d04f7db1cb8e74fc5b47cee0587d8929.jpeg

 

For the rocking end, I made a pivot from brass rod and tube - the short pieces of tube at either end are soldered to the rod, while the central piece is free to rotate. This middle part is soldered to the rocking unit, while the ends are mounted to the wagon underframe.

 

pic21.jpeg.c9fbb67e428bcb416f03d72c5b22c425.jpeg

 

Packing pieces of plasticard adjusted the ride height of the wagon:

 

pic22.jpeg.d1c85d8ccb2df5d7a3994ee336822a79.jpeg

 

pic23.jpeg.09698011a1fd09b2ee8ab93ad4fbcfb8.jpeg

 

pic24.jpeg.828bf3895b8f94432828230eb841d615.jpeg

 

It all looks good, right? Well, no - this is where the next assumption would bite me on the derrière. But not quite yet.

 

I attached the ends, and then cut the sides from more Evergreen strip, and attached them. Elaborate clamping kept things in place while the glue dried:

 

pic25.jpeg.df32fb016ff958c86d7d528f447cca01.jpeg

 

pic26.jpeg.f09e5c273d5cb14785e6137a136efb3d.jpeg

 

The corner plates were added in the same way as before, making sure they met the plates on the end with a little bit of melted plastic oozing out to fill any slight gap. Once set, I filed and scrapped this to give the slightly rounded edge of the prototype.

 

pic27.jpeg.b2b9c1c592430621624c0d00c8e8faab.jpeg

 

The next job was the axle boxes. In the absence of commercial parts for the GWR grease boxes, I decided to make my own. After working out the dimensions from photos and a few drawings that either give dimensions or are detailed enough to scale from, I built the boxes up from plastic strip. The starting point was the back half of the box, that the spring bears on, with a hole for the brass bearing:

 

pic28.jpeg.d21ee328058feba189ffbf73f86641ae.jpeg

 

I built the rest of the box before cutting this part to length, as it makes things much easier to have a 'handle' to grip as the parts are assembled.

 

More layers, made slightly over-wide to be filed down later, made up the front of the box. Again, the strips were over-length, to be filed to the profile of the top slope of the box once assembled:

 

pic29.jpeg.2ea02ef4f7548a0e086c5e14ba092566.jpeg

 

pic30.jpeg.f71df15ab16df2d0fc7f913a68daec16.jpeg

 

I added the top detail in 5 thou plasticard:

 

pic31.jpeg.6e13cba9c4c9779293d6badfe9fc7770.jpeg

 

Final trimming and filing, and we are done:

 

pic32.jpeg.0035cd45012b6c00bf6de87d2ed9fbdf.jpeg

 

Except we have to make three more...

 

One of the pictures of 1-plank wagons I had showed it with 10-leaf springs, not the more familiar 4-leaf, so I decided to model that. I found some springs of the right size and shape - though only 8-leaf - on some ABS LNWR whitemetal axleguards, so I chopped and filed until I had just the springs left. By the time I had done that, they seemed a bit thin, so I stuck them to a piece of plasticard, cut round them and trimmed to the profile of the whitemetal part:

 

pic33.jpeg.ff57cc06616621fc27161b379b1cfa42.jpeg

 

pic34.jpeg.416e5f4f819465d3a8725ba36c484aa0.jpeg

 

Once I had the springs and axle boxes, I naturally tried these in position on the axleguards. Equally naturally, they didn't fit - the space between the axlebox and solebar wasn't right, and too much of the axleguard etch showed below the box. After some head-scratching, re-measuring and staring at drawings and photos, the penny dropped. Remember what I said about assumptions? It turns out that the WEP axleguards have the hole for the bearing positioned for 3'6" wheels, not 3'. Mutter, mutter...

