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

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

Easily done, which is one of the reasons that at about the time I joined the RAF the terms  'port' and 'starboard' were dropped in favour of left and right. To avoid confusion when writing, I always put in the introduction to the Midland Engines and LMS Locomotive Profiles books the statement that left and right referred to the sides of a locomotive when looking forward, irrespective of the orientation of photographs.

 

Dave

all very well till the printers produce the photo in mirror image !

[Compound2632]

On 10/04/2021 at 12:10, Crimson Rambler said:

Came across this photo the other day in an old BRJ and knowing of the recent discussion on Midland refrigerated meat wagons wondered if it might be of interest. I think it may have been taken on the London Extension possibly Harpenden but that could be complete rubbish. The engine is a Class M 0-6-0 - not easy to identify which batch although certain ones can be eliminated. It dates (probably) from after 1896 but before 1903 when the lamp codes changed.

 

 

The photo is part of RJE's collection and he reckoned there were seventeen vans in the train.

 

Crimson Rambler

 

Thanks to a tip-off from @The Stationmaster, who got me looking at the wrong box but the right map, I suggest the train is on the up fast line passing Kettering North signal box. Reasoning here:

I don't think I've posted a photo of the Mousa D370 meat van since I lettered it, partly because it's still waiting for matt varnish and weathering, but as the meat vans are back under discussion, here it is:

 

 

This is my guess at lettering as running c. 1902. The official photo of No. 114128 of Lot 305 shows lettering as built in 1892 [Midland Wagons Plate 212]. This was just before the initials M R started being applied to covered goods wagons. Also, the lettering MEAT VAN is rather larger - about 10" - rather than the 7" on the HMRS Pressfix sheet. That size is appropriate for the vans seen in later photos. I've followed the layout of the lettering seen on the official photo of D372 van No. 23553 of Lot 372* built in 1896 [Midland Wagons Plate 217]. Doing so has revealed that I've put the doorstop slightly too low - it should be above the top of the M - which I think is because the locking bar across the doors is a whisker low. Both Drg. 419 for D370 shows it centred at 3'2" above the bottom of the doors - i.e. exactly half-way up the 6'4" doors; on Drg. 1102 for D372 the dimension is not marked but scaling off the drawing shows it to be at the same height, the doors also being 6'4" high; on the model it's centred 12.0 mm up, the doors being 25.0 mm tall, i.e. it's around 0.5 mm too low; my doorstop is about 1.5 mm too low relative to the position of the M - which I might have put a bit too high - so I've overestimated from the photo how far below the door bar the door stop should go. Drg. 1102 shows the bottom of the doorstop 2'10" above the bottom of the siderail (I've only just spotted that - it's on the end elevation only; the doorstop isn't on the side elevation becayse that part of the body is cut away to show the interior), I've put it only 9.3 mm above, so 2.0 mm too low. Running the rule over the diagram [Mdland Wagons Fig. 95] shows that the model matches that, rather than the drawing, which isn't too surprising. 

 

The photo of No. 23553 shows the full inscription REFRIGERATOR MEAT VAN. I'd initially assumed that the shorter inscription was used on the D370 vans because they're only 14'11 long rather than 16'6" but having noted the larger, earlier lettering, I'm in doubt - the HMRS transfer would fit the D370. So it's possible that by 1902 they had the full inscription. Van No. 114148, damaged an accident at Whitacre on 18 August 1903, is listed in Maj. Druitt's report as a Refrigerator Meat Van, along with three others, so this might be how it was labelled - though I suspect the list of damage to stock was provided by the railway rather than being from Maj. Druitt's observation, so might reflect how the vehicle was recorded in the (long lost) wagon register.

 

I've also put the number top right, per the photos of No. 23553 and later meat vans. I've picked the number mid-way between the van in the official photo and the van in the accident report, surmising that the thirty vans of Lot 305 were additions to stock and numbered in a block. Nos. 114118-114120 are known to have been the three 18 ton trollies of Lot 296. Lots 297, 300, 303, and 304 are for ballast, tariff, and goods brake vans that were numbered in the goods brake van series; Lot 298 was for 1,000 D299s which would take the numbers of withdrawn ex-PO wagons, mostly; Lot 299 was for 50 rail wagons, Lot 301 for 30 implement wagons (D333, numbers known and not in the 114xxx range) and Lot 302 for 8 crane match wagons. Those might also be taking the numbers of withdrawn wagons. So, with all sorts of reservations, such as order of completion not necessarily being the same as the order in which the Lots were placed, I will postulate that the refrigerator meat vans of Lot 305 may have been numbered 114121-114150.

