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

[Compound2632]

Giraffes

 

IMG_3352.JPG

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

 

Bear in mind that the roof hatch was only on one side of the van. On a D32 van, with a door on one side, it would be usual to consign a pair of animals - for instance a lion, which would be loaded first, followed by the giraffe. This led to obvious handling difficulties along with damage to goods in transit, if the lion was not well-secured. I suspect this is why one so rarely sees this traffic in photographs. However, in consideration of the welfare of travelling giraffes, the LNWR used some very tall signals with repeating arms at or near giraffe eye-level. Apart from Robert Stephenson's London and Birmingham, the majority of the WCML was engineered by Locke and so had no tunnels. Those giraffes who were frequent travellers became adept at ducking for bridges (cf the Triang model). Those that didn't...

[Miss Prism]

I suppose my point is, given that LNWR roof-access vans would presumably have got to lots of non-LNWR places, loading and unloading them could have been a bit of a nuisance in small goods yards without suitably tall cranes.

[Compound2632]

I suppose my point is, given that LNWR roof-access vans would presumably have got to lots of non-LNWR places, loading and unloading them could have been a bit of a nuisance in small goods yards without suitably tall cranes.

 

But they had side-doors too, in the usual way. You'd be s*****d though if you received a D32 wrong-way round and didn't have a wagon turntable...

[Miss Prism]

But they had side-doors too, in the usual way.

 

Oh, I see. Ok.

[Compound2632]

Further reading of the Talbot book (op. cit.). In his introduction to the Goods Traffic chapter, Talbot states that compared to other lines, a higher proportion of LNWR goods traffic was 'of a long-distance kind and so was conveyed by fast through services'. This, he says, was not only in comparison with regionally-based companies such as the North Eastern and Lancashire & Yorkshire, but also the Midland and Great Western (sic). He points out that although the Midland served many of the same major centres*, it linked far fewer of them directly with London. [*I'm struggling to think of a major town or city served by the LNWR that did not also have a Midland goods depot, whilst the Midland served a few places - Bristol in particular - that had no LNWR presence.]

 

Talbot includes a couple of photos from the pre-pooling era showing such trains:

 

There's a Bill Bailey compound 4-6-0 climbing Shap northbound with over 30 wagons, banked by a Tebay DX 0-6-0, c. 1905. The train is a random mix of sheeted opens and covered goods wagons - about half-and-half. Three of the first eight wagons are D32, all with the no-door side showing - i.e. the door is on the east side - does this reflect an operational requirement or is it just chance? The other van in the first eight vehicles is possibly a D46 refrigerator van, going by the style of the doors with the distinctive horizontal locking bar. The opens mostly look to be two-plank or higher, some with high loads and of course all sheeted.

 

An earlier view, c. 1898, of a three-cylinder compound 0-8-0 arriving at Carlisle Upperby, shows a similar mix though the first few wagons are more varied. First behind the engine is a foreigner - and a Great Western one at that: an iron mink. (That's for Londontram who has mentioned wanting justification for a Great Western wagon on the Caledonian.) Next a centre-door open, with not very high sides (2'-ish rather than 3') and, possibly, iron-framed - another Great Western vehicle? It's sheeted, but the tarpaulin is hanging over the side in rather ragged bunches - this may indicate that it's secured by the inner tabs. Third, a LNWR cattle wagon, with snout of load sticking out (not a giraffe). Fourth, a road van carried on a low wagon, probably a D38 furniture van wagon. Then a mix of sheeted opens - some loaded high - and vans, at least 40 wagons. 

 

Another pre-pool photo appears in LNWR Wagons, Vol. 2, p. 118: A Special DZ on the up fast at Bushey Troughs, before 1903 as the engine carries a large white diamond on the smokebox lamp iron, the pre-RCH standard code for an express cattle or express goods train. Of the 30-odd wagons, it's again half-and-half vans and opens. As far as I can make out, the vans are all D32 or D33 rather than any specialised or foreign types. The opens are all low-sided - if LNWR, D1 and D2, but only towards the back of the train do there seem to be any loaded high.

 

It's that up-and-down profile, a distinctive random mix of low-sided opens and hatch-roofed vans, that I want to try to capture in my LNWR goods train. One of those pot-bellied compound 0-8-0s at the front would be just the thing!

