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

[Compound2632]

On 13/01/2021 at 00:08, CKPR said:

Wath upon Dearne ?

 

Too long (or are you just thinking WATH or proposing to read the letters I suggested might be NEAR as DEARNE?) but crucially, not near enough: Wath-upon-Dearne is 6½ miles away to the south-east, 7 mi 14 ch station-to-station as the North Midland line and Barnsley branch meandered, according to the Distance Diagrams.

[Compound2632]

 

Three-cylinder compounds: what's not to like?

 

So, they may be inside-out or the wrong way round or however you want to put it, but I couldn't resist:

 

 

I've only dipped in so far but it's proving most instructive. It's certainly the book to throw at anyone who trots out the old well-worn tales of pinch-bars and uncoupled driving wheels slipping in opposite directions. I've long been given a good impression of the Teutonics; he's started to bring me round to a very positive impression of the Dreadnoughts - the observation that one or more were at Ryecroft in the first few years of the 20th century hasn't gone unnoticed...

 

He doesn't hold back from naming and shaming a private collector who refused him permission to inspect some primary material. (A train timing log notebook of R.E. Charlewood's, in the possession of one P.J. Rodgers.) The private ownership of such archival material is fraught with danger: the material can so easily be lost through the negligence or ignorance of executors. The proper thing to do with such material is of course to donate or at least bequeath it to a suitable public body - museum, library, or line society as appropriate. (If a line society it should be one with charitable status and an established archive. If not the original in the owner's lifetime then at least a copy.) Certainly it is despicable Smaug-ness to deny access to the material to bona fide researchers.

 

Apropos my header picture, I was interested to read in George Carpenter's preface that in response to a paper Anatole Mallet gave to the I. Mech. E. in 1879, describing his two-cylinder compound locomotive, Webb stated that the arrangement of a single HP cylinder between the frames and two outside LP cylinders - the layout adopted by W.M. Smith in 1898 - should be preferred. It is suggested that the reason Webb went for the inverse arrangement was the difficulty of fitting adequately-sized outside LP cylinders with the LNWR structure gauge of the 1880s. 

 

Another intriguing snippet concerns the compounding of goods engines, as exemplified by Webb's gloriously pot-bellied Class A 0-8-0s. (The story goes that on seeing the first of the class head-on, the Crewe shed foreman remarked that it reminded him of 'the missus'.) In response to an I. Mech. E. paper of Webb's in 1883, Stroudley suggested that compounding would be of greater benefit for a goods engine than an express passenger engine, as goods engines worked at slower speed and longer cut-off. I suppose that this would result in higher receiver pressure and consequently a higher proportion of work done in the LP cylinder. (Indicator diagrams reproduced in the book show for a HP inlet pressure of 145 psi, the receiver pressure was around 60 psi at low speed and full gear, dropping to 30 psi at 50 mph and 35% HP cut-off - this for Compound, one of the first 2-2-2-0s.

 

Unusually for a locomotive book, especially one dealing with 19th century locomotives, there are as many photos of trains out on the road as there are posed shots and works grey officials - helped no doubt by the prestige of the Premier Line and the affluence of the north-west London suburbs through which its main line ran. Bushey was a favourite spot (as for film makers). The reason for mentioning all this is Plate 104, showing Jeanie Deans on the down Corridor, c. 1895 - at least that was the photographer's intention but the most interesting thing in the photo is a Coal Engine shunting the yard. (Recalling the walk-on parts for Coal Engines in the two films that have been discussed up-thread). From the engine, we see a pair of LNW opens, D2 and D4, loaded with some fine, heaped material, and some PO wagons, all loaded: dumb-buffered 7-plank Rother Vale No. 1446; a 5 or 6-plank wagon of Colin Taylor, of Berkhamstead, Watford, and Northwood, apparently numbered Z4; and half in view, a 5-plank wagon of [...] Collieries / [...]ille - almost certainly Coalville - which hardly narrows down the possible candidates!

