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

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, billbedford said:

OK on the real wagons what was the strap holding the inner end of the cross shaft attached to? Essery says, to the inside of the solebar, but unless there's a spacing block that does sound right. 

 

11 hours ago, Western Star said:

On GWR metal framed wagons of the late Victorian / early Edwardian period the rear support is hinged from a bearer that runs between the solebar and the "short middle" - the bearer is a piece of plate with right-angle bends at each end.

 

Drawing 10, dated 7 January 1874, for the type of 3-plank dropside wagon with 2-plank ends (per Mousa BWK1711/4), is in the Midland Railway Study Centre collection although not currently available online. This wagon has, I believe, the same underframe and brake arrangement as the 4-plank wagon of 1877 [Midland Wagons Plate 15] and also the proto-D299 high sided wagons of 1875 and 1880 (Lot 29; drawing 402 for these has not survived) [Midland Wagons Plates 90 and 91]. This drawing shows an arrangement similar to that Graham describes for GWR metal framed wagons: there is a transverse timber on the centre line, 6" x 4½", mounted wide side up, with its bottom face 3" above the bottom of the solebar. The cross-shaft support bracket is bolted to this, 11" behind the rear face of the solebar (i.e. 15½" between its front face and the rear face of the vee hanger). It tapers from 6" wide at the top to a 4" diameter boss. At least, that's what the drawing shows but there is a note "The Brake hangers to be placed ⅞ of an inch out of the centre, to the right hand, to make the push rods equal length". (I hadn't noticed that until after I'd stuck the vee hanger in place.) 

 

Evidently none of the wagons with this arrangement have bottom doors.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

OK, Thanks -- back to the drawing board on this one then. 

 

[sir douglas]

ive noticed on Midland wagon drawings (from the study dentre website) that the shaft is held by 2 hangers either side of the solebar, the crank is not in line with the shoe and the rods are at an angle (in top down view)

 

take this one as a random example, an extract from the D389 8 ton Bolster

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

ive noticed on Midland wagon drawings (from the study dentre website) that the shaft is held by 2 hangers either side of the solebar, the crank is not in line with the shoe and the rods are at an angle (in top down view)

 

That arrangement goes back to drawing 213 [MRSC Item 88-D0100], for the successors to the low-sided wagon of drawing 10 - I haven't completely worked out the chronology but I think this drawing (which may be a revision of that issued for the first few lots) introduced cast iron brake blocks, c. 1879/80. The angled push-rods do not, I think, have anything to do with matching the coning angle of the tyres but everything to do with keeping the cantilever of the cross-shaft as short as possible, since the tumbler is mounted behind the two vees. This also marks the change to the characteristic short brake lever; I wonder if there was doubt about the strength of this arrangement, resulting in a desire to limit the brake force that could be applied by reducing the brake lever moment? Wagons with wooden brake blocks had long levers. 

 

This arrangement remained the standard until the 20th-century move to brake levers on both sides of the wagon with just one vee hanger on each solebar. After that change, long brake levers reappear, even on wagons with independent both-sides brake gear (no full-width cross-shaft) and the angling of the push-rods is retained - perhaps the incidental matching to the tyre coning had come to be appreciated as a desireable feature? 

 

Another feature of the earlier designs is that the transverse leaf springs for the buffers and drawbar are back-to-back in the space between the middle bearers. Later designs, e.g. drawing 1143 for dropside wagons built from 1897 [MRSC Item 88-D0155], have the buffing spring immediately behind the headstock. This makes for more complicated woodwork - the end longitudinals and diagonals are in two halves that are bolted together - but leaves the space between the middle bearers free for bottom doors (either side of the middle longitudinals and drag-box). So I think this revised arrangement dates from drawing 550 for the high-sided wagon (aka D299).

 

The outward and visible sign of this design change is that the numberplate moves from the left to the right of the vee-hanger, though there's no physical reason for that move.

[Miss Prism]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The angled push-rods do not, I think, have anything to do with matching the coning angle of the tyres but everything to do with keeping the cantilever of the cross-shaft as short as possible, since the tumbler is mounted behind the two vees.

 

Yes, I had wondered about that. Thanks. The angle does seem a compromise setting. The viability of reversible brake blocks must have been a factor as well.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Miss Prism said:

Yes, I had wondered about that. Thanks. The angle does seem a compromise setting. The viability of reversible brake blocks must have been a factor as well.

 

Brake blocks for goods wagons - or perhaps I should say for vehicles without clasp brakes where the blocks on either side of the wagon are coupled by yokes - have a lip on the rear face that fits round the back of the flange, so that the block doesn't slide outwards due to the tyre coning. This means that a reversible brake block can't be just turned upside-down and used in the same location - it has to be swapped with the one opposite. The advantage of the reversible block is that it reduces stock inventory - the same block can be used for either left or right hand.