[Edwardian]

Further reading of the Talbot book (op. cit.). In his introduction to the Goods Traffic chapter, Talbot states that compared to other lines, a higher proportion of LNWR goods traffic was 'of a long-distance kind and so was conveyed by fast through services'. This, he says, was not only in comparison with regionally-based companies such as the North Eastern and Lancashire & Yorkshire, but also the Midland and Great Western (sic). He points out that although the Midland served many of the same major centres*, it linked far fewer of them directly with London. [*I'm struggling to think of a major town or city served by the LNWR that did not also have a Midland goods depot, whilst the Midland served a few places - Bristol in particular - that had no LNWR presence.]

 

Talbot includes a couple of photos from the pre-pooling era showing such trains:

 

There's a Bill Bailey compound 4-6-0 climbing Shap northbound with over 30 wagons, banked by a Tebay DX 0-6-0, c. 1905. The train is a random mix of sheeted opens and covered goods wagons - about half-and-half. Three of the first eight wagons are D32, all with the no-door side showing - i.e. the door is on the east side - does this reflect an operational requirement or is it just chance? The other van in the first eight vehicles is possibly a D46 refrigerator van, going by the style of the doors with the distinctive horizontal locking bar. The opens mostly look to be two-plank or higher, some with high loads and of course all sheeted.

 

An earlier view, c. 1898, of a three-cylinder compound 0-8-0 arriving at Carlisle Upperby, shows a similar mix though the first few wagons are more varied. First behind the engine is a foreigner - and a Great Western one at that: an iron mink. (That's for Londontram who has mentioned wanting justification for a Great Western wagon on the Caledonian.) Next a centre-door open, with not very high sides (2'-ish rather than 3') and, possibly, iron-framed - another Great Western vehicle? It's sheeted, but the tarpaulin is hanging over the side in rather ragged bunches - this may indicate that it's secured by the inner tabs. Third, a LNWR cattle wagon, with snout of load sticking out (not a giraffe). Fourth, a road van carried on a low wagon, probably a D38 furniture van wagon. Then a mix of sheeted opens - some loaded high - and vans, at least 40 wagons. 

 

Another pre-pool photo appears in LNWR Wagons, Vol. 2, p. 118: A Special DZ on the up fast at Bushey Troughs, before 1903 as the engine carries a large white diamond on the smokebox lamp iron, the pre-RCH standard code for an express cattle or express goods train. Of the 30-odd wagons, it's again half-and-half vans and opens. As far as I can make out, the vans are all D32 or D33 rather than any specialised or foreign types. The opens are all low-sided - if LNWR, D1 and D2, but only towards the back of the train do there seem to be any loaded high.

 

It's that up-and-down profile, a distinctive random mix of low-sided opens and hatch-roofed vans, that I want to try to capture in my LNWR goods train. One of those pot-bellied compound 0-8-0s at the front would be just the thing!

 

I cannot but suspect Mr Talbot of a little patriotic prejudice here.  The Midland, surely, was as well connected, as you say, and the North Eastern was based in one of the more productive areas of the country and held a portion of the ECML, so I find the idea that it did not produce ample traffic "of a long-distance kind" slightly puzzling.  The logical implication would seem to be that the NER did not send its wagons south of York on the ECML to any great extent.   

[Miss Prism]

Most GWR yards usually had plenty of visiting NE or LNER wagons.

 

 

Edit: oh dear, the system doesn't accept the letter R being bounded by parentheses, and turns the string into a registered trade mark!!

Edited July 14, 2017 by Miss Prism

[Compound2632]

I cannot but suspect Mr Talbot of a little patriotic prejudice here.  The Midland, surely, was as well connected, as you say, and the North Eastern was based in one of the more productive areas of the country and held a portion of the ECML, so I find the idea that it did not produce ample traffic "of a long-distance kind" slightly puzzling.  The logical implication would seem to be that the NER did not send its wagons south of York on the ECML to any great extent.   

 

Maybe, but I think his case is well-made. I've not seen very much about the Midland's long-distance goods operations though they undoubtedly existed; this may just indicate that no MRS member has taken an interest in the topic. I suspect, though, that by the end of the 19th century the Midland was hampered in these sphere just as it was in express passenger services by the vast mineral traffic outstripping the capacity of the infrastructure.

 

The North Eastern was, I think, rather a special case with the vast proportion of freight revenue coming from its pit-to-port operations, entirely within its own territory and operated in a uniquely efficient way: no POs, higher-capacity hopper wagons with dedicated infrastructure. However, as you say there would be 'export' traffic from its territory, plus of course goods coming in through the port of Hull - which I've used as my excuse for a NER van.

 

Most GWR yards usually had plenty of visiting NE or LNER wagons.

 

 

Edit: oh dear, the system doesn't accept the letter R being bounded by parentheses, and turns the string into a registered trade mark!!

 

Post-pooling, almost anything goes.

