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

[billbedford]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

*Stalled for the moment because I couldn't reconcile the width I deduced from photos - around 7'5" - 7'6" - with the 7'2" width @Chrisbr had quoted me from the wagon registers:

 

 

Internal dimensions?

[Compound2632]

Just now, billbedford said:

 

Internal dimensions?

 

Well, that was my first thought, but it does seem that the GW wagon registers consistently quote outside dimensions. That's certainly the case for the dimensions quoted in Tony Wood's Saltney book.

[Penlan]

3 hours ago, Mikkel said:

The axle box protectors look excellent. There is a photo of a pre-grouping GWR PW train with similar flaps fitted to regular opens, must see if I can find it.

And here's a LNWR photo, circa 1900 at Crewe...
Which seems to show, there wasn't that much protection to the tops of the axleboxes.
The nearest wagon has the cut away headstocks, plus a steel drop door guard, the second wagon has straight headstocks with some padding on them for the drop door.
 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Penlan

[Compound2632]

@Penlan, I think we've looked at this photo before, though quite possibly before LNWR Wagons Vol. 3 came out. According to the authors of that work, the Permanent Way Division didn't acquire its own fleet of ballast wagons until 1908, so the photo can be no earlier than then. I've removed the lettering P W D from my old Ratio builds! Anyway that lettering had been spread out along the side whereas this photo and one in LNWR Wagons show the lettering inbetween the two middle hinges, as for the other divisions. 

 

The wagon on the left, with square-ended headstocks, is most probably a D3, 400 of which were transferred to the PWD, again in 1908, according to LNWR Wagons. The canvas* flaps just reach the top of the axleboxes; I copied this photo for my wagon. However, the photos in LWR Wagons mostly show the flaps covering the top of the axleboxes, extending down to the top of the cast circle. So for the two wagons I'm revisiting, I cut 15 mm diameter circles of plasticard in half. They need a bit of a soaking in Mek to get a realistic droop.

 

Incidentally, from the photos in LNWR Wagons Vol. 3 pp 97-100, it appears that ballast wagons kept the diamonds well after they ceased to be applied to other wagons. There's one photo taken in 1924 showing a freshly-painted D62 in a very light grey - so probably the official LMS shad - but still with the standard LNWR ballast wagon lettering an diamonds.

[Penlan]

Compound 2632, This is a very good? copy of a very faded sepia print I have of the Penmaenmawr accident/landslip in January 1899, again showing the lettering between the middle hinges.
I originally enhanced this for a conversation I was having with the late Jim Richards some 45 years ago..  re. the LNWR's Open Fish Trucks.

How time passes.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Penlan

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Penlan said:

Compound 2632, This is a very good? copy of a very faded sepia print I have of the Penmaenmawr accident/landslip in January 1899, again showing the lettering between the middle hinges.
I originally enhanced this for a conversation I was having with the late Jim Richards some 45 years ago..  re. the LNWR's Open Fish Trucks.

How time passes.

 

So that one belongs, as one would expect from the location, to the North West Division of the Engineer's Department.

[Penlan]

In the photo, though not reproducible are a couple (or more)  'CD' wagons too. 'Central Division' (Crewe).

[phil_sutters]

12 minutes ago, Penlan said:

Compound 2632, This is a very good? copy of a very faded sepia print I have of the Penmaenmawr accident/landslip in January 1899, again showing the lettering between the middle hinges.
I originally enhanced this for a conversation I was having with the late Jim Richards some 45 years ago..  re. the LNWR's Open Fish Trucks.

How time passes.

I don't know whether it helps, but I have tinkered in Photoshop and come up with this version

[Mikkel]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

2-plank wagon 19159 is in pre-1904 livery and certainly photographed before Feb 1906 but 20181 photographed in April 1908 still has wooden blocks

 

Ah, so you are doing 20181? I was a bit confused about your choice of brake blocks as I thought you were modelling 19159. which does not have the chunky blocks.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Ah, so you are doing 20181? I was a bit confused about your choice of brake blocks as I thought you were modelling 19159. which does not have the chunky blocks.

