GWR Wagon Kits?

[Compound2632]

On 09/04/2019 at 20:28, Miss Prism said:

Parkside does a V12/14/16 Mink, plus an O9/O15 open. Ratio still does the V6.  Overall situation.

 

 

All this talk of banana vans is rather esoteric unless your aim is to model a location on a route which saw banana trains - so for the Great Western the main line - in which case you'll want 20 - 30 of them.

 

What's really wanted are the bread-and-butter opens and vans (but not butter vans - also esoteric). But of course if you're modelling any period after the Great War, with pooling, the majority of wagons will be LMS and LNER types, pretty much anywhere on the Great Western. So that considerably widens the number of kits available.

[Steamport Southport]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

All this talk of banana vans is rather esoteric unless your aim is to model a location on a route which saw banana trains - so for the Great Western the main line - in which case you'll want 20 - 30 of them.

 

What's really wanted are the bread-and-butter opens and vans (but not butter vans - also esoteric). But of course if you're modelling any period after the Great War, with pooling, the majority of wagons will be LMS and LNER types, pretty much anywhere on the Great Western. So that considerably widens the number of kits available.

 

Unless you model the L&YR who had at least 100 butter vans.

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Unless you model the L&YR who had at least 100 butter vans.

 

 

Jason

 

Yes, but you'd still be needing to model a route that saw them - and I suspect they also ran in block trains from Liverpool docks - or maybe Goole if it was Danish butter?

[Fat Controller]

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

All this talk of banana vans is rather esoteric unless your aim is to model a location on a route which saw banana trains - so for the Great Western the main line - in which case you'll want 20 - 30 of them.

 

What's really wanted are the bread-and-butter opens and vans (but not butter vans - also esoteric). But of course if you're modelling any period after the Great War, with pooling, the majority of wagons will be LMS and LNER types, pretty much anywhere on the Great Western. So that considerably widens the number of kits available.

Whilst Banana vans may have left the ports as block trains; such trains would have been broken down into sections that served the various ripening plants. These weren't necessarily in big cities or urban areas. There were ones at Warminster, Exeter Central and Barnstaple, for example, which were active into the mid-1970s.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Whilst Banana vans may have left the ports as block trains; such trains would have been broken down into sections that served the various ripening plants. These weren't necessarily in big cities or urban areas. There were ones at Warminster, Exeter Central and Barnstaple, for example, which were active into the mid-1970s.

I understand that the Vastern Road yard at Reading had a banana shed that had an appropriately curved floor-plan.

[The Johnster]

17 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Unless you model the L&YR who had at least 100 butter vans.

 

 

Jason

Were these spread across the system...

[The Johnster]

Sorry about that, there really is no excuse for this sort of behaviour.

 

For a putative layout based on the Llantrisant area in 1952, you are a little released from the tyranny of having to rely exclusively on GW stock for general  merchandise, but the unfortunate fact is that there are insufficient RTR or kits for a representative selection, especially of opens.  I reckon about a quarter of your general merchandise fleet should be GW prototypes, about half of which should probably be opens. But NOT china clay opens.  

 

My my own layout, based in a similar period and not far from Llantrisant, has not achieved this.  

[Guest WM183]

I suppose I will seek out Cooper Craft 04s, and rely heavily on the Parkside open kit. I will add a taste of variety with a couple scratchbuilds, I suppose. I am still kicking the idea of doing this in N, so I can get a proper branch line modeled, in which case the kits from the 2mm society (I'd do their wonderful range of 2mm kits with N wheels, and just run on finetrax N-gauge track, likely - I cannot see that .4 mm) which would help things somewhat. 

[kevinlms]

32 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Sorry about that, there really is no excuse for this sort of behaviour.

 

For a putative layout based on the Llantrisant area in 1952, you are a little released from the tyranny of having to rely exclusively on GW stock for general  merchandise, but the unfortunate fact is that there are insufficient RTR or kits for a representative selection, especially of opens.  I reckon about a quarter of your general merchandise fleet should be GW prototypes, about half of which should probably be opens. But NOT china clay opens.  

