Jump to content
 

GWR 1-plank (part 1)


magmouse

1,640 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



  • RMweb Premium
30 minutes ago, Western Star said:

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?

 

Sorry, Graham - my reference to sides between ends was about the model, not the prototype. Since the cap strips mean you can't tell how the model is constructed, I decided it was easier to do sides between ends, since the ends are positively located by the end stanchions and can be accurately positioned and attached first.

 

Like you, I understand the prototype to be constructed ends between sides.

 

Nick.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

I produced this 3D model of a 1plank using the various of the sources listed. As it was my first go I made a couple of mistakes which you my notice for the lot number 33 I produced. Answers on a post card🤣1153804361_1plankwagon.jpg.d026dcd97eaf5ea007033da7274cdb4a.jpg

 

On the incised numbers and lettering there are drawings and photos that show only GW not GWR so beware.

 

ian 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

Stephen @Compound2632 - all your analysis makes sense to me, and if we get confused between inside and outside dimensions, it seems perfectly possible the people at the time did also...

 

I am still unconvinced about the OH length of 4373 - I can persuade my measurements to produce a 17'6" figure.

 

The drawing in Atkins is curious in this regard - clearly made retrospectively in 1917, but it is an official drawing, and it explicitly gives both inside and outside dimensions for length (17'6" / 18'0") and width (7'3" / 7'8"). Atkins also states that "around this time [1917] it was recorded" there were 2300 1-plank wagons in service of various sizes, and then gives a breakdown of quantities of the various sizes.

 

It is unclear where this information came from, but the "it was recorded" rather suggests there was some kind of analysis or report done, rather than Atkins et al going through the registers and working it out. I wonder if the growing traffic in 'lift vans', AKA containers, was both the reason for the 1-plank wagons to remain in service so long, and why it was necessary to take stock of the quantities and sizes. 10 or so years later, the GWR and other companies were building both containers and dedicated container wagons for this traffic.

 

Nick.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment

Oh, come on Ian, you need to show us.

 

Some of us know that your 3D drawing has incised lettering and numbering ....   and that lettering is readable when the 3D dwg is printed.  Next thing we know is that NIck maybe going to ask you for replacement solebars for 4171.

 

regards, Graham

Edited by Western Star
  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Oh, come on Ian, you need to show us.

 

Yes, please!

 

3 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Next thing we know is that NIck is maybe going to ask you for replacement solebars for 4171.

 

Eek! One thing people need to know about me is I really dislike going back to things that are nominally 'finished'. I am going to have the bite the bullet on re-wheeling the existing stock for S7 - it will be a necessary, but not a happy, experience.

 

I'd be delighted to have a 15'6" example based on Ian's build, when the time comes, though. Somewhere like Netherport is going to attract a lot of container traffic - I am sure there is a big furniture and general repository near the harbour...

 

Nick.

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

The drawing in Atkins is curious in this regard - clearly made retrospectively in 1917, but it is an official drawing, and it explicitly gives both inside and outside dimensions for length (17'6" / 18'0") and width (7'3" / 7'8"). Atkins also states that "around this time [1917] it was recorded" there were 2300 1-plank wagons in service of various sizes, and then gives a breakdown of quantities of the various sizes.

 

The drawing in Atkins, Fig. 244 in the 3rd edition, was made by TR or RT (Tourret I presume) and dated 18.8.95 (1995 I presume!) so it is at best a copy of an official diagram of March 1917 - can we assume that all the dimensions shown on this drawing were transcribed from the original, or have some been interpolated?

 

I don't have any edition of GWR Goods Wagons, being reliant on borrowing the 3rd edition from a fellow club member from time to time. From this I made a listing of ordinary open wagons up to c. 1905, which I have corrected using Tony Wood's book - Atkins has some 1-plank lots listed as 2-plank, or vice-versa, I forget which! My list gives 650 wagons to letter lots, the Saltney ones of which are given as 15' 6" x 7' 5" x 11", and 1,540 to old series lots. Assuming these were all still in service in 1917, that would imply around 110 wagons of other origin or greater antiquity, including all the long ones. If that breakdown of quantities by size is in the 3rd edition, I will look it up at the next opportunity!