 

I haven't decided on identities as yet but the 1-plank is from os Lot 33, Nos. 13369-13568, or os Lot 49, Nos. 15744-15843, the 2-plank probably from os Lot 40, Nos. 18001-18425, os Lots 63/75, Nos. 19001-19300, or the similar later lots, and the 4-plank from os Lot 66, Nos. 20501-20700. I'm following my usual practice of modelling examples for which there is no good photograph. The 4-plank in particular is tentative, since the details of the body ironwork are from a photo of a wagon that I've no evidence is from os Lot 66. I regard these models as "historical reconstructions" making best use of the available information.

 

This photo, which we've looked at before, gives a good view of the wooden brake blocks and gear, along with a nice comparison of wood-framed and iron-framed construction. It will also provide some inspiration for those whose wagon collection has outgrown their siding space:

 

 

Stourbridge, c. 1906?

Edited November 22, 2020 by Compound2632

[Dave Hunt]

In the same way that carrier aircraft have folding wings so that they take up less deck and hangar space, was this an attempt to develop the folding wagon to cut down on siding length?

 

Dave

[Regularity]

Scary how they are all nonchalantly standing around, without considering that the lead might shift and fall on them!

[Mikkel]

Also illustrates an issue for the 00 modeller when the vee is on the outside of the solebar - the extra distance to the brake gear makes the 00 compromise look even more silly than usual, as I found when trying it out recently. The only trick I can think of is to set the solebars a little further in. But that's a bit extreme! EM/P4 modellers will be shaking their heads 

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, Regularity said:

Scary how they are all nonchalantly standing around, without considering that the lead might shift and fall on them!

 

Anything to be in the photo.

 

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Also illustrates an issue for the 00 modeller when the vee is on the outside of the solebar - the extra distance to the brake gear makes the 00 compromise look even more silly than usual, as I found when trying it out recently. The only trick I can think of is to set the solebars a little further in. But that's a bit extreme! EM/P4 modellers will be shaking their heads 

 

I live with that compromise all the time with Midland wagons - though those generally have a pair of vees, one on each side of the solebar, from which the tumbler is cantievered out on the short cross-shaft. But the tumbler is directly behind the inner vee, not in line with the wheels, so the push rods are angled back. How many EM / P4 / S7 modellers model that?

[Rail-Online]

 

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

 

I live with that compromise all the time with Midland wagons - though those generally have a pair of vees, one on each side of the solebar, from which the tumbler is cantievered out on the short cross-shaft. But the tumbler is directly behind the inner vee, not in line with the wheels, so the push rods are angled back. How many EM / P4 / S7 modellers model that?

The etched chassis from Brassmasters is designed to automatically do this!

 

Tony

[Western Star]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

...  the tumbler is directly behind the inner vee, not in line with the wheels, so the push rods are angled back. How many EM / P4 / S7 modellers model that?

All of the S7 modellers in Basingstoke do just that when required by the prototype...  ok, just three of us.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Rail-Online said:

The etched chassis from Brassmasters is designed to automatically do this!

 

1 hour ago, Western Star said:

All of the S7 modellers in Basingstoke do just that when required by the prototype...  ok, just three of us.

 

My faith in humanity is restored!

[kitpw]

The "GWR" lettering on the timber sole bar of the wagon upended in the photo above is, according to Atkins etc, "carved out".  I doubt it:  the photo appears to show quite a wide letter form with a very shallow flat base - difficult to achieve by carving which tends to produce a V form of trench.  I think it more likely that the letters were "branded", a common practice for marking wood then and still used today.  Maybe something could be done by etching stainless steel to produce a branding iron for models... just a thought: probably not so good with plasticard but wooden sole bars?

 

Kit PW

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/blog/2502-swan-hill/

 

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, kitpw said:

The "GWR" lettering on the timber sole bar of the wagon upended in the photo above is, according to Atkins etc, "carved out".  I doubt it:  the photo appears to show quite a wide letter form with a very shallow flat base - difficult to achieve by carving which tends to produce a V form of trench.  I think it more likely that the letters were "branded", a common practice for marking wood then and still used today. 

