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

[Compound2632]

16 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

..or flowers or leaf vegetables or horticultural products or beer barrels or anything that need some ventilation. Railway companies, especially unprofitable ones, didn't build stock that could stand idle for most of the year.

 

True, I'm sure, but let's suppose that I'm modelling the summer months, as we generally do. I mentioned fruit as it was a traffic that had been discussed on the Castle Aching thread. I'm looking for a traffic to Birmingham, so I'm on shaky ground since (a) the documentary evidence is rather specifically for fruit from the Sutton Bridge area to Lancashire: Ancoats and also to Hartley's factory at Walton-on-the-Hill; and (b) having examined the Midland Railway carriage marshalling book for summer 1922 in the collection of the Midland Railway Study Centre, I know that there was much working of passenger-rated fruit vans* from the Evesham area (some of it terminating in Birmingham but much working onwards, even by LNWR train), so South Lincolnshire fruit my struggle to get into the market. On Guy Rixon's Strand topic (and elsewhere) we've seen all sorts of stock pressed into use at the peak of the Kentish fruit season**, including converted LNWR 6-wheeled passenger carriages, IIRC.

 

*Some vehicles are specified as milk & fruit vans so this could also be year-round milk traffic.

**Or fruit season of Kent?

 

EDIT: looking again at those labels, I note they are for open wagons - they make reference to sheets and undersheets; this being a traffic which required double-sheeting. I think this is likely to be because the standard tarpaulin sheet could contaminate the goods. 

 

This collection of wagon labels is fascinating - if you like that kind of thing... Here, from 1903, we have potatoes from Thorney (Cambs) for Bristol being routed via Peterborough, Kings Cross and Acton. This one, from 1895, is internal M&GN traffic from Yarmouth Beach to Lenwade (on the Norwich line), being conveyed in wagon No. 107 - the self-same 4-plank wagon whose c1897 photo appears in Digby, in Eastern & Midlands livery - but under a Midland Railway sheet No. 50501. Within a few days of that, a Midland wagon, No. 34354 (a 3-plank dropside wagon, I'd be prepared to bet) making the short trip from Norwich to Lenwade under a Joint sheet, No. 399. (Isn't this sheet-swapping a bit naughty? Or did demurrage not apply between the parent companies and the Joint?)

Edited June 16, 2019 by Compound2632

[Rail-Online]

On 16/06/2019 at 13:48, Compound2632 said:

 

Tate the goods. 

 

This collection of wagon labels is fascinating - if you like that kind of thing... Here, from 1903, we have potatoes from Thorney (Cambs) for Bristol being routed via Peterborough, Kings Cross and Acton.

 

This is interesting as it is most likely not for harvested food potatoes but, I suspect seed potatoes.  The date can be read as May or more likely Mar (March) 1903. They would not be kept in a chilled warehouse as they are nowadays. Unless the spuds were under clamps (ie burried under soil), by March they would be in pretty ropey condition if they were eating potatoes. It also appears to the a full wagon load.

Does anyone know if clamping was used on a large scale around the turn of the century?

 

 

Seed Potatoes usually came from the east of Scotland, I have never heard of growers in East Anglia.

 

 

Tony

[Compound2632]

For the finescale potato modeller: D.R. Glendinning, Potato introductions and breeding up to the eartly 20th century, New Phytologist 94 (1983) 479.

 

With the end of the school term, wagon-building will shortly resume.

 

 

[Compound2632]

Test cricket and pressfix transfers are a good combination - caution and avoidance of excitement are key:

 

 

The transfers are mostly from Slater's sheets from old kits (not the re-issued ones, which have water-slide transfers). Note the dodgy tare weights - 3 quarters to the hundredweight, so 4.15.6 and 4.10.8 are nonsense - if I'm feeling finicky enough I'll change those last digits! The E D are from HMRS Sheet 17: LMS pre-group English constituents (except LNWR). I'm not quite happy with the shape of the D - I think it's OK for late Midland but my c. 1900 (or at least pre-1907) reference photo (Midland Wagons Vol. 1, plate 83, at St Albans engine shed) shows, I think, a rounder D. I think that that photo pre-dates the adoption of red for ballast wagons - Midland Style says "from about 1900 these units were painted red oxide"; the freshly overhauled and repainted wagon in this photo at Wigston, 20 March 1905, looks to me to be red - it's certainly much darker than the light grey wagons around it:

 

 

NRM DY 2810, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum. Crops of this photo appear in Midland Wagons Vol. 1, plates 59 and 60, with better resolution and were discussed early on in this thread in reference to the variety of shades of lead grey paint with aging.

 

Lettering the covered goods wagons reveals that the horizontal handlebar on the sliding door is not in quite the same relationship to the planking as on the prototype - compromising the positioning of the lettering. I've trimmed about 0.5 mm off the bottom of the Ms to get them sitting a bit lower.