 

I unsoldered the bearings, filed out the holes to a slot, and resoldered the bearings in their correct position:

 

pic35.jpeg.ebd58d69a749c53747e93dce184e3df6.jpeg

 

Of course, this meant the packing I had added to get the correct ride height of the wagon was now wrong. I removed it, and filed the top of the axleguard etch to be flush with the PCB (it had projected up above it slightly before). With a small piece of packing for the rocking end, that got the ride height to where it should be.

 

I added a couple of strips to locate the non-rocking end, and used simple jigs to get the axles the right distance apart (thanks to Mike @airnimal for that tip):

 

pic36.jpeg.da8d2f992a238e086cc1c646fe8d4be0.jpeg

 

With some additional plasticard pieces to locate the ends of the rocking beam, I had a wagon that could sit correctly on its wheels. I didn't fix the axle units in place at this stage, as it is much easier to do all the solebar and body detailing without getting in the way, and possibly getting damaged.

 

This seems like a good point to end part 1 of this build - detailing, brake gear, buffers and finishing in part 2!

 

Nick.


 

Edited by magmouse

  • Like 8
  • Craftsmanship/clever 18
  • Round of applause 1

50 Comments


Recommended Comments



There's much to congratulate you on in this post.  The incised letters in the sole bar have turned out very well, a nice touch.  The scrap brass shield as bolt cutter guide is a clever idea.  It's all looking very good, It has the look of the prototype(s) (I had to get out Atkins et al) and, at the same time, shows up the difference between kit building and scratch building. With a kit you can mostly get away with not necessarily fully understanding how things are built in the real world: with scratchbuilding, as you've pointed out, you really do need to understand it to make a convincing model - which it is.

Kit PW

Edited by kitpw
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Thanks, Kit. Scratch-building, as you say, means you really need to understand how the real thing was made. It also gives you new respect for the pattern makers behind the kits we perhaps take for granted! It's easy to criticise kist when they haven't got things quite right, but the experience of scratch-building underscores how small changes in the dimensions of details really changes the effect.

 

Nick.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

I like those home-made axleboxes.

 

Is it known when and where these 18 ft OH wagons were built?

 

As it happens, I have a scan of the page in Atkins (3rd edition) with the sketch. I notice a couple of interesting things:

  • From the dimensions given, the ends are 3" thick and the sides 2½". The same is true of Clayton's first lowside wagons of 1874-5 on the Midland - and of course I remember that Clayton came to Derby from Swindon. He soon changed to 2½" thick ends, keeping the same internal length, which is how tens of thousands of Midland wagons came to be 14' 11" OH.
  • The wagon is unusually wide for the period: 7' 3" internal width. If one takes 6' 6" centre of journals (which may be an unwise assumption for these earlier wagons) and 5" thick solebars, the width across the outer faces of the solebars comes to 6' 11", which one finds is often the internal width of a PO coal wagon.

Now, as to curb rails. To avoid excessive Midland bias, I'm looking at the RCH 1887 Specification drawings reproduced in A.J. Watts' Ince book (available from the HMRS for just £7 plus postage), which are not Midland drawings at all, no, not at all, but just happened to be prepared under (ex-Great Western) Clayton's direction. Here we see that the curb rail is a piece of timber 4½" high by 4" wide, with a rebate to accommodate the top of the solebar. The RCH drawing shows a wagon with an internal width of 7'0" and 2½" sheeting, i.e. 7' 5" wide over sheeting. This means that the curb rail overlaps the solebar by 1" in the horizontal plane and 2" in the vertical plane (the floor being made of 2½" deals). That 1" overlap in the horizontal plane means that some of the weight of the side is transferred to the solebar directly, rather than being a perpendicular force on the bolts that hold the curb rail onto the solebar. This also means that 1½" of the curb rail is visible on the inside of the wagon - the floor boards do not extend right up to the sides. 

