Castle Aching

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

 

My point, though, is that I have learnt that RTR models are produced for people who won't even try kits, as these folk appear to constitute the bulk of the mass market.

 

Those of use who might buy both kits and any suitable RTR models are only a minor part of the RTR market, so duplicating kits is not a concern for RTR producers.  Nor is the price differential.

 

Where you are a kit-builder, I think it's horses for courses. At one end of the scale there might be, at best, half a dozen people who could build and finish something like, say, Rapido's Stirling Single to the same standard as the RTR model.  Particularly with locos, the kit built route  can often be the at least if not more expensive than RTR and the outcome less certain.

 

In other cases kits will be cheaper and more accurate that any RTR equivalent.

 

In this specific case, the comparison between the Ratio and the Rails V6 Minks, I think you might fairly conclude that both benefit from some additional enhancement work, but that the virtues of the Rails model will get you closer to perfection. It depends on how much the additional detail/finesse/greater accuracy matter to you as an individual modeller, because the Ratio kit can still produce excellent results and for some the Rails version just won't have advantages significant enough to warrant the extra cost.

 

If you are the market for whom the model, any RTR model, is primarily intended, however, kits are irrelevant and it is currently the only model of the prototype available to plonk and play.        

That all makes perfect sense. For myself, as long as the price is reasonable (and I have to say that over 30 quid for a wagon is, in my opinion, too high), I will buy something ready-to-use, so that I can use the time saved thereby to make things that I can't buy. I've phrased this as "ready-to-use" rather than "ready-to-run" as it covers far more than just rolling stock.

[Edwardian]

Yes, indeed, and I, to some extent, avoid the dilemma, 'cos I have a couple of test prints I can attempt to bend to my will, treating an RTR product as a kit of remarkably few parts!

[NeilHB]

James, 

 

Re the 517, if you haven't already can I suggest picking up copies of Great Western Journal Nos. 74 (Spring 2010) and 75 (Summer 2010) as these contain a comprehensive 2-part article on the class. There is also Locomotives Illustrated No.60 (GWR 0-4-2Ts) which is again very useful. Both of them have lots of useful detail and photos. 

 

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, CKPR said:

.....  -  It's a bit like birdwatching but with model wagons !

The equivalent of Bill Oddie's 'LBJ's' *?  

 

Jim

*(little brown jobs)

[ChrisN]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Finally seem to have made a successful purchase from the Bay of Fleas.

 

Cosmetically awful, but, 8 cotton buds, a finger of white spirit and some drops of oil later, a good runner.

 

I've wanted a 517 with a straight-back Swindon bunker for a long time, and next time I have 3-days spare in which to do so, I'll again go through the RCTS section and seek potential identities for this combination of details.

 

 

 

 

 

James,

Now this is interesting.  I have a 'Saved Search' for 0-4-2s and did not see this one.  (Mind you have not checked much i the last week.)  Glad I did not see it as I would not have wanted to bid against you.  Still, it gives me hope that I might just se one amongst all those 14xx's

[Edwardian]

Mink matters.

 

As you may recall, in May I returned to Didcot.  I took especial interest in their V6 iron mink. 

 

 

First point, if you subscribe to the school of thought that the wagons changed colour in 1904, in conjunction with the introduction of the 25" letters (or, even, afterwards if you accept Mikkel's reasons for positing a transitional livery), you'll be seeing red right now.

 

But, let's suppose you're happy with a pre-1904 lettering scheme in grey, you may still have concerns ....

 

You might question whether oil axles boxes are, as it were, OK.  It depends when this Mink was built. Oil boxes were fitted from new from December 1897. They were retrofitted between 1899-1915.  So, the wagon conceivably could wear this livery with oil boxes.

 

But when was this built? I have failed to identify 11152 in the Mink book, as an even number in an odd-number Lot.  Minks in this number range are listed as built in 1900, but, save quoted exceptions, it is said that only the odd numbers in the range were used. If dating from 1900, 11152 would have been built with OK oil boxes.

 

The 1900 batch was the earliest batch using any 11xxx series of numbers, so, again, if you ascribe to the school of thought that grey came in earlier than 1904, say the later 1890s, then the livery makes sense .... except that, for a 1900-built mink, I'd expect the numbers to be cast plates. Further, if built in 1900, I'd expect it to have the noticeably longer vent bonnets, which this mink does not have. It just doesn't add up based on my reading to date. 

 

 

Confused, I looked the wagon up on Didcot's website. It stated:

 

11152 was built in 1900 as part of a lot of 100 similar vehicles.  It has currently been restored to GWR 1904 livery.

