Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Compound2632

  1. Did they not have all the restored vehicles running together for the final programme?
  2. Burton ale perhaps might skew one's point of view, since the other two of the pre-grouping Big Four didn't have so much as a toe-hold there.
  3. Phil did so. Having looked through my LMS, LNWR, and LYR wagon books I'm confident I've eliminated those companies' designs of implement wagons. But Essery's Midland Wagons turns up trumps. I'm fairly sure the leading vehicle, with deep framing and brake handwheel, is a Midland D314 18 ton Implement Wagon, 12 built to Lots 553 and 581 in 1903/4 [Midland Wagons Plate 301], although it could also be a D313 15 ton Implement Wagon, 12 built to Lot 417 in 1897 [Midland Wagons Plate 300]. The second wagon, with lighter framing, is either a D728 18 ton Implement Wagon, 8 built to Lot 818 in 1912 [Midland Wagons Plate 302] or the 12 ton version, D727, 3 built to Lot 817 in 1912 [Midland Wagons Plate 298]. The others are more of the same types - I suspect they are all the 18 ton versions. The Midland Railway Study Centre holds Derby C&W DO drawings, 1½"/ft scale, with the following references: D313 Drg. 1202 MRSC Item 88-D0038 D314 Drg. 1724 MRSC Item 88-D1806 D727 Drg. 3808 MRSC Item 88-D0751 D728 Drg. 3809 MRSC Item 88-D0758
  4. Be careful there: @Regularity models in S scale and may be wondering how you would describe that!
  5. As is typical of Facebook, that image is poorly captioned and uncredited. It appears in full and in high quality in J. Miles, K. Thomas and T. Watkins, The Swansea Vale Railway (Lightmoor Press, 2017) p. 129, where it is credited to the NRM. The location is Ynisygeinon Sidings on the Midland Railway's Swansea Vale line, the date being 1912. Miles et al. suggest that their wagons have been carrying lime, judging by the state of the interiors. The Lilleshall Co. owned limestone quarries in mid-Wales; there were however sources of lime in the Swansea vale. The suggestion is made that they have been sent collect culm - anthracite slack - for lime burning. I agree the Lilleshall wagons show an unusual amount of patching with replacement sheeting, apparently unpainted or possibly just plainly painted. The Lilleshall Company seems to have been rather self-sufficient, even building its own locomotives, so I wouldn't be surprised if it built or at least maintained its own wagon fleet, without recourse to maintenance contracts with the wagon building firms. Other aspects of this photo were discussed a while back on my wagon building thread, including the Midland wagons with sheet rails; a better version of the portion of the photo you posted was posted there, with appropriate credit: Note how scrupulously clean the interiors of the coal wagons are - the unpainted wood is uniformly grimy but there's no small coal or any other dross left in them. And note how prominent the side knees are.
  6. They were repainted more frequently than were railway-company owned wagons - in the works of Turton, Kelham, Pope et al., we read that typically a PO wagon on simple hire or hire purchase would be on a 7-year contract for maintenance, including repainting at mid term. My own feeling is that wagons could get grimy, the paintwork could uniformly degrade with age, but they did not become tatty to degree one sees in post-second world war photos. I'm not a great believer in rust as a form of weathering in the pre-grouping period. I like that Clee Hill photo. Interesting toggle brake on the 2-plank wagon; wooden brake blocks on that and the 4-plank wagon. Both have tie-bars connecting the axleguards, which is unusual for wagons of such antiquity, I think. I don't see how one could apply sufficient force to the brake to spread the wheelbase, especially with wooden brake blocks!
  7. I'll look forward to seeing how you get on! Well now, my idea of using two sets of sides leaves me with two ends and an underframe...
  8. All of the above, really. As the two principal railway companies in the Kingdom, both with pretty much national reach - there were very few cities they didn't both serve by hook or by crook - they rubbed shoulders in all sorts of places - lots of places where one had running powers over the other, especially in the West and East Midlands. Plenty of places belonging to third parties where the trains of both could be seen sharing the same facilities, e.g. Cambridge. Yes they were rivals in the 19th century - the High Anglican Tory ex-military LNWR board had a different outlook to the Nonconformist Liberal Midland board - but as time wore on their interests converged, so that from the working agreements of 1908 onwards (with the L&Y as well), the LMS was pretty much a done deal. Buxton is actually not the best of examples: the two companies had architecturally similar but mirror-image stations alongside each other but worked separately. One should look at places like Walsall.