 

One point I'm not confident on is when the wagon number started to be painted on the door. According to Midland Style, the 12" M R started appearing in the mid-90s, with the implication that the number was on the door; official photos of vehicles from Lot 309 (1892) and Lot 311 (paint date 21/8/1893, Midland Wagons Vol. 1, plate 184) are without initials, but these are in a photographic livery - or at least, ironwork below the solebar has not been painted black. The official photo of D378 covered fruit van No. 20639 of 1896 (ibid, plate 198) has the number on the door but M.R in about 6" letters at the left-hand end of the vehicle, but the door has external horizontal boarding over the X-frame, so isn't typical.

 

 

[Northroader]

I think you mean there’s four quarters to a hundredweight, but notated as 0, 1, 2, 3,

[Compound2632]

Sorry, yes, clearly unable to count. Three quarters never make a whole. You understood what I meant: no digit higher than 3 should appear after the second point, nothing higher that 19 after the first point.

[Compound2632]

I should mention that the waterslide transfers supplied with the re-issued Slaters kits do not make the above error. There's also a wider choice, though still only one under 5 tons for D305 wagons and one at 5-and-a-bit tons for D299 wagons - the rest are nearer 6 tons (and above). Curiously, the words STORES SLEEPERS appear, which weren't on the old pressfix sheet, though they are on the HMRS sheet. Some future proofing? The cattle wagon underframe is suitable for the D306 / D307 stores sleepers wagons, barring the oil axleboxes. What would be nice, though, would be alternative cattle wagon sides for the pre-1905 version with two top planks...

 

Also, on a point of history, I believe the artwork of the HMRS and Slaters transfers has a common origin, Peter Chatham of PC Models. He's credited with the lettering figure in Midland Wagons.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Compound2632

[Dave Hunt]

Keith King also did a lot of artwork for Slaters transfers although I don't know exactly which ones were done by whom.

 

Dave

Edited August 2, 2019 by Dave Hunt
badd speling

[Compound2632]

That D is still bugging me. It's not far off the one in Plate 84 in Midland Wagons Vol. 1 but I think that's a "late", probably LMS period photo. The Ds in Plate 83, the St Albans photo I referred to, are more rounded. I've dug out my teenage interpretation:

 

 

I'm fairly sure the lettering here is Letraset! The roundedness of the D looks better to me, though both letters should be wider and the middle horizontal of the E should be rather shorter relative to the top and bottom horizontals. Midland Style says the E D lettering was 2.5 planks high - 18" rather than 21"; these are 6 mm is which more-or-less right. If I could get hold of the Letraset (does such primitive technology still exist?), letters of the correct shape could be built up piecemeal.

 

As to the colour of the wagon, the less said the better. This photo, taken under artificial light, flatters it, making it look an orangey-red. In fact it's straight Humbrol red, probably matt 60, scarlet! According to Midland Style, the colour should be red oxide - the same as the base colour over which the crimson lake of locomotives was applied. This is a different colour to red lead, for which I have used Halfords red primer. Should one match to the Bassett Lowke model mentioned in Midland Style? (Ignoring the black ironwork!)

[Dave Hunt]

David Tee used to maintain that the so-called locomotive brown of 1905/6 was, in fact, simply oxide of iron undercoat with varnish on top, missing out the crimson lake. He said that red oxide was not the same colour as oxide of iron, which was what the Midland used, but was a much brighter shade.

 

Dave

[Compound2632]

Any comprehensive records of the numbering of Midland Railway wagons are long lost – no doubt incinerated in one of the bonfires of old records to which Derby is reputed to have been addicted in later days. In any case, numbering seems at first glance to have been completely random. For models of open wagons, this isn’t a problem, as until 1917 the only way the wagon number was displayed was in 2⅛” cast numerals on the solebar number plate. (Nevertheless I’m building up a database of D299 and D305 numbers and printing my own plates rather than relying on the Slaters transfers.) It’s a different matter for covered goods wagons, with the number prominently displayed on the door. However, I’ve come to believe that one can do a little better than picking random numbers out of a hat.

 

There are two sources of solid information:

• Lists of numbers of special wagons, such as the December 1913 list reproduced in Midland Wagons Fig. 126, or on the diagrams themselves (though these do not always match up).
• Photographs – the most useful are official photos, for which the lot number and hence date of the wagon can be identified. (This task has been done for us by Essery, using the Index of Photographs of Wagon Stock, Midland Wagons Plate 14.) Official photos can be cross referenced to the Derby Registers list, which also supplies some wagon numbers from photographs that have not been published. In some cases this is because the negative has been lost or damaged. This list is not chronological; there are several groups of consecutively-numbered undated carriage & wagon department photos that are obviously of different dates.

