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

[Compound2632]

I've had a quick look through drawings and photographs of wagons with the standard 9'0" wheelbase, 14'11" over headstocks frame. No consistency, either in drawings or photos. As to drawings, it could vary with date or draughtsman. Both components are attached to the middle bearers, timbers 11" x 4.5" crossways between the solebars, with their inner faces spaced by 4'7". The brake hanger - the link supporting the brake block - is fixed to a bracket attached to the outer face of the middle bearer. I think the design of this bracket may have changed at some point, so that the centre of the pivot for the link is further towards the axle. The safety loop is usually fixed to the bottom of the middle bearer, quite how isn't apparent from the drawings. Here are some details, taken from the drawings available on the Midland Railway Study Centre website:

 

 

Drawings 203 (D305), 550 (D299) , 790 (D351), 1143 (D305) respectively. Beware of dates though - the hand-coloured copy of Drg. 203 could well be P.H. Evans's original of 30 Nov 1875 but the copy of Drg. 550 is clearly not what J.M. Watkinson drew on 18 April 1882 - it's drawn with oil axleboxes for starters, and is clearly marked up with detail for the last 242 wagons of Lot 513 of 1899 and then in red ink for the very final Lot 919 of 1917. The Study Centre catalogue lists three copies of Drg. 550, with dates not given, one is presumably this one and another is said to apply to Lot 178 of 1887, the fifth Lot of D299 wagons. 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Compound2632

[Guy Rixon]

On the drawing I saw - I'll try and post a scan this evening - I think the safety loop was attached to the inner, vertical face of the middle bearer, not to the bottom.

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

On the drawing I saw - I'll try and post a scan this evening - I think the safety loop was attached to the inner, vertical face of the middle bearer, not to the bottom.

 

... which makes more sense: the top ends of the loop are twisted through 90 degrees and bolted to the middle bearer. That's what e.g. the LNWR GAs in the LNWR Wagons books show and one can see the twist in photos (since it has to be below the bottom of the middle bearer, and hence solebar) but not in photos of Midland wagons:

 

 

The nut on the solebar just to the left of the top of the safety loop is on the end of an iron bar that runs across the width of the wagon hard up against the middle bearer, so allowing for the perspective I think the position of the safety loop matches the drawings. It's possible that the position of this bar is the reason the loop is attached to the bottom rather than the side of the bearer: it wouldn't fit between the side of the bearer and the bar.

[Spitfire2865]

LNWR made their tiebars like truss rods, while the Midland just had a straight shot between solebars.  

From the drawing, the strap looks to have a bent up foot.  Perhaps it was simply nailed or screwed into the middle beam? Its not like it was expected to withstand substantial force, just hold a lump of metal from crashing into the chairs in the rare occasion something goes wrong.  

[Guy Rixon]

Here's the scan I promised. On closer inspection, the safety loop is clearly fixed to the bottom of the middle bearer. This is the same drawing as in Stephen's post above, third from the left. I presume that the set in the loop is to move it further from the back of the shoe, making things easier when the shoes had to be changed.

 

Returning to my original question, does anyone want a print of brakes in this configuration? I personally have no need for more MR wagons, but I'm happy to make the print if others would like it.

[Compound2632]

For myself, I can put the angle in with my microstrip bodge. 

 

To demonstrate that the Litchurch Lane drawing office wasn't dogmatically against twisted safety loops, a couple of counter examples, drawings 559 and 2970 respectively:

 

 

These are the dumb-buffered and sprung-buffered versions of the D389 timber truck. This version of drg. 559 is likely to be the original, as it is marked as being for the first batch to this drawing, Lot 77 of 25 April 1882; likewise drg. 2970 has Lot 698 stencilled on it - the first of two lots to this drawing. 