[Worsdell forever]

I suppose my point is, given that LNWR roof-access vans would presumably have got to lots of non-LNWR places, loading and unloading them could have been a bit of a nuisance in small goods yards without suitably tall cranes.

 

Tall Cranes, along with other wading birds were carried in birdcage brake vans...

[Guius]

On the North Eastern the Birdcage brake vans where designed by Vincent Raven I believe.

 

Best

 

Guy

[Spitfire2865]

Three of the first eight wagons are D32, all with the no-door side showing - i.e. the door is on the east side - does this reflect an operational requirement or is it just chance?

Well seeing as the D32 had one door, and relied on turntables, and if the train was marshalled at the same yard, then why not?

Id think itd be odder if they werent all facing the same way when in a train.

[Compound2632]

On the North Eastern the Birdcage brake vans where designed by Vincent Raven I believe.

 

Best

 

Guy

 

On the contrary, surely 'twas he who quoth 'Nevermore' and introduced the type with a verandah at each end?

[Edwardian]

Most GWR yards usually had plenty of visiting NE or LNER wagons.

 

 

Edit: oh dear, the system doesn't accept the letter R being bounded by parentheses, and turns the string into a registered trade mark!!

 

A post pooling interest of mine has been certain parts of the GW WoE mainline in the 1930s.  One approach is to reproduce wagons in the proportions to which they were contributed to the pool, where the largest contingent would be the LNER's.  By the by, GW Grouping period layouts still seem to feature a predominance of GW vehicles amongst their common user wagons, which I believe is wrong.

 

What strikes me from photographs, however, is the relative prominence of LNER vans, many of which would have been fitted, and so not common user, and LNER fitted opens, which seems to be evidence of significant through goods traffic originating in LNER territory.  

 

 

Maybe, but I think his case is well-made. I've not seen very much about the Midland's long-distance goods operations though they undoubtedly existed; this may just indicate that no MRS member has taken an interest in the topic. I suspect, though, that by the end of the 19th century the Midland was hampered in these sphere just as it was in express passenger services by the vast mineral traffic outstripping the capacity of the infrastructure.

 

The North Eastern was, I think, rather a special case with the vast proportion of freight revenue coming from its pit-to-port operations, entirely within its own territory and operated in a uniquely efficient way: no POs, higher-capacity hopper wagons with dedicated infrastructure. However, as you say there would be 'export' traffic from its territory, plus of course goods coming in through the port of Hull - which I've used as my excuse for a NER van.

 

 

Post-pooling, almost anything goes.

 

Fair points, but I do not logically see why the vast volume of internal pit to port traffic, or other examples, like the mineral traffic in both directions over the Stainmore route, precludes the existence of the products of agriculture and industry in Scotland and the North East requiring considerable through traffic. 

 

Just one tiny example that we have discussed elsewhere was the NER's responsibility for the creation of a milk, and later also cheese, industry in Wensleydale, precisely because the progress of the railway up the Dale in the 1870s allowed access to the ECML and London.

[Compound2632]

A post pooling interest of mine has been certain parts of the GW WoE mainline in the 1930s.  One approach is to reproduce wagons in the proportions to which they were contributed to the pool, where the largest contingent would be the LNER's.  By the by, GW Grouping period layouts still seem to feature a predominance of GW vehicles amongst their common user wagons, which I believe is wrong.

 

What strikes me from photographs, however, is the relative prominence of LNER vans, many of which would have been fitted, and so not common user, and LNER fitted opens, which seems to be evidence of significant through goods traffic originating in LNER territory.  

 

I couldn't find it just now so I may be misremembering but I thought that somewhere in my small pile of Inherited Model Railway News from c. 1968-71, was an article by Martin Waters in which he discussed the proportions of different types of wagons from the Big Four. I recall the comment that the GW had more fitted wagons than the other three and that in photos of LMS express goods trains, the fitted heads are predominantly made up of GW vehicles.

[Compound2632]

Following all this careful discussion of appropriate goods vehicles for a West Midlands-based layout set in the pre-pooling era, I have to confess that I’ve been working on something that I cannot possibly justify:

 

 

… a London Road Models (ex D&S) kit for a Lancashire & Yorkshire 10 ton brake van – the type known as a ‘tin tab’ owing to its sheet metal bodywork allegedly in the style of a prefabricated chapel. (Although these buildings are usually associated with nonconformist denominations, I note that the vast majority of the examples in England listed by Wikipedia are Anglican; though this may simply reflect a higher survival rate, given the collapse of nonconformity in its industrial heartlands.) I’ve always liked these brake vans since first coming across them in an article by Martin Waters in one of my inherited backnumbers of the Model Railway News c. 1968. This is not my only out-of-area brake van – I have a North Eastern birdcage brake from the Slater’s kit and a part-built North British van, a plastic kit of forgotten provenance. I found the latter in my big rummage a few days ago, but not (yet) the parts to complete it.

