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

[Compound2632]

By the way, take a look at Item 4, Receipts and Expenditure on Capital Account. Under the heading "On Subscriptions to Other Railways, and Contributions to Joint Lines" we find that at some time prior to the end of 1889 (probably a long time before) the Midland had subscribed £75,000 to the capital expenditure of the South Devon Railway. The South Devon was amalgamated with the Great Western on 1 February 1876, so presumably this was now effectively part of the capitalisation of the Great Western. I wonder what return the Midland saw on that investment, given that from the time of the opening of the S&DR's Bath Extension, Midland traffic for Plymouth had been routed via Templecombe and the L&SWR.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Northroader said:

Did you have any time to look at the Midland Rly. exhibits section in the Silk Mill Museum? I’m curious to know how that’s got on in the rebuilding, whether it’s been improved or “improved”.

 

Very much more of the Study Centre's physical objects collection is now on public display, along with that of Derby Museums - this was a major goal of the refurbishment of the Silk Mill as the "Museum of Making". It is certainly a very different museum to the one I visited with small children in 2004. (I'd been to the Study Centre a couple of times four or five years ago but didn't pay much attention to the museum then.) There is more floor space than previously. There is a gallery called the "Assemblage" which has material sorted by material. Study Centre items are individually tagged but there is as yet little "interpretation" - one would have to look up the item number in the Study Centre online catalogue to get a description. But one has to remember that it's only a few weeks since all the material has been brought into the museum from storage and both the Museum and the Study Centre have limited amounts of staff and volunteer time. Steady progress is being made on refurbishing the large O gauge model railway.  Improved or "improved" is probably a matter of taste; museum curators are as subject to the influences of fashion as much as anyone else. See the Museum of Making website. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Compound2632
grammar

[John-Miles]

I have seen a rumour somewhere (sadly can't remember where) that the Midland courted the Bristol and Exeter, which might explain the investment in the South Devon. I asked Brian Arman about the B&E interest and he knows nothing about it and he thought it was unlikely.

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

I have seen a rumour somewhere (sadly can't remember where) that the Midland courted the Bristol and Exeter, which might explain the investment in the South Devon. I asked Brian Arman about the B&E interest and he knows nothing about it and he thought it was unlikely.

 

I repeated that on here somewhere recently but I can't recall where it came from; I think it was at the time John Ellis snitched the Bristol & Gloucester and Birmingham & Gloucester out from under the Great Western's nose.

[Compound2632]

Digging around a bit on this B&ER question, I think it was a move in the end-game of the gauge wars that resulted in the S&DR going to the Midland and L&SWR and the B&ER to the GWR - it could have turned out the other way round. The B&ER was feeling the pressure of the S&DR in the early 60s - having to lay the third rail on much of its line in response to the S&DR bringing the standard gauge to Bridgwater. According to Atthill's history of the S&DJR, the S&DR was in negotiation with the GWR but the general managers of the two companies made the mistake of informing Scott, the L&SW's general manager, in the hope that the L&SW would take the S&D south of Templecombe, Scott immediately got onto James Allport, his opposite number at Derby, and the S&D boaed were made an offer they couldn't refuse. Atthill doesn't have much to say about the B&ER merger with the GWR but the Wikipedia article suggests the B&ER, seeing that it could not remain viable as an independent company, first approached the Midland - was the B&ER board aware of the GWR's interest in its deadly rival, the S&DR? Presumably MacDermot's History of the Great Western Railway is the main source for all this?

[billbedford]

A few weeks ago we had a discussion about some MR NPCS drawings which were drawn with dubious brake rigging. Well, I've found another example, and this time it is obvious what happened. 

 

This is the underframe of a D.87 16' van:-

 

 

The brakes on the left hand side are a direct copy of those on the right, down to the pull rod from the vacuum cylinder drawn at the same slight angle (arrowed). It's fairly obvious what happened here. The draftsman drew up the axleguard drawing and handed it over to the tracer who was preparing the GA drawn with the instruction that she* should copy it for both wheels, and that is exactly what happened. 

 

It's interesting that the GA for the slightly later fitted version of the D.88 van has the axleguard details suppressed and the brake rigging is drawn in full. 

 

*Drawing office tracers were almost invariably young women, at least until dyeline printers made their jobs superfluous. 