 

The Rother Vale wagon makes an interesting comparison with some caught up in the accident at Wath-on-Dearn on 27 August 1887:

 

 

[DY 288]

 

These are very similar in construction and lettering. The wagons damaged at Wath have numbers in the range 1359 - 1438, so it is likely that No. 1446 was part of the same batch - it must, anyway, date from before the introduction of the RCH specification in 1887. There are two livery differences. Whereas the wagons at Wath have their number on the top plank above the door, 1446's number is in digits nearly two planks high. No. 1446 also has a V painted on the bottom of its door - like the anonymous wagon on the right in the Wath photo, but rather more boldly. I think the only other time I've seen that on a 19th century wagon is on photos of the Midland's D343 wagons built 1888-1898, where it indicates a hopper bottom - though in this case the bottom of the V doesn't quite join up: \ / - both on an official 1888 photo and on a ost-1917 photo of a wagon in traffic [Midland Wagons Plates 118 and 119]. But presumably this does indicate that Rother Vale No. 1446 is hopper-bottomed, not just that it has bottom doors, which were comonplace.

 

Going back to the Class A compound goods engines, there are a couple of good photos of them working goods trains on the Lancaster & Carlisle line - one entering Carlisle and one climbing Shap. A long-distance goods train would be ideal work, allowing the engine to work at a steady rate. Great Western wagon enthusiasts can take satisfaction in the first vehicle of the train entering Carlisle, in 1898, is an iron mink while the sixth to eighth wagons at Shap Wells on 18 July 1899 are another iron mink and a pair of 4-plank opens (neither with cast plates). The LNWR and GWR were hand-in-glove for traffic from Wales and the west of England, via the Severn Tunnel, Shrewsbury, and Crewe, so it's not so surprising to see GW vehicles in such a train.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Northroader]

I have a fancy to try a model of one of the 2-4-0 compounds, the big difficulty with them is there’s no coupling rods, which is very remiss of Mr. Webb when you’re putting an electric motor on one driving axle. The only model I’ve seen of one just drove the rear axle only, which would make it a bit low on pulling power.

[Regularity]

9 minutes ago, Northroader said:

I have a fancy to try a model of one of the 2-4-0 compounds, the big difficulty with them is there’s no coupling rods, which is very remiss of Mr. Webb when you’re putting an electric motor on one driving axle. The only model I’ve seen of one just drove the rear axle only, which would make it a bit low on pulling power.

That’s why they were called 2-4-0s, but 2-2-2-0s, or 2-(2-2)-0s - but the Whyte notation post-dated them anyway.

Not that I am likely to ever build one, but I would consider a motor/gearbox on the rear axle, with a sprocket and chain connection to the front driven axle, much as 0 gauge diesel modellers do it. Of course, there’s probably room to do that in 7mm scale, but not sure about smaller scales.

[Guy Rixon]

12 minutes ago, Northroader said:

I have a fancy to try a model of one of the 2-4-0 compounds, the big difficulty with them is there’s no coupling rods, which is very remiss of Mr. Webb when you’re putting an electric motor on one driving axle. The only model I’ve seen of one just drove the rear axle only, which would make it a bit low on pulling power.

It should be possible to couple the driving axles with a belt. I would guess that is feasible in 4mm scale and very easy in the larger scales.

 

If the belt drive really is easy to set up, it might even help with models of rod-coupled locos. The rods could be made a much looser fit, as they would carry no load, and would not then be likely to cause binding.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Northroader said:

I have a fancy to try a model of one of the 2-4-0 compounds, the big difficulty with them is there’s no coupling rods, which is very remiss of Mr. Webb when you’re putting an electric motor on one driving axle. The only model I’ve seen of one just drove the rear axle only, which would make it a bit low on pulling power.

 

Motorise the tender?

 

One big advantage Webb cited for the uncoupled axles was that the wheelbase could be made longer than the accepted 8'6" or so of the 1880s - 9'8" for the Teutonics - giving scope for a larger grate area than was usual. One point Davis makes (with a graph from The Engineer of 1910) is the startling increase in power needed as the principal West Coast expresses got not only heavier but faster - 100 hp in 1864, 400 hp in 1885, 1,000 hp by 1903. 

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Not that I am likely to ever build one, but I would consider a motor/gearbox on the rear axle, with a sprocket and chain connection to the front driven axle, much as 0 gauge diesel modellers do it. Of course, there’s probably room to do that in 7mm scale, but not sure about smaller scales.

 

3 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

It should be possible to couple the driving axles with a belt. I would guess that is feasible in 4mm scale and very easy in the larger scales.