These can be used in conjunction other official documents, which do not give numbering information directly:

• The lot list, reproduced in Midland Wagons Appendix 2. This gives the quantity ordered, drawing number, date of order, and a brief description for each lot or batch of wagons built at the Derby Carriage & Wagon works from 1877 to 1923.
• The return of wagon stock at 31 December 1894, Carriage & Wagon Committee minute 3037 of 14 March 1895, reproduced in Midland Wagons Fig. 22. (I have inspected the original in the National Archives, ref. RAIL 491/256.)
• Potentially - I've not seen the document yet - a valuation carriage and wagon stock at December 1905, forming part of file RAIL 491/875 at the National Archives; a copy is held by the Midland Railway Study Centre, Item Number 77-11822. (This NA file may contain other relevant information.)

Also other documents that yield wagon numbers and dates but not very great detail as to the wagons to which the numbers apply:

• Railway Inspectorate accident reports.
• Wagon labels.

There are some of general principles, inferred from practice elsewhere (the locomotive stock, for example), that may have applied:

• Wagons built to renewal account, i.e. as replacements of old withdrawn wagons – not necessarily of the same type – were given the numbers of the wagons they replaced, resulting in hotch-potch numbering, but wagons built to capital account were given new numbers, sometimes in continuous blocks. The difficulty is that there does not appear to be any record as to which lots were renewals and which additions to stock – such decisions did not reach the minutes of the Carriage & Wagon Committee.
• The number given to a new wagon would not exceed the total number of wagons at the time. This isn’t a very hard-and-fast rule as the wagon stock peaked at around 124,000 and the highest wagon number I’m aware of is 144438 (Midland Wagons Plate 180 – misidentified as a 14’11” D357 van; on inspection it is clearly a 16’6” van to D362 or D363).

Finally, it’s noticeable that special wagon numbers congregate in some number series, though by no means exclusively.

 

As a worked example for the student of Midland wagons, I’ll consider refrigerator meat vans. Summarising the lot list, diagram, and photographic information from Midland Wagons:

 

D370 – 14’11” long, 9’0” wheelbase with 3’2” wheels and grease axleboxes when new. The diagram gives tare weights for vans fitted with AVB through pipe and those without. To carry 8 tons.

• Lot 32, 7 Jul 1879 , qty 20, incl. 7825 [Plate 211 – 8A axleboxes and wooden brake blocks]
• Lot 305, 30 Sept 1892, qty 30, incl. 114128 [Plate 212 – through vacuum pipe]
• Lot 333, 23 Feb 1894, qty 51.

 

D372 – 16’6” long, 10’0” wheelbase with 3’2” wheels and grease axleboxes when new. The diagram gives tare weights for vans fitted with AVB through pipe and those without. To carry 8 tons – i.e. a version of D370 to the post-1893 standard length for covered goods wagons.

• Lot 372, 4 Feb 1896, qty 100, incl. 23553 [Plate 217 – through vacuum pipe, also DY 6566]

 

D374 – 16’6” long, 10’0” wheelbase with 3’ 7½” wheels and presumably oil axleboxes, J-hangers for the springs, and clasp brakes – passenger running gear – since all were fitted with AVB and rated to carry 5 tons passenger and 6 tons goods train – i.e. a version of D372 suitable for running in passenger trains or at passenger train speeds.

• Lot 444, 27 June 1898, qty 110.
• Lot 486, 13 Jan 1900, qty 100 (listed as lot 480 on p.150, reference to the lot list shows this must be a typo).

 

There followed a 10-year pause before further construction to D395, in small quantities. These were essentially an updated version of D374. Known numbers of these later vehicles are 2422 [Plate 218, also DY 3479], 38143, 59165, 73935 [Plate 220a], and 114970 [p. 152, referring to a drawing in Railway Modeller, Dec 1975 p. 372 – likely to be a Ken Werrett drawing?]

 

The Derby Registers also list a photo, DY 6622, unfortunately undated, described as refrigerator van 116444.

 

Maj. E. Druit’s report into an accident at Whitacre on 18 August 1903 lists the numbers of four refrigerator meat vans that sustained minor damage: 4412, 5746, 114148, 116359. The last one was definitely either fitted or piped, since the pipe was reported to be bent. These vans were in a Birmingham Central to Manchester Ancoats Class B goods train – not running with AVB, as the driver’s evidence states that he was reliant on the engine’s steam brake only.

 

Maj. J.W. Pringle’s report into an accident at Sharnbrook on 4 February 1909 lists the numbers of two refrigerator meat vans: 116443, which was badly damaged, and 117211, which was broken up. These vans were in a Manchester Ancoats to London express goods train, hauled by a 4-4-0 with the continuous brakes acting on the first 18 vehicles out of 25 and running at over 50 mph at the moment of collision.

