Ratio Iron Ore Hopper Kit - researching a prehistoric plastic kit

[cctransuk]

My 'to do' box has recently disgorged a couple of veritable fossils - Ratio iron ore hopper kits. Two specimens, packed in poly bags with printed card backer / instructions, and sealed with a (rusty) staple. One card is printed with a price of 5/10, the other 7/0; and the two cards have different printed addresses for Ratio.

 

The kits are very nicely moulded, and they will not be the first of these hopper kits that I have built. However, a bit of research into the provenance of the subject hoppers recalled a problem that I had encountered with earlier builds. On the face of it, the kit represents the standard 'Charles Roberts' PO iron ore hopper, as perpetuated by BR as its Diagram 1/161.

 

 

However, most steel iron ore hoppers of this type seem to have been fairly standard in having a wheelbase of 9'-0'' and a length over headstocks of 16'-6''. The Ratio kit, on the other hand, has a wheelbase of 8'-6'' and a length over headstocks of 16'-0''.

 

Even all those years ago, there would seem to be little point in Ratio tooling-up a model which is 2mm. short in two critical dimensions; it would have been just as easy to design to the standard dimensions. Another significant point is that the upper, vertical section of the kit's hopper sides are quite a bit shallower than the standard 'Charles Roberts' design, with a deeper sloped section.

 

In his wagon data sheet concerning iron ore hoppers, David Larkin refers to some earlier, lower capacity steel iron ore hoppers which had a shallower vertical side section than the later designs, but other details of the description of these early wagons appear not to match the kit.

 

So - I am left wondering, (again), if the Ratio kit represents an earlier version of the 'Charles Roberts' design, or if it is Ratio's 'interpretation' of that standard design. It would be quite easy to 'stretch' the kit to match the standard wheelbase and chassis length, but the problem of the non-standard hopper sides remains.

 

It is ironic that the other manifestation of this wagon type - the Mainline / Bachmann rendition, suffers from having been 'stretched' to fit a standard 10'-0'' / 17'-6'' chassis. What we really need is an accurate model of the 'Charles Roberts' / BR 1/161 hopper.

 

If anyone else has pondered these matters, I would be interested to learn of their conclusions.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Mark Saunders]

John

 

It is one of these things I have been pondering for a while and have came to the following conclusion!

 

The Ratio kit would appear to be based on a Charles Roberts hopper but a bit lacking in width so I feel is best consigned to history!

 

The current rtr offering should really have been left to die as the moulds wore out but everybody has reinvented the wheel and perpetuated the stretching! Personally I would like it to die a natural death for it to be reborn like a phoenix in a few years! There is also the larger 30 ton version

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98239-chas-roberts-type-ore-hopper/

 

However in the meantime a tall LMS hopper would probably be a better one to produce?

 

Mark Saunders

[cctransuk]

John

 

It is one of these things I have been pondering for a while and have came to the following conclusion!

 

The Ratio kit would appear to be based on a Charles Roberts hopper but a bit lacking in width so I feel is best consigned to history!

 

The current rtr offering should really have been left to die as the moulds wore out but everybody has reinvented the wheel and perpetuated the stretching! Personally I would like it to die a natural death for it to be reborn like a phoenix in a few years! There is also the larger 30 ton version

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98239-chas-roberts-type-ore-hopper/

 

However in the meantime a tall LMS hopper would probably be a better one to produce?

 

Mark Saunders

 

Failing any clear identification, I shall do as I have done with the kits already built.

 

I'll build them as intended by Ratio, and number them in the BR P-prefix series using numbers from David Larkin's list of early steel iron ore hoppers; (he is fortunately unable to quote design details for these). Not my usual practice, but I do rather like the appearance of the completed kit.

 

Plus - looking at the heterogenous collection of hopper designs in 1950s photos of iron ore trains around the Oxfordshire ironstone fields, anything could appear !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[rope runner]

Frankly, we are overdue some convincing Iron Ore hoppers in 4mm. 

 

The Charles Roberts and LMS designs would be an easy win for a kit supplier!

 

Paul A. 

[cctransuk]

Failing any clear identification, I shall do as I have done with the kits already built.

 

I'll build them as intended by Ratio, and number them in the BR P-prefix series using numbers from David Larkin's list of early steel iron ore hoppers; (he is fortunately unable to quote design details for these). Not my usual practice, but I do rather like the appearance of the completed kit.

 

Plus - looking at the heterogenous collection of hopper designs in 1950s photos of iron ore trains around the Oxfordshire ironstone fields, anything could appear !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

This afternoon, I built the two Ratio iron ore hopper kits; these must be 50+ years old.