 

Build date: 1900
Built at: GWR Swindon
Lot Number: 217
Diag No: V.6

 

Well, that makes sense. It is the 1900 Lot I'd identified.  I have to conclude that the list in the Mink book is in error, or ambiguously expressed and misunderstood by me in apparently excluding all but a few quoted even numbers in this Lot. Certainly, if you take all the numbers in the series given, you'd have 151, not 100, Lot members,, so some numbers, presumably evens, must have been excluded. The short vent bonnets don't make sense, however, and, as I say, if this livery is intended to be the as-built livery, it might well have been grey, but the initials and running numbers would have been cast plate.  

 

The reference to the restoration to 1904 livery refers to this:

 

 

 

Regarding the application of the 1904 livery, for a 1900-built wagon, this might have consisted of removing the cast 'GWR' plate and replacing it with 25" 'G W', but retaining the cast number plates on the sides and ends.

 

However, the preserved vehicle has some later modifications that mean that it cannot accurately wear either its as-built livery, or the 1904 livery, however interpreted:

 

Certainly, you'll notice the presence of the single brake, likely retrofitted in the period 1927-1929.

 

And the door catches and stanchion mounted hooks, retrofitted from the mid 1920s. 

 

Finally, you'll note the bracket attached to the bottom of the brake ratchet/safety guard and bolted to the bottom of the adjacent W iron. These are absent on early photographs, suggestion a further retrofitted item, not consistent with the livery depicted.

 

In short, the preserved wagon resembles the physical condition depicted in the Rails model, so, strictly, the earliest livery it can accurately wear is the 1921 16" lettering, seen on the Rails models.   That livery would relieve Didcot of the various problems noted above.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

I think all that agrees with the notes I have from Atkins et al., GWR Goods Wagons (3rd edition, 1998). For the lots with 11xxx series numbers:

Lot 207                  100         Nos. various in range 11001-11147

Lot 217                  100         Nos. various in range 11148-11299

Lot 310                  100         Nos. 59651-59700, various in range 11007-11342

Lot 352                  100         Nos. 69851-69890, various in range 11025-11396

so 11152 can't be earlier than Lot 217. What I can't remember is if Atkins gives the full number list.

 

Plate 492 of Atkins (a photo not in All About but I have no doubt you are familiar with it) shows 11258 of Lot 217 with the longer ventilator hood. This is the photo showing 25" G W with cast number plates (and also load and tare plate on the solebar) and the patch of different appearance where the GWR plate would have been - the inspiration for @Mikkel's model. I have to say that I would differ from my learned friend and advance the hypothesis that the wagon was painted grey and given the 25" initials; it was then realised that the cast GWR plate had been left on (on one side at least). The plate was then taken off, leaving the patch of different appearance. But is it a patch of old red paint or of old grey paint?

 

I think it's reasonable to suppose that not just this lot but others built around the same time - perhaps all lots built new with oil axleboxes - had cast plates. Here's my model of a wagon from Lot 207, as built (on the assumption of red until 1904) with cast plates all round: 

 

 

(Ratio kit of course, with lowered roof. It has since gained couplings and weathering. Holes to be drilled in the solebars...) The number, 11070, was chosen as reasonably easy to make up from the plates in the Coopercraft O5 kit*. I think Atkins must give enough numbering detail for me to have been sure which lot this was from.

 

Assuming that the Didcot mink has been correctly identified, perhaps the change in bonnet length occurred during building of Lot 217? I'm not sure that squares: All About gives 13 April 1899 for the introduction of the longer hood. But what does that mean? Date on the drawing? Date of a note in the Lot book? Factoid recorded in the Wagon Register? Other possibilities are that it has been restored using parts from other vehicles, or that the bonnets are parts made during restoration, made to the short length by oversight. 

 

I think the one point of agreement is that neither of the liveries in which the restored wagon has appeared is correct for 11152 in its current condition! On the other hand, a model of 11152  in either of those liveries would be correct, as a representation of the preserved wagon...

[Northroader]

There’s a lot of water gone under the bridge since the Didcot Mink was built, and any number of times it has passed through the shops. If you were a restoration crew at Didcot faced with a rusted hulk, you could well be scratching your head as to where to find the right set of axleboxes, brakegear, cast number plates, and so on, and so while they’ve tried to push the clock back as far as they can, it would be too much to expect that as it stands it is exactly in original condition.

[Chrisbr]

So according to the GWR wagon stock books, 11152 (the second wagon to carry the number) was built as part of Lot 217 in October 1898 with a weight of 6-4 and to carry 9 tons. It was built with oil axleboxes and double brakes (on one side only) It would seem the second side brake was added in 1928. It's load carrying capacity appears to have been upgraded to 10tons in 1928 and it had increased in weight to 6-7 by 1935.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I think all that agrees with the notes I have from Atkins et al., GWR Goods Wagons (3rd edition, 1998). For the lots with 11xxx series numbers:

Lot 207                  100         Nos. various in range 11001-11147

Lot 217                  100         Nos. various in range 11148-11299

Lot 310                  100         Nos. 59651-59700, various in range 11007-11342

Lot 352                  100         Nos. 69851-69890, various in range 11025-11396

so 11152 can't be earlier than Lot 217. What I can't remember is if Atkins gives the full number list.

