Jump to content
 

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


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

It comes as a seal on wine bottles!  :)  Probably not enough for a wagon sheet though.    :(

 

Lead hasn't been used on wine bottles for getting on for quarter of a century, so if you are still collecting lead seals, I'm deeply envious of your cellar.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Lead hasn't been used on wine bottles for getting on for quarter of a century, so if you are still collecting lead seals, I'm deeply envious of your cellar.

 

Grifone waffle alert - nothing to do with railways....

 

True! it's actually some sort of ersatz material, but bends easily and holds its form like the proper stuff. (Any excuse is good enough to buy wine! - Like Barbera at €2.79 for a 1.5 litre bottle. No 50p a unit nonsense* here in Sardinia - you'd probably get lynched just for suggesting it.... Red wine is allegedly one of the reason Sardinians live the longest. Shared with the Arles area in the south of France for the same reason. I do have a feeling the climate and lack of stress help too.)

 

We do have some ancient bottles stashed away which belonged to my wife's father, but whether they have any value I have no idea.

 

* British supermarkets used this as an excuse to increase the price of their cheap cyder from £1.25 to £2.00 or so and wine from £2 (already exorbitant but it is heavily taxed) to £3 (and now approaching £4) a bottle. Tesco's claim 'Tavernello' is Italy's favourite wine. This (if true) is because it only costs €1.25 a litre here and not the £4 they charge. (I'm not even sure their Tetrapak is a litre and not 700ml).

Edited by Il Grifone
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

I'll be interested to hear what you think. It is certainly a cheaper way since there are more on one sheet than the HMRS one. Problem is there is a notable size difference (Fox are bigger). I haven't had a chance to examine which is closest to the prototype yet, but in any case it creates a path dependency problem.

 

Very prompt service from Fox Transfers. On a quick first inspection, compared to the BGS transfers, the Fox G . W . R lettering is squatter - not quite as tall and each letter a smidgin wider. The leg of the R is more upright. Looking through some photos, I'd say that both are within the signwriters' tolerances - the BGS ones are probably a bit too narrow but otherwise a slightly better shape.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 22/06/2020 at 17:15, Mikkel said:

HMRS top vs Fox bottom (blue)

 

Your photo emphasises one thing I'd already spotted - the Fox G.W.R is smaller than their G  .  W  .  R. The lack of "kick" in the leg of the R shows clearly too. The HMRS lettering is closer to the BGS lettering but isn't as sharp, which can be a problem with Pressfix - though not always, I've noticed. It may depend on the original artwork.

 

The BGS lettering:

 

970607355_BGSGWRtransfer.JPG.dd8787e30750aa86696f3d6fc44b51fe.JPG

 

and some examples of the real thing in the wild:

 

984794594_GWRlettering.jpg.d9a21826bfc0d1ceccd6803b5e46b5e3.jpg

 

... close to Fox

 

989116642_AtkinsetalGWRGoodsWagonsp276GWRlettering.jpg.cb4228b7c0c9e310d22965be4c1eb002.jpg

 

... close to BGS but the G is wider?

 

From that, I don't see any problem with using both Fox and BGS but perhaps not on the same side of the same wagon!

Edited by Compound2632
Images re-inserted
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There's a lot of the large Fox lettering on their sheet, so I assume they consider that their bid for the standard livery. I like the shape of it, but it does seem very large. Still, if it's a good fit with the BGS then at least there's consistency across those two.

 

I'm not sure why Fox have provided the smaller lettering, but since it's closer to the HMRS it can serve as back-up for us HMRS-types. I have used it once or twice in a pinch.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 22/06/2020 at 17:57, Mikkel said:

There's a lot of the large Fox lettering on their sheet, so I assume they consider that their bid for the standard livery. I like the shape of it, but it does seem very large. Still, if it's a good fit with the BGS then at least there's consistency across those two.

 

I'm not sure why Fox have provided the smaller lettering, but since it's closer to the HMRS it can serve as back-up for us HMRS-types. I have used it once or twice in a pinch.

 

Counting by the wagon:

3 x 25" GW

5 x 16" GW

8 x G  .  W  .  R

4 x G.W.R

but only 4 x To Carry      Tons

though there's plenty of Tons and Tare.