 

Since they had continuous brakes, 116443 and 117211 must be D374 vehicles. We can form the hypothesis that 116443, along with 116359 from the Whitacre report and 116444 from the unseen official photo, might be from lot 440 and 117211 could be from lot 486.

 

Now to test the hypothesis. Quite a few numbers in the 116xxx and 117xxx series are known. Combining the lot book, diagrams, and special wagons list, we have, in lot order:

• Lot 412, 14 June 1897, qty 4, D309 30 ton boiler trucks, 29570/1, 116345/6.
• Lot 415, 5 July 1897, qty 20, D327 12 ton case trucks, 116075-94.
• Lot 416, 5 July 1897, qty 11, D328 40 ton armour plate trucks, 116065, 67-74 (+2).
• Lot 418, 5 July 1897, qty 10, D313 15 ton implement wagons, 116055-64.
• Lot 433, 8 Feb 1898, qty 250, D382 tariff vans, incl. nos. in the range 116096-307 (5 known).
• Lot 443, 10 June 1898, qty 2, D724 25 ton armour plate trucks, 116347/8.
• Lot 444, 27 June 1898, qty 110, D374 refrigerator vans, incl. 116359/443/4?

No higher numbers in this sequence are known. Although the photo of 116344 in the Derby Registers is undated, it is in with a short block of Carriage & Wagon Department photos that are of vehicles built around 1898-1900.

 

Thus the wagons in number blocks 116055-65/67-94 and 116345-8 are positively identified as built in 1897/8. The gap between these two blocks is exactly 250, so it can be inferred that the tariff vans were numbered 116095-344. The numbers are not exactly in lot order but presumably wagons were numbered on completion and the implement wagons were turned out more quickly than the case trucks, for example. The refrigerator vans could therefore occupy the number block 116349-458, or at latest 116359-468. At the very least, I would be confident giving a model a number in the range bounded by the two accident victims. 

 

Moving on to the 117xxx series, we have:

• Lot 465, 15 May 1899, qty 180, D334 31ft rail wagons, incl. 117063 (30 of this lot were renewals).
• Lot 466, 15 May 1899, qty 1, D331 60 ton gun truck, 117106.
• Lot 471, 18 Aug 1899, qty 2, D725 40 ton armour plate trucks, 117104/5.
• Lot 482, 3 Nov 1999, qty 1, D323 glass wagon, 117107.
• Lot 485, 18 Dec 1899, qty 75, D330 41 ft rail trucks, 117108-182.
• Lot 486, 13 Jan 1900, qty 100, D374 refrigerator vans, incl. 117211?
• Lot 504, 17 Jan 1901, qty 1, D738 crane match wagon, 117284 (for 15 ton steam crane no. 33).
• Lot 508, 17 Apr 1901, qty 6, D325 40 ft deep case wagons, 117286-91.
• Lot 532, 28 Feb 1902, qty. 8, D317 skeleton wagons, 5755, 117292-7.

The wagons in blocks 117104-82 and 117284/86-97 are positively identified as built in 1899-1902. The gap between these blocks is 101, which would fit the refrigerator vans of lot 486 with one spare. A possible candidate for the extra number is the gas store holder truck of lot 493, 26 Feb 1900, whilst the missing number 117285 could plausibly be the crane match wagon of lot 514, 6 May 1901.

 

Assuming the 30 renewals of lot 465 took old numbers, the remaining 150 rail wagons could plausibly be nos. 116954-117103. Lot 463 was for 4 crane match wagons, for the 15 ton steam cranes 29-32. David Hunt lists these as 114950-3 [Midland Record No. 2]. Inspecting the photo he reproduces of crane no. 29, the number its match wagon clearly has a 6 rather than a 4 as its third digit – i.e. 116951. So I would amend these numbers to 116950-3.

 

The special wagons list records gunpowder vans 117298-300 and 117501-5, traction wagons 117556-91, and 20 ton trolleys 117592/3. These appear to be LT&SR wagons absorbed by the Midland in 1912. Midland Wagons Plate 202 illustrates a D387 banana van of lot 648 of 1905, no. 117367. The 200 vans of this lot fit nicely in the gap in the gunpowder van sequence, though why the three numbers 117298-300 were left blank is a mystery.

 

To summarise, it seems plausible that the D374 refrigerated meat vans of lot 444 took numbers 116349-458 and those of lot 486, numbers 117183-282; the hypothesis stands. Incidentally, number series have been inferred for the D382 tariff vans of lot 433, the crane match wagons of lot 463, 150 of the D334 rail wagons of lot 465, and the D387 banana vans of lot 648.