 

It is true that the source referencing in GWR Goods Wagons falls far below academic standards, as in much railway enthusiast literature, as has been noted by @Adam. In this case, from what I have heard about the GWS archive at Didcot, this may be excused by poor or non-existent cataloguing of the material.

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

The drawing in Atkins, Fig. 244 in the 3rd edition, was made by TR or RT (Tourret I presume) and dated 18.8.95 (1995 I presume!) so it is at best a copy of an official diagram of March 1917 - can we assume that all the dimensions shown on this drawing were transcribed from the original, or have some been interpolated?

 

 

Yes, a transcription error is of course possible, or incorrect interpolations from the original drawing. The fact that both internal and external dimensions are given give some confidence, I think, but there is always the possibility of error or misunderstanding at every stage. There was/is presumably some original drawing this was based on, otherwise why write "Swindon March 1917" on it?

 

From a historical research perspective, we keep going, gradually refining our understanding but never fully confident we have a complete picture (c.f. Borges, On Exactitude in Science).

 

From a modelling perspective, there comes a point where you have to build the darned thing 😬.

 

Nick.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, magmouse said:

From a historical research perspective, we keep going, gradually refining our understanding but never fully confident we have a complete picture (c.f. Borges, On Exactitude in Science).

 

This discussion is leaving me at the stage where the more I find out, the less I know.

 

27 minutes ago, magmouse said:

From a modelling perspective, there comes a point where you have to build the darned thing 😬.

 

Exhibiting to public inspection the model over which one has toiled for hours is the only sure-fire way of obtaining the accurate information one could have done with before one started.

 

Thank you for sending me the extra scan from Atkins. The first page was the one I already had and wasn't looking hard enough at, at least, not in all the right places. The 1917 breakdown gives numbers which I cannot reconcile with other information unless one assumes that over 200 9 ft wheelbase 1-plankers built to letter or old series lots had been withdrawn by that date (highly plausible) but that very large numbers of pre-1868 longer 1-plankers had been retained (which seems implausible). As far as I could tell from either Atkins and Wood, there were no long 1-plank wagons built to letter or old series lots, concurrently with the standard 9 ft wheelbase 1-plank, 2-plank, or 3-plank wagons.

 

Also, being fixated on the photo of 4373, I had not thought about the photo of 5141 immediately above (plate 338). The headstock of this one too scales out to about 7' 6" if one assumes that the buffers are at the standard 5' 8½" centres. I note it has the same pattern of bolts on the corner plates as later wagons, unlike 4373, which is presumably, as its number suggests, an earlier beast.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Western Star said:

Oh, come on Ian, you need to show us.

 

Some of us know that your 3D drawing has incised lettering and numbering ....   and that lettering is readable when the 3D dwg is printed.  Next thing we know is that NIck maybe going to ask you for replacement solebars for 4171.

 

regards, Graham

page 48 in the Saltney book, also number first  then GW , another complication. Did they get swapped on the otherside?

Edited by ICH
  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, ICH said:

I produced this 3D model of a 1plank using the various of the sources listed. As it was my first go I made a couple of mistakes which you my notice for the lot number 33 I produced. Answers on a post card🤣

 

I will then! If this is intended to represent a Lot 33 wagon (as did my sketch posted earlier) then do have a good look at the solebar ironwork in the photo of 13521 of this lot, Plate 27 p. 49 of Tony Wood's book.

 

Ever onward ever upward!

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This discussion is leaving me at the stage where the more I find out, the less I know.

 

I believe certain philosophies would take that to mean you are nearing Enlightenment.