 

Now the question is how this applies to these early 18 ft 1-plank wagons. Looking at the photo of 4373 in my scanned page from Atkins, I note that the inside edge of the curb rail is above, and very slightly inboard of, the end of the strap-bolt that (is one of the things that) secures the headstock to the solebar. That strap-bolt is fixed to the outer face of the solebar; this indicates that the inside face of the curb rail is flush with the outside face of the solebar. If the floor boards are 2½" thick, I judge that the curb rail cannot be more than 4" wide. All other things being equal (and I think the position of the buffer guide indicates that they are), 4373 is 7' 5" wide outside, so 7' 0" wide inside (assuming 2½" thick sides). I think that tallies with the headstock projecting very slightly more - 7' 6" would be a standard dimension.

 

So, I don't think 4373 tallies with the sketch. I'm also convinced that its wheelbase is 11' 0" rather than 10' 0", if it is actually 18' 0" OH...

 

Of course this is rather academic since you're not building a model of 4373 but I do wonder whether the dimensions given in the Registers tally with that sketch. A question for @Chrisbr perhaps.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Another excellent wagon with so much character. The wheels certainly look so much more impressive than the finescale equivalent would have done in my opinion.  I hope the decision to go S7 proves to be the right one for you. Another plus point will be the cost of this wagon against a kit built one.

I scratch build because I am hopeless at kit building and couldn't even put a Coopercraft wagon together.  I hope this will be the start of more of the same and I will look forward to see what comes 

from your workbench. 

 

Mike 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Thanks, Mike.

 

5 minutes ago, airnimal said:

The wheels certainly look so much more impressive than the finescale equivalent would have done in my opinion.

 

I agree - I think it especially matters on a vehicle like this where there is very little below the solebars. I suspect it would matter less on a model of a BR-period vac-fitted wagon with clasp brakes and heavy-duty axle guards.

 

7 minutes ago, airnimal said:

I hope the decision to go S7 proves to be the right one for you.

 

Me too! I'm happy so far, though I haven't yet got a plan for converting the existing stock. Some ideas are brewing, and there is no immediate hurry.

9 minutes ago, airnimal said:

I hope this will be the start of more of the same and I will look forward to see what comes 

from your workbench. 

 

I will probably do some more scratch-building, though unlike you I am also quite happy building kits. I'm going to need some early (pre-1887 RCH spec) PO coal wagons, and some other things there aren't kits for.

 

Nick.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Yes, much more like it. Very good, carry on.

 

I fear my post above may have come over as a bit of a lecture when it was intended as a piece of musing out loud. But in the spirit of Louis' comment, I'm not convinced that coupling is hanging straight; not to worry:

 

853240067_MidlandD299prototypewonkycoupling.jpg.485d42d619b3898f73bc7ae77b81f59f.jpg

 

Louis's crop of your photo emphasises the close observation of the packing block between the buffer guide and headstock seen in the photo of 4373. 

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Is it known when and where these 18 ft OH wagons were built?

 

Atkins gives a date range of 1868-1871, though we know the information in Atkins on early wagons isn't always complete. Tony Wood in the Saltney Carriage and Wagon Works book indicates some 1-plank wagons built from 1866, with the last lot listed completed in 1872. Others were presumably built at Swindon, and there were Shrewsbury and Chester Railway 1-plank wagons built at Saltney from 1847 which would have become GWR. Atkins also indicates they would have been built at Worcester, but gives no details. NB that doesn't answer the question about 18ft OH wagons specifically, just 1-plank wagons in general.

 

In his appendix listing wagons in running number order, Wood has 4813 at 17'6", 4835 at 17'8", 4860 at 17'0" - internal dimension - built in 1867. Also 6233 at 16'6" in 1866.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

From the dimensions given, the ends are 3" thick and the sides 2½"

 

This seems fairly common on GWR wagons around this time and later - which can catch one out if working from internal measurements.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

A.J. Watts' Ince book (available from the HMRS for just £7 plus postage)

 

I bought it the last time you plugged it! It was the drawing of the 1903 RCH specification in there that clued me into possible packing pieces between solebar and curb rail, on wider wagons.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

This also means that 1½" of the curb rail is visible on the inside of the wagon - the floor boards do not extend right up to the sides. 