Edited by Compound2632
Quantity of G.W.R amended.
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The proof of the pudding:

 

997529847_GWV5No.69984Foxtransfers.JPG.69d3fbfda2e1f78773ad8be8a1b077be.JPG

 

Transfers applied with hot water to lift from the backing, per the instructions, followed by an application of MicroSet but no varnish yet.

 

First time round, this vehicle was No. 69894 of Lot 415, in grey with 25" G W initials. Now it re-emerges from the stripping bath and paint shop as No. 69984 of Lot 382, the first batch of these V5 goods vans in the newfangled steel-framed wood-boarded style, c. 1902? The livery is, I have to admit, somewhat conjectural - are there any photographs of these vans as first built? I'm still not entirely convinced that it wouldn't have been given cast plates. I've followed the style of my V6 iron mink No. 69354 of Lot 201:

 

862620216_GWV6IronMinkNo.69354.JPG.550cdeba6a1580eb7676e0850fb64d32.JPG

 

This has the BGS dry transfers, allowing a head-to-head comparison. The cross-framing on the end of the V5 more-or-less forces the number to be in the position familiar from the post-1904 livery.

 

I've also done the transfers for the SER express coal wagon, again not yet varnished:

 

2118842165_SERSRD1328expresscoalwagonFoxtransfers.JPG.a64cc6d9ba3c364ddb8a9dadc5133b17.JPG

 

No. 7584 was one of an Ashford-built batch of 1885 [G. Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 3 (OPC, 2000)]. This was going to be No. 7583 but the 3s proved rather too fragile; there are three of each digit in each size on the transfer sheet (apart from 1 and 0) so one only has one mistake in hand. The layout of the lettering, with the E rather inconveniently straddling the ironwork, follows the drawing (Fig. 13) in Bixley. Only two sets of SER lettering, so it's right first time... There are various little inscriptions - load and tare, which the drawing does show as going on the solebar. Looking again at the drawing, I may have the number on the end in the wrong place. The drawing shows it on the headstock immediately above the drawhook plate; the instructions say "centred on the bottom plank over the drawhook". However, Bixley Plate 18, a general view of Pluckley c. 1895, shows 7263 (of a batch built in 1883) with the number on the thinner plank above the headstock, so one down from where I've put it. Other photos of round-ended wagons, Plates 20 and 22, show the number on the bottom of the first plank above the headstock. Also, the number is in block digits rather than serif, in line with the first SE&CR style. So it looks like I'll have to try again.

 

This example (which I think is not the express type) is no help as the number on the end is invisible, though the R of SER can be seen in the expected place:

 

1058385793_HPFactorysidingswithtraverserc1900SERcoalwagon.jpg.6b8356b2e091c2ba0d8792e91d75aca0.jpg

 

[Crop from a photo in the Huntley & Palmers Collection, Reading Museum Service.]

 

 

Edited by Compound2632
Images re-inserted
  • Like 10
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

How have you done that ironwork to get it so neat?

 

I found the transfers to be fine, and plenty strong enough, but I've heard lots of reports to the contrary, so maybe Fox has a few consistency issues. They may only give you two sets of lettering, but the additional tare weights and so on have come in handy for other wagons.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, TurboSnail said:

How have you done that ironwork to get it so neat?

 

Humbrol matt black No. 33 well stirred, applied neat using a thin flat brush about 4 mm wide and a steady hand. Not too much paint on the brush. Working from left to right one can get the right-hand edges neat, then turning the wagon round and working back the other way does the other side of each piece of vertical ironwork. (I'm right-handed; a left-hander would work in the opposite direction.) Then rotate through 90 degrees to touch in door hinges, catches, and any other horizontals. For the buffer guides, it's a question of very light dabs with the brush around the circular base.

 

This is done after the undercoat of Halfords rattle-can primer. If the body is a different colour (shades of grey over grey primer, or purple-brown over red primer for my Huntley & Palmer wagons) then there's the chance to cover up any over-run of black onto the woodwork but with this wagon, the red primer stands for the red lead body colour, so it has to be right first time. If there is a major disaster, I suppose a prompt application of thinners could rescue the situation. Fortunately I haven't had to try that.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/05/2020 at 12:03, Compound2632 said:

A further point is that I doubt there were many D299 wagons around by 1937. There were 62,000 built to lots ordered from 1882 and 1899, with perhaps the last being completed in 1900 or 1901.