 

Plate 492 of Atkins (a photo not in All About but I have no doubt you are familiar with it) shows 11258 of Lot 217 with the longer ventilator hood. This is the photo showing 25" G W with cast number plates (and also load and tare plate on the solebar) and the patch of different appearance where the GWR plate would have been - the inspiration for @Mikkel's model. I have to say that I would differ from my learned friend and advance the hypothesis that the wagon was painted grey and given the 25" initials; it was then realised that the cast GWR plate had been left on (on one side at least). The plate was then taken off, leaving the patch of different appearance. But is it a patch of old red paint or of old grey paint?

 

I think it's reasonable to suppose that not just this lot but others built around the same time - perhaps all lots built new with oil axleboxes - had cast plates. Here's my model of a wagon from Lot 207, as built (on the assumption of red until 1904) with cast plates all round: 

 

 

(Ratio kit of course, with lowered roof. It has since gained couplings and weathering. Holes to be drilled in the solebars...) The number, 11070, was chosen as reasonably easy to make up from the plates in the Coopercraft O5 kit*. I think Atkins must give enough numbering detail for me to have been sure which lot this was from.

 

Assuming that the Didcot mink has been correctly identified, perhaps the change in bonnet length occurred during building of Lot 217? I'm not sure that squares: All About gives 13 April 1899 for the introduction of the longer hood. But what does that mean? Date on the drawing? Date of a note in the Lot book? Factoid recorded in the Wagon Register? Other possibilities are that it has been restored using parts from other vehicles, or that the bonnets are parts made during restoration, made to the short length by oversight. 

 

I think the one point of agreement is that neither of the liveries in which the restored wagon has appeared is correct for 11152 in its current condition! On the other hand, a model of 11152  in either of those liveries would be correct, as a representation of the preserved wagon...

 

Yes, agree with all that.

 

I didn't look the numbers up in Atkins but in All About, therein lies my confusion: "11148-11150 odds to 11290-11299", but I accept it's a Lot 217 of May 1900.

 

I would be surprised if there was a return to short bonnet, or that this Lot was the exception in the 1899-1901 builds.    

 

As Northroader says, preserved vehicles may end up as quite an assemblage. 

 

I would probably paint that vehicle all-over grey, but red is equally valid (though I'd paint it all over red!).

 

 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Chrisbr said:

So according to the GWR wagon stock books, 11152 (the second wagon to carry the number) was built as part of Lot 217 in October 1898 with a weight of 6-4 and to carry 9 tons. It was built with oil axleboxes and double brakes (on one side only) It would seem the second side brake was added in 1928. It's load carrying capacity appears to have been upgraded to 10tons in 1928 and it had increased in weight to 6-7 by 1935.

 

I doubt the oil axleboxes would have added much to the weight so that extra 3 cwt is presumably the second side brake.

 

Interesting to have the build date confirmed. It post-dates the Dec 1897 introduction of oil axleboxes (in lots 172 and 193) but predates the date for the long ventilator hood given on Lewis' drawing, April 1899. But then we have 11258 of the same lot, allegedly built in 1900, and certainly with the long hood. 

 

The fact that the oil axlebox transition affected lot 172, despite two subsequent lots and part of lot 193 being built with grease axleboxes, shows that lots could sometimes be completed over a period of several years, even if subsequent lots of the same design were completed more quickly. Explain that!

 

Anyway, 11152's short hoods could well be original.

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

but red is equally valid (though I'd paint it all over red!).

 

I vacillate. I've done both black ironwork below the solebar and red. I think I'm homing in on black/grey gunge over red (or black). 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Compound2632

[Chrisbr]

 

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But then we have 11258 of the same lot, allegedly built in 1900

confirmed as built in Feb 1900

[Edwardian]

24 minutes ago, Chrisbr said:

So according to the GWR wagon stock books, 11152 (the second wagon to carry the number) was built as part of Lot 217 in October 1898 with a weight of 6-4 and to carry 9 tons. It was built with oil axleboxes and double brakes (on one side only) It would seem the second side brake was added in 1928. It's load carrying capacity appears to have been upgraded to 10tons in 1928 and it had increased in weight to 6-7 by 1935.

 

Well that makes sense of many of the contradictions. 

 

It would be short bonnets and perhaps no cast plates. 

 

If we accept that the livery had gone grey by then, its correct (the issue being the later modifications).

 

However, the All About volume has Lot 217 dating from May 1900. Both I and Compound referred to the example of 11258 (another even number!) also of Lot 217 and pictured in Ahkins.  We did so apropos the application of 1904 livery to a cast plate wagon. Atkins also has the build date as 1900 and, as I would entirely expect for that date, it has long bonnets.  