 

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Exhibiting to public inspection the model over which one has toiled for hours is the only sure-fire way of obtaining the accurate information one could have done with before one started.

 

Oh, yes.

 

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I had not thought about the photo of 5141 immediately above (plate 338). The headstock of this one too scales out to about 7' 6" if one assumes that the buffers are at the standard 5' 8½" centres.

 

If you are correct and the photos show wagons 7'6" wide, that might explain my difficulty in resolving the curb rail and solebar spacing dimensions, as I was working to the 7'8" shown in the drawing.

 

Nick.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
Just now, magmouse said:

I believe certain philosophies would take that to mean you are nearing Enlightenment.

 

Yes. The point of enlightenment at which I realise I'd do better to stick to Midland wagons!

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

 

I will then! If this is intended to represent a Lot 33 wagon (as did my sketch posted earlier) then do have a good look at the solebar ironwork in the photo of 13521 of this lot, Plate 27 p. 49 of Tony Wood's book.

 

Ever onward ever upward!

My feeling is that 15"6" wagons that had wooden underframes  match the photo on page 53 of Saltney book. 

But happy to be proven wrong

Link to comment
1 hour ago, magmouse said:

From a modelling perspective, there comes a point where you have to build the darned thing 😬.

....and then, of course, one has to paint it:  now what colour would that be?

 

Edited by kitpw
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
21 minutes ago, kitpw said:

....and then, of course, one has to paint it:  now what colour would that be?

 

Gred or rey, take your pick.

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, ICH said:

My feeling is that 15"6" wagons that had wooden underframes  match the photo on page 53 of Saltney book. 

 

Yes, both 2-plank and 1-plank. The photo p. 49 has the same solebar ironwork.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 11/04/2023 at 06:39, Mikkel said:

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.)

 

 

 

 

roakgwr.jpg.72e4bc5f5dcc55beee7072b2a90a8f1a.jpg

 

Edited to add publishing info.

 

So it is ?47?. The first and last numbers are rounded so possibly 5, 6, 8, 9, 0 maybe 2.  The brake lever guide is to the left of the w-iron, not the right where one would expect it for a 9ft wheelbase wagon, suggesting it is a longer body and longer wheelbase. Looking at the possible numbers the wagon stock books give:

5470: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan 21 1862, cond 31/8/1885

5472: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,15,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan 21 1862, cond 25/6/1906

5475: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,14,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan21 1862, cond 23/4/1910

5476: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,17,2, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Dec? 3 1861, cond 13/7/1912

5478: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, Ok oil ab fitted Apr? 1908, 10ft w/b, built Glos Wgn Co Dec 31 1862, cond 18/5/1896

5479: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan21 1862, cond 31/8/1885

6470 isn't a 1 plank.

6472 isn't a 1 plank.

6476: 15.6x7.5x0.11 1/2, wood frame, double brakes, tare 4, 4, 0, grease A/bs, 9ftf w/b,  built Worcester lot a, 30 Aug 1865, cond 14/10/1905. Double brakes rules this one out.

6478: 15x7x0.11, wood frame, double brakes, tare 4,10,3, grease A/bs, 9ft w/b, built ? could be Gloucester Wagon? 1867, no lot number, cond 1/4/1905. Double brakes rules this one out.

6479: isn't a 1 plank.

8470-9 are all 'timber trucks', so not them.

9470-9 are loco coal wagons so not them either.

 

So one of the batch 5470-9 seems the best bet. These do seem to have been built by Gloucesters, so can anyone with access to the Gloucester records confirm or point to any surviving builders photos?

 

Hope this is useful to the other GW wagon enthusiasts out there...

 

Duncan

 

 

 

Edited by drduncan
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, drduncan said:

5478: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, Ok oil ab fitted Apr? 1908, 10ft w/b, built Glos Wgn Co Dec 31 1862, cond 18/5/1896

 

Um... (Double-check your notes?)