 

As with the Midland 6-wheel brake van I started earlier, this has got as far as I can go with 145°C solder and my unregulated 25W iron, i.e. all the brass. The basic shell is ingeniously designed to lock together using the four footboards using tabs and slots – rather like one of those 3D jigsaws. I added the doors and end window frames while the side/end pieces were still flat, as they looked to be quite fiddly to get in just the right position, but the vertical riveted joining plates went on later, along with the solebar overlays. For all these, I first tinned the rear surface of the of the detail part, then sweated it into place – applying the soldering iron to the detail part, with plenty of flux, until the tinned solder melts. There’s a critical momentwhen the detail part is free to float on the molten solder; I use odd little bits of wood or the point of the craft knife to hold the piece in place as I remove the iron. I’m using an old blade – it rapidly gets very corroded by the flux!

 

This model has my fiddliest bit of soldering to date – tiny overlays for the swing links that connect the springs to the solebar. These are about 2 mm long! I tinned both the back of the links while on the fret and the face of their supports on the solebar. Holding the link in place with the point of the knife, I brought the iron in from behind – i.e. the back of the solebar. This worked and I’ve surprised myself with everything ending up in about the right place.

 

So tomorrow should be a whitemetal day, using the temperature-controlled iron.

 

Elsewhere in my miniature Newton Heath, there’s been further progress on the D15 and D3 wagons. The D15 has been loaded with a sculpted block of wood. The idea was to represent a load of crates and other miscellaneous goods, though having re-read the article about the Crew tranship shed (see posts earlier today) I now think this is too much humped up in the middle:

 

 

Then, on with the sheet prepared earlier. Photos of D15 wagons show three securing rings on the bottom end plank, so I’ve glued the ‘ropes’ to these locations and also to the supposed positions of cleats under the siderail:

 

 

The D15 dropside and D3 van are now pretty much complete. The illiterate symbols, tare weights and numberplates are from POWSides – these are the rub-down variety. I find these tricky to work with – the tare weights have come out a bit wonky and the numberplates started disintegrating as I rubbed them down. I did follow the advice to use a piece of low-tack clear tape to hold the transfer in position – this worked well for the illiterate symbols but wasn’t so helpful in the more confined space of the solebar. The van has its number on high on the end. As far as I can discover from my limited L&Y sources, open wagons didn’t have the number on the end. According to the kit instructions (which are the original D&S instructions), in ‘unpainted wood’ days, vans were varnished when new, so the D3 has a slightly less faded finish. Actually that’s pot luck, as I tried to follow the same paining recipe as for the D15! One change I did try was to paint the ironwork black after the coat of Humbrol No. 71.  The subsequent washes of No. 100 and Precision teak toned down the black and also helped neaten the edges. The roof is a dirty grey, with the tarpaulin painted matt black let down with thinned grey. Humbrol spray can gloss varnish was used before putting the transfers on, then matt to finish.

 

On closer reading of Noel Coates’ book, I learned that the hatch cover wasn’t simply a tarpaulin but was made up of wooden battens held together by the tarpaulin.  The LNWR hatch covers seem to have been solid timber – heavier to handle, I should imagine, but more expensive.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Poggy1165]

Three very nice L&Y wagons. I love the "tin-tabs", very distinctive brake vans. I remember many moons ago there was an article about them in the L&Y Society Magazine written by Mr. B. C. Lane, and I've fancied having one ever since. I do wonder how much use they, being only 10 tonners, would be going down a sharp bank with a wet rail, and also how comfortable they were as workplaces. I'm pretty sure they were lined in wood inside, but even so. Luckily these aspects are not an issue with models.

[Spitfire2865]

Three very nice L&Y wagons. I love the "tin-tabs", very distinctive brake vans. I remember many moons ago there was an article about them in the L&Y Society Magazine written by Mr. B. C. Lane, and I've fancied having one ever since.

I'm pretty sure they were lined in wood inside, but even so. Luckily these aspects are not an issue with models.

Dont tempt me with a TinTab as Id build one in G3. I can see the etching for the metal alone being expensive enough.