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, sir douglas said:

ive noticed on Midland wagon drawings (from the study dentre website) that the shaft is held by 2 hangers either side of the solebar, the crank is not in line with the shoe and the rods are at an angle (in top down view)

 

take this one as a random example, an extract from the D389 8 ton Bolster

 

 

 

This drawing shows a single hanger and side to side cross shaft. Presumably, then, it relates to one of the later lots with either-side (Morton?) brakes. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by billbedford

[Miss Prism]

36 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Brake blocks for goods wagons - or perhaps I should say for vehicles without clasp brakes where the blocks on either side of the wagon are coupled by yokes - have a lip on the rear face that fits round the back of the flange, so that the block doesn't slide outwards due to the tyre coning. This means that a reversible brake block can't be just turned upside-down and used in the same location - it has to be swapped with the one opposite.

 

Blimey, yes, I've just noticed that 'rear' bit on the 1923 RCH drawing (and have updated my extract of it on gwr.org). Was the rear lip common on pre-reversibles?

 

[Compound2632]

41 minutes ago, billbedford said:

This drawing shows a single hanger and side to side cross shaft. Presumably, then, it relates to one of the later lots with either-side (Morton?) brakes. 

 

Yes, it's drawing 2970 of 1908 for Lot 698 and shows the Morton lever on the non-brake side [MRSC Item 88-D1842]. It's interesting to play spot-the-difference with drawing 559 of 1882 for the dumb-buffered version of Lot 77 [MRSC Item 88-D1864]. Lot 505 of 1901 were apparently built to this drawing; the carriage & wagon register lists a series of drawings 1858/1860/1864/1956 for alterations to buffers on long and short timber trucks, dated Sept 1903 - March 1904, so that tells us when the process of fitting sprung buffers began. (Whereas many dumb buffer conversions used self-contained buffers, this conversion used the standard buffer guide and buffers with long tail rods terminating at coil springs mounted on the middle bearer.)

 

So the drawing 559 long timber trucks were built with dumb buffers but the 150 wagons ordered in 1908 to drawing 2970 not only had sprung buffers but also oil axleboxes and brakes operable from either side - quite a leap in technology! The last 600 timber trucks, ordered 1910-1915, were to drawing 3383. The MRSC has a copy of this [MRSC Item 88-D1444] but it hasn't yet been scanned. I've not seen it but the register describes it "Long Timber Truck with Independent Brake on Either Side", which implies no cross-shaft. Looking at Midland Wagons pp. 118-9, this would suggest that 18183 and 11114 [Plates 172/33] with Morton lever and cross-shaft are from Lot 698 or 704. That fits with Essery's interpretation of Plate 171; this indicates that drawing 3383 had the lower side, also seen on 17951 [Plate 170]. The complication is that both that wagon and 7206 on the left in Plate 171 seem to have single vee hangers and at least 17951 a cross-shaft; with their D-shaped numberplates these would be from Lot 895 of 1915 - perhaps there was a further revision of the brakes for this final batch of 100 wagons?

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That arrangement goes back to drawing 213 [MRSC Item 88-D0100], for the successors to the low-sided wagon of drawing 10 - I haven't completely worked out the chronology but I think this drawing (which may be a revision of that issued for the first few lots) introduced cast iron brake blocks, c. 1879/80. The angled push-rods do not, I think, have anything to do with matching the coning angle of the tyres but everything to do with keeping the cantilever of the cross-shaft as short as possible, since the tumbler is mounted behind the two vees. This also marks the change to the characteristic short brake lever; I wonder if there was doubt about the strength of this arrangement, resulting in a desire to limit the brake force that could be applied by reducing the brake lever moment? Wagons with wooden brake blocks had long levers. 

 

 

Looking again at drawing 213 and Midland Wagons plate 68 I've realised I have been talking through my hat. These low sided wagons of the 1880s have a cross-timber on the centre-line identical to that described for drawing 10, with a single vee hanger and a vertical plate hanger behind the tumbler, parallel-sided and only 2½" wide. Nevertheless the push-rods are angled. So I think the double vee hanger arrangement comes in with drawing 550 for the high-sided wagons with bottom doors (D299). In addition to the timber trucks already mentioned, other vehicles with this "early iron brake block" arrangement are the covered goods wagons to drawing 401 (D353) including the taller examples of Lot 309 and the first 16'6" covered goods wagons to drawing 981 [MRSC Item 88-D0134, (cf. Midland Wagons plate 184]; this seems to have changed with drawing 1032, although the brake detail on this is skimpy [MRSC Item 88-D0224]. Drawing 981 has the centre cross-timber; drawing 1032 does not. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Putting all this theory into practice, brake gear of 1877 and 1882 compared:

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Was the rear lip common on pre-reversibles?

 

It seems yes, at least on the GWR, judging by the diagrams (only a couple) in the Bible. The push rods are however not angled on the early GWR designs.

 

[Chrisbr]

This taken from wagon at Didcot suggests so -

[Compound2632]

I'd grown rather fond of the liquorice-and-brass look of the Saltney wagons but needs must:

 

 

Halfords red primer - the artificial light on this overcast day makes it look a violent shade of orange but really it is a nice brick red. 

