[Norway poles]

Exquisite modelling.

Duncan

[About time too!]

Dave,

 

very nice indeed! Now you have this new passenger train, you’ll need a loco….time for  that River class?

 

Duncan

[Paddington Station 1840]

What a brilliant piece of research and digital modelling - how big would it be in 4MM scale out of interest?

 

I hope you'll write it up for the Broadsheet in due course.

 

Regards,

 

Duncan

[GWR Horsebox N4 - part 1]

Excellent work. 
Duncan

[Copenhagen to Penzance by rail]

Love the photos!

D

[GWR Iron Mink - fitted for passenger train working (part 1)]

Nick,

Lovely work!

Duncan

[GWR 1-plank (part 1)]

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

[GWR 1-plank (part 1)]

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

[GWR 1-plank (part 1)]

@Compound2632 You are quite right. Here are the correct entries.

 

[GWR 1-plank (part 1)]

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.)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

[GWR 1-plank (part 1)]

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.)

 

 

 

 

Edited to add publishing info.

 

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

[GWR 1-plank (part 1)]

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

[Could I plan the layout better?]

Incidentally, what software did you use to produce the plans?

D

[Could I plan the layout better?]

I think the general traffic flow for China clay was Wenford - Boscarne - Bodmin GW. I can’t remember seeing any references to working China clay via the N Cornwall line as the China clay was heading to Fowey for loading onto ships. 
 

Duncan

[Brambles Boatyard - The run-up to D-Day]

The survivors would have been extremely shocked at best, injured and hypothermic at worst, the ships company picking them up would have been extremely alert as the act to stopping to pick up survivors increased the chance of being torpedoed by Uboats or bombed by aircraft. There is a correlation between ship speed and the loss rate to all forms of enemy action, but to uboats in particular.

 

There is a wrecked pheonix Cassion in langestone harbour (between Portsea and Hayling islands). Langestone harbour was used as a parking site for Phoenix cassions. It apparently broke free under tow (the Admiralty was right to be cautious about this), grounded on the mud and broke its back when the tide went out.

 

Duncan

[D14 breaks cover!]

Dave, 

 

Very nice. Does this mean the River class is inching closer to the workbench?

 

Duncan

[Slater's GWR dia. C10 clerestory coach]

Very nice.

D

[Fifth bite: The station building]

Excellent concept and I’m looking forward to the next progress report already. The footbridge will make an excellent scenic break…

Duncan

[GWR horse-drawn station bus]

Absolutely beautiful work! I had been toying with the idea of a horse bus for Nampara and now I’m convinced. I’ll have to do some research into 1890 prototypes and whether to have a company or private example.

Duncan

[Extending my 3D Modelling]

Very interesting. The idea of being able to print vault road either with or without ballast is intriguing.

Duncan 

[Cautionary Tales]

On the other hand, with such relatively poor levels of info out there (photos drawings etc) for BG at least it’s hard for us to be proved wrong!

D

[Cautionary Tales]

I noticed that the trailing wheel splashers seems to missing on the GA of the 3521 0-4-2st but they can be seen in photos!

D

[Cautionary Tales]

I too have found anomalies when putting drawings into Fusion, which of course can measure down to an amazing number of decimal places! I think some of the issues are down to the thickness of the pen/pencil lines abs others due to the impossibility of the human hand matching CAD precision.  Then of course you can throw in parallax errors from photos and photos of drawings! My work in progress of a Hawthorn class saddle tank looks different to the drawing, but matches the measurements - all due to parallax issues when the drawing were photographed.  Mitigation? Measurements and pictures combined with drawings; and remember absolute fidelity is impossible no matter what sone might think. There is always a compromise!

Duncan 

[An Ugly Duckling – 4]

Mike,

 

Wonderful work.

 

Duncan

[CR Grampian corridor stock , part 6, some details]

Double post