 

There was a batch of 1000 built in 1917 to lot 919. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
55 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

There was a batch of 1000 built in 1917 to lot 919. 

 

And 10 in 1905, which is even more curious. One can understand the wartime batch as using up spare material (perhaps stock held for maintenance) to fulfill an urgent need for extra wagons. That batch, Lot 919, had some visible differences - additional vertical ironwork on the sides, in lieu of a strengthening iron rod passing vertically through the sheeting, also oil axleboxes and both-side brakes from new, with long brake levers. All these can be seen marked up on the Midland Railway Study Centre's copy of drawing 550. Not on the drawing but visible on No. 75036 in Midland Wagons Vol. 1 Plate 99, is the RCH-standard D-shaped number plate used for new construction from 1913. That photo dates from c. 1936, when the wagon was around 17 years old; Plate 96 of wagon No. 79102 is also dated 1936 and shows a wagon of 1890s build, the only modification being spring doorstops. That wagon would be around 40 years old so certainly at the end of its life.

 

Anyway, these two "late" batches are why I was careful to say "62,000 built to lots ordered from 1882 and 1899".

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I was careful to say "62,000 built to lots ordered from 1882 and 1899"

To be fair to Bill, that did give the impression that all the wagons were built between 1882 and 1899, even if that isn't what you intended.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Regularity said:

To be fair to Bill, that did give the impression that all the wagons were built between 1882 and 1899, even if that isn't what you intended.

 

Fair enough, but I felt the need to make it clear that I was not unaware of Lots 632 and 919!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Fair enough, but I felt the need to make it clear that I was not unaware of Lots 632 and 919!

Yeah, but most of us were unaware of that when you made your original statement!

All Bill did was point out the bit you knew, but which you didn't mention - in the hope that the rest of us might increase their knowledge.

Which I certainly did.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Very nice vans and wagon, Stephen. Is that the large or small "GWR" from the Fox transfers you've used?

 

On 22/06/2020 at 19:32, Compound2632 said:

 

Counting by the wagon:

3 x 25" GW

5 x 16" GW

8 x G  .  W  .  R

8 x G.W.R

but only 4 x To Carry      Tons

though there's plenty of Tons and Tare.

 

I only have half the small G.W.R on my Fox sheet, as per their illustration: https://fox-transfers.co.uk/transfers/gwr-freight-vehicle-general-pack

 

Edited by Mikkel
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Very nice vans and wagon, Stephen. Is that the large or small "GWR" from the Fox transfers you've used?

 

I only have half the small G.W.R on my Fox sheet

 

I have use the "small" close-spaced G.W.R. I miscounted those thinking there were two columns as for the wide-spaced G  .  W  .  R - there are enough for 4 not 8 wagons, as you point out. I've amended the list in my post.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 299, but still MR...

 

I wrote this to a customer earlier :-

 

 

Quote

Essery’s description is more than a little confused. As I read it, most of diagram 663A was built to drawing 5279 with wooden end stanchions, as depicted in the diagram and Mike Peascod's drawing. Lot 1005 was built in 1923 to drawing 5612 with steel stanchions. This lot was originally included in d.663A but was transferred to the new LMS diagram 1666 before all the wagons had been painted. At some stage the vertical strapping on the LMS wagons was replaced by diagonal ones.

 

 

Does that seem a reasonable suggestion? And what was the likely number of these wagons built with steel end stations and vertical side strapping? 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Interesting. You've forced me to look more carefully at these D299 replacements. From Midland Wagons, we have:

 

D302, drawing 3843, 9,750 built 1913-1920

10 ton / 341 cubic ft capacity, journals 8" x 3½"; 15'11" over headstocks, 7'9" outside width, 3'0" depth.

Wooden end stanchions.

Plates 100 - 103.

 

D633A, drawing 5279, 3,500 built 1921-1923

10 ton capacity (diagram does not give volume), journals 9" x 3¾"; 16'0" over headstocks, 7'10" outside width, 3'0" depth

Steel T-section end stanchions.

Plates 104 - 107.