 

Not if you want working inside motion for the LP drive...

 

 

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

Not if you want working inside motion for the LP drive...

 

 

The valve movement for the slip eccentric on the LP cylinder would be quite small and hardly noticeable. The LP crank web would be more or less central on the axle, so there is room on one side for some form of arrangement in 0 and above, certainly. Not sure about 00, but with suitably narrow gears it might be possible if the frames are made from say 15 thou material. Use of 2mm wide discs with V-grooves and suitable belts would transmit the power, and do it silently.

[Jol Wilkinson]

21 hours ago, Northroader said:

I have a fancy to try a model of one of the 2-4-0 compounds, the big difficulty with them is there’s no coupling rods, which is very remiss of Mr. Webb when you’re putting an electric motor on one driving axle. The only model I’ve seen of one just drove the rear axle only, which would make it a bit low on pulling power.

I will build my London Road Models kit of the LNWR 2-2-2-0 Teutonic with drive to the rear axle only and "load" the front of the tender onto the loco draw beam. With my fairly light and free running stock, it shouldn't have a problem.

It might be possible in EM and P4 to use a narrow gearbox and use a chain drive between the axles. A better answer would be to put the motor in the tender and drive both loco axles through a shaft. One OO modeller has built a Teutonic with small open frame motors on each axle, I think he used Hanazano 17mm long motors, which are still available from suppliers

 

This shows the LRM Teutonic "chassis" to give some idea of the available space. The frames are .018" n/s. The spacer behind the front driving axle would need modifying to fit a chain or belt drive.

 

[Compound2632]

I suppose it shouldn't really be much different to the problem of getting any single to pull. I will, tongue in cheek, suggest that driving the rear axle is a prototypical solution, since the evidence seems to be that, at speed, most of the work was being done in the HP cylinders - though the Teutonics weren't as bad in that respect as the Experiments had been. But there's still the challenge of hauling equal to 16½ (seven 42ft corridor carriages and three 12-wheel diners) up 1:300. 

 

Not the 2pm but the best I could find; only equal to 13½ I think, and on the level:

 

 

But no wagons there.

 

Back to Davis' book, Plate 79: two compounds on a down express at Harlesden c. 1896/7, just passed under the Midland's Acton Wells line. In a siding on up slow side, probably a D4, together with a dumb-buffered PO wagon with a large white shape on its door and lettering in a large arc. It's not very distinct but almost certainly Wm Cory & Sons:

 

 

Plate 101: Jeanie in the evening light, just getting going with the up Corridor at Basford Hall, midsummer 1896; three dumb-buffered NSR loco coal wagons in the background, 3 and 4 planks - compare Chadwick, North Staffordshire Wagons, Plate 16, at Podmore Hall Colliery c. 1895.

 

Plate 193: Class A No. 1874 on an up coal train at Weedon Bec in 1899. The first three wagons are 4-plank traffic coal wagons, D53, and the next two, loco coal wagons, D64. 

 

Plate 197: Another A, No. 1865 in Edwardian days on an up coal train on the Trent Valley line; a D1 possibly loaded with wheelsets, sheeted, then at least five of the hopper loco coal wagons, D28 or D44 - a type usually associated with West Cumberland, but some pressed into loco coal service around 1902 [LNWR Wagons, Vol. 3]. 

 

The Class A engines seem to have been oft-photographed engaged in the unremunerative task of pulling loco coal about; Plates 185 and 186 show the pioneer simple, No. 2524, and pioneer compound, No. 50, both passing through Shrewsbury in 1894 on Crewe-bound trains of South Wales coal. The express passenger compounds were fed a diet of pure South Wales coal; the Precursors et al. had to get by on a diet adulterated with lesser Lancashire coals.

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The Class A engines seem to have been oft-photographed engaged in the unremunerative task of pulling loco coal about; Plates 185 and 186 show the pioneer simple, No. 2524, and pioneer compound, No. 50, both passing through Shrewsbury in 1894 on Crewe-bound trains of South Wales coal. 

 

On reflection, since these photos were taken at a date when only these first two 0-8-0s had been built, these photos (both by P.W. Pilcher) probably show the engines being put through comparative tests, rather than these necessarily being their usual workings. That they should be loco coal trains is intelligible as the loco department could control their weight.