  9. Though I think originally it had to do with weight on the bearings. In the 1870s Thomas Clayton was reporting frequent problems with hot boxes on the Pullman Cars running on the Midland, which were by far the heaviest and longest carriages of the day, and running on four-wheel bogies. His first designs for 54 ft bogie carriages featured a short-wheelbase Pullman-style bogie but the 54 ft carriages actually built were twelve-wheelers. The smoother ride may just have been a happy by-product - any bogie carriage ought to have been better than a six-wheeler!
  10. That reminds me of a thing that should amuse @jamie92208. On Drg. 1088 (the S&DJR van) one can see where the draughtsman first drew the diagonal framing as an inverted V: I/I\I ; then rubbed out the diagonals and drew them the correct way round: I\I/I - a prototype for sticking the side on the wrong way up?
  11. Going off on another tangent... At the Uckfield show yesterday, I picked up a couple of old Slater's kits for the Midland 16'6" covered goods wagon - D362 / D363 - at a bargain price; thanks to @queensquare who had spotted them first and put me on to them. I've been mulling over the possibility of converting one to a Tariff Van, D382, 250 of which were built to Lot 433 raised in February 1898. These vans supplemented the earlier Tariff Brake Vans, D382A, or perhaps superseded them. (I've still not completed my model of one of those...) They had folding doors in place of the usual sliding door - apart from some details of the ends (widows, ventilators) the body is identical to that of the vans built to Lot 369 a couple of years earlier for the S&DJR, where they were classed as Road Vans, the first 125 of the Midland's Banana Van fleet, D365, Lot 608 raised April 1905 and part of Lot 649 raised August 1906, and subsequent Banana Vans built with flush-fitting sliding doors. As is well-known, the 5'0"-wide door opening of the standard sliding-door covered goods wagons was off-centre, so the framing of the sides is asymmetrical. This feature originated with the 14'11"-long covered goods wagons, D353 et seq., where the asymmetry enabled the sliding door runners to be long enough for the door to be fully opened without projecting beyond the end of the wagon - the short section to the left of the door being 4'0" long and hence the section to the right, 5'11" from door opening to the outside of the end pillar. The latter dimension was retained for the 16'6" wagons built from 1893, so the left-hand section became 19" longer, at 5'7"; the door opening was thus offset by from the centre of the wagon by 2". The folding-door vans were free from this design constraint, so their 4'9" door opening was plumb centre, with the framing on both sides 5'10½" wide from opening to outside of end pillars. (The visible with over the doors was 4'10" since they sat in a ½" rebate in the door pillars.) With reference to copies of Drawings 1032 "Covered Goods Wagon" and 1088 "Covered Goods Wagon S&DJR" in the collection of the Midland Railway Study Centre, I've sketched up the two framing arrangements: When @Mikkel built an S&DJR Road Van, he scratch-built new sides but I'm thinking that with only ½" difference (0.17 mm at 4 mm/ft scale), it should possible to get away with using the right-hand end of the kit's sides for the right-hand end of a folding-door van. Can I even get away with using the right-hand ends of the sides from the second kit for the left hand ends, leaving just the doors to build from scratch?
  12. Yes, I was thinking in terms of capacity by volume, not by weight - so a L&Y 10 ton van would be capable of carrying more goods by volume than the smaller Midland 10 ton van; the sort of goods conveyed by van was, I think, on the whole bulky rather than heavy.
  13. Well, I hope the lady with the hairgrip isn't a follower of S7 modelling on RMWeb. She might not be happy.
  14. To be fair, at around 38,000 wagons in 1921, a bit over 40% the size of the LNWR and GWR fleets, so not to be sneezed at. Of English companies, in roughly joint sixth place with the Great Central, the Great Northern being in fifth place by a small margin. And the L&Y had gone in for larger capacity wagons, such as they types illustrated above, so a straight headcount isn't an entirely fair measure.