 

The difference to the details I posted earlier is that these timber trucks do not use the standard 9'0" wheelbase underframe, although they share its external dimensions. The middle bearers are close together at the centre of the wagon, to support the bolster pivot. The brake hanger bracket and safety loop are fixed to a piece of timber 11" high but only 3" rather than 4.5" thick, inserted between the solebar and the diagonal timber (see the whole drawing). The safety loop wouldn't be in its usual position relative to the bracket if it was fixed to the underside of this timber. 

 

Now, did the design of the brake hanger bracket change so as to move the pivot point further from the middle bearer, so the link hangs at an angle, or was it just a case of different draughtsmen drawing it differently without checking the component drawing? We have to remember that these drawings were not intended for modellers or even erecting shop foremen - the latter assembled wagons from a standard set of components drawn from the stores.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Calling all Brighton experts! That is, I suppose, anyone with a copy of Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 2. 

 

At the club this evening, I was given the Smallbrook Studio kit for a LB&SC cattle waggon*, Southern Diagram 1527 or 1528, along with the Dapol underframe the manufacturer recommends. The latter will have to go, I'm pretty sure. As a Brighton ignoramus I'm after basic information - build dates, running gear... The nearest I've seen to a reliable photo is Gary's shot of a D&S kit for the same or similar - my, what long springs you've got - and a photo of an O gauge model with a wooden Scotch brake - that looks promisingly early... 9" letters and 6" numbers for c. 1898-1903 I gather. The challenge is to justify one turning up in Birmingham around about then!

 

The kit instructions merely give information about the career of the wagons transferred to the Isle of Wight.

 

*Smallbrook follow the archaic spelling used by the BoT Accident Reports written by senior RE officers in the late 19th century.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Compound2632

[BlueLightning]

Stephen,

 

If my kit is the closest thing you thing you have seen to a reliable photo I suppose I should help out

 

 

 

 

 

Gary

[Compound2632]

Gary, many thanks! I see 1888 as an early build date, so I'm happy. I have suitable MJT axleguards with the joggled keeper plate but the 4ft springs are a bit of a challenge - I may have to make my own. The photo and drawing of the later underframe show oil axleboxes but the main drawing shows what look like square-bottomed grease axleboxes - easy enough to make up from plasticard. The drawing appears to show the 1895-1903 livery style, though the lettering looks more like 12" than 9". Another online livery reference says that "the class letter appeared over the number" and has a sketch of a round-ended open with an A over the number; POWSides offer transfer sheets for vans, including 9" lettering, and opens, with 12" lettering (both with the underlined superscript Y) and a few of these letters - A, D, S. I'm guessing cattle wagons weren't among the wagon types that had these letters?

 

I'm being very lazy here picking your brains - an expenditure of £50 or so on books would get me the answers, I'm sure!

[jwealleans]

I think 51L may do some 4' springs, but the trunnions are different.

[Nick Holliday]

There were three designs of cattle wagon which fundanentally looked the same. Stroudley's design appeared by 1882, and had a low profile roof with a single wooden brake. The design developed slowly, the basic side elevation remaining unchanged.  The brakes improved, but they were still fitting single sided brakes into the twentieth century! Similarly the axle boxes were improved. The biggest change was the higher roof profile, which seems to have come in the mid-1890's.

There was a third design, of which only 20 were built, which dated from around 1921, but the changes were minimal, and hard to detect. Apparently the corner posts were slightly wider, and, if a view of the Isle of Wight transfers can be believed, the top of the diagonal strapping was different. Theoretically all these transfer were the later design, but it is believed some earlier ones were sent instead. The Smallbrook kit ought to represent this later design, 1528, but it looks as if it is based on the preserved wagon on the island, which was converted to a van, as cattle traffic was minimal. This wagon looks like the 1527 design, either because it was one, or the ironwork was altered, but there is no reason why it should have been.

The wagon in the photo was built in 1912, hence the modern running gear, but it seems atypical in having horizontal planking to the door, most had the diagonal version, as the drawing.