[Compound2632]

Edwardian has been pressing for the promised photo-tutorial on how I put together one of the old Slater’s Midland wagon kits – in this case a D299 8 ton high-sided wagon (kit 4027) – I hope it won’t be found too pretentious or tedious. Before going further I’d like to mention that, that following the acquisition of a wide format scanner, the Midland Railway Study Centre has made scans of a few of the many Derby Carriage & Wagon drawings in its collection available on its website, including Drg. No. 550 of 1882, to which the 63,010 wagons of this diagram were built. The Centre’s copy of the drawing is endorsed “for and after the last 242 wagons of Lot 513” – i.e. the very last wagons of the 18 years of mass-production, Lot 513 having been ordered in 1899, so it shows some very ‘late’ features such as sprung door banger and even oil axleboxes; it’s also got additions in red ink for the very last 1,000, Lot 919 ordered in 1917.

 

As I have pointed out on another thread, the Slater’s kits are not perfect we now have the Mousa 3-D printed resin kit as an alternative. However, I have a stock of the Slater’s kits,, some bought quarter of a century ago, others the fruit of a bout of ebay bidding early this year – a dangerous habit to be kept in check; I’ve stuck to a sense of value informed by the prices of modern commercially-available injection-moulded wagon kits and resin kits – I won’t be pushed into paying more for a 35-year-old kit than I might be paying for its modern resin counterpart.

 

The photo below shows the most glaring problem: if assembled according to the instructions, the bottom of the headstock sits a little over  0.5 mm above the bottom of the solebar; in other words, the solebar moulding is too high:

 

 

(The photo shows one of a batch of half-a-dozen I bought second-hand, with the intention of rebuilding.)

 

I start by ignoring the problem! I could set about shaving 0.5 mm off the top of each solebar but that seems to me tedious and hard to do accurately and repeatedly. Instead, I begin by sanding down the axleguards and brake V-hanger to something less chunky than the nearly 1 mm of the moulding – these are supposed to be ¾” metal not 3”! Left, raw; right, sanded down:

 

 

In my opening post I described skrawking the back of the axleguards – seems I’d forgotten this sanding method – though some scrawking helps tidy things up; I also wash and scrub with an old electric toothbrush to get rid of the dust. The strength of the moulding is all in the spring and axlebox; I suppose if one wanted to go the whole hog and replace the axleguards with etched brass ones one could just keep sanding until there’s no axleguard left. Mine are down to about 0.5 mm – scale 1½”. These are ‘layout wagons’ not exhibition pieces.

 

Not illustrated here but as described in my opening post, I carefully scrape off the numberplate and builder’s plate, which are in the wrong place on the solebar for most wagons.

 

When I dabbled in P4 I used MJT inside-bearing compensation units, so from force of habit I remove the longitudinal pieces at one end of the floor moulding, just in case I should ever go that way again:

 

 

Next, I deepen the bearing holes to take 2 mm top-hat bearings – the axleboxes are quite chunky so there’s not too much danger of going through. I countersink with a 3 mm bit – the flat face of the bearing needs to be nearly flush with the back of the axlebox. A dab of MekPak usually holds the bearing in place – when it doesn’t, walking round the room in stocking feet is usually an effective way of locating the missing bearing…

 

 

The first solebar is MekPak’d* to the floor, taking care to line up the inside diagonals of the axleguards with the transverse ribs:

 

 

*What is the verb for “to fix in place by the application of a solvent”?

Next the second solebar, with the wheelsets to check all is square and free running; in particular to check the bearings are in far enough to avoid the axleguards splaying outwards. This wagon will have brakes on one side only, as befits my very early 20^th century period, so one V-hanger has been removed. (My convention is to have the brake lever at the end where the compensating unit might be fitted…)

 

 

A little bit of fettling is required to ensure the ends of the solebars are aligned and the floor doesn’t project too far, then one end is MekPak’d in place. Crucially, the bottom of the headstock is lined up with the bottom of the solebars, rather than having the top of the headstock fixed to the floor:

 

 

As a result of the too-=deep solebar, the floor sits about 0.5 mm to high – i.e. the wagon is 0.5 mm less deep inside than it should be. I use a small steel engineer’s square to make sure the end is square on – also handy for setting the headstock and solebars level.

 

The other end is fixed in the same way, then the sides, taking care that the corner plates are aligned, despite the small gap between the headstock and side rail. The corners are skrawked and filed to a smooth round profile and then the wagon is turned upside-down and given I quick rub on the sandpaper to give a uniform finish:

 

 

The little circles that represent the outer ends of the buffer housings are very carefully cut from the sprue and trimmed to round, then the buffers a pushed through – gently, don’t want to split the plastic.

 

 

The buffer housings are flooded with MekPak, the buffer shanks pushed in and the plastic rings gently pushed home, taking care that they are square on.

