Jump to content
 

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


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, magmouse said:

Thanks - and yes, I take your point about rust. The photos of the period are very hard to interpret in that regard - certainly some wagons got into both a dirty and rather battered state. The trouble is, I like what it does for the overall colour palette and to help make the detail pop. So my inner poet and my inner historian are constantly arm-wrestling for control of the weathering powders...

 

Ah, the heart and the head - the Dionysian / Apollonian dichotomy that lies at the heart of the attraction of railways and railway modelling.

 

I see you've modelled a representation of the bottom door release mechanism, which I've not (yet) attempted in 4 mm scale! Is the underside of the wagon fully modelled?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
56 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Is the underside of the wagon fully modelled?

 

No - just what you can see from normal viewing angles. I was prompted to model the release mechanism after some discussion of it earlier in this thread, and made it using some bits of plasticard and wire - all quite fiddly. A short while after, I realised there is a nice etched version on the David J Parkins under frame detailing etch I have in stock...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been able to pursue RM Web for a little while, however earlier today going through some photos earlier today I came across this view of a D299 - one for @Compound2632 I thought, (just in case he hasn't already seen it) and I hope it might also be helpful to @magmouse. There doesn't appear to be that much rust on the wagon - but there is a barrel!

The engine is No 2344 - Neilson Class M - built in March 1897. The accident took place between 1903 and say 1905/06.

 

681789921_D299LichfieldAccidentNo2344.jpg.6fdf8184c194ee5f123719d30c328912.jpg

 

I like the enigmatic chalk marks added by shunters etc.

 

I'm not certain of the details but I think the number (14) painted on the solebar within the leading crown plate and also the one immediately behind the headstock (at least I think it's a digit) were something to do with where it was maintained and when it was last done. Ken Werrett did describe a method on one of his drawings that he advised was used by the Midland but I can't readily recall ever seeing what he described on a wagon.

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

@Crimson Rambler - thanks for this. As you say, not much rust, but this photo usefully shows exactly how the rule ‘black below the solebar’ was applied, which I had been struggling to make out in other photos. There is a black/grey boundary on the vee hanger and the brake lever guard, while the brake lever itself is all black. Happily, this is what I did on my model!

 

Nick. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Crimson Rambler said:

I have not been able to pursue RM Web for a little while, however earlier today going through some photos earlier today I came across this view of a D299 - one for @Compound2632 I thought, (just in case he hasn't already seen it) and I hope it might also be helpful to @magmouse. There doesn't appear to be that much rust on the wagon - but there is a barrel!

The engine is No 2344 - Neilson Class M - built in March 1897. The accident took place between 1903 and say 1905/06.

 

This is the accident at Whitacre, 18 August 1903 [see Maj. Druitt's report]. Your photo is a crop from DY 1047:

 

88-2018-0009.jpg

 

[Midland Railway Study Centre item 88-2018-009, embedded link].

 

But your enlargement reveals an interesting point, for the wagon numbering obsessive. Maj. Druitt's report lists No. 20628 among the casualties; we now learn that this was an error for 20698, casting doubt on the reliability of my entire wagon number spreadsheet...

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @Compound2632 for the date and name of the accident. I had forgotten the latter and not sure if I ever knew the former!

 

Sorry if the number is a problem - apologies.

 

One other thing I also came across today was another accident piccy which has a partial view of the internal ironwork of a D299. What struck me is that the bolt heads are proud and don't have countersunk heads. I assumed (wrongly I now know) they were always flush. 

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

Sorry if the number is a problem - apologies.

 

Not at all. Interesting, for those who find such things interesting.

 

No. 20698 is another example of one with the extra vertical ironwork between the end pillars, which I think indicates the years around 1890, maybe 3 years each way, and has Ellis 10A axleboxes which I believe puts its build date as c. 1890 onwards. The number implies that it replaced a wagon built c. 1870, which was when the Midland wagon fleet reached that many wagons. Such a wagon would in principle not be life expired until c. 1900 so evidently there was some reason for its early withdrawal - perhaps it too had been an accident victim?

 

29 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

One other thing I also came across today was another accident piccy which has a partial view of the internal ironwork of a D299. What struck me is that the bolt heads are proud and don't have countersunk heads. I assumed (wrongly I now know) they were always flush. 