 

Expecting that the plastic could have become brittle with time, I took extra care when removing the components from the sprues, and when opening out holes; however, apart from some slight longitudinal curvature in the solebars which was carefully manipulated away, no problems were encountered.

 

I substituted metal open-spoked wheels in pinpoint bearings for the one-piece plastic ones supplied by Ratio, and ABS cast buffers for the somewhat crude representations in the kit. The kit made provision for fitting my usual Peco / Hornby Dublo Simplex couplers, and I fitted cosmetic etched coupler hooks to the headstocks. Offcuts of roofing lead were glued in place below the hopper doors, to give the wagons stability, and the job was done.

 

I will post photos when the painting and lettering is completed.

 

All in all, these ancient Ratio kits are comparable with present-day Cambrian kits - if you see any on the odds-and-sods tables at exhibitions, they are well worth a punt !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Mark Saunders]

Frankly, we are overdue some convincing Iron Ore hoppers in 4mm. 

 

The Charles Roberts and LMS designs would be an easy win for a kit supplier!

 

Paul A. 

 

Personally I would go for one of the company designs, the LMS ones ended their days at many collieries in Yorkshire and Northumberland, plus British Sugar.

 

Mark Saunders

[cctransuk]

This afternoon, I built the two Ratio iron ore hopper kits; these must be 50+ years old.

 

Expecting that the plastic could have become brittle with time, I took extra care when removing the components from the sprues, and when opening out holes; however, apart from some slight longitudinal curvature in the solebars which was carefully manipulated away, no problems were encountered.

 

I substituted metal open-spoked wheels in pinpoint bearings for the one-piece plastic ones supplied by Ratio, and ABS cast buffers for the somewhat crude representations in the kit. The kit made provision for fitting my usual Peco / Hornby Dublo Simplex couplers, and I fitted cosmetic etched coupler hooks to the headstocks. Offcuts of roofing lead were glued in place below the hopper doors, to give the wagons stability, and the job was done.

 

I will post photos when the painting and lettering is completed.

 

All in all, these ancient Ratio kits are comparable with present-day Cambrian kits - if you see any on the odds-and-sods tables at exhibitions, they are well worth a punt !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

The two kits have turned out very satisfactorily - I decided to apply two different, but common, painting styles.

 

 

 

In my previous post, I omitted to mention that the kits came with GWR round-topped axleboxes - probably because that sprue was shared with the Ratio Iron Mink kit. I felt that these were probably a little unlikely on ex-PO hoppers, so they were replaced with plate axleboxes left over from another project.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Miss Prism]

It's a pity they're not still available. Rather attractive.

[Ian Kirk]

Hi,

When these were produced there was nothing like so much prototype information available as there is now.  The real railway was still using the drawings so they were not always available to modellers and the countless books on wagons were yet to be written. Still you could photograph the real thing and if circumstances permit crawl all over it with a measuring tape. Often in non ideal circumstances, wind rain and an eye out for authority as you were probably trespassing.  In the early days I produced some drawings from a couple of photographs and a known dimention - wheel diameter if nothing else. You drew a grid and removed the tapers. Lots of drawing board work. Computers now do  this easily. I suspect that the inaccuracies in a kit this old would be down to the non availability of a perfect drawing at the time that the tools were made.

Some years later (than the Ratio kit) I started work on a GNofS van kit. I had cut the moulds for the side and end using a drawing in Model  Railway News When I compared this with some photographs I had obtained I found that although the detailing, panelling etc. was about right it was considerably shorter than it should have been and the draughtsman had drawn it to the most common van length wheras the GNofS was unusually longer. I think I sold some as "grounded van body kits".

best wishes,

 

Ian

[Steamport Southport]

I've heard tell of these legendary beasts. Never seen one before and they don't seem to come up on eBay.

 

 

 

Jason

[Phil Traxson]

Hi,

When these were produced there was nothing like so much prototype information available as there is now.  The real railway was still using the drawings so they were not always available to modellers and the countless books on wagons were yet to be written. Still you could photograph the real thing and if circumstances permit crawl all over it with a measuring tape. Often in non ideal circumstances, wind rain and an eye out for authority as you were probably trespassing.  In the early days I produced some drawings from a couple of photographs and a known dimention - wheel diameter if nothing else. You drew a grid and removed the tapers. Lots of drawing board work. Computers now do  this easily. I suspect that the inaccuracies in a kit this old would be down to the non availability of a perfect drawing at the time that the tools were made.