 

Sticking my neck out even further I've noted that one of the D357 11' tall covered goods wagons of Lot 309 was No. 114193 [Midland Wagons Plate 179] and one of the first batch of 16'6" D392 wagons, Lot 311, was No. 114351 [Midland Wagons Plate 184]. I've also spotted D392/D393 No. 114363 in a probably post-1905 photo at Burton, and D664 No. 114298 is reported in a photo I've not myself seen. That post-1910 vehicle (could be 1920 build) might be a replacement of an 1893-built vehicle. So I speculate that the D357 vehicles of Lot 309 (which did not constitute the whole Lot) and the 50 D362 vehicles of Lot 311 may also have been numbered in blocks in the 114xxx series; as these were new types, it's possible that they were additions to stock. The intervening lots are Lot 306 for a trifling 4,000 D299s, Lot 307 for a letter sorting van, and Lots 308 and 310 for MSWJS dining carriages. If the official photo was of the first 16'6" wagon, Lot 311 might have been numbered 114351-114400, leaving a block of 200 numbers that could include some of the 220 vehicles of Lot 309. That Lot included 50 vehicles 10'6" tall, D356, No. 9012 of which was photographed [Midland Wagons Plate 178]. So maybe these fifty took old numbers and the remaining 170 numbers in a block in the range 114151-114350? If so, what took the other thirty numbers?

 

*Possibly the only instance of a batch of wagons having the same lot number and diagram number.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[MR Chuffer]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Sticking my neck out even further

Are you putting this all down in one place with your other research such that you can produce the ultimate book on MR wagon numbering conventions?

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, MR Chuffer said:

Are you putting this all down in one place with your other research such that you can produce the ultimate book on MR wagon numbering conventions?

 

I am working up a series of articles for the Midland Railway Society Journal. However I think my speculation on numbering goes just a bit too far to survive peer review. I do have a spreadsheet, though...

[Regularity]

On 10/04/2021 at 22:29, Compound2632 said:

Bother. I realise I've been muddling up my port and starboard, hence the confusion over driver's position. For 'port' read 'starboard'.

Ah yes, but to steer a small boat to port, the tiller has to be moved to the starboard side... ...imagine the confusion that has caused in the past!

[billbedford]

Well, no, because ships almost universally rigged their wheels to move in the same way as tillers. So on an order of 'hard a starboard' the helms man would move the tiller or wheel to starboard and the rudder and the ship's head would move to port. Along as the helmsman carried out the order exactly there was no problem.  

 

By WW1 countries started to change the steering orders in their fleets from 'helm orders' to 'rudder orders' where the ship's head moved in the direction indicated by the order. The RN followed this trend in 1934. 

[Regularity]

I was talking about small boats, Bill, and indeed the difference between rudder orders and helm orders:

[Compound2632]

Whatever this is, it can't be thread drift as our helmsmen seem to have everything under control.

 

Here's a ship:

 

 

 

Midland Railway Co.'s TSS Manxman at Heysham, 27 May 1906. Built by Vickers at Barrow, launched 15 June 1904. [NRM DY 1311, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.]

Edited June 16, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[billbedford]

10 hours ago, Regularity said:

I was talking about small boats, Bill, and indeed the difference between rudder orders and helm orders:

 

Yes, but that is the modern way of steering with a wheel. Throughout the existence of the Midland Railway steering wheels were rigged so that moving the top of the wheel followed the movement of a tiller. I suspect that this wasn't changed until people had most of their experience in steering motor vehicles and instinctively turn ships/boats wheels the wrong way. 

[Dave Hunt]

I think that the change was inevitable when virtually all other forms of transport - cars once they changed from tillers to wheels, early aeroplanes, bicycles etc. - had steering systems that involved steering 'into' the direction of turn rather than the opposite. To have ships contrary to everything else was probably seen as a recipe for disaster.

 

Dave

 

PS, It's just occurred to me that even horses are steered by pulling on the rein that leads into the turn.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Dave Hunt
Add PS

[MikeOxon]

3 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

Yes, but that is the modern way of steering with a wheel. Throughout the existence of the Midland Railway steering wheels were rigged so that moving the top of the wheel followed the movement of a tiller. I suspect that this wasn't changed until people had most of their experience in steering motor vehicles and instinctively turn ships/boats wheels the wrong way. 

I have read a claim somewhere that Titanic struck the iceberg because of a misunderstanding on this point.

[billbedford]

It was the film 'Titanic' that got the helm orders wrong

[Regularity]

17 minutes ago, billbedford said:

It was the film 'Titanic' that got the helm orders wrong

There you go: my humorous point exactly.

[Compound2632]

On 13/04/2021 at 14:15, billbedford said:

It was the film 'Titanic' that got the helm orders wrong

 

For pseudo-Edwardian confusion on this point, see Kind Hearts and Coronets!