 

Even more interesting. Do show - or PM if you can't show.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 03/01/2022 at 10:59, drduncan said:

 

I "watched" that (in fact the seller had two, plus some Westykits Hurst Nelson 1890s wagons that looked interesting) but then forgot about them until just now, after the auction had ended. There were several bidders, so I suspect that the only result if I had bid would have been to push the price up for the successful bidder.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 09/01/2022 at 22:09, Brassey said:

I've been away from this thread for a while but it seems have gone quite LNWR?

 

Do you have a problem with that?

 

985930935_Eustonarch.jpg.b1870c2e2f074f035c25c562416693aa.jpg

Edited by Compound2632
image re-inserted
  • Like 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Herewith, in response to @Compound2632's request, the photo of a D299 wagon with the bolt heads visible in the internal ironwork:-

 

801921429_D299BreadsallCrossing.jpg.92433185544e5e891f93275d9fad1cdd.jpg

 

It has suffered after being contacted inappropriately by 0-6-0 No 1045 at Breadsall Crossing in (I believe) 1906. It seems the door bang has been fitted with countersunk bolt heads. In this view the wagon has a central strapping present between the stanchions. Conversely in this second view of the accident there is no strapping strip present:-

 

63393993_D299BreadsallCrossingII.jpg.cf064ec5ae56d1f9f1ffcf045f6e6e0c.jpg

 

It wasn't removed as a result of the accident, instead it seems to be a deliberate act by possibly 'depot 5' (?). Some of the lower planks exhibit what seem to be plugged bolt holes where the strapping was once present whereas the top and third planks appear never to have been drilled.

 

Am I glad I like exploring Midland locomotives - they are far simpler!

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 10/01/2022 at 09:08, Crimson Rambler said:

Herewith, in response to @Compound2632's request, the photo of a D299 wagon with the bolt heads visible in the internal ironwork:-

 

Well, well. I am due the well-deserved wrath of @Regularity and the designer of his 3D print, though I will say that this is the only example I've seen, as against many, many with countersunk bolt heads.

 

These are from Derby officials, DY 1062 and DY 1061; there's a third in the set, DY 1060, in which this wagon is not visible. As you point out, there's evidently been some replacement of planks at the end seen in DY 1061; it evidently wasn't though worth replacing the vertical strapping. The impression made by the strapping is barely visible in the version of this photo published in Midland Wagons, Plate 98.  The version of DY 1062 on the Derby Registers pages is too low resolution for the bolt-heads on the inside to be distinct.

 

In the years of the great PO-wagon buying binge, No. 50180 was reached early on, sometime in mid-1883 (stock increased from 42,315 on 31 Dec 1882 to 61,532 on 31 Dec 1883); this wagon was probably built to replace the ex-PO wagon initially given that number. I think I can discount the possibility of it coming from a lot built to capital account, since it could then only come from the very first lot of D299, Lot 82 raised in October 1882; one would have to presume that lot was not complete before mid-1883. The second lot of D299 was not raised until May 1884. It has 8A axleboxes, so it's from before c. 1890. I wonder if, on a really good enlargement from the negative of DY 1062, the date on the builder's plate would be legible?

 

I need to go away and have a look for other photos in which the interior ironwork is visible and the wagon has 8A axleboxes. For the moment, I'll advance the theory that early lots of D299 had round-headed rather than countersunk bolts; this was certainly the case for earlier high-sided wagons - referring back to the photos of pre-1877 4-plank wagons discussed previously:

 

127537782_MRSC613694-plankwagoncrop.jpg.db457d56d78879df0a81418dfa9d3337.jpg

 

[Crop from Midland Railway Study Centre Item 61369, which I think is probably DY 3026, interior of Somers Town goods depot, 1894.]