As for lettering, you are right in surmising that they didn't have any class lettering, just the number and LBSC, although the  Stroudley wagon in the book has an "illiterate" mark, shaded number and no visible lettering.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I think 51L may do some 4' springs, but the trunnions are different.

 

Thanks - I looked at MJT, nothing suitable. I'll have a wade through 51L's unhelpful website.

 

8 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

There were three designs of cattle wagon which fundanentally looked the same. Stroudley's design appeared by 1882, and had a low profile roof with a single wooden brake. The design developed slowly, the basic side elevation remaining unchanged.  The brakes improved, but they were still fitting single sided brakes into the twentieth century! Similarly the axle boxes were improved. The biggest change was the higher roof profile, which seems to have come in the mid-1890's.

There was a third design, of which only 20 were built, which dated from around 1921, but the changes were minimal, and hard to detect. Apparently the corner posts were slightly wider, and, if a view of the Isle of Wight transfers can be believed, the top of the diagonal strapping was different. Theoretically all these transfer were the later design, but it is believed some earlier ones were sent instead. The Smallbrook kit ought to represent this later design, 1528, but it looks as if it is based on the preserved wagon on the island, which was converted to a van, as cattle traffic was minimal. This wagon looks like the 1527 design, either because it was one, or the ironwork was altered, but there is no reason why it should have been.

The wagon in the photo was built in 1912, hence the modern running gear, but it seems atypical in having horizontal planking to the door, most had the diagonal version, as the drawing.

As for lettering, you are right in surmising that they didn't have any class lettering, just the number and LBSC, although the  Stroudley wagon in the book has an "illiterate" mark, shaded number and no visible lettering.

 

Many thanks Nick - the Smallbrook kit has a roof with quite a pronounced arc, so I take it this is the higher roof profile - it matches the photo in Gary's scan from Southern Wagons Vol. 2. 

 

I've done one side:

 

 

The vacuum-cast resin is an interesting material - a little brittle; one of the thin pillars came away as I was removing the flash - fortunately it was straightforward to fix it back in place once the wire bars were in place for extra support. I opened up the grooves for the wire with a needle file and applied some Mek-Pak as well as Rocket Max when sticking the pieces of plastikard in place, so they would form round the wires. Still some neatening up to do once the glue has thoroughly set.

 

The floor is a substantial slab of resin, which will block the lower slots (as the instructions admit), so I may look at an alternative. I also need to check the ride height for the MJT axleguards.

 

[Nick Holliday]

5&9 Models have produced castings for springs, axleboxes and buffers that could be used. It's worth contacting Chris Cox to see if can still oblige.

http://www.5and9models.co.uk/parts.html

[Guy Rixon]

I could draw up 4' springs for printing, including the unusual spring-shoes in the drawing above. This could be done moderately quickly, as I have a library for springs and the shoes seem not too hard. The axleboxes would be harder, would need better photos and/or drawings and would take longer.

[Compound2632]

I've been having some fun with the cattle wagon:

 

 

This "cruel enlargement" shows that the plasticard strip provided to make up the front of the pillars over the brass wire bars is a whisker too thick, so a bit more finishing will be needed there. More seriously, I nearly despaired when things went banana-shaped - I discovered that one side was longer than the other. I'd noticed that the resin was a slightly different shade of yellow - parts from two production runs with different amounts of shrinkage? Fortunately the Rocket Max is, like most cynoacrylates, brittle and so I could free up a corner and trim the end of the longer side. It's now just a shade under 74 mm long on both sides - near enough 18'4" over headstocks. Axleguard units are MJT, with the joggled keeper plates from the etch soldered on in place of the fold-up straight ones - the first time I've had the soldering iron out in about six months, I'm ashamed to admit. The washer plates are from the same etch, glued on with Rocket Max. I think the visible part of the solebar isn't quite deep enough as these were a very tight fit.