 

The brake gear moulding has the solid struts representing the safety loops cut away and replaced with microstrip. I realise there are other bits that shouldn’t be solid but it’s the safety loops that have the biggest visual impact, I think. The V-hanger/brake lever moulding is one of the biggest compromises – I thin it down as much as I dare but nowhere near scale ¾”! Visually, the biggest omission is the nuts on the bolts holding the V-hanger to the solebar.

 

 

I’ve drilled through the brake crank (is that the correct term for this part?) and inserted a bit of plastic rod to represent the operating shaft. This time round I wasn’t feeling quite brave enough to try drilling a hole in the inner V-hanger. I could have drilled into the back of the outer V-hanger/brake lever part to locate another piece of rod, so that both would meet at the inner V-hanger but didn’t… As with the axleguards, the brake gear could be replaced with etched brass components which would undoubtedly give a finer appearance.

 

With the break gear fitted, the wagon is more-or-less complete. I fit the Slater’s three-link couplings after painting:

 

 

The other finishing touch still missing is the door-banger (on the brake side only) – a 2 mm square of 10 thou plasticard with four embossed rivets. I’d added it by the time I took the comparison photo with the Mousa D299.

 

Here are some I prepared earlier:

 

 

There is some variation in the shade of grey.

 

I have some Slater’s kits for D342 coke wagons that I’ve started looking at – these have the same solebar/headstock mis-match, which is trickier to correct as the floor locates in a groove in the side. I think the vans go together in the same way too. I’ll post a report in due course!

Edited September 3, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[sharris]

Nice work! 

 

As for chopping up the floor for compensation. I've used the MJT rocking units on some of mine, and found it less work to cut a rectangle of styrene and scribe some planks (even less work if it's going to be tarped!) into the top than to try to hack out and neatly tidy up the beams on the Slaters floors - I've probably still got a few spare floors hanging around as a result!

 

The MJT units I've used are the outside bearing ones, so off come the plastic W-irons too - that does mean the under-floor beams would be in the way at both ends, so it would have been twice as much work for me to cut them out if I'd kept the original floors.

[Mikkel]

Very nice build Stephen. Thanks to you I have learnt to look out for the omni present D299s in pregrouping yards. Maybe we need a D299 appreciation thread so we can repeat that in model form? Over to you...

[BG John]

Nice work! 

 

As for chopping up the floor for compensation. I've used the MJT rocking units on some of mine, and found it less work to cut a rectangle of styrene and scribe some planks (even less work if it's going to be tarped!) into the top than to try to hack out and neatly tidy up the beams on the Slaters floors - I've probably still got a few spare floors hanging around as a result!

I've fitted the floor upside down in some of my wagons, where I intended to add a load.

[Compound2632]

Nice work! 

 

As for chopping up the floor for compensation. I've used the MJT rocking units on some of mine, and found it less work to cut a rectangle of styrene and scribe some planks (even less work if it's going to be tarped!) into the top than to try to hack out and neatly tidy up the beams on the Slaters floors - I've probably still got a few spare floors hanging around as a result!

 

The MJT units I've used are the outside bearing ones, so off come the plastic W-irons too - that does mean the under-floor beams would be in the way at both ends, so it would have been twice as much work for me to cut them out if I'd kept the original floors.

 

 

I've fitted the floor upside down in some of my wagons, where I intended to add a load.

 

I'd fit a new floor or use the Slater's one upside down if using the MJT axleguards. I've used these on my converted Hornby wagons but have hit a snag - the MJT unit gets in the way of the sprung tail of the Slater's etched coupling hook. That's a poor excuse for lack of progress with the Hornby wagons but it's the best I can offer... Blame the distraction of whitemetal and brass! An advantage to keeping the Slater's floor is that the transverse ribs provide a positive location for the solebars, setting them the right distance apart and aligning the axleguards so that all is square.

 

Very nice build Stephen. Thanks to you I have learnt to look out for the omni present D299s in pregrouping yards. Maybe we need a D299 appreciation thread so we can repeat that in model form? Over to you...

 

This is the D299 appreciation thread! - see post #1. Please feel free to report any sightings here, real or model. I'll start by cross-referencing the 2mm one spotted recently at an obscure Caledonian branch terminus in the southern uplands.