 

So the question is, when was the change to countersunk bolts made? Clearly it was not before the vertical end strapping was introduced, which could well have been from the beginning. The only version of Drg. 550 that is held in the Midland Railway Study Centre [Item 88-D1879] is late. It is marked as being for the last 242 wagons of Lot 513, the last lot of the production series, but is later than that, as it shows a long brake lever to Drg. 3127, which drawing dates from 1909. It's marked up in red with alterations for the wartime Lot 919. We can compare with Drg. 790 [Item 88-D0267] for the end-door version, D351. These wagons were built between 1890 and 1900; this drawing shows 10A axleboxes, countersunk bolts, and no extra end strapping. However, I doubt this is the original drawing of 19 June 1889, partly on stylistic grounds but chiefly because there are photographs of D351 wagons with the vertical end strap (which the drawing does not show), e.g. the photo taken from the water tower at Gurnos in 1906, J. Miles et al., The Swansea Vale Railway (Lightmoor Press, 2017) pp. 140-1. It is, I think, reasonably clear in this photo that the boltheads are flush with the ironwork on this wagon and the adjacent D299. There's a bit of further evidence from drawings of low-sided wagons, D305 and its antecedents. Drg. 10 of Jan 1874 [Item 88-D0058], for wagons built before the opening of the Litchurch Lane works Lot List, shows round-headed bolts. The Study Centre copy of Drg. 213 [Item 88-D0100] is a version marked with both the original date of 30 November 1875 and also "Drawing Renewed 23/9/86" and so presumably applies to the last 250 wagons built to this drawing, Lot 164 raised 14 January 1887. Close inspection of this drawing shows countersunk bolts. So one could deduce that countersunk bolts were adopted no later than late 1886 / early 1887, in which case D299 wagons to Lot 160, raised 12 October 1886, or Lot 178, raised 2 June 1887 would be the first to have them. On this hypothesis, no more than the first 8,000 - 9,000 D299s would have the round-headed bolts. That would put No. 50180 as being from Lot 115, 135, or at latest Lot 160. 

 

Therefore, if modelling a D299 with round-headed bolts rather than countersunk, be sure to give it the extra end strapping, 8A axleboxes, and a number below about 86,000, or safer 82,000, the total wagons stock at 31 December 1886 having been 82,754.

 

Now, if only that builder's plate could be persuaded to reveal a date, to test this hypothesis!

Edited by Compound2632
image re-inserted
  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Well, well. I am due the well-deserved wrath of @Regularity and the designer of his 3D print, though I will say that this is the only example I've seen, as against many, many with countersunk bolt heads.

No wrath required. As Bob Essery once opined, the purpose of photos is to confirm whether the prototype construction matched the drawings!

 

It does mean that I can get two variants from the same body, simply by removing the protruding bolt heads on the majority of the wagons!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Crimson Rambler said:

@Compound2632 after a number of attempts this is about the best I can obtain with my rather basic scanner:-

 

Hopefully you might be able to interpret something!

 

I'm confident the first digit is a 1...

 

I was shown a nifty way of bringing out the detail on a good-quality print, using the magnifying function (or app?) on a smartphone camera - the CCD of which has much higher resolution than that of most scanners. I don't have a smartphone myself so haven't been able to experiment.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Compound2632 with of Mrs Crimson Lake's help I can provide the following pair:-

 

1118581166_No1.jpg.a153e4d885c6c65246fbded7fe904587.jpg

 

321865171_No2.jpg.82cfff28dcec298600c4f957b4a64656.jpg

 

In truth, I'm not sure if these are that much better but for now its probably the best I can do. However I will see if a better picture is possible - focus of the original permitting.

 

In the meantime, my interpretation is that the final digit is probably a 7 while the third could well be an 8, which if I'm correct, would fit your analysis.

 

What do you wagon people think.

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Crimson Rambler said:

In the meantime, my interpretation is that the final digit is probably a 7 while the third could well be an 8, which if I'm correct, would fit your analysis.

 

Many thanks. I was leaning towards 1887 on the basis that the two middle digits looked to be the same and the last rather 7-ish. If correct, that would be Lot 160 or Lot 178. Lot 196 was not raised until 21 December 1887 so even with the limited Christmas holiday workers had back then, it was unlikely to have spawned any wagons with 1887 builder's plates.

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

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Many thanks. I was leaning towards 1887 on the basis that the two middle digits looked to be the same and the last rather 7-ish. If correct, that would be Lot 160 or Lot 178. Lot 196 was not raised until 21 December 1887 so even with the limited Christmas holiday workers had back then, it was unlikely to have spawned any wagons with 1887 builder's plates.