 

Solebars are of American Oak (Evergreen 0.157" x 0.060" strip - if the specification calls for English Oak, we use Slater's). These were fixed to a floor of 20 thou Plastikard, using the axleguard unit as a gauge to set the distance between inside faces - may be a tad over the scale 6'0". The axleguard unit are 13 mm wide, so a rectangle of 60 thou Plastikard was cut 32.3 mm long and fixed dead centre to space the axleguards to the 11'2" wheelbase.

 

 

This also helps stiffen the floor, which was glued in place with the bottom of the solebars flush with the bottom of the headstocks. The top of the floor is level with the bottom of the lower gap in the sides, as it should be. 

 

The axleguard units haven't been fixed in place, though they are a tight enough fit to stay in place as a reference for gluing the crown and washer plates. I will set the ride height with Plastikard shim once I've sorted out the springs and axleboxes - I have been in touch with Chris Cox of 5and9 Models (thanks for the tip, Nick); he has the appropriate parts; I'm just trying to work out which axleboxes I need - Stroudley or Billinton? (Chris also does SER axleboxes. Interesting...) The whitemetal buffers come with the kit;they are of the right 4-bolt pattern and I noted they go NSEW rather than at 45 degrees.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Compound2632
Erroneous g removed from Billinton!

[Compound2632]

I'm afraid I have to report further deviation from the crimson path of Derby perfection:

 

 

A very prompt delivery on an order placed with Roxey Mouldings this week. According to the instructions, this kit was developed by members of the Brighton Circle - the references to photos used for research are all to publications on the LB&SCR with the exception of Plate 22 in Midland Wagons Vol. 1 (there is no escaping the tentacles of the mighty Midland octopus). What is going on? Has Compound2632 gone colourblind? Is yellow the new red as well as the new green?

 

My excuse is to be found towards the rear of the coal train in my favourite Huntley & Palmers photo:

 

 

[Crop and enlargement reproduced here in the pursuit of historically-informed modelling.]

 

When building my Huntey & Palmers wagons, I theorised that the presence of Midland wagons, along with one from the Birmingham coal factor W.H. Bowater, indicated that the famous Reading biscuit manufacturer was getting its coal from the Warwickshire coalfield - this was supported by a reference to North Warwickshire coal being particularly suitable for biscuit making. So, the three Stephenson Clarke wagons could well have come from a colliery on the Kingsbury or Stockingford branches, via Washwood Heath and Bordesley for hand-over to the Great Western. 

 

The kit instructions advertise real working dumb buffers. I'm certainly going to build one of the pair I've bought that way but I'm tempted to substitute full width headstocks and non-working sprung beffers on the other, per No. 2168 in the photo. When we discussed Stephenson Clarke wagons before (starting here and going on for several pages) it became clear that they had wagons built to their own design, rather than the builders' house designs, and that this was consistent over a long while, so wagons built by the Gloucester RC&W Co c. 1900 had the same dimensions and details as Stephenson Clarke's pre-1887 dumb-buffered design. At least the designers of the kit agree with this; the body castings are a good match to the drawing I have, in Modelling Railways Illustrated, Vol. 2 No. 11 (July 1995). 

 

POWSides transfers for these are on order, along with their LB&SCR ones.

 

What was I supposed to be doing?

 

• finishing a batch of Midland D305 wagons
• lettering a batch of Midland covered goods wagons
• doing the brass work on a Midland D336 long low wagon
• ditto on a HB&WRJR&DCo covered goods wagon
• getting distracted into building MS&LR wagons as CLC wagons (when they arrive)
• finishing various brake vans
• finishing LNWR D13 timber truck pair
• building more Huntley & Palmers wagons
• turning a pig's ear into a Great Western engine
• ditto into a Great Western brake van
• venturing into the minefield of South Wales wagons - Ocean steam coal and assorted anthracite 
• building some carriages...

 

To make matters worse, I ordered a couple of LB&SCR open wagons from % & 9 Models along with the parts for the cattle wagon. And SER axleboxes...

