Jump to content
 

More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, wagonman said:

The sources of most of the data used by A B & T are the official wagon registers, one of which is at Kew and the other at York – and I can never remember which is where. 

 

The authors are frustratingly reticent about their sources - which I would regard as bad practice. But they weren't writing for an academic publisher and we should be grateful for what they did produce!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

For standard gauge wagons, A. G. Atkins, W. Beard and R. Tourret, G W R Goods Wagons (Tourret Publishing, Abingdon, 1998) is a start, though as we've seen, incomplete in some areas e.g. the pre-Iron Mink wood Minks. That's the third and I believe most complete edition, which was reprinted in 2013 but nevertheless commands a hefty price second hand. I'm fortunate in that a fellow club member has a copy. The first edition was in 1975, I believe, in two smaller volumes. Usually referred to as "The Bible" on account not only of its size but also its perceived infallibility.

 

The number list I made is based on it: Atkins et al wagon numbers up to c1905.pdf

I have a copy of that book, of what I believe to be the later combined printing, and there is hardly anything Pre 1930s which is what I had bought the book for originally when I was still building 4mm.  

So clearly Im missing something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The authors are frustratingly reticent about their sources - which I would regard as bad practice. But they weren't writing for an academic publisher and we should be grateful for what they did produce!

 

Exceptionally common in even quite good railway books - and especially true of wagon publications - it's poor form, yes, and frustrating as it's then incredibly difficult to check working and reasoning from original documents. An honourable mention to Mike King, however, who does provide a handful of references (all that are really necessary, in fairness) in his Southern Wagons Pictorial, not that this is relevant to this particular topic, but he stands alone in the work I've seen.*

 

Adam

 

* He may not be alone, of course, but that's my observation.

 

[And pity those of us who have to cite this stuff for works put out by academic presses who cannot just take this material on trust - yours, a grumpy editor]

Edited by Adam
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A little light modelling. I've added upper footboards to the tariff brake van and lower footboards to the Billinton brake:

 

365709337_MidlandD382AandLBSCBillintonbrakefootboards.JPG.135748d9397028481de8b892a0f22912.JPG

 

Evergreen strip, 0.020" in both cases, scrawked a little thinner towards the front. The strip I have is 0.125" (3.18 mm - 9½”) wide, which in retrospect is too wide. I cut about 0.5 mm off the footboards for the tariff brake; I'm happy with how they look. I didn't want to cut too far in for the axlebox rebates on the Billinton brake but the result is that width over stepboards is 36 mm - 9'0" - where the diagram gives 8'6". I think there's an accumulation of "slightly too big" - the thickness of the axleguards and the depth of the axleboxes. I think I can get away with shaving 0.5 mm off each stepboard (probably by making new ones), bringing the width down to 31 mm, the same as the tariff brake. I had built up the back of the stepboard with 0.010" x 0.030" microstrip but I think this needs to be 0.040" (1 mm) to be more prominent. For the moment, the stepboards are just glued to the axleboxes; the plan is to bend up and glue the support brackets (wire) with the footboard in place. 

 

Clearly I would have done better to buy 0.020" x 0.100" (2.54 mm - 7⅝”) strip - why is it that every time I buy some I discover within the fortnight that I ought to have got a different size? At least I'm building up a stock...

 

The tariff brake has gained doorhandles, made in a rather retro manner: Peco track pins with flats filed on either side of the head. The handrail jig from the Mousa Kirtley brake came in handy again, as the pins are a tight fit in the 0.5 mm holes; tight enough that the pin doesn't rotate when filed. However, each hole can only be used once - the resin is yielding so the first pin makes the hole a bit bigger; the second pin is a loose fit and spins round when filed. Flushed with success from my first handle, it took a couple of goes before I realised this!

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/02/2020 at 13:54, Spitfire2865 said:

I have a copy of that book, of what I believe to be the later combined printing, and there is hardly anything Pre 1930s which is what I had bought the book for originally when I was still building 4mm.  

So clearly Im missing something.  

 

A brown cover? 1st editions were in 2 vols., combined in a 2nd edition. The 3rd edition was hugely expanded since one of the authors became publisher so they were not told how many pages they could do (or so I was told - I think by one of the other authors). This had a grey cover. It was reprinted several years ago.