 

The Whitacre accident report gives number 114148, very close to the known number of a D370 van of lot 305, 114128. It seems a reasonable assumption that they could be from the same lot. I leave it for the moment as an exercise for the reader to work out a plausible assignment of numbers in the 114xxx series…

Edited August 7, 2019 by Compound2632
Corrections to layout of text.

[Dave Hunt]

An excellent resume Stephen. And to think that I used to consider the subject of locomotive numbering before 1907 complex and somewhat irrational! The numbers for the crane match wagons I gave came from some records that Weatherburn produced in connection with his work on breakdown trains but I may well have made an error transcribing them or the error may have been there already; at the moment I do not have access to the papers so I can't be sure either way.

 

All I will have on my layout as far as wagons are concerned are a handful of D299s in and around the coaling stage as well as a couple by the ash pit,  the match wagon and riding/tool vans for the breakdown train, and a couple of brake vans so I guess I'm lucky.

 

Dave

Edited August 7, 2019 by Dave Hunt
Missed a bit out

[Compound2632]

... but in 7 mm, the numberplate digits are that much more legible! 

 

I have a growing list of D299 numbers but none, I think, for wagons with the LOCO COAL ONLY branding.

[Dave Hunt]

Which brings me to a question. Although many of the wagons loaded with coal that can be seen in photographs of MPDs have the LOCO COAL ONLY lettering, by no means all of them do. Do you know whether that was simply because there weren't enough properly lettered ones, or was there some other reason?

 

Dave

[Compound2632]

Looking through C. Hawkins and G. Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 1981), it seems to be the case that in the few Midland and early LMS period photos where wagons can be seen on the coaling stage siding, they are mostly branded LOCO COAL ONLY (Midland) or LOCO COAL (LMS) - except for a photo of Heaton Mersey in 1935, where the wagons are all LNER and branded LOCO. I haven't gone through the engine books; as I remember, there are some photos of engines standing in front of a coaling stage ramp with wagons. 

 

In the series of official photos of engines being coaled and watered at Derby on 25 Nov 1909, there is a string of Dinnington Main Colliery wagons in the coaling stage, along with a Midland wagon that I think is without the loco coal branding:

 

 

NRM DY 2115, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

 

For the D299 wagons branded for loco coal, there's no evidence that I'm are of that any lots or parts of lots were built specifically for this traffic, though I haven't gone through the C&W Cttee minutes looking for this! It's noteworthy though, that the 1000 12 ton wagons to D204 built as lot 731 in 1909 were specifically for loco coal, although there are also plenty of examples of the D607 12 ton wagons also branded for loco coal. The D204 wagons were unique among Midland wagons in having cupboard rather than drop flap doors - I wonder if these were thought to be more convenient for loading the coal stage tubs?

 

I'm wondering if there was some accounting reason for setting wagons aside for loco coal traffic - most companies seem to have done so, often using wagons of a bespoke design such as the LNWR's D64 wagons with no side doors or the Great Western's N-series iron wagons. Were such wagons excluded from the returns of revenue-earning stock - i.e. count as service stock? They were numbered in with the revenue-earning wagons, but so were other wagons that were clearly service vehicles, such as ballast wagons and crane match trucks. If that's the case, it would probably pay to have only as many as were usually needed, to avoid an excess of non-revenue earning wagons, calling upon revenue wagons when demand was higher. Using a revenue-earning wagon probably came at a price, as the loco department presumably had to pay the traffic department for their use. If push came to shove, then the supplying colliery's wagons would have to do. Once pooling got under way, loco coal wagons seem to have been non-common-user.

 

Some companies , rather than maintaining a fleet of loco coal wagons, contracted the supply of loco coal to one of the big coal factors - the Brighton used Stephenson Clarke, I think - so presumably only the factor's wagons and perhaps wagons from the supplying colliery would be seen at their coaling stages.

 

I'm afraid that's a lot of speculation but as you've seen, I'm good at that!

 

I have a question in return for you, David, as a locomotive expert. If you have Hawkins & Reeve, there's a photo on p.7, of Derby No. 3 shed, with a couple of Johnson engines in "early" condition: 890 Class 2-4-0 No. 131 with the original style of splashers, except that the splasher fronts are solid rather than having the pair of cut-outs, Johnson boiler and a Kirtley tender; and  1532 Class 0-4-4T No. 1720 (captioned as 0-6-0T) - a condensing engine with flared bunker and weatherboards rather than an enclosed cab. No sign of M R initials on tender or tank sides, though the sans-serif initials are on their (front) buffer beams. Both engines have built-up chimneys and boilers with clack valves on the sides of the forward ring, No. 131 also has a valve on the side of the smokebox with what looks like a small handweel. The photo is credited to J.B. Radford's collection. Can you date it?