 

My my own layout, based in a similar period and not far from Llantrisant, has not achieved this.  

Indeed it's a myth that any GWR layout, should be exclusively GWR wagons. The concept of 'common user' was around long before nationalisation.

Sure some GWR wagons (especially fitted ones) were excluded from the pooling arrangements, but wagons carrying loads into even isolated branches, COULD have LMS, LNER or S.R. wagons, largely depending on where their load originated.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Indeed it's a myth that any GWR layout, should be exclusively GWR wagons. The concept of 'common user' was around long before nationalisation.

Sure some GWR wagons (especially fitted ones) were excluded from the pooling arrangements, but wagons carrying loads into even isolated branches, COULD have LMS, LNER or S.R. wagons, largely depending on where their load originated.

 

I think that's still missing the point of the pooling arrangements: "wagons carrying loads into even isolated branches, were likely to be LMS, LNER or S.R. wagons, irrespective of where their load originated."

[garethashenden]

4 hours ago, WM183 said:

I suppose I will seek out Cooper Craft 04s, and rely heavily on the Parkside open kit. I will add a taste of variety with a couple scratchbuilds, I suppose. I am still kicking the idea of doing this in N, so I can get a proper branch line modeled, in which case the kits from the 2mm society (I'd do their wonderful range of 2mm kits with N wheels, and just run on finetrax N-gauge track, likely - I cannot see that .4 mm) which would help things somewhat. 

It’s not really the .42mm that makes the difference, it’s the finer clearances in the point work. It both looks better and works better and, in my opinion, worth the extra effort. 

[jwealleans]

This discussion has come up regularly in the past.  Somewhere on the forum I've published a couple of goods train lists from Pendon showing the makeup of internal GWR goods services.  There were more GWR wagons than the often-quoted overall percentages, but IIRC it was still not much more than 50% 'home team'.

[Guest WM183]

19 minutes ago, garethashenden said:

It’s not really the .42mm that makes the difference, it’s the finer clearances in the point work. It both looks better and works better and, in my opinion, worth the extra effort. 

 

Oh I heartedly agree! I just am somewhat nervous about trying to convert my teeny locos. I already have a Dapol Pannier and a Farish Fairburn 2-6-4T (I have a soft spot for those big LMS tank locos!) and if I did 2mm, I could model a goodly portion of a branch line in our available space. I am, as mentioned, just a bit nervous to try to convert these. I've remotored and regeared N scale brass before, but these seem so tiny compared to US N scale models!

Edited May 15, 2019 by WM183

[kevinlms]

7 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

This discussion has come up regularly in the past.  Somewhere on the forum I've published a couple of goods train lists from Pendon showing the makeup of internal GWR goods services.  There were more GWR wagons than the often-quoted overall percentages, but IIRC it was still not much more than 50% 'home team'.

I think a couple of points are true.

1/ Most loads didn't travel that far.

2/ I suspect railways would tend to keep their own wagons if practical and send goods to obscure locations, in someone else's vehicles, again if practical. By practical, I mean no one had to waste time shunting it around.

[Fat Controller]

Out of interest, I've had a trawl though old, published, photos of freight trains on the Great Western from the early part of the 20th century. One example had L&NWR and GC-liveried vehicles being loaded at Penarth Docks. Nothing unusual there, except the load was Esparto grass for a paper mill in nearby Cardiff. This was just post WW1. Another example showing the predominance of other railways' stock was the quayside at Kingswear in 1936, where the traffic being carried was sea-borne coal for the gasworks in nearby towns. Of 25+ wagons (all open), visible in the photo, only two were GWR ones, the rest all coming from other members of the Big Four.

[Compound2632]

So, theory says, the proportion of GW wagons at a location deep in GW territory, at some time between the grouping and the second World War, would be greater than the GW's 12% - 13% proportion of the pool but certainly no more than 50%. Time to start looking at photographs...