Some years later (than the Ratio kit) I started work on a GNofS van kit. I had cut the moulds for the side and end using a drawing in Model  Railway News When I compared this with some photographs I had obtained I found that although the detailing, panelling etc. was about right it was considerably shorter than it should have been and the draughtsman had drawn it to the most common van length wheras the GNofS was unusually longer. I think I sold some as "grounded van body kits".

best wishes,

 

Ian

 

Apologies for the thread drift but. I had the same experience as Ian when producing my resin kit for the 7 mm. kit for the GNoS van, probably from the same MRN drawing. After it was pointed out to me it was wrong it was remastered and the first few that had escaped for sale were exchanged for the, ostensibly, incorrect one. 

 

But here comes the rub. A few years later I purchased the Cheona publications book "LNER Wagons Before 1948" Vol.1 and on page 34 there are two pictures of GNoS 10 ton vans. Although the detailing, panelling etc. was about the same, the one in the lower picture is very obviously shorter, shorter panel width, spring hangers nearer the headstocks, than the one above it. Could it be that the MRN drawing is of the van in the lower picture, and that both Ian and I have unwittingly produced a correct body of a lesser known version?

 

Phil T     

[45568]

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.....so:

John Isherwood's builds spurred me to finish these two examples that were gifted to me by a dear friend, now departed.

Tamiya Haze grey spray for bodywork, black parts brush-painted with a Revell black tinlet. Transfers taken from John's CCT sheet BL46 for Iron Ore Hoppers. Loads modified from 'Wagon Essentials' iron ore load for the Bachmann 24 tonner.

 A waft-over with Tamiya TS1 for the 'red dust' effect.

i wouldn't mind a couple more!

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

Edited December 16, 2017 by 45568

[k22009]

While i await the imminent?? release by Parkside of their Iron Ore Hopper i thought i'd have a bash at scratch building a body as the Ratio hoppers are only a memory and the RTR offerings don't appear to be dimensionally accurate. I have produced a drawing with the components laid out if anyone wants to have a stab please feel free to use it, it's for the diagram 1/162.

 

I've used 10 thou sheet brass with some 1mm x 0.3 strip, a bit of scrap etch and Mainly trains rivet strip (it's over scale but it's all i have). 

 

 

Ladders need adding once the body has been mounted onto a suitable underframe, probably the Cambrian C35 which is a 9'-0 wheelbase and comes with a floor.

 

It all needs a good clean up and a rub down with the fibre brush to remove some of the excess solder. The rivets do look a little well fed, the alternative would be to use Transfer rivets.

 

Dave 

 

24T iron ore hopper 1-162.pdf

[Phil Traxson]

On 23/11/2017 at 11:21, Phil Traxson said:

 

Apologies for the thread drift but. I had the same experience as Ian when producing my resin kit for the 7 mm. kit for the GNoS van, probably from the same MRN drawing. After it was pointed out to me it was wrong it was remastered and the first few that had escaped for sale were exchanged for the, ostensibly, incorrect one. 

 

But here comes the rub. A few years later I purchased the Cheona publications book "LNER Wagons Before 1948" Vol.1 and on page 34 there are two pictures of GNoS 10 ton vans. Although the detailing, panelling, etc. was about the same, the one in the lower picture is very obviously shorter, shorter panel width, spring hangers nearer the headstocks, than the one above it. Could it be that the MRN drawing is of the van in the lower picture, and that both Ian and I have unwittingly produced a correct body of a lesser known version?

 

Phil T     

Bit of an update on this thread drift. Having obtained the requisite LNER pre-grouping Scottish wagons tome by Mr. Tatlow I found that there are indeed two versions of this type of GNoS van, one with a 10 ft wheelbase and a 16 ft body, the other has a 10 ft 6 in wheelbase and an 18ft 6 in body. For those interested they are illustrated on pages 150 - 155 of " LNER WAGONS volume three" by Peter Tatlow.

 

Phil T. 

[Down_Under]

On 12/12/2019 at 01:56, k22009 said:

While i await the imminent?? release by Parkside of their Iron Ore Hopper i thought i'd have a bash at scratch building a body as the Ratio hoppers are only a memory and the RTR offerings don't appear to be dimensionally accurate. I have produced a drawing with the components laid out if anyone wants to have a stab please feel free to use it, it's for the diagram 1/162.

 

I've used 10 thou sheet brass with some 1mm x 0.3 strip, a bit of scrap etch and Mainly trains rivet strip (it's over scale but it's all i have). 

 

 

Ladders need adding once the body has been mounted onto a suitable underframe, probably the Cambrian C35 which is a 9'-0 wheelbase and comes with a floor.

 

It all needs a good clean up and a rub down with the fibre brush to remove some of the excess solder. The rivets do look a little well fed, the alternative would be to use Transfer rivets.

 

Dave 

 

24T iron ore hopper 1-162.pdf 16.22 kB · 15 downloads

 

Very nice,

 

What chassis have you ended up using?

 

J