 

Indeed - when I post part two, there will be a photo showing the interior, where you will see that modelled. That is a benefit of doing the solebars, curb rail and side sheeting as separate pieces, as on the prototype - you automatically get the top of the curb rail visible inside the wagon.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

If the floor boards are 2½" thick, I judge that the curb rail cannot be more than 4" wide. All other things being equal (and I think the position of the buffer guide indicates that they are), 4373 is 7' 5" wide outside, so 7' 0" wide inside (assuming 2½" thick sides). I think that tallies with the headstock projecting very slightly more - 7' 6" would be a standard dimension.

 

I estimated the curb rails as 4.5" wide, some close to your 4" estimate. You may be right about 4373 being narrower, and might explain why I was struggling to get the overhang to look right when comparing drawings, photos and my own calculations. The Saltney wagons listed above are shown as 7'3" internal, the same as the Atkins drawing, and that is what I have built.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm also convinced that its wheelbase is 11' 0" rather than 10' 0", if it is actually 18' 0" OH...

 

I disagree. If you measure the length OH in the Atkins photo of 4373 it is 71mm on the page. Divide by 18, gives a fraction under 4. Measure the distance between the axle boxes, and you get 40mm, as you would expect for a 10ft wheelbase. You can measure from the photo this way despite it being an oblique view because the measurements are symmetrical about the centre line, so the change of scale across the photo cancels out.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I do wonder whether the dimensions given in the Registers tally with that sketch.

 

The wagons listed in Wood do tally, as noted above.

 

Nick.

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

come over as a bit of a lecture

 

You say that as if we might not want a lecture on the arcana of 19th century wagon construction?

 

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm not convinced that coupling is hanging straight; not to worry:

 

853240067_MidlandD299prototypewonkycoupling.jpg.485d42d619b3898f73bc7ae77b81f59f.jpg

 

I feel I need to keep this photo as the wallpaper on my phone, ready to repel any and all wandering armchair critics!

 

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

the close observation of the packing block between the buffer guide and headstock seen in the photo of 4373.

 

Yes, getting that right was fun. The real credit goes to the esteemed @drduncan who kindly upscaled his 3D printed 4mm scale GWR ribbed buffers for me. More on that in part 2...

 

Nick.

  • Like 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Yes, much more like it. Very good, carry on.

 

"Yes, Sir! Thank you, Sir!"

 

(Blimey, it's the coupling police again!)

 

😅

 

Nick.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

As it happens, I have a scan of the page in Atkins (3rd edition) with the sketch.

The Atkins I have is the first edition which includes both volumes 1 and 2 (1986): it doesn't have that particular page/sketch. It's not the first time I've been in the dark with Atkins references so I thought perhaps I should modernise and looked for a later edition (2013) - s/h £112. Ouch! Modernisation postponed.

 

There is a very clear photo of an 8 ton Open (with sack load) on page 53 of my edition:  a few detail differences (for instance, a screw shackle top link to the coupling) with Nick's model but comparing one with the other, it looks right to me.  One thing that does show up in the Atkins photo (as wheels have been a topic in the Netherport thread) is the wear on the tyres which look well overdue for replacement.

 

 

 

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

The wagons listed in Wood do tally, as noted above.

 

I should have checked Wood. I only had in mind the letter lots and old series lots, which were all 15' 6" OH by 7' 5" or 7' 6" over sides by 11" deep (apart from some smaller oddities); forgetting the pre-lot assortment.

 

16 minutes ago, magmouse said:

In his appendix listing wagons in running number order, Wood has 4813 at 17'6", 4835 at 17'8", 4860 at 17'0" - internal dimension - built in 1867. Also 6233 at 16'6" in 1866.

 

I believe all the dimensions given by Wood, both in the text and in Appendix 1, are outside dimensions. Certainly they are for the wagons built to old series lots, as is evident from the photos.