Edited by richbrummitt
Memory recall
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Adam said:

 

Exceptionally common in even quite good railway books - and especially true of wagon publications - it's poor form, yes, and frustrating as it's then incredibly difficult to check working and reasoning from original documents. An honourable mention to Mike King, however, who does provide a handful of references (all that are really necessary, in fairness) in his Southern Wagons Pictorial, not that this is relevant to this particular topic, but he stands alone in the work I've seen.*

 

 

 

Guilty as charged! I do try to give sources within the body text where appropriate (some sources are not publicly available) but I don't provide citation in a work intended for a generalist readership. When writing for a 'learned' journal I do of course go the full Harvard.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wagonman said:

The sources of most of the data used by A B & T are the official wagon registers, one of which is at Kew and the other at York – and I can never remember which is where. How far back the early one goes is another matter...

 

 

1-100,000 are in York, so I presume the higher numbers are at Kew. The first wagon to bear the number 1 was recorded as being built in 1847 (there were 2 more to carry the number)

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

 

A brown cover? 1st editions were in 2 vols., combined in a 2nd edition. The 3rd edition was hugely expanded since one of the authors became publisher so they were not told how many pages they could do (or so I was told - I think by one of the other authors). This had a grey cover. It was reprinted several years ago as what I believe is termed a perfect binding i.e. softcover rather than the previous hardbacks.

It is the combined hardbacked version. Its a deep brown cover under the jacket. Published 1986. 

Unfortunately when I purchased it, it wasnt very clear which version it was. The trouble of buying online from across an ocean I suppose. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 18/02/2020 at 17:10, richbrummitt said:

It was reprinted several years ago as what I believe is termed a perfect binding i.e. softcover rather than the previous hardbacks.

 

The reprint from a few years ago was also in hardback, I have one sat on the shelf.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 17/02/2020 at 22:32, Compound2632 said:

Usually referred to as "The Bible" on account not only of its size but also its perceived infallibility.

 

I'm not sure anyone thinks it is infallible, it is however the most comprehensive work on GW goods vehicles by a country mile, hence it's nickname.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

The reprint from a few years ago was also in hardback, I have one sat on the shelf.

I stand corrected. Frustratingly I'd not long purchased a copy of the 1998 ed. (after saving for a while) not long before it was announced. It appeared soon after for about half what I paid. There's one on Amazon atm for an eye watering sum - £295!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've just come across another D299 photo, at Hall End Colliery, Polesworth. Unfortunately even using the magnify tool, I can't quite decipher the number - ?(6?) 3 ? ? 9? - but the tare 5.0 is very clear.

 

I've submitted a comment asking why the date is though to be 27 Aug 1940 since from the condition of the wagon, I'd say Great War or soon after at the very latest. I wonder if there was a dictation error - 14 misheard as 40?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

@K14, you've persuaded me of the 4 and the final 9. I started to wonder if the second digit is a 2 with the fourth digit 3? Another of those frustratingly not quite clear ones! It certainly does begin with a 6. Of the fifty or so numbers in the 6xxxx series for which I have a positive identification, eleven are definitely D299, twelve are possibly D299, and fifteen are 10 ton or 12 ton opens built in the last decade or so before grouping and so probably replacements for life-expired D299 wagons of the late 1880s. But there are also three steam-heated D360 fitted vans, a banana van, a post-Great War D363 covered goods wagon and a D304 biscuit wagon in that range, so one has to keep one's wits about one when choosing likely D299 numbers!

 

I've seen quite a few D299s with the tare weight only given to two digits, always 5.0 - either for mineral traffic the odd quarter wasn't worth worrying over or the wagons were consistently tipping the scales at 5.0.0.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I've seen quite a few D299s with the tare weight only given to two digits, always 5.0 - either for mineral traffic the odd quarter wasn't worth worrying over or the wagons were consistently tipping the scales at 5.0.0.

 

Youd be surprised how consistent some things can be. If you think about it, a standardized design built with similar materials with similar techniques will develop a bell curve distribution for their weights. It couldve been that they routinely fell within a margin of error to round to the nearest ton rather than a quarter. We could assume they round to the nearest quarter as to give themselves a more exact average over a railway quantity of bulk material. 