[Edwardian]

Edwardian has been pressing for the promised photo-tutorial on how I put together one of the old Slater’s Midland wagon kits – in this case a D299 8 ton high-sided wagon (kit 4027) – I hope it won’t be found too pretentious or tedious. Before going further I’d like to mention that, that following the acquisition of a wide format scanner, the Midland Railway Study Centre has made scans of a few of the many Derby Carriage & Wagon drawings in its collection available on its website, including Drg. No. 550 of 1882, to which the 63,010 wagons of this diagram were built. The Centre’s copy of the drawing is endorsed “for and after the last 242 wagons of Lot 513” – i.e. the very last wagons of the 18 years of mass-production, Lot 513 having been ordered in 1899, so it shows some very ‘late’ features such as sprung door banger and even oil axleboxes; it’s also got additions in red ink for the very last 1,000, Lot 919 ordered in 1917.

 

As I have pointed out on another thread, the Slater’s kits are not perfect we now have the Mousa 3-D printed resin kit as an alternative. However, I have a stock of the Slater’s kits,, some bought quarter of a century ago, others the fruit of a bout of ebay bidding early this year – a dangerous habit to be kept in check; I’ve stuck to a sense of value informed by the prices of modern commercially-available injection-moulded wagon kits and resin kits – I won’t be pushed into paying more for a 35-year-old kit than I might be paying for its modern resin counterpart.

 

The photo below shows the most glaring problem: if assembled according to the instructions, the bottom of the headstock sits a little over  0.5 mm above the bottom of the solebar; in other words, the solebar moulding is too high:

 

Midland D299 second hand annotated.JPG

 

(The photo shows one of a batch of half-a-dozen I bought second-hand, with the intention of rebuilding.)

 

I start by ignoring the problem! I could set about shaving 0.5 mm off the top of each solebar but that seems to me tedious and hard to do accurately and repeatedly. Instead, I begin by sanding down the axleguards and brake V-hanger to something less chunky than the nearly 1 mm of the moulding – these are supposed to be ¾” metal not 3”! Left, raw; right, sanded down:

 

Midland D299 demo build 2.JPG

 

In my opening post I described skrawking the back of the axleguards – seems I’d forgotten this sanding method – though some scrawking helps tidy things up; I also wash and scrub with an old electric toothbrush to get rid of the dust. The strength of the moulding is all in the spring and axlebox; I suppose if one wanted to go the whole hog and replace the axleguards with etched brass ones one could just keep sanding until there’s no axleguard left. Mine are down to about 0.5 mm – scale 1½”. These are ‘layout wagons’ not exhibition pieces.

 

Not illustrated here but as described in my opening post, I carefully scrape off the numberplate and builder’s plate, which are in the wrong place on the solebar for most wagons.

 

When I dabbled in P4 I used MJT inside-bearing compensation units, so from force of habit I remove the longitudinal pieces at one end of the floor moulding, just in case I should ever go that way again:

 

Midland D299 demo build 3.JPG

 

Next, I deepen the bearing holes to take 2 mm top-hat bearings – the axleboxes are quite chunky so there’s not too much danger of going through. I countersink with a 3 mm bit – the flat face of the bearing needs to be nearly flush with the back of the axlebox. A dab of MekPak usually holds the bearing in place – when it doesn’t, walking round the room in stocking feet is usually an effective way of locating the missing bearing…

 

Midland D299 demo build 4.JPG

 

The first solebar is MekPak’d* to the floor, taking care to line up the inside diagonals of the axleguards with the transverse ribs:

 

Midland D299 demo build 5.JPG

 

*What is the verb for “to fix in place by the application of a solvent”?

Next the second solebar, with the wheelsets to check all is square and free running; in particular to check the bearings are in far enough to avoid the axleguards splaying outwards. This wagon will have brakes on one side only, as befits my very early 20^th century period, so one V-hanger has been removed. (My convention is to have the brake lever at the end where the compensating unit might be fitted…)

 

Midland D299 demo build 6.JPG

 

A little bit of fettling is required to ensure the ends of the solebars are aligned and the floor doesn’t project too far, then one end is MekPak’d in place. Crucially, the bottom of the headstock is lined up with the bottom of the solebars, rather than having the top of the headstock fixed to the floor:

 

Midland D299 demo build 7.JPG

 

As a result of the too-=deep solebar, the floor sits about 0.5 mm to high – i.e. the wagon is 0.5 mm less deep inside than it should be. I use a small steel engineer’s square to make sure the end is square on – also handy for setting the headstock and solebars level.

 

The other end is fixed in the same way, then the sides, taking care that the corner plates are aligned, despite the small gap between the headstock and side rail. The corners are skrawked and filed to a smooth round profile and then the wagon is turned upside-down and given I quick rub on the sandpaper to give a uniform finish:

 

Midland D299 demo build 8.JPG

 

The little circles that represent the outer ends of the buffer housings are very carefully cut from the sprue and trimmed to round, then the buffers a pushed through – gently, don’t want to split the plastic.