Edited April 14, 2021 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

Ahh yes, lifted straight out of the loss of HMS Victoria

[Compound2632]

I've been a bit idle on the modelling front - partly putting off another round of Archer rivet transfers - but at last I've something to show, which will need more of those. Having modified a Slater's D299 kit by cutting it down, I thought I'd try my hand at extending one up. It's a bit rough so far:

 

 

D343 hopper bottom wagon, of which 2,100 were built to four lots between 1888 and 1898. The inspiration came from leafing through S. Summerson, The Midland Railway Steam Motor Carriages (Midland Railway Society, 2008), so really I have @Annie to thank. On p. 16 there's a photo of a D343 wagon at Wirksworth, along with a D299, both loaded with small-sized coal or other mineral. (So I'm not planning detailed modelling of the hopper interior). 

 

Rather than scribe the additional planks, the side and end extensions are built up from 0.030" x 0.188" (0.75 mm x 4.78 mm) Evergreen strip, with the planks cut from 0.010" Plastikard. Initially I'd thought to use 0.010" x 0.080" (0.25 mm x 2.03 mm) Evergreen strip but it wasn't quite a good enough match for the width of the existing planks - nearer 2.3 mm. Leaving a little gap between each 'plank' overlay replicates the 'grooves' on the Slaters side. Those aren't entirely correct; the planks should just be beveled on the top edge, but here I think uniformity of appearance will be more convincing. There's quite a bit of tidying up to do before it's ready for the Archer transfers; I fear I'm only going to find out if it is a success once it's been primed.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Compound2632
Typos corrected

[Mikkel]

Looks good. So far I think the gap at the join looks natural, it can be so tricky.

 

If you have photo editing software, turning the contrast up to max might give you an idea of how the gaps will come out.

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Looks good. So far I think the gap at the join looks natural, it can be so tricky.

 

If you have photo editing software, turning the contrast up to max might give you an idea of how the gaps will come out.

 

 

Even better is seeing the model in the flesh! Even so, as I said, it's difficult to be confident until it's been primed. 

[jwealleans]

Is that material thick enough?  I thought 3" planks were standard for side sheeting.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Is that material thick enough?  I thought 3" planks were standard for side sheeting.

 

It's 0.010" thick overlays on 0.030" Evergreen strip, giving 0.040" / 1 mm / 3". While 3" thick sheeting was usual for trade-built PO wagons, these Midland wagons had 2½" sheeting which I believe was common for company-built wagons*, so in fact the model's sides are over scale thickness - but 1 mm matches the thickness of the Slaters mouldings.

 

*Although picking up the first non-Midland book that comes to hand, I see that the LNWR used 3" sheeting but the same 7" x  2½" floorboards as the Midland.

[jwealleans]

Ah, sorry.  i misunderstood your description.   Reading back, I see what you mean.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Ah, sorry.  i misunderstood your description.   Reading back, I see what you mean.

 

But thickness of sheeting is an interesting question in its own right.

[Regularity]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

D343 hopper bottom wagon, of which 2,100 were built to four lots between 1888 and 1898.

Were these usually somewhat restricted in use, or in general dispersement?

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Were these usually somewhat restricted in use, or in general dispersement?

 

Well now, there's a question.

 

I know of three photos: a posed official photo of a member of one of the first lot, in 1888/9; one empty at the end of a siding, no earlier than 1917 (it has its number painted on the bodyside below the M) - both these are in Midland Wagons; and the Wirksworth photo, taken in the winter of 1904/5. In that photo, it appears to have the same load as the D299 to which it is coupled, from which slender evidence I conclude that these wagons were in general use, singly, by the early 20th century. That suits me, as I don't fancy doing a whole train of these conversions, though it doesn't rule out them having originally been built with a specific traffic in mind. 

 

The Midland Railway Study Centre has a copy of Drg. 682 of 2 Feb 1887 [MRSC Item 88-D0052] but I as far as I'm aware not yet scanned, so I'm working just from the diagram and photos.

[Rail-Online]

Regarding these MR hoppers I always wondered why 2000 wagons lasting well into LMS days were so 'camera shy'. My conclusion is they were associated with heavy regular flows of coal from colliery to the larger scale industrial user such as steelworks, electricity works, gas works etc.  As such their route would be a short trip mainly from the Notts/Derby/S Yorks coalfields to Sheffield steelworks, local gas works etc.  Hoppers were not common on the MR and early LMS as most mineral requiring bottom discharge were carried in 7 plank mineral wagons mainly owned by the Private Owners. The LMS/NE did build a lot these RCH minerals early in their life but these were common user.  I have always assumed that being hoppers these would be returned empty ASAP to the supplying colliery for the next trip.  All this was not very glamorous and rarely photographed. 

As the prototype I am modelling has colliery exchange sidings and much of its output went to the steel industry, I decided I would need some of these hoppers and acquired some David Geen kits.  I found two pairs of empties in the fiddle yard this morning so photographed them.  They are an OK kit, only come with early grease axleboxes and therefore need these replacing as well as compensating for P4 and the buffers springing. They build up nice and square.

 

 Tony