Edited February 23, 2019 by Compound2632
More projects added...

[Northroader]

That works programme doesn’t sound too bad to me. I’m glad to hear you’re modelling it with real working dumb buffers, meeting exacting standards like that give me a warm feeling.

[Compound2632]

Looking at the H&P photo again, I've realised that the sprung-buffered Stephenson Clarke wagon, No. 2168, has outside diagonal ironwork whereas its dumb-buffered brothers No. 1411? and ? don't. Dang. 

 

The Gloucester-built ones incl. No. 4000 had internal diagonal bracing, but this one, No. 11?3,  has external:

 

 

No consistency.

 

 

 

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Looking at the H&P photo again, I've realised that the sprung-buffered Stephenson Clarke wagon, No. 2168, has outside diagonal ironwork whereas its dumb-buffered brothers No. 1411? and ? don't. Dang. 

 

The Gloucester-built ones incl. No. 4000 had internal diagonal bracing, but this one, No. 11?3,  has external:

 

 

No consistency.

 

 

 

Talking of consistency, look at the difference in buffer heights!

[wagonman]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Looking at the H&P photo again, I've realised that the sprung-buffered Stephenson Clarke wagon, No. 2168, has outside diagonal ironwork whereas its dumb-buffered brothers No. 1411? and ? don't. Dang. 

 

The Gloucester-built ones incl. No. 4000 had internal diagonal bracing, but this one, No. 11?3,  has external:

 

 

No consistency.

 

 

 

 

The standard SC wagon of the period was actually rather odd in that it had normal diagonal strapping on the outside and reverse diagonal strapping on the inside – note the line of bolts on 1173. There was a batch built by Gloucester which used as a pattern one that had been built by Harrison & Camm. This is presumably the batch of 500 ordered in July 1899 and priced at £68 each. SC also hired wagons from Gloucester usually for a year at a time and in batches or 100 or more. Presumably these were the black painted wagons built to standard Glos 6 plank 10-ton design of the period. I have photos somewhere...

 

 

[Northroader]

12 hours ago, Regularity said:

Talking of consistency, look at the difference in buffer heights!

 

All my buffers are set like that.

[wagonman]

Further to my earlier post about the Gloucester order for Stephenson Clarke wagons, the first one off the production line in December 1899 was no.3529 and the rest were delivered in batches through to the end of August 1900, the last one being no.4000. The GRC&WCo very kindly photographed nos.3663 (Feb) and 3801 (April) as well as no.4000, and indeed also took a snap of the Harrison & Camm built wagon to be used as a pattern – it was no.1006. The sharp eyed among you may have noticed that 3529 to 4000 is not (quite) 500; who registered the other wagons I know not.

 

Dimensions were 15' 6" x 7' 0" x 3' 11" (internal) and they were rated to carry 10 tons. Gloucester also held repair contracts. They painted them lead colour with white lettering shaded black. They also painted the ironwork black which seems at variance with SC practice.

 

If anyone is interested I can fire up the scanner and copy a couple of the photos...

 

[billbedford]

25 minutes ago, wagonman said:

They painted them lead colour with white lettering shaded black. They also painted the ironwork black which seems at variance with SC practice.

 

 

 

This seems to have been a common practice for private wagon builders. I believe it allowed them to batch produce basic ironwork, paint the parts black and keep them in stock until needed. It may also mean that the wooden components were painted before assembly.

[wagonman]

4 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

This seems to have been a common practice for private wagon builders. I believe it allowed them to batch produce basic ironwork, paint the parts black and keep them in stock until needed. It may also mean that the wooden components were painted before assembly.

 

Quite right Bill, even though in this case the ironwork was non-standard. Obviously they would have produced all 500 sets at the same time and stored them ready for use – and painted black.

[wagonman]

Here are scans of SC wagons no.1006 (the sample – photo dated Aug 1899) and no.4000 (the last of the Glos production, Aug 1900).

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by wagonman