 

That's fascinating, especially the range of condemnation dates. Interesting that the GW was buying new wagons from the trade at this date. Presumably 5,480 is roughly the total GW wagon stock at the end of 1862 - but is that all wagons, or just standard gauge? 

Edited by Compound2632
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

That's fascinating, especially the range of condemnation dates. Interesting that the GW was buying new wagons from the trade at this date. Presumably 5,480 is roughly the total GW wagon stock at the end of 1862 - but is that all wagons, or just standard gauge? 

These are the standard gauge books. There are only 3 broad gauge wagon stock books that the NRM admit to.  The highest BG number there is 12000, build date Apr? 20, 1889, but this is clearly not the end of the run as it seems far to convenient a number or finish on.

D

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

Here are the correct entries.

 

Very interesting to see an example of the wagon register entries - the second use of the number is every bit as interesting as the first! There's a very consistent hand here, comparing the entries for first use with the entries for second use - much more so than I've seen in the MR minutes. (Later amendments are not so consistent.) From my reading of Tony Wood's Saltney book, I gather that the register was first compiled around the time the Swindon C&W Works opened, so that details of wagons built before then must have been copied from other records. (Which is not to suggest that I doubt their accuracy.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I would say that the consistency in style across several hands up to WW1 is probably more to do with the education system (and the system around Swindon) at that time than anything else.

D

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, drduncan said:

So it is ?47?. The first and last numbers are rounded so possibly 5, 6, 8, 9, 0 maybe 2.  The brake lever guide is to the left of the w-iron, not the right where one would expect it for a 9ft wheelbase wagon, suggesting it is a longer body and longer wheelbase. Looking at the possible numbers the wagon stock books give:

5470: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan 21 1862, cond 31/8/1885

5472: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,15,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan 21 1862, cond 25/6/1906

5475: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,14,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan21 1862, cond 23/4/1910

5476: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,17,2, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Dec? 3 1861, cond 13/7/1912

5478: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, Ok oil ab fitted Apr? 1908, 10ft w/b, built Glos Wgn Co Dec 31 1862, cond 18/5/1896

5479: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan21 1862, cond 31/8/1885

6470 isn't a 1 plank.

6472 isn't a 1 plank.

6476: 15.6x7.5x0.11 1/2, wood frame, double brakes, tare 4, 4, 0, grease A/bs, 9ftf w/b,  built Worcester lot a, 30 Aug 1865, cond 14/10/1905. Double brakes rules this one out.

6478: 15x7x0.11, wood frame, double brakes, tare 4,10,3, grease A/bs, 9ft w/b, built ? could be Gloucester Wagon? 1867, no lot number, cond 1/4/1905. Double brakes rules this one out.

6479: isn't a 1 plank.

8470-9 are all 'timber trucks', so not them.

9470-9 are loco coal wagons so not them either.

 

So one of the batch 5470-9 seems the best bet. These do seem to have been built by Gloucesters, so can anyone with access to the Gloucester records confirm or point to any surviving builders photos?

 

Hope this is useful to the other GW wagon enthusiasts out there...

 

Duncan

 

 

Impressive, thanks Duncan.  I have now found the image on another site. Not a good resolution and it does not help with the number, but clicking the image brings up a caption which has clues for the loco, which Nick asked about.  It is the last photo in the right hand column on the right here:  

https://marlgray.angelfire.com/cradleylinks/page174.html

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

There is a copy of the 1868 book currently on Ebay at £450. The photos include one of the page with this photo. So that does confirm the date, with the loco, as being 1865-8

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
Quote

When building these wooden wagons, and in the absence of detailed drawings, it really helps to understand how the prototype was made

 

It's most definitely something that is advantageous when modelling wagons in general. The amount of 7 plank open wagons I've seen where the builder decided to represent a replacement unpainted plank on one of the top two planks, and only painted 1/3rd of it shows people not thinking about construction.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 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...