 

That was yesterday's job, before I had my Covid inoculation; I've been suffering the after effects of that so today I've just been gently reminding myself of lettering styles appropriate to my c. 1902 period. A good while ago @MikeOxon posted a couple of extracts from a photo taken at Cinderford Iron Works which I hope he will excuse my re-posting here:

 

 

There are some interesting livery variations there though the photo is said to be c. 1890 and I have to remind myself that G.W.R on the left started to give way to G.W.R on the right c. 1893, nearly a decade before my period. Nevertheless there are examples of wagons with G.W.R on the left surviving into the 20th century, or at least, photos of such wagons being used in the loading instructions in the General Appendix (I think). On the other hand, the handful of photos in Tony Wood's Saltney book all show G.W.R on the right. It seems to be the case that painting the wagon number on the ends as well as the sides came in with the RH G.W.R, which is a point in favour of the earlier style!

 

The two-plank wagon on the right in the lower photo is of exactly the type I've been modelling, though I don't think the number corresponds to a Saltney one. To recap, my wagons are:

• 1-plank, os Lot 53 (second part, larger dimensions) Nos. 21083-21143
• 4-plank, os Lot 66 Nos. 20501-20700
• 2-plank, os Lot 75 Nos. 19101-19300 / os Lot 93 Nos. 21585-21684 / os Lot 98 Nos. 19801-20100

That Cinderford photo also contributes to the pig iron discussion!

Edited June 16, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Guy Rixon]

On 16/03/2021 at 13:15, Miss Prism said:

 

Blimey, yes, I've just noticed that 'rear' bit on the 1923 RCH drawing (and have updated my extract of it on gwr.org). Was the rear lip common on pre-reversibles?

 

It's on the RCH 1906 drawings too.

[MikeOxon]

I often wonder who in the GWR hierarchy woke up one morning thinking "how much better things would be if GWR were painted on the right instead of the left" 

[Spitfire2865]

On 18/03/2021 at 16:22, MikeOxon said:

I often wonder who in the GWR hierarchy woke up one morning thinking "how much better things would be if GWR were painted on the right instead of the left" 

Perhaps it was in some desire to stick all important information at the brake operating end of the wagon?

 

[billbedford]

For myopic shunters?

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, billbedford said:

For myopic shunters?

 

Ah, yes, the Great Western was well ahead of the game when it came to inclusive employment practices....

[wagonman]

Did this change occur round about the time the RCH was trying to encourage Private Owners to locate the wagon number at the bottom left hand side? Pure speculation – no evidence.

Edited March 23, 2021 by wagonman
fat finger syndrome

[richbrummitt]

On a complete tangent (but the thread title suggests that the followers here might know the answer that I do not have the reference books for):

 

In the interests of adding variety to the stock box I have three different kinds of LBSC open bodies to, I believe, (SR?) diagrams 1365 and 1370. One type has straight ends and all have outside diagonal strapping. I am not familiar with the development and practices of aforementioned company and Southern Wagons vol. 1 hasn't answered my questions particularly well. To represent condition as at 1920(ish):

• What kind of brakes?
• ditto axleboxes?
• How should the sheet rail on the 1370 appear - a solid bar or the movable type? Were there any without?
• Are there any other companies with wagons similar enough that it is a simple conversion, SECR maybe?

TIA.

[Compound2632]

All my Brighton Open As - I think I've got four, all different - are modelled c. 1902 so I'm afraid I can't help; anyway I've relied on Southern Wagons Vol. 2 so you know as much as I do. (Presuming your Vol. 1 was a typo!) Hopefully such Brighton luminaries as @Nick Holliday, @BlueLightning, @TurboSnail, @Skinnylinny will be along shortly!

 

I really must get on and do the sheet rails on @TurboSnail's Cravens and Birmingham ones.

[Rail-Online]

Changing the subject slightly, I found the attached today.  I have never heard the trem Road Side Wagon, was this just a term for 'smalls' traffic as used on the Cambrian or perhaps Tariff traffic?  It appears that the 1894 load on wagon 20171 (would this be Cam or GW) from Machynlleth to Whitchurch carried traffic for Pontefract, Montgomery and Caemmans Road (? cant really read this?).

 

Tony

Edited March 24, 2021 by Rail-Online

[Compound2632]

My guess from complete ignorance of Cambrian habits is that it's equivalent to what other lines called tariff traffic and was conveyed in a Road Van (LSWR / S&DJR) or Tariff Van (Midland).

 

9 minutes ago, Rail-Online said:

It appears that the 1894 load on wagon 20171 (would this be Cam or GW)

 

I struggle to imagine that the Cambrian's fleet ran to over 20,000 wagons in 1894, given that according to the 1922 edition of the Railway Year Book at the end of 1921 it had just 2,274 wagons. Great Western wagon No. 20171 was a 2-plank open of old series Lot 97 built at Worcester c. 1874. However, it's perhaps equally likely to be a LNWR wagon.

[mike morley]

That'll be Pontdolgoch, not Pontefract, and Cemmaes Road, not Cemmans.