Thus a wagon could weigh anywhere from 11186lbs-11214lbs. Id say a pretty fair range in a manufactured good using fairly similar wood of similar quality and similar drying conditions. 

Or as you said, its just not worth writing that extra number as someone probably ran the numbers to see if the savings in paint offset the potential loss in a quarter weight over the course of the 7 year lifespan of the livery!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've got a stinking half-term cold which is not conducive to modelling so instead I've been browsing wagon labels in the collection of the Midland Railway Study Centre. These can give us more numbers which from the context are most likely D299. Here are links to a few from the Settle-Carlisle section. A Mr Rodgers seems to have been keeping the line supplied with local station-to-station trade. Here he is, with a load in wagon No. 130822 from Hawes Junction to Hawes in 1892 - note that the line for sheet owner and number has been crossed out, so presumably this was an unsheeted load. I do wonder what traffic he can have had originating from the bleak moorland of Garsdale. In 1892, there were very few covered goods wagons. The dropside wagons all dated from before 1887 (i.e. just at the time the buying-up of PO wagons was getting under way) and hence I estimate would have numbers below around 32000 - it is notable that the majority of known D305 numbers are in this range and many of them are wagons built in Lot 718 or later - i.e. from 1909 onwards, almost certainly as renewals of 1880s-built wagons. So it's reasonable to assume that No. 130822 is an ordinary open to D299, probably fairly recently built. It's another example of a wagon given a new number higher than the total stock at the time. The great majority of identified wagons with numbers above 120000 are definite or probable D299s.

 

Mr. Rogers was still doing business a decade later, with consignments from Hawes to Dent in wagon No. 98185 and from Ingleton to Hawes in wagon No. 103441. Again, no mention of sheets. Production of D305 wagons had resumed in 1897 but only 1,500 had been built by 1902. A couple of known numbers for these are in the 98000 - 102000 range. Nevertheless the statistical probability is still that Nos. 98185 and 103441 are D299. That Ingleton to Hawes consignment didn't exactly travel as the crow flies - about 42 miles via Clapham, Settle Junction, and Hawes Junction as against 16 miles by the road.

 

I wonder if Mr. Rodgers' business was lime, as he was the recipient (at Hawes) of a consignment from the Thornton-in-Craven quarry of P.W. Spencer (on the Skipton-Colne line) in 1904. This type of pre-printed label seems to be typical for larger customers such as quarries and collieries. In some examples - collieries especially - the wagon number can be only two or three digits, indicating a private owner wagon, but here wagon No. 100086 must surely be Midland. Here we have some clues to date: end-door coal wagon of Lot 244 to D351 No. 100000 was picked out for an official photo - Lot 244 was ordered in 1890; No. 99908 is another known D351. The official photographer also recorded D343 hopper-bottom wagon No. 98765 of Lot 200, ordered in 1888. The first and largest lot of D342 coke wagons was built as Lot 221, ordered in 1889; No. 100410 is known, along with some lower numbers and a couple in the 104xxx series. around that time there were 3,000 D299s ordered as Lot 217 in 1888, 4,000 as Lot 232 in 1889, and 5,000 as Lot 252 in 1890. My suspicion is that many of these, along with the D351, D343, and D342 wagons, were taking new numbers, being built faster than the old bought-up PO wagons were taken out of traffic. I have found only one wagon in the range 98000-102000 that is not either definitely D299, D351, D343, or D342: No. 100260, a covered goods wagon involved in the Sharnbrook accident of 1909, almost certainly a vacuum-braked 16'6" vehicle - D360 of 1899 or 1903/4.

 

Finally, a North Eastern wagon No. 7722 with its sheet No. 22892 being returned home from Ribblehead via Hawes - received 17 March 1900 at 5:45, returned within three days - two working days, since the 18th was a Sunday. This label was redesigned soon after, to give the date due off the Midland system together with a stern admonition about routing home by exactly the same route as the wagon arrived by, as in this 1906 example of Great Western wagon No. 70342 being sent home from Walsall. This is a little curious as the Great Western exercised running powers over the Midland line from Wolverhampton to Walsall - two goods trains per day each way - so why didn't they take their own wagon back in their own train? GW No. 70342 was a diagram J9 timber wagon, according to my notes from Atkins.