 

17 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I disagree. If you measure the length OH in the Atkins photo of 4373 it is 71mm on the page. Divide by 18, gives a fraction under 4. Measure the distance between the axle boxes, and you get 40mm, as you would expect for a 10ft wheelbase. You can measure from the photo this way despite it being an oblique view because the measurements are symmetrical about the centre line, so the change of scale across the photo cancels out.

 

I concede your method, but...

 

Assuming 3' 0" between centres of spring shoes, for 18' 0" OH, 10' 0" WB gives 2' 6" between outer spring shoe and outside face of headstock whereas 11' 0" WB gives 2' 0". Eyeballing the distance between the spring stop block above the axlebox and the outer spring shoe, 1' 6", with the distance from the outer spring shoe to the headstock (measuring to a point directly below the head of the strap bolt) I get a dimension not very much greater than the stop-block to spring-shoe distance, which leads me to believe 2' 0" rather than 2' 6".

 

If the spring shoe centres were 3' 6", my spring-shoe to headstock distances would be 2' 3" for 10' 0" WB or 1' 9" for 11' 0" WB; this dimension being compared with 1' 9" from stop block to spring shoe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

So, I don't think 4373 tallies with the sketch. I'm also convinced that its wheelbase is 11' 0" rather than 10' 0", if it is actually 18' 0" OH...

 

From the stock register - 4373 (the first wagon to carry the number) was 7' 6" long, 7' 3" wide and 0' 11" high for the body with wooden body and frame as expected. 3' wheels on a 10' wheelbase and single brake.

  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Well that' s a triumph, Nick - a word not often associated with these veteran wagons.

 

I do like these wagons. When I built mine I found this old photo. I think the atmosphere compensates for the lack of detail. The caption was "Round Oak, 1868", which raises some questions but may just be a wrong date. (Edit: Well, the original source is "Dudley: Illustrated photographs", the first edition of which was published in 1868.  The image is from a now defunct website, so I don't have further details.)

 

roundoak1868.jpg.88e7af49cb6493c6ffd0736449bc03c9.jpg

 

 

roakgwr.jpg.72e4bc5f5dcc55beee7072b2a90a8f1a.jpg

 

Edited to add publishing info.

 

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

From the stock register - 4373 (the first wagon to carry the number) was 7' 6" long, 7' 3" wide and 0' 11" high for the body with wooden body and frame as expected. 3' wheels on a 10' wheelbase and single brake.

 

Presumably that's 17' 6" long. But do you read these as internal or external dimensions? If they are internal, then I struggle with the dimensions of 15' 6" by 7' 6" by 11" given for the carriage or old series lots of 1-plank wagons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Apologies, yes, of course, 17' 6" and all body dimensions are internal for GW stock books. Seems there were several of these built (pre LOT series) in 1864 and not by the GWR, but can't quite make out by whom... could be Metropolitan??

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

From memory, because I’m away from my laptop and the images I have of the GW wagon stock books, the wheel base for 1 planks was 10ft for the wagons over 16’6” internal length, 9 ft for 16’6” and less internal length.

 

Now I haven’t studied every entry, but out of c18,000 in total I didn’t find a 1 plank wagon with an 11ft wheelbase. I’ll check my notes when I get home to confirm and report back.

 

Duncan

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

Well that' s a triumph, Nick - a word not often associated with these veteran wagons.

 

I do like these wagons. When I built mine I found this old photo. I think the atmosphere compensates for the lack of detail. The caption was "Round Oak, 1868", which raises some questions but may just be a wrong date. (Edit: Well, the original source is "Dudley: Illustrated photographs", the first edition of which was published in 1868.  The image is from a now defunct website, so I don't have further details.)

 

roundoak1868.jpg.88e7af49cb6493c6ffd0736449bc03c9.jpg

 

 

roakgwr.jpg.72e4bc5f5dcc55beee7072b2a90a8f1a.jpg

 

Edited to add publishing info.