 

Midland D299 demo build 9.JPG

 

The buffer housings are flooded with MekPak, the buffer shanks pushed in and the plastic rings gently pushed home, taking care that they are square on.

 

The brake gear moulding has the solid struts representing the safety loops cut away and replaced with microstrip. I realise there are other bits that shouldn’t be solid but it’s the safety loops that have the biggest visual impact, I think. The V-hanger/brake lever moulding is one of the biggest compromises – I thin it down as much as I dare but nowhere near scale ¾”! Visually, the biggest omission is the nuts on the bolts holding the V-hanger to the solebar.

 

Midland D299 demo build 10.JPG

 

I’ve drilled through the brake crank (is that the correct term for this part?) and inserted a bit of plastic rod to represent the operating shaft. This time round I wasn’t feeling quite brave enough to try drilling a hole in the inner V-hanger. I could have drilled into the back of the outer V-hanger/brake lever part to locate another piece of rod, so that both would meet at the inner V-hanger but didn’t… As with the axleguards, the brake gear could be replaced with etched brass components which would undoubtedly give a finer appearance.

 

With the break gear fitted, the wagon is more-or-less complete. I fit the Slater’s three-link couplings after painting:

 

Midland D299 demo build 11.JPG

 

The other finishing touch still missing is the door-banger (on the brake side only) – a 2 mm square of 10 thou plasticard with four embossed rivets. I’d added it by the time I took the comparison photo with the Mousa D299.

 

Here are some I prepared earlier:

 

Midland D299 parade.JPG

 

There is some variation in the shade of grey.

 

I have some Slater’s kits for D342 coke wagons that I’ve started looking at – these have the same solebar/headstock mis-match, which is trickier to correct as the floor locates in a groove in the side. I think the vans go together in the same way too. I’ll post a report in due course!

 

Extremely helpful, Stephen, thank you for posting.

[Compound2632]

Looking at some of my earlier builds of Slater’s Midland wagons, I’ve reminded myself a little refinement that can be made to the axleboxes. The Ellis 10A axlebox has a front plate that is held in place by bolts that pass through lugs that project from the main casting, as shown in this extract from one of the Derby drawings available to download from the Midland Railways Study Centre’s website:

 

 

Owing to the limitations of the injection moulding process, in the Slater’s kits these lugs are carried right back to the axleguard. (As far as I can see this is also the case for the 7mm scale kits.) With care, patience, and a sharp blade in the craft knife, the excess plastic can be carved away to give a close approximation to the real thing, as I hope can be seen in this photo:

 

 

The unmodified moulding is on the left and the modified one on the right. I’ve included MJT’s whitemetal version for comparison. This shot draws attention to the over-scale thickness of the Slater’s solebars. On the real thing, the solebars are oak timbers 11” high by 4½” thick. Scale width is thus 1.5 mm; Slater’s are 2 mm thick and consequently, the axleboxes are 0.5 mm deeper than scale and the axleguards are too far back by the same amount. (The MJT axlebox/spring casting is designed for a scale thickness solebar, which is why it looks weedier.) This is a point which could lead to difficulties if replacing the moulded axleguards with etched brass ones.

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Miss Prism]

Excellent post, Stephen.

 

Scale width is thus 1.5 mm; Slater’s are 2 mm thick and consequently, the axleboxes are 0.5 mm deeper than scale and the axleguards are too far back by the same amount.

 

Not quite, because the front face of the Slater's moulded W-iron is in front of the rear face of the Slaters' solebar. (If you see what I mean!)

 

I take your point though that all plastic solebars are too thick, and what I do with is to file a recess, the recess (typically 1mm) being filed after snipping off all the plastic W-iron bits. I usually leave the plastic spring in place, still attached to its solebar, in the filing process. This leaves the spring a trifle thinner than it should be, but allows a bit of space between its rear and the front of the W-iron, which is what I like. (And is essential if using rocking irons, which need a bit of room to swing.)

 

 

The box itself can be detached, and cleaned up. Boxes are attached later to the side of the W-iron, although for sprung units, boxes are often more easily left attached to the spring. (horses for courses, and it does depend a bit on how meaty the box is for slotting the rear for the bearing movement on the sprung carrier etc)

 

 

The clearance allows rocking or sprung W-irons to be plonked in with good room to spare. The 'good room to spare' allows for error in solebar placement, and error in the recess filing, and enables the W-iron to be placed such that the longitudinal buffer positions are where they should be. I find filing the recess is quicker than flaffing around worrying whether everything else will be 'central'.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Miss Prism