  • Informative/Useful 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I was supposed to helping exhibit one of our club layouts at the Kenavon exhibition today but I'm far too groggy for that. I had had half the layout in the back of the car - fortunately a fellow club member was able to drop round yesterday evening to take possession. Erlegh Quay is BR(W) c. 1955; the only upside of not being fit to operate it is that I'm spared the prairie tanks. A RTR engine with an unweighted, unsprung, pony truck at each end is a menace both on pointwork and for uncoupling - tension locks of course. I believe the Kenavon society was originally set up with the object of purchasing and restoring the surviving Huntley & Palmers Bagnall fireless locomotive - currently rusting away on a farm in Yorkshire, I gather - so I had planned to sneak in some of my Huntley & Palmers-related stock along with one of the Hornby Pecketts but that will have to wait for another day. If you're at the show, do look out for the (non-working) level crossing gates on Erlegh Quay; I'm quite pleased with how they came out. The layout is being exhibited as a work-in-progress.

  • Friendly/supportive 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Sins of my youth reviewed in middle age:

 

26760139_GWV5No.69894andO2No.28008-sinsofyouth.JPG.1d3612c7924d801d93768402180427fc.JPG

 

I've got too many Great Western wagons. (It is possible...) Quite apart from the ones a club member keeps passing to me, there are the Coopercraft kits I built in my teens. Here are a V5 and an O2 - I've also got an N13 and several O4s, all in grey with the 25" G W initials and numbered from the choices provided on the waterslide transfer sheet.

 

I've also been very naughty and bought a third O5 off Ebay - an unopened kit - still under £13. That means I can have three more of the just-right-for-my-period conventionally-braked 4-plank wagons, along with three sets of the cast plates:

 

1458939920_GWcastnumberplatesCoopercraftmolding.JPG.9d3609e53b01a68acaa4ba2c05ba99fd.JPG

 

When I had my fit of Great Western wagon building a couple of years ago, I did a bit of cut-and-shuttery to get plates for a 4-plank wagon of Lot 220: [7 / 1460] -> [71460]. I also did a V6 iron mink of Lot 411, No. 11070, by scraping off a 0 from 10070 and adding a sliver of microstrip to make a 1.

 

Now I'm mulling over other candidates for cast plates. Numbers beginning with a 1 or a 7 and ending with a 0 or 1 (better, 60, 70, or 81) are clearly the easiest to make by the cut-and-shut route.

 

The leading 7 is particularly handy for O4s, built 1901-4 and hence built with plates - plenty of photographic evidence:

Lot 414: [7 / 60 / 70] -> [76070]

Lot 414: [7 / 60 / 81] -> [76081]

or with more fiddling around and needing plates from more than one kit:

Lot 414: [7 / 6 / 146 / ] -> [76146]

Lot 426: [7 / 6 / 460] -> [76460]

 

The V5 was built over the same period, so logically should have been built with plates. Any photographic evidence? A red wood mink would be quite a shocker! My old No. 69894 is from Lot 415 - the lack of any 9s rules out this and several other lots. However, some lots took old numbers in the 11xxx series, so following the example of my V6, the following are candidates: Lot 406: 11060; Lot 411: 11401, 11446, Lot 418: 11451 (by hacking the 8), 11860, 11870, 11881 (might get away with rotating 81 to get 18!).

 

The O2s/O10s were built 1905-7 so should definitely be grey with large G W but there are photographs of examples with numberplates (but not the [G.W.R] plates) - 29301 of Lot 496 and 78499 of Lot 522 (fitted, so an O10). From that lot, a straightforward one is [78 / 460] -> [78460]. For an unfitted O2 it's a bit trickier but 74810 of Lot 486 is doable.

 

So, if I choose my numbers right, I should be able to do three wagons in red with [G.W.R] and [number] plates and enough bits left over for at least one post-1905 O2/O10. 

 

Please could someone remind me of the numbers of diagram Q1, the 1903 batch of provender wagons? They ought to be red and plated too...

Edited by Compound2632
Images re-inserted
  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I do like red GWR wagons with plates.  I should do some for my own train set even though they would would be stragglers that haven't been captured yet by the circa 1910-1913 time period of my Norfolk layout.

 

I do enjoy reading your adventures in wagon building Stephen and draw a good deal of inspiration from them.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Please could someone remind me of the numbers of diagram Q1, the 1903 batch of provender wagons? They ought to be red and plated too...