 

Interesting. There seem to have been a variety of styles of which that on 13109 is the boldest. Remember that the solebar is of oak, so maybe not so easy to brand as pine. I don't see anything there that couldn't be done with a chisel. This wagon is from os Lot 31; I don't have a note of which works it was built at but not Saltney. The Saltney 1-planker 13521 of os Lot 33 has rather smaller letters (3" or so) carved out with a V profile - easily done with a chisel - but the number to the left of the V-iron and just G . W to the right; 2-plank 19159 of Saltney's os Lot 75 has similar but with GWR to the left of the V iron and the number to the right - the 1s have serifs; Worcester-built 20149 of os Lot 97 is the same. Quite how to represent this on the models still eludes me.

 

BTW, it's been pointed out to me that 55291 isn't a 4-plank from one of the listed Lots of such but is probably a rebuilt ex-BG wagon:

 

 

 

[Chas Levin]

On 12/08/2020 at 15:44, Penlan said:

Bill,
I seem to recall the G.C.Rly had something similar, but
for the G.N.Rly do you mean something like this 

Superb photo! I built one of these recently but sadly didn't have this photo during the build... however, I have another to build in the pile.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Chas Levin

[Mikkel]

1 hour ago, kitpw said:

The "GWR" lettering on the timber sole bar of the wagon upended in the photo above is, according to Atkins etc, "carved out".  I doubt it:  the photo appears to show quite a wide letter form with a very shallow flat base - difficult to achieve by carving which tends to produce a V form of trench.  I think it more likely that the letters were "branded", a common practice for marking wood then and still used today.  Maybe something could be done by etching stainless steel to produce a branding iron for models... just a thought: probably not so good with plasticard but wooden sole bars?

 

Kit PW

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/blog/2502-swan-hill/

 

Challenge accepted!  It would be fun to see how it could be done in plastikard. Maybe cut the numbers away on a 5 thou sheet using the Silhouette, then laminate onto solebar. Numbers may be too small for the Silhouette though.  Must experiment. Thanks for the idea Kit.

[Guy Rixon]

On 23/11/2020 at 07:56, Compound2632 said:

 

I live with that compromise all the time with Midland wagons - though those generally have a pair of vees, one on each side of the solebar, from which the tumbler is cantievered out on the short cross-shaft. But the tumbler is directly behind the inner vee, not in line with the wheels, so the push rods are angled back. How many EM / P4 / S7 modellers model that?

This is, IIUC, to push the blocks flat against the coning of the wheel-type without having to cast the coning into the blocks. The Mousa kit I've just built (in P4) represents this geometry. In general, I don't bother with it since it can't easily be seen with the wagon on the track.

[richbrummitt]

2 hours ago, Guy Rixon said:

This is, IIUC, to push the blocks flat against the coning of the wheel-type without having to cast the coning into the blocks. The Mousa kit I've just built (in P4) represents this geometry. In general, I don't bother with it since it can't easily be seen with the wagon on the track.

Perhaps more helpfully it would/could also allow the block to be installed any way up or round in any location on a 2, 4 or 8 shoe set up, thus removing the potential for incorrect orientation when fitting. 
 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by richbrummitt
pressed submit too soon

[Compound2632]

On 24/11/2020 at 11:55, Guy Rixon said:

This is, IIUC, to push the blocks flat against the coning of the wheel-type without having to cast the coning into the blocks. The Mousa kit I've just built (in P4) represents this geometry. In general, I don't bother with it since it can't easily be seen with the wagon on the track.

 

On 24/11/2020 at 14:21, richbrummitt said:

Perhaps more helpfully it would/could also allow the block to be installed any way up or round in any location on a 2, 4 or 8 shoe set up, thus removing the potential for incorrect orientation when fitting. 

 

This is all getting a bit scientific. All you need is one good big lump of wood:

 

 

... which I think would take up the tyre profile pretty quickly.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Compound2632]

I am getting rather low on my favourite Slaters 3-link couplings, so I've ordered some more. I see that Slater's are now offering their 7 mm scale wagon kits with pre-painted liveries using their "new process" that they've pioneered with their pre-painted 7 mm scale carriage sides. I was rather pleased by the austere warning on their home page:

 

"It should be pointed out that we do not produce a livery if it is not accurate to our wagon bodies and we have photographic proof of the original prototype. "

 

[Although possibly an extra "do not" is needed in reference to prototype photos.]