 

What can you tell me about the stock book, please, and how one might get hold of a copy?

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

What can you tell me about the stock book, please, and how one might get hold of a copy?

 

It's the wagon register, one volume at the NRM and the other at Kew - I can't remember which is where. But I think @Chrisbr has memorised them...

[Chrisbr]

The Wagon Stock books to give them their official title are held at York 1-100,000 and Kew 100,001 and above (i believe) and can be viewed on site.

 

Each book contains 1000 numbers and records datails of each wagon built against the number (it's not uncommon for 3 wagons to have carried the same number over time), some alterations and condemned dates. Wagon type, Body dimensions and material, underframe material, Axles, wheels, axleboxes, buffers, brakes, weigth and load, builder, build date and Lot number are the standard items found. Some entries make fascinating reading about the life of the wagon.

 

I have potogaphed 13 volumes and so can occaisionally answer questions such as these, but more often than not, am not able to.....

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, Chrisbr said:

The Wagon Stock books to give them their official title are held at York 1-100,000 and Kew 100,001 and above (i believe) and can be viewed on site.

 

Each book contains 1000 numbers and records datails of each wagon built against the number (it's not uncommon for 3 wagons to have carried the same number over time), some alterations and condemned dates. Wagon type, Body dimensions and material, underframe material, Axles, wheels, axleboxes, buffers, brakes, weigth and load, builder, build date and Lot number are the standard items found. Some entries make fascinating reading about the life of the wagon.

 

I have potogaphed 13 volumes and so can occaisionally answer questions such as these, but more often than not, am not able to.....

 

Aha! I had naively assumed that what was in each archive was a single volume, not a hundred! Kew is more accessible to me but holds the volumes I'm not interested in. James is nearer York but still a long way off - because where he lives is a long way from anywhere except the places it's not far from. Some of which are very interesting places.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Aha! I had naively assumed that what was in each archive was a single volume, not a hundred! Kew is more accessible to me but holds the volumes I'm not interested in. James is nearer York but still a long way off - because where he lives is a long way from anywhere except the places it's not far from. Some of which are very interesting places.

 

Yes, York, it's not that often I venture that far south!

[nick_bastable]

 

 

Awaiting news of the first train to Castle Aching

Edited August 13, 2021 by nick_bastable

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

 

 

Awaiting news of the first train to Castle Aching

 

Hoping to have some goods stock soon!  You'll have to make do with that for the moment

[Edwardian]

Had a response from my local MP regarding Great Musgrave bridge.  I had pointed out that historic infrastructure in her constituency was also vulnerable to such vandalism:

 

You raise a number of important points about the integrity and aesthetic of our historic bridges.

 

The photo you shared of Musgrave Bridge is incredibly disappointing to see – a true loss of historic local character and a blight on the lush landscape surrounding the bridge.

 

As you mention, Highways England, through the Historic Railways Estate, manages the upkeep of our historic bridges, and I understand their main priority is the safety of the members of the public who use the bridges.

 

There is no excuse, however, for the reckless and destructive infilling as seen in the case of Musgrave Bridge. I must admit that I have no civil engineering experience, but as you say, I am sure that repairs can be made in a more cost-effective manner which is more sympathetic to the immediate local area.

 

I understand that Highways England are pausing works where local authorities have raised queries about the works, and where there is credible interest for possible re-purposing and transfer of ownership of the assets. The Department has also asked Highways England to consult with the relevant local authorities concerning the retention, where practicable, of access for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

I will make sure I raise this matter in conversations with Transport Ministers.
 

One can only hope that the general furore will make the Berks at HE a little more circumspect in its treatment of the assets that it has been entrusted with, but clearly does not want or care for.

 

EDIT: The Petition now has 6,400 signatories (it needs 10K to require a response from HMG) so if anyone has yet to sign, I would encourage them, please, to do so. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Edwardian

[martinT]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

EDIT: The Petition now has 6,400 signatories (it needs 10K to require a response from HMG) so if anyone has yet to sign, I would encourage them, please, to do so. 

6401 now

[Caley Jim]

31 minutes ago, martinT said:

6401 now

I'm one of the 6400.

 

Jim 

[Hroth]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The Petition now has 6,400 signatories (it needs 10K to require a response from HMG) so if anyone has yet to sign, I would encourage them, please, to do so. 

 

There you go, now 6,402 signatures!

I didn't look, is there a time limit for signatures to be collected?

 

[DonB]

16 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

There you go, now 6,402 signatures!

I didn't look, is there a time limit for signatures to be collected?

 

Now 6403

 

Petitions are normally open for 6 months, This one was opened in last  December and would appear to be now overdue for closure. Still appears to be open for new signatures,  I certainly got a reply  today showing my addition to the total.