[Compound2632]

Interesting! Just in case anyone's confused by the reference to D87 and D88, these are LNWR covered goods wagons, so it's the practices of the Earlestown rather than Litchurch Lane Drawing Offices that is being put under the magnifying glass here - see LNWR Wagons Vol 2 p. 38 for the drawing of the D87 reproduced above, dated 20 May 1904, and p. 46 for the drawing for the fitted version of D88, dated 5 May 1908, to which Bill refers. 

 

The fitted D87 has an unusual arrangement of the vacuum brake - arranged more like a Westinghouse cylinder but considerably larger, because of the smaller differential pressure available with the vacuum system. The fitted D88 has a conventionally-arranged vacuum cylinder, pulling via a crank to rotate the cross-shaft; the brake pull-rods are attached to a symmetrical tumbler. It's clear that in both arrangements, the pull rods are pulled upon to apply the clasp brakes. The Midland arrangement we were discussing was, I believe, arranged with one pull rod and one push rod. (This is on drawings from the 1880s/early 90s; later Midland drawings show the usual pull-pull arrangement.) 

 

The D87 drawing was one of the earliest produced under H.D. Earl's wagon superintendency; the Westinghouse-like double-ended vacuum cylinder was a feature of the fitted vans* built under his predecessor, J.W. Emmett, who had been Wagon Superintenent since 1867 and appears to have been rather conservative in design, allowing features such as the single direct-action wooden block brake to be perpetuated well after it had become obsolete elsewhere. 

 

*Vans for perishable traffic, meat, etc. 

 

Quite a bit is known about the Litchurch Lane drawing office staff, at least the draughtsmen producing the original drawings - the Carriage & Wagon Drawing Register gives a name for each drawing, so one can plot their rise. But I'm not aware of any information about tracers and other such junior grades.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Compound2632

[Tricky]

Great article in the latest Midland Railway Society journal by @Compound2632 about the Midland’s freight fleet.  Just when you thought there wasn’t much more that could be written about D299s….!!!!

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

Great article in the latest Midland Railway Society journal by @Compound2632 about the Midland’s freight fleet.  Just when you thought there wasn’t much more that could be written about D299s….!!!!

 

Thanks for mentioning it! You can expect a plain buff envelope of used ten-bob notes...

 

Actually, I haven't really got onto D299 yet, even though there's one on the cover and a graph in the article. I plan two D299 articles, one on the main theme and one on variations. But I think low-sided wagons and then covered goods wagons will come first, with an emphasis on the earlier periods.

[Compound2632]

Oh dear not much wagon modelling recently. My current excuse is that it is too hot.

 

Browsing elsewhere, I came upon an interesting phot, the upper one in this post, Southampton Town Quay, "late 19th century" (but not so very late, I'd guess):

Would anyone like to hazard some identifications, particularly of the covered goods wagon with the double-X end framing? I have my suspicions...

[Andy Hayter]

Which page is that on?

[swampy]

If it's the picture on page 7, can I suggest early Midland, similar to plates 37 and 39 in Midland Wagons? 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by swampy
added photo

[wagonman]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Browsing elsewhere, I came upon an interesting phot, the upper one in this post, Southampton Town Quay, "late 19th century" (but not so very late, I'd guess):

Would anyone like to hazard some identifications, particularly of the covered goods wagon with the double-X end framing? I have my suspicions...

 

There was an early design of GWR Mink like that – the BGS do a kit (S305K) http://www.broadgauge.org.uk/modelling/bgs_parts_prices_7mm.html 

 

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, swampy said:

If it's the picture on page 7, can I suggest early Midland, similar to plates 37 and 39 in Midland Wagons? 

 

Well, that's exactly what I was thinking...

 

6 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

There was an early design of GWR Mink like that – the BGS do a kit (S305K) http://www.broadgauge.org.uk/modelling/bgs_parts_prices_7mm.html 

 

 

Interesting. I note the X-framed doors, where the Southampton photo has flush.

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Which page is that on?

 

If you click on the north-east pointing arrow icon rather than on the topic title in the embedded link, you are transported directly to the post in question. Otherwise you do go to the start of the topic, which is less than useful.