 

Anyone got good enough eyesight to read the number? I get *47*….

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Assuming 3' 0" between centres of spring shoes, for 18' 0" OH, 10' 0" WB gives 2' 6" between outer spring shoe and outside face of headstock whereas 11' 0" WB gives 2' 0". Eyeballing the distance between the spring stop block above the axlebox and the outer spring shoe, 1' 6", with the distance from the outer spring shoe to the headstock (measuring to a point directly below the head of the strap bolt) I get a dimension not very much greater than the stop-block to spring-shoe distance, which leads me to believe 2' 0" rather than 2' 6".

 

If the spring shoe centres were 3' 6", my spring-shoe to headstock distances would be 2' 3" for 10' 0" WB or 1' 9" for 11' 0" WB; this dimension being compared with 1' 9" from stop block to spring shoe.

 

I think what might be throwing your eye out is looking at the end of the headstock, which is not in the same plane as the spring she's and stop blocks. You need to use the point where the strap bolt comes through the headstock as the reference point for the end of the wagon, as that is (roughly) in the plane of the solebar face, spring shoes and spring stops.

 

4 minutes ago, drduncan said:

Anyone got good enough eyesight to read the number? I get *47*….

 

The first digit looks round-ish, so a 6, or maybe 5. Not 4. The last digit similarly, but very hard to tell.

 

Nick.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

I do like these wagons. When I built mine I found this old photo. I think the atmosphere compensates for the lack of detail. The caption was "Round Oak, 1868", which raises some questions but may just be a wrong date. (Edit: Well, the original source is "Dudley: Illustrated photographs", the first edition of which was published in 1868.  The image is from a now defunct website, so I don't have further details.)

 

Thanks, Mikkel. It was your 1-plank build that made me add this to my planned stock, thinking it would be a good starting point for scratch-building. Only 1 plank - how complicated could it be?!?

 

And yes, that picture is great. One can vaguely make out the one-shoe brake. Can anyone offer details on the loco to the right? 0-4-0, outside cylinder, 4-wheeled tender.

 

Nick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I think what might be throwing your eye out is looking at the end of the headstock, which is not in the same plane as the spring she's and stop blocks. You need to use the point where the strap bolt comes through the headstock as the reference point for the end of the wagon, as that is (roughly) in the plane of the solebar face, spring shoes and spring stops.

 

That is exactly what I did:

 

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Eyeballing the distance between the spring stop block above the axlebox and the outer spring shoe, 1' 6", with the distance from the outer spring shoe to the headstock (measuring to a point directly below the head of the strap bolt) I get a dimension not very much greater than the stop-block to spring-shoe distance, which leads me to believe 2' 0" rather than 2' 6".

 

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

That is exactly what I did:

 

Sorry - I missed that.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, kitpw said:

s/h £112. Ouch! Modernisation postponed.

 

Ouch indeed. Keep an eye out, they do sometimes come up for less. I paid about half that for mine, within the last year.

 

10 hours ago, kitpw said:

There is a very clear photo of an 8 ton Open (with sack load) on page 53 of my edition

 

That was my other main reference, along with the picture of 4373 we have been discussing. It has the 10-leaf springs, and a different combination of cleats and rings for tying sheets to. It also has the famous missing nut on the corner-late, modelled faithfully by @Mikkel

 

 

Nick.

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

all body dimensions are internal for GW stock books. 

 

This is where I have a problem.

 

Tony Wood's Saltney book has a couple of good broadside photographs:

 

Plate 28 and cover, 2-plank wagon 19158 of Lot 75. The dimensions given in the text, which as I understand it, are from the register, are 15' 6" x 7' 6" x 1' 10". Measuring plate 28, I have length OH 132 mm and WB 77 mm. The caption to plate 28 states WB 9' 0". This gives length OH 15' 5" which is near enough 15' 6" and certainly too far from 16' 0" to be measurement error or photographic distortion.