Stephen, forgive my ignorance, but is it likely to be an '87 build, if as you said earlier this number came up as the next available one in 83, i.e. just 4 years previously?  I am just wondering on the mechanism that would allow that to happen?  

 

all the best

 

Neil

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, WFPettigrew said:

Stephen, forgive my ignorance, but is it likely to be an '87 build, if as you said earlier this number came up as the next available one in 83, i.e. just 4 years previously?  I am just wondering on the mechanism that would allow that to happen?  

 

OK. From 1882, the Midland had a policy of buying up the private owner wagons running on its system - the board voted £1,000,000 for this and over the next 12-13 years, 66,813 wagons were purchased. These wagons were added to capital stock and received new numbers - so some PO wagon bought in mid 1883 might bring the total wagon fleet up to 50,180 units, and hence would receive the running number 50180. Now, part of the reason for buying these wagons up was that they were perceived as a safety hazard owing to their poor condition. As far as I can work out, what happened was that the worst ones were replaced quite quickly, whereas the better ones put in quite a few years service in Midland ownership. They would eventually be replaced, as would any life-expired wagon, but the replacement was not an addition to the company's capital stock but instead was treated as the renewal of an asset - there wasn't really the concept of depreciation of assets at that time, I gather. So the ex-PO wagon No. 50180 seems to have had about four years of useable life in it, being renewed by a D299 wagon built in 1887. But wagon No. 50181, bought up at the same time, might be in rather better condition and give 12 years' service, so the D299 built as its renewal would not be built until 1895. 

 

The result is that the number of a D299 alone is not necessarily a good guide to its age, but does give a "not before" date, working from the known total number of the wagon stock at 30 June and 31 December each year. There were some batches of D299 built as additions to capital stock - and also other wagon types too, of course. Also, an ex-PO wagon might not necessarily be renewed with an open / mineral wagon; its replacement might be a covered goods wagon, for example. It's all very complicated and I'm only just starting to scratch the surface.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 8
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

OK. From 1882, the Midland had a policy of buying up the private owner wagons running on its system - the board voted £1,000,000 for this and over the next 12-13 years, 66,813 wagons were purchased. These wagons were added to capital stock and received new numbers - so some PO wagon bought in mid 1883 might bring the total wagon fleet up to 50,180 units, and hence would receive the running number 50180. Now, part of the reason for buying these wagons up was that they were perceived as a safety hazard owing to their poor condition. As far as I can work out, what happened was that the worst ones were replaced quite quickly, whereas the better ones put in quite a few years service in Midland ownership. They would eventually be replaced, as would any life-expired wagon, but the replacement was not an addition to the company's capital stock but instead was treated as the renewal of an asset - there wasn't really the concept of depreciation of assets at that time, I gather. So the ex-PO wagon No. 50180 seems to have had about four years of useable life in it, being renewed by a D299 wagon built in 1887. But wagon No. 50181, bought up at the same time, might be in rather better condition and give 12 years' service, so the D299 built as its renewal would not be built until 1895. 

 

The result is that the number of a D299 alone is not necessarily a good guide to its age, but does give a "not before" date, working from the known total number of the wagon stock at 30 June and 31 December each year. There were some batches of D299 built as additions to capital stock - and also other wagon types too, of course. Also, an ex-PO wagon might not necessarily be renewed with an open / mineral wagon; its replacement might be a covered goods wagon, for example. It's all very complicated and I'm only just starting to scratch the surface.

 

Thank you - yes that makes perfect sense.  I think the nub of this is that the number gives a "not before" date isn't it?

One other observation... having read all 177 pages of this thread more than once, I think you are underselling your research as "starting to scratch the surface"!

 

All the best

 

Neil 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

"starting to scratch the surface"!

 

You haven't seen the quantity of material held at the Midland Railway Study Centre. I haven't even started at The National Archives - which is a shorter distance from here - though others have been there before me. 

 

  

7 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

I think the nub of this is that the number gives a "not before" date isn't it?

 

Yes, that's my view.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dates?

 

I remember getting into a conversation with a girl that was astounded that I was an archaeologist as if it was something unusual. It was something like "Why are they always obsessed with pottery and coins?"

 

The reply was "If it's got Made In Hong Kong 1970 on the bottom then it's not Roman"  :laugh:

 

I somehow don't think she quite understood the joke....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 7
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...