 

The feature of interest to me is the D299 wagon, which has the extra vertical strapping on the end, between the end pillars. This is, I think, the earliest photo I know of a D299 wagon with this feature. Frustratingly, the photo as reproduced in the book is just not quite clear enough to be confident whether the wagon has 8A or Ellis 10A axleboxes.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

On the side-topic of varieties of coal, here's a list of the seams at Dinnington Main Colliery: http://www.j31.co.uk/dinno_geology.htm

 

[2996 Victor]

On 04/08/2019 at 22:40, Compound2632 said:

That D is still bugging me. It's not far off the one in Plate 84 in Midland Wagons Vol. 1 but I think that's a "late", probably LMS period photo. The Ds in Plate 83, the St Albans photo I referred to, are more rounded. I've dug out my teenage interpretation:

 

 

I'm fairly sure the lettering here is Letraset! The roundedness of the D looks better to me, though both letters should be wider and the middle horizontal of the E should be rather shorter relative to the top and bottom horizontals. Midland Style says the E D lettering was 2.5 planks high - 18" rather than 21"; these are 6 mm is which more-or-less right. If I could get hold of the Letraset (does such primitive technology still exist?), letters of the correct shape could be built up piecemeal.

 

As to the colour of the wagon, the less said the better. This photo, taken under artificial light, flatters it, making it look an orangey-red. In fact it's straight Humbrol red, probably matt 60, scarlet! According to Midland Style, the colour should be red oxide - the same as the base colour over which the crimson lake of locomotives was applied. This is a different colour to red lead, for which I have used Halfords red primer. Should one match to the Bassett Lowke model mentioned in Midland Style? (Ignoring the black ironwork!)

 

This was my take on this type of wagon (from a completely-ignorant-of-Midland-Railway-practice-and-relying-on-a-magazine-article perspective!):

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/22463-midland-railway-3-plank-dropside-ballast-wagon/

 

The "red oxide" is from the Rustoleum range. It stays a little bit tacky to the touch, so definitely needs sealing with some form of lacquer - I used my trusty Tamiya "Flat Clear". Given the discussions elsewhere about side knees and washer plates, either I need to revisit it or give it a full load of ballast.....

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

 

This was my take on this type of wagon (from a completely-ignorant-of-Midland-Railway-practice-and-relying-on-a-magazine-article perspective!):

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/22463-midland-railway-3-plank-dropside-ballast-wagon/

 

The "red oxide" is from the Rustoleum range. It stays a little bit tacky to the touch, so definitely needs sealing with some form of lacquer - I used my trusty Tamiya "Flat Clear". Given the discussions elsewhere about side knees and washer plates, either I need to revisit it or give it a full load of ballast.....

 

 

I think that looks very good for a wagon that's been in service for some while.

 

I've been doing some modelling myself, for a change…

 

I was putting the finishing touches to the 5&9 Brighton Open A when I realised I’d omitted the end braces – substantial chunks of timber connecting the end pillars half-way up the ends. I’ve used some 60 thou square plastic strip (Evergreen this time) and trying out my latest piece of equipment, Delux Materials micro applicator tip and tube for their Roket Max cyanoacrylate. This does seem to be a significant advance in accuracy and ease of use. (No connection &c.)

 

 

Unfortunately I ought to have looked more carefully before leaping in – having found one good photo of this feature – Southern Wagons Vol. 2 Plate 8 – I think my scale 4½” square piece is over scale; it should be nearer 3” square or even a bit less. So I’ll have to have another go. Also, it’s not entirely clear from that photo whether the gap behind the brace should be filled in or left open?

 

[2996 Victor]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think that looks very good for a wagon that's been in service for some while.

 

I've been doing some modelling myself, for a change…

 

I was putting the finishing touches to the 5&9 Brighton Open A when I realised I’d omitted the end braces – substantial chunks of timber connecting the end pillars half-way up the ends. I’ve used some 60 thou square plastic strip (Evergreen this time) and trying out my latest piece of equipment, Delux Materials micro applicator tip and tube for their Roket Max cyanoacrylate. This does seem to be a significant advance in accuracy and ease of use. (No connection &c.)

 

 

Unfortunately I ought to have looked more carefully before leaping in – having found one good photo of this feature – Southern Wagons Vol. 2 Plate 8 – I think my scale 4½” square piece is over scale; it should be nearer 3” square or even a bit less. So I’ll have to have another go. Also, it’s not entirely clear from that photo whether the gap behind the brace should be filled in or left open?

 

 

Hi Stephen,

 

thank you for your kind comments!

 

The Brighton open is looking good - I've not tried any of 5&9's kits, but for a bit of variety, I am tempted! I do find those applicator tips a real boon, especially as my close-up vision isn't great!