 

Plate 27, 1-plank wagon 13521 of Lot 33. Dimensions in text, 15' 6" x 7' 6" x 11". I measure length OH 137 mm and WB 80 mm. The WB is not stated but assuming 9' 0" this gives length OH 15' 5" which again is near enough 15' 6".

 

As to width, plate 23 gives a reasonable end view of 2-plank wagon 20159. This is not a Saltney-built wagon, so I don't have its dimensions; it is from Lot 97 built at Worcester and is thus virtually contemporary with Saltney's Lot 98. Insofar as I can make out, it is if not identical then at least very similar in appearance to 19158 of Lot; noting that Wood quotes the same dimensions for Lots 98 and 75, I think I am on safe ground in assuming the same dimensions for 20159. The distance of the headstock strap bolt is inset from the end of the headstock by noticeably less than its distance from top or bottom of the headstock. The headstock is slightly less tall than the plank above it, which must be 11", therefore the headstock is about 10" high. (The same is apparent in the broadside views of 19158 and 13521.) I estimate the strap bolt is 3" in from the end. Assuming 6' 6" centres of journals an 5" thick solebars, and allowing a ½" offset of the bolt part of the strap bolt from the outer face of the solebar, gives 7' 0" between strap bolt centres and hence 7' 6" width of the headstock. The headstock ends are flush with the curb rail, so this is the outside width over body - certainly nothing like 7' 11" or 8' 0". 

 

A further point is that, if one assumes 6' 11" over solebars, the curb rail on each side projects by 3½" on a 7' 6"-wide wagon but 6½" on an 8' 0" wide wagon; that is a very noticeable difference. The photographs support the smaller dimension, as far as I can see. When wood-framed 8' 0" wide wagons became standard in the 20th century, it was usual to have additional steel brackets supporting the curb rail. 

 

When building my Saltney wagons, I drew up sketches based on this:

 

1258515891_GWSaltneyLot402plankwagon.jpg.51ae17c87740ecb3e2a100882fb13429.jpg

29215042_GWSaltneyLot331plankwagon.jpg.3ab79b073472949b6cdcaa1e40c5237c.jpg

 

The relationship between W-iron washer plates, end strap bolts, and spring shoes tallies with the photographs.

 

For these wagons at least, photographs indicate that the dimensions given by Tony Wood are external dimensions. So has Tony Wood converted internal dimensions given in the register to external dimensions? The only other possible explanation is that for these lots at least, the register is giving external dimensions. 

 

So, are we forced to the uncomfortable and inconvenient conclusion that the register is inconsistent, recording internal dimensions for some wagons and external dimensions for others? That might explain the apparently smaller wagons of part of Lot 40, Lot 52, and part of Lot 53, quoted as 15' 0" x 7' 0". I will propose that the only difference between these wagons and those recorded as 15' 6" x 7' 6" is which clerk entered the details in the register!

 

10 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

From the stock register - 4373 (the first wagon to carry the number) was 7' 6" long, 7' 3" wide and 0' 11" high for the body with wooden body and frame as expected. 3' wheels on a 10' wheelbase and single brake.

 

Looking at the photo of 4373 again, I think I can reconcile my eyeball measurements with 10' 0" wheelbase and 17' 6" over headstocks, giving 2' 3" from spring shoe to outer face of headstock. I still struggle with reconciling the width to anything other than 7' 6" on the basis of the strap bolt position - which is also the same in relation to the buffer guide as on 20159, so must also be at 7' 0" centres - i.e. it is not the case that the solebars are set closer together, as might be the case with a very old wagon running on wheelsets with non-standard journal centres.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment

Ends between sides or sides between ends...

 

Until a few minutes back I believed that GW wagons were ends between sides and yet here, for my education, is a statement that requires re-adjustment of my memory.  Where did you find this nugget of GW wagon design?

 

regards, Graham

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...