  15. I too had the pleasure of seeing the layout at Uckfield. I was impressed by how small everything is: from the amount of detail apparent in photos and videos, one might expect it to be 7 mm scale...
  16. As far as I can make out from other photos, the rear of the driving wheel splasher above the frames was a solid panel, so presumably it was possible to walk round to oil the motion while travelling, squeezing between the boiler and splasher?
  17. I bought the issue of Railway Modeller that had the waiting room kit specifically for the kit! Like all Metcalfe kits, it went together very nicely. I've not found a use for it though - it has a bit of a whiff of Great Western about it. Perhaps I should just put it on Ebay?
  18. By which you mean that since you no longer have the excuse of next door's weeds, you're being forced to maintain your lawn to a higher standard?
  19. For a moment there I thought you had it in for Mercian spelling. Ow right, ower kid?
  20. A larger brake surface area with less pressure should mean that the guard wouldn't have to apply so much force to screw the brake on, for the same total brake force. Another though is, that if the total force is applied over more wheels, there's perhaps less chance of the wheels locking up - perhaps the GN had been experiencing problems with brake van wheels developing flats? (Or perhaps a reluctance on the part of guards to screw the brake on hard enough, knowing that the consequence would be a rough ride afterwards!)
  21. From what I can glean, Morton held several patents, the most recent of which was from 1902 (possibly), so it's unclear which one covered the arrangement used by the LMS etc. with a cam on one side. Also, I gather the 1885 patent was for a both-levers-at-the-same-end arrangement, which the L&Y did use extensively - with the (presumably Morton) clutch for each lever, so either could apply the brake without affecting the other. This was the type of Morton brake first used by the Midland, on fitted wagons with clasp brakes, from c. 1904, though that was followed soon after by application to some open wagons - see Midland Wagons plates 71 and 72; these D305 dropside wagons are presumably from Lots 631 / 636 / 682 of 1905-7 since I think Lot 718 of 1909 marks the introduction of long brake levers; there is a version of Drg. 1143 in the Study Centre collection that shows a full Morton cam arrangement, with the cam on the non-brake side, actuated by a curved lever, marked as Drg. 2881, while the "normal" lever on the brake side (which must embody a Morton clutch) is Drg. 2062. According to the C&W Drawing Register, Drg. 2062 is dated July 1904 (though with a query), and titled "Details of Morton Hand Brake for Wagons"; Drg. 2881 is September 1907, title "Arrangement & Details of R.H. Morton Brake" - so the date would point to Lot 682. There are several drawings relating to the Morton brake from 1907 but there are also a couple more from 1904 (although again with query as to date: the drawing numbers are out of sequence but only by one month - in sequence they would be June rather than July 1904). As far as I can see, 3-plank dropside wagons were the only non-fitted opens to be favoured with Morton brakes, all other types having bottom doors. I suppose if one was to look at patent records one would get a better understanding of the development sequence from Morton's point of view.
  22. The gunpowder van in the Haverthwaite photos is an ex-LNWR diagram 43 vehicle, of which 30 were built between 1875 and 1901 [LNWR Wagons Vol. 2 pp. 130-133]. The number on the replacement LMS plate appears to be 265546, which agrees with the numbers on the diagram reproduced in LNWR Wagons, which include the series 65540-6, the LMS having renumbered LNWR wagons by the addition of 200,000 to their LNWR numbers. The last batch recorded built, in 1901, was a batch of seven so although those are not the highest numbers listed, possibly these are they. So the Haverthwaite van might be the last one built, which could account for it still being in service in 1932. That would also account for it having the sophistication of single block push rod brake on both sides; the photos in LNWR Wagons of 40251 as running in 1913 show the a push-rod brake on one side only but with a wooden brake block. But the brake on the second side may be a later addition. The diagram is marked "to carry 5 tons" though the captions to the photos say "6 tons" - is that a misprint or where they uprated at some point?
  • Create New...