[Compound2632]

There has been some modelling going on, of which more in due course. Some faffing around with attempts at making wooden brake blocks for the Saltney wagons - not quite there yet, though I have to report that I think the vertical inner support for the cross-shaft is a good way in, perhaps attached to the outer face of the nearer middle longitudinal, which is annoying since I've cut mine off too short.

 

Other modelling has included some more cross-eyed Archer rivet transfer application. In the middle of this, I thought back to the LNWR D53 4-plank coal wagon I made a good while back from the Ratio kit for the D53 5-plank coal wagon, in a reverse of what Earlestown did in the early years of the 20th century. That conversion had involved a great deal of faffing around with drilling holes for plastic rod to represent the bolts. The Archer resin transfers make this so much simpler:

 

 

Conversion of D53 to D54 had hardly got underway at my target c. 1902/3 date. I made two of these D53 conversions, so his will be the third, but I have three D54s with another couple in the "for refurbishment" box; so could do with correcting the balance. I'm wondering how easy it would be to carry out the conversion on a "live" wagon rather than before assembly. 

 

The good thing is, one gets a free D4 with every D54/D53!

Edited September 13, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Compound2632]

Huntley & Palmers biscuit factory, Reading: the Lower Loading Shed, c. 1899:

 

 

Crates by Monk's Gate Models, aka @Tricky. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Mikkel]

That's very effective. Layout mock-up or diorama? There's a lot of unexplored scope for the latter in railway modelling, I think.

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

That's very effective. Layout mock-up or diorama? There's a lot of unexplored scope for the latter in railway modelling, I think.

 

Very much inspired by your layoutettes and by @Tricky's "Midland in Bristol". 

 

I'm thinking something between a diorama and a shunting layout, about 40 cm "stage", with the gallery as view-blocker on the right, and 30 cm - 40 cm off-stage sector plate, to the left, i.e. the viewer looks in from the right of the photo, where there's daylight, with the left-hand wall as backscene. I'm toying with the idea of a double track sector plate, so both H&P C and D can appear! The view-blocker between the stage and the sector plate will be the end wall of the shed - so it's an entirely indoors model. Although I think I've worked out where within the factory complex this is, I don't have any more to go on than this photo, so it will be "inspired by".

 

I saw the layout "Nottingham Goods" some time ago and was much impressed. That had both indoors and outdoors, with the interior of the warehouse fully visible. I had started building "Worcester Wharf", loosely based on Birmingham Central Goods Station, but that's been in abeyance for many years. It was 1950s.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Compound2632

[Mikkel]

That sounds good. I like inside/outside scenes. Before Alan Butler started Model U he was working on Oswestry Works. 

 

"Layouettes", I like that  

[Compound2632]

On 22/01/2021 at 16:30, Compound2632 said:

The good thing is, one gets a free D4 with every D54/D53!

 

 

I bought the kit new, to try out the D54 to D53 conversion with the Archer transfers. It came in the newfangled clear plastic box with Parkside by Peco branding but it's the same old kit inside - the mouldings are still sharp and free of flash after forty years of production, so this was just as pleasurable to build as the original kit I had off Ebay at the end of last year. I've repeated the trick of paring off the door bang plate and relocating it.

 

On these wagons, I need to remember to add a bit of solebar detail - there are prominent nuts for the transverse iron rod trussing.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[PenrithBeacon]

23 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

...

I saw the layout "Nottingham Goods" some time ago and was much impressed.

...

Me too, brilliant layout.

[Compound2632]

Somewhere, sometime, I've seen a photo of an accident involving a number of Midland D342 coke wagons (foreground) and PO coke wagons (further away), possibly at a platform, possibly a L&Y location. I can't track it down. Any ideas?

[Northroader]

Doubt if this is the one, but I come across this whilst searching, and there’s some nice wagons in it (and I love the kids) L&Y Mirfield 24/9/1912.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Doubt if this is the one, but I come across this whilst searching, and there’s some nice wagons in it (and I love the kids) L&Y Mirfield 24/9/1912.

 

No indeed, but a superb find! We've all had this happen to us while shunting, usually when the children are watching.

 

I suppose the engine has lost its dome casing, hence the sheet for modesty.