[Compound2632]

I thought I'd better show some signs of modelling before disappearing on holiday. The Mousa printed resin NBR wagons are featherweights - just 10 g without the 2 mm-thick floor piece provided and not much room in the underframe for adding mass. I'm using a roll of 2 mm-thick lead flashing for weights - it cuts fairly easily with a heavy-duty Stanley knife and a bit of waggling along the score line. The piece needs to be flattened in a vice afterwards! Cut to size for the wagon floor, it brings each wagon up to a more respectable 38 g. Before and after:

 

 

The lead pieces have been primed (Halfords grey) then given a wash with Humbrol No. 71 - which is a discontinued colour and in my old no-longer-airtight tin was forming crust... Too much thinners starts to lift the primer, so it may be back to the start with painting.

 

Any recommendations on preparing lead for painting? It oughtn't be very different to whitemetal. The paint is as much to provide a barrier between the lead and one's fingers as for decoration.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Siberian Snooper]

A tip that I learned a long time ago, is to store paint upside down, any crust forms at the bottom, when you turn it the right way to use it.

 

 

[Compound2632]

I recently bought this on Ebay for about £40 - there was one in a sensible black livery asking £175 which may still be there. It's now in pieces (was glued):

 

 

I was puzzled how to get the body off the chassis - couldn't find the screw - until:

 

 

From photos of other models, this would appear to be the chassis block K's provided. It's woefully short in the wheelbase - the body is the right length. I'd have thought the kit would have been designed to fit the Triang Jinty chassis.

 

One challenge will be the original Johnson chimney, which was a shorty at 2'9". I thought Alan Gibson used to do a 2441 but there's no such chimney in the catalogue.

 

I have in mind one of 2457-2460, built condensing but within a couple of months sent to Bromsgrove for Lickey banking, with the condensing equipment removed. It's the only way I can justify one in the Birmingham area at my period.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Penlan]

From the comments above there's obviously meant to be some photos, all I'm seeing is a very thin blue line, which doesn't do anything if I click the cursor on it.
In fact now looking at another post I think it's all over RMWeb for me - no photo's that is.

[Paul Cram]

Same for me

[Dave John]

An idea for the wagon floor, which I have used both on stock and buildings.

 

Search for firms that sell wooden floors, a lot have good photos square on. Find one that looks how you want. Grab a copy, adjust colour and plank size in a photo editor, print out, trim, stick in place. 

 

 

 

[Regularity]

42 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

From photos of other models, this would appear to be the chassis block K's provided. It's woefully short in the wheelbase - the body is the right length. I'd have thought the kit would have been designed to fit the Triang Jinty chassis.

One of those was my first attempt at kit building.

 

It’s a K’s “body line” kit, and the chassis is from the Dublo/Wrenn R1 0-6-0. They also produced body line kits for a condensing pannier and a J50.

 

I had the R1 in the faux LMS livery, which acted as a donor.

[Compound2632]

48 minutes ago, Penlan said:

From the comments above there's obviously meant to be some photos, all I'm seeing is a very thin blue line, which doesn't do anything if I click the cursor on it.
In fact now looking at another post I think it's all over RMWeb for me - no photo's that is.

 

47 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

Same for me

 

Try again, gentlemen.

[Penlan]

Agh, now I have pictures, thank you.
This week has been a sorry tale of lots of things going wrong in all sorts of ways

so I was not surprised that there was a problem earlier........

[Dave Hunt]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I recently bought this on Ebay for about £40 - there was one in a sensible black livery asking £175 which may still be there. It's now in pieces (was glued):

 

 

I was puzzled how to get the body off the chassis - couldn't find the screw - until:

 

 

From photos of other models, this would appear to be the chassis block K's provided. It's woefully short in the wheelbase - the body is the right length. I'd have thought the kit would have been designed to fit the Triang Jinty chassis.

 

One challenge will be the original Johnson chimney, which was a shorty at 2'9". I thought Alan Gibson used to do a 2441 but there's no such chimney in the catalogue.

 

I have in mind one of 2457-2460, built condensing but within a couple of months sent to Bromsgrove for Lickey banking, with the condensing equipment removed. It's the only way I can justify one in the Birmingham area at my period.

 

It could do with a second Salter safety valve as well, Stephen. I wonder if it was based on a Skinley drawing; my first go at scratch building was an 0-4-4T and that was built from a Skinley drawing rough impression so that, too, had just one Salter valve.

 

Dave