 

With best regards,

 

Mark

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

 

I do find those applicator tips a real boon, especially as my close-up vision isn't great!

 

 

I'm surprised I haven't superglued the end of my nose to a wagon yet!

[2996 Victor]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm surprised I haven't superglued the end of my nose to a wagon yet!

 

I tried blowing through the applicator tip to clear it without putting it near my lips, but still managed to.....not really recommended!

[Dave Hunt]

Stephen,

 

Thanks very much for the comprehensive reply to my question.

 

I'm in the Isle of Man at the moment but when I get home I'll have a look in H & R and see what I can glean from the picture you refer to.

 

Dave

[Crimson Rambler]

I will set the ball rolling if I may and David I'm sure can add some more later. Incidentally the photo of 0-4-4T No 1720 and 2-4-0 No 131 also appeared in J B Radford's book Derby Works & Midland Locomotives opposite page 49 in slightly larger format.  The wagon might be slightly clearer?

The tank engine was built at Derby in 1885 - part of batch O.538 which appeared May/June 1885 after which it then spent most of its life at Kentish Town. London engines made only rare visits to Derby.  The 2-4-0 according to S Summerson was shedded at Derby in 1892 before being given larger cylinders in the  October. During that period in the shops it almost certainly (99.9%)  it received a new boiler and new splashers having the reverse curve between them as shewn on the general arrangement drawing for rebuilding the 890s - No 86-2348.

Thus this suggests a possible period for the photograph extending from mid-1885 to say mid-1892, however the tank engine does not appear to have the 'London style' of painting which one might reasonably expect it to display if it had been sent to Derby for repair. For example No 1722 of this batch displayed this style c.1887. For this reason, the open smokebox and the displaced dome casing, suggests to me the engine is new thereby dating the photo to the summer of 1885. The pity is Summerson is unable to say when No 131 went to Derby only that it was there in 1892.

 

Crimson Rambler

[Compound2632]

I have been studying Maj. Pringle’s report on the accident at Sharnbrook not only for the information on train make-up and wagon numbers but also for the insight it gives into the working practices of the time. I hope you will indulge me if I summarize the events that led up to this appallingly destructive head on collision between two goods trains, which took place at 3:53 am on the morning of 4 February 1909.

 

Sharnbrook was a wayside station on the Midland main line, just north of the viaduct across the River Great Ouse and a couple of miles south of the summit of the line, the gradient north of the station being 1 in 119. The capacity of the original Leicester and Hitchin line of 1857 had been increased by the addition of goods lines, with an easier gradient and a tunnel at the summit. This postcard view, looking south, sets the scene:

 

 

The fast or passenger lines are on the right and the slow or goods lines, on the left. The signal box was on the opposite side of the line to the goods yard. There was a facing connection from the up slow to the up fast, enabling the box to dignified with the name of Sharnbrook Station Junction, but otherwise the running lines were connected by trailing crossovers. There were no ground signals for these crossovers, manoeuvers being controlled by hand or flag signals, and of course at this date no track circuits. I’ve sketched the layout:

 

 

The small hours were a busy time for goods traffic on the Midland main line. The down goods line was becoming congested, so on being offered the 2:55 am Bedford to Birmingham Class B express goods train, signalman Alfred Robins decided to cross it to the down passenger line – a manoeuver that would require the train to be set back on to the up passenger line and then drawn forward onto the down passenger line. He brought the train to a stand at 3:41 am, then had to wait while an express goods train passed by on the up passenger line at 3:45 am. By hand signals, he instructed driver William Alcock to set his train back onto the up passenger line. There was a further pause while the 2:45 am from St Pancras, the newspaper train, passed by on the down passenger at 3:47 am. Once he had “train out of section” from signalman James Lovell at Souldrop, the box in advance, he offered the Birmingham goods to follow it on the down passenger line and on receiving “line clear”, pulled over what he supposed to be lever No. 8, for the up passenger – down passenger crossover, and showed Alcock a white light as permission to proceed. Robins, who had been signalman at Sharnbrook for 21 years, had made a fatal error. He had not pulled over No. 8 but some other lever, probably the lever next to it, No. 7, which worked the trailing connection from the goods yard to the down passenger line – between the engine and the platform in the postcard photo.

 

Once Alcock realised that he was moving forward wrong line on the up passenger, he assumed that he was being asked to move sufficiently for another train to be crossed from the down goods to down passenger, to go ahead of his train, so he brought his engine to a stand at the north end of the station platform, with the brake van clear of the crossover. Robins was convinced the train had crossed to the down line – it was dark and the passenger lines were 50 ft away from his vantage point – so once the brake van had cleared the crossover, he returned the crossover lever, as he thought, pulled off the down passenger starter, and at 3:49 am accepted the 10.5 pm Manchester (Ancoats) to London express goods train, clearing his up passenger line signals. Lovell at Souldrop had first offered this train at 3.47 am; Robins refused it, Lovell phoned him: “Ain’t you going to take it?” – Lovell recalled Robins’ reply: “Yes, in a couple of minutes.”