 

Interesting to see a couple of Stephenson Clarke wagons 'oop north. Both are of the firm's standard design, though 1378 has round-bottomed axleboxes whereas 1226 has the Ellis type; it might be one built by Harrison & Camm, if the motif cast into the axlebox front is circular. Compare 1006, built by Harrison & Camm but lent to the Gloucester RC&W Co. to illustrate the design they should be building to to. In common with some other Stephenson Clarke wagons photographed, 1226 has the V at the bottom of the door; peering at the two photos I've been unable to decide if it is hoppered. Perhaps @wagonman can give chapter and verse?

 

The inscription on the third wagon is frustratingly not quite in focus.

[Compound2632]

The D53:

 

 

I'm not quite sure why but the body of this was more of a faff to assemble than the D4. 

 

Axleboxes are the blank ones supplied (intended to have the oil axlebox fronts fixed to them) with the lower lip cut off and 0.100" x 0.020" Evergreen strip providing the front face, all rounded off at the bottom and trimmed to an angle at the top, with a 2.5 mm x 1.5 mm sliver of 0.005" Plastikard as the lid. The circular Earlestown logo is embossed on by flooding the axlebox front with di-limonene and pressing the but end of a 2 mm drill bit firmly in.

 

Likewise di-limonene is liberally used to soften the plastic of the brake lever, in order to curve it to the desired shape, more or less. Previously I've used MekPak but I've found di-limonene much more effective at softening the plastic. 

 

I remembered to cut the bottom lugs off the brake blocks!

I've found that to get a complete picture of the D53 wagons, one needs to have both LNWR Wagons Vol. 3 and the relevant page of the L&NWR Society website open together. The book tells us (with a bit of adding up at home) that the first 3,560 wagons, built 1882-1890, were 15'0" long over headstocks, while the remaining 3,285 built 1890-1894 were 15'6" long, per the examples I've built. The web page gives details of quantity built per year, but only includes those extant in 1902, since (I infer) the data is from the company's Wagon Stock Age Book of that year. That total is 10 short, presumably due to accident fatalities. Only 1,010 of these wagons were converted to D54; all these were, I think, from the 15'6" D53s. The recorded numbers of D54 wagons are in the range 51xxx - 59xxx, whereas the earliest large batch of D53s were numbered 47501 - 48900. The website usefully has a photo of a 15'0" D53, probably from the very first batch of 80, which isn't reproduced in the book. Apart from being shorter, this wagon has a single iron brake block with a direct action lever. 

 

So, now I'm thinking, can I make a 15'0" D53 from the Ratio D54 kit? Shortening the floor and solebars is straightforward; for the sides, I've already mastered removing the diagonal ironwork, so it should just be a case of removing the corner plate and replacing with Plastikard. The tricky bit of that would be to make a good 45° bevel to mate with the end moulding. Plan B might be to cut the ends of the sides square and trim the end mouldings to match, giving a but joint - this would need complete new wrap-around corner plates. 

 

I feel another D4 coming on... Just as well there were more of them than there were D53/D54!

 

According to the weather forecast, tomorrow should be mild enough for some undercoating with Halfords grey primer - there's quite a backlog for the paint shop!

Edited September 13, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Mikkel]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

di-limonene is liberally used to soften the plastic of the brake lever

 

That's a good tip, thanks Stephen. 

 

Only 8 extra "rivets" per side, a walk in the park compared to your other recent builds 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Only 8 extra "rivets" per side, a walk in the park compared to your other recent builds 

 

There should be ten - looking at the photo, I see one's fallen off - that comes of putting them on before fixing the side in place, so too much handling before they're sealed in with primer. Plus also the two sets of four small ones at the top of the corner plates but those come as a ready-made square so not "individually applied". Anyway, I'm getting quicker at them.

[sir douglas]

On 16/01/2021 at 16:07, Northroader said:

I have a fancy to try a model of one of the 2-4-0 compounds, the big difficulty with them is there’s no coupling rods, which is very remiss of Mr. Webb when you’re putting an electric motor on one driving axle. The only model I’ve seen of one just drove the rear axle only, which would make it a bit low on pulling power.

 

ive seen this problem on an EM layout in 2019. a Webb that as only powered on one axle, it could barely move itself let alone its train