 

That seems clear cut but as you say, @billbedford, the Mike Peascod drawing, stated to be based on drawing 5279, shows both wooden and steel end stanchions. The Midland Railway Study Centre has a copy of drawing 5279. The catalogue description states: "10 & 12 Ton Merchandise Wagon Lot 956 & 957 Scale 1 1/2' MR drawing number 5279 LMS drawing number 13/747". The Lot numbers mentioned are the first two of the five to which these wagons were built. Once the Study Centre collection is accessible again, this drawing could be examined; it might give some answers. For example, it's possible that it's marked up (overdrawn) to show a design change from wood to steel end stanchions for the subsequent Lots 976 / 986 / 1000, from which Mike Peascod extracted his alternative end elevations. It might even shed some light on the 10 or 12 ton capacity. Lot 1000 was ordered on 2 March 1923 so undoubtedly all came out lettered LMS. 

 

So, one might make a guess that the first two lots, 2,000 wagons, were built with wooden end stanchions and the last three lots , 1,500 wagons, with steel. Apart from the end stanchions, these two designs are very difficult to distinguish in photos, so it may be that some D663A wagons with wooden end stanchions have been mis-identified as D302. However, I'd be pretty confident all these wagons had the vertical strapping, with the diagonal strapping coming in with drawing 5612.

 

Lot 1005 falls between two stools, being only briefly referred to in either Midland Wagons or The LMS Wagon. Fortunately, there is a copy of drawing 5612 on the Midland Railway Study Centre website. These wagons were of course rather larger, 12 ton capacity, 17'6" over headstocks, 8'0" outside width, 3'1¾" deep, with steel T section end stanchions and diagonal strapping. I haven't found a reference to these being assigned to D663A - which would seem unlikely anyway given their quite different dimensions - i.e. not the same from an operational standpoint. In The LMS Wagon, it is stated that they were originally assigned D1338 in the Midland diagram series before being re-assigned LMS D1666.

 

Refs.

R.J. Essery & K.R. Morgan, The LMS Wagon (David & Charles, 1977)

R.J. Essery, Midland Wagons Vol. 1 (OPC, 1980)

 

 

Edited by Compound2632
Typo corrected. Midland wagon designs may appear archaic to some (e.g. Great Western enthusiasts) but D633A was first built in 1921, not 1021!
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have so far applied a total of 204 Archer resin rivets to my two Drake & Mount wagons, out of a projected total of 392. Not all individually - some rows of 8 or 6 or 4 or 2 but 20 individually placed with another 20 still to go. I've settled to using MicroSet to apply the transfers, floating them off the backing paper close to their intended location and tweaking them into position with a cocktail stick. Then when I've done a batch, applying a drop of MicroSol to each and leaving well alone for a day. This seems to be working, removing any sign of the carrier film. I've not yet tried the effect of matt varnish, which was my downfall on the Pelsall wagon, where I'd not used MicroSol. Little and often (well, some and once a day) is the watchword.

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A pair of part scratch built D302s built from the drawing in The 'Midland Record No. 2 supplement Midland Railway Wagons'...the under frames are from the Slaters Cattle wagon kit (suitably cut down)...the bodies are scracthbuilt and fully riveted inside and out...there are a pair of D633As out there but they are in 'the shops' waiting to be rebuilt with Mr Bedford's sprung W irons.

 

Did I read somewhere that the 1000 D299s built at Woolwich Arsenal to lot 919 were replacements for wagons requisitioned earlier in the war? Some of theses little blighters were still kicking around into the 1950s.

  • Like 11
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Axlebox said:

A pair of part scratch built D302s built from the drawing in The 'Midland Record No. 2 supplement Midland Railway Wagons'...the under frames are from the Slaters Cattle wagon kit (suitably cut down)...the bodies are scracthbuilt and fully riveted inside and out...there are a pair of D633As out there but they are in 'the shops' waiting to be rebuilt with Mr Bedford's sprung W irons.

 

Very impressive! I clicked through to Facebook and went back and forth a few images to discover that these are P4 not S7! I note the clips for the capping strip, replacing the original screws into the top plank.

 

8 hours ago, Axlebox said:
Did I read somewhere that the 1000 D299s built at Woolwich Arsenal to lot 919 were replacements for wagons requisitioned earlier in the war? Some of theses little blighters were still kicking around into the 1950s.

 

I've never before seen the suggestion that Lot 919 was built at Woolwich Arsenal rather than Litchurch Lane! If you can discover where you came across that I would be very interested. Also if you have any photographic evidence for survival of Lot 919 into the 1950s. D302 wagons would be between 30 and 40 years old in 1951.

  • Like 3
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...