 

When Alcock saw the up passenger signals clear at 3:50 am, he realised something was gravely wrong. He got his fireman, Rowland Wallis, to get down and go forward with a red lamp, then he set the train back, whistling continuously. Despite this, Robins remained convinced the train was on the down line and took no action. Alcock stopped his engine just south of the crossover (any further back and the rear of his train would have been on the viaduct over the River Ouse), changed the engine headlamp to a red one, and by waving a white lamp, signalled to his guard, Frederick Fleetwood to get down. Alcock managed to scramble clear moments before the collision, at 3:53 am, though he was struck on the back by flying debris.

 

Driver Arthur Coope and fireman John Hawley on 4-4-0 No. 388 never had a chance. With the first 18 wagons of their 24-wagon train fitted with the automatic vacuum brake, on a falling gradient with clear signals, they were going at over 50 mph:

 

 

Their guard, William Henson, was thrown across his van and badly injured. He reported that the vacuum brake had been functioning correctly when tested at Leicester and on slowing for signals at Wellingborough but no application had been made in the moments before the collision – evidently neither Coope nor Hawley had seen Wallis’ red lamp, at ground level.

 

The destruction of rolling stock was appalling: both engines were very badly damaged; 20 wagons were completely broken up and a further 11 badly damaged. The rear 17 wagons (of 22, all without continuous brake) and brake van of the down goods train became detached and rolled back over a mile.

 

Maj. Pringle placed blame for the accident on Alfred Robins’ mistake and subsequent assumption that the down goods was on the right line, despite the continuous whistling as the train set back. He praised William Alcock’s conduct in the three minutes between the up passenger signals clearing and the collision, including ensuring the safety of his fireman and guard. He did point out that Alcock’s engine carried detonators – if fireman Wallis had used one of these instead of the red lamp he might just have given Cooke and Hawley a chance. Maj. Pringles chief criticism was of the lack of ground signals. The crossover between the passenger lines was in full view of the signalbox, so the use of hand signals might be acceptable if it was used infrequently but for regular crossing of trains ground signals would provide an extra indication – being interlocked with the crossover, permission to proceed could not have been given unless the crossover had been pulled over; in addition, there would be an extra signal lever between the points levers 7 and 8, which would make Robins’ error less likely. The sort of arrangement Maj. Pringle had in mind is illustrated by this sketch, a condensed version of the layout and signalling at Langwathby, as it was in 1960 [V.R. Anderson and G.K Fox, Stations and structures of the Settle and Carlisle Railway (OPC, 1986)]:

 

 

What I find remarkable is the lack of communication during those fatal 10 minutes between Alcock’s train coming to a stand on the down goods line and the collision. Alcock had to make inferences about Robins’ intentions for his train at each step. Why didn’t he send Wallis to the box, to get an explanation of Robins’ intentions? There was some attempt at shouted confirmation between Robins and guard Fleetwood that the down goods was clear of the crossover, which seems to have ended inconclusively. The only real verbal communication was Lovell’s brief phone call to Robins, during which Robins did not explain why he had delayed accepting the up goods.

 

The up Manchester express goods train was running at over 50 mph – not quite express passenger train speed but exceptional for a goods train at this time. It had taken just under six hours to reach Sharnbrook – the best up Manchester expresses were at St Pancras in under four hours – having signed on at 9.5 pm for a 10.5 departure, guard Henson had been expecting to sign off duty at 7.0 am, presumably around an hour after arrival, making a 12-hour day; the previous day Henson had worked 9.25 pm to 7.55 am. The train’s last stop had been for examination at Leicester but had run non-stop from there, though with several slowings for signals. Fully-fitted express goods trains were, as far as I can work out, a new development in the early years of the twentieth century. The Midland had built very few vacuum-braked goods wagons prior to the late 1890s – and covered goods wagons were a very small fraction of the total wagon stock. This started to change but the total number of fully fitted goods vehicles could still be counted in hundreds at the time of the Sharnbrook accident.

 

I'm afraid this account is rather a sobering thing to post just as I'm off to the north country for a fortnight. More wagonry (and wagon numerology) on my return...

 

 

[Miss Prism]

Sorry for busting in - I'm trying to find a thread (or blog) where someone posted a finished MSJWR box van, built from a Slaters van. Probably within the last 3 weeks. Am posting here because readers of this thread are likely to remember.