 

osL313 36964-9 (qty 6); L432 36995-37000 (qty 6)

 

My understanding concerning cast number plates is that they were applied to some wagons (in the era 1894-1904), and I think it is a mistake to assume anything built within that era was considered eligible for plates. Wagons with plates were I think a small minority. (Otherwise the photographic evidence would be contrary to what we actually have.)

 

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 23/02/2020 at 13:59, Miss Prism said:

 

osL313 36964-9 (qty 6); L432 36995-37000 (qty 6)

 

My understanding concerning cast number plates is that they were applied to some wagons (in the era 1894-1904), and I think it is a mistake to assume anything built within that era was considered eligible for plates. Wagons with plates were I think a small minority. (Otherwise the photographic evidence would be contrary to what we actually have.)

 

 

Thanks. 3s and 9s - bother. I suppose 3 could be hacked from 8, so 37000 would be a possibility! 

 

I've gone through the limited number of photos I have of 4-plank opens in pre-1904 livery. I have ten with painted numbers, the highest of which is 67389 of Lot 191, and three with plates: 73189 of Lot 287 and 73691 and 73697 of Lot 296. That suggests to me that plates were being used consistently, at least for opens, from c. 1897-8 onwards, or about the time oil axleboxes were adopted for new construction. (Atkins has a photo of 632 with plates in 1894 but this is said to be experimental.)  There aren't that many good goods yard photos from the period. There's a photo at Devonport in 1903, which has fifteen 4-plank wagons in plain view, five with plates (and oil axleboxes, where visible) and ten with painted numbers (and grease axleboxes ditto). The series of photos of Vastern Road and Kings Meadow yards, Reading, c. 1905, are abundant in 4-plank wagons: the pre-1904 painted style predominates; a few have the large G W and painted numbers; there is one in the Vastern Road photo that has plates. The pre-1904 painted insignia livery is overwhelmingly predominant in these photos, though the wood-framed minks seem to have been first in line for the large G W initials.

 

As to O4s, I believe that in all the photos I have seen that show pre-1904 livery, they have plates. There's one in the Kings Meadow photo; the Vastern Road photo has one with plates and one that, I think, has large G W but plates for the numbers - like the two O2/O10 examples I mentioned. The latter are evidence that some wagons built in 1905 got plates. I've also got a note of a c. 1910 photo of Reading Central goods yard, with an end-on view of a 5-plank wagon with sheet bar, with the number 77445 on a cast plate on the bottom plank. This is after the O4 number range, so is presumably the next design of open A and built after 1904.

 

Anyway, I certainly want at least one O4 with plates:

 

488433945_Aldridgeshunting.jpg.10ef983c54cac8138d36a8c968f75f36.jpg

 

I agree that I have no evidence for plates on V5 minks or, I think, Q1 provender wagons. I would stick my neck out and say yes, plates were in a minority - over 20,000 4-plank wagons without vs. maybe 2,000 with, and c. 1902-4, these dominate the scene - but my feeling is that the O4s were built at just the right time to get them consistently.

Edited by Compound2632
image re-inserted
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

and three with plates: 73189 of Lot 287

 

Are you able to provide the source for photgraphic evidence of 73189 carrying plates please?

So far although I have come across 7 plated 4 plank wagons that was not one of them. 73189 was built in Dec 1899 and is at the early end of the build timeline of known 4 planks carrying plates that I have along with 632 and 1309 also bult in 1899.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

@Chrisbr, it's said to be a photo from the "1920 GWR appendix", one of a series on the correct way to load pit props. The image I have is a screenshot of a photograph of the photo in the appendix... I can't recall or locate who sent these to me. See PM.

 

BTW one of the most frustrating things about Atkins et al. is their failure to assign dates to Lots, although this information is clearly known to those who have looked in the registers at York or Kew. Even the date when each lot number was raised would be helpful, dates to traffic even better!

 

Edited by Compound2632
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

A red wood mink would be quite a shocker!

 

One of my works-in-progress:

http://IMG-1418.jpg

 

With regard to the use of cast plates, if my may echo @Miss Prism's comment, it's always been my understanding that their use was not all that widespread, and that signwritten wagons would have been in the vast majority.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...