 

... Fat Controller beat me to it. If we're looking at the post-Great War pre-Grouping period, then the companies with the largest merchandise wagon fleets will tend to predominate - LNW, Midland, GW; then L&Y, GC, NE, GE, GN in the second rank.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Compound2632

[corneliuslundie]

Remember though that the GWR was a bit reticent about pooling some wagon types, especially cattle wagons which went in and out of pooling. There is a very good summary of what went into pooling when in Atkins et al.

But I thought the original question was about the pre-first world war period when pooling did not happen and wagons on foreign territory were returned asap. Even so, there would be "foreign" wagons present bringing in goods from other companies.

And there were some oddities. even in the Edwardian period I found evidence of a regular working from East Anglia to, if I remember correctly, the GNR for which there were dedicated vans supplied by the GNR which must have worked empty to East Anglia.

Also some companies hired in wagons from others. In South Wales the Barry used to hire cattle wagons from the GWR until the board gave permission for some more to be built.

And even more esoteric, the Bishop's Castle Railway had regular outward timber flows but had no suitable wagons so they must all have been hired in, often it seems from the LNWR.

Jonathan

[The Johnster]

The Barry’s relationship with the GW was cordial enough for it to be loaned brand new 31xx large prairies for through trans from Clarence Road to the Vale of Glamorgan.  The Rhondda & Swansea Bay was in bed with the GW to the extent of being supplied with 3 brand new 45xx locos, 21xx in those days IIRC, in it’s very attractive dark red livery; they were taken back into GW stock and given their original intended numbers at the grouping. 

 

I think all the railways were were reluctant to pool their stock, and l know that the LMS and Southern marked wagons they wanted returned with ‘N’, standing for ‘N’ot Pool. General merchandise wagons and vans were supposed to be ‘pool’ or ‘general user’, but specialist stock such as cattle wagons, lowmacs/loriots, bolster, bogie well and the like were excluded.  I have a Baccy LMS Medfit in late LMS livery with the ‘N’ brandings, but can’t really see how this is not general use stock, which mostly shows that I don’t know the full story. 

 

For the the purposes of operating a model railway, this means that even before the pooling arrangements came into operation, any company’s wagons could and did turn up anywhere.  A load booked for a destination on another railway would be loaded by choice into one of that railway’s vehicle if, big if, there was one empty and handy as a way of returning the wagon to it’s owners with a paying load.  More often, especially at smaller depots or private sidings, an empty from the originating company would be loaded and despatched, and if there were no empties at all immediately available, one would have to be sent for, goods control’s job.  

 

Once it arrived at it’s destination somewhere on another company’s metals, the local goods agent would cast about for a return load for it, even a part load, and if he couldn’t find one it went back empty next dispatch.  So there was a fairly effective pooling arrangement in operation even from very early times. Formal pooling made little difference to things to the viewpoint of a casual observer, but the billing and accounting processes were very considerably streamlined and demurrage lessened.  

 

Pooling ‘proper’ isolated some types as non pool as we have seen, and these had to be returned to their owners quickest dispatch loaded or unloaded, but general use pool vehicles could be loaded Martini style, ‘any time any place anywhere’.  Everybody used everbody’s wagons, and the goods depot staff made no distinctions with pool vehicles; unless a specialised vehicle was to be supplied, an 8 ton open or a 10ton van was just regarded as that, whoever’s initials were painted on the side.  

 

Brake vans were not generally pooled until nationalisation, and some were kept out of pool by fair means or foul after it, particularly WR Toads, but the Southern was pretty keen in chasing up any of it’s Queen Mary’s that had made a break for the border, at the same time as taking every opportunity to pass off their horrible draughty little pill box boneshaker vans on anyone who’d have ‘em!

 

 

[AlfaZagato]

All this talk of pooling habits is great, but what about new suppliers for GWR wagons?

 

I'm not an expert, but wouldn't some RCH types be suitable, maybe with GWR work's plates and brake gear modified accordingly?   Doing both would be a nuisance on a larger volume of wagons, but might be palatable for a handful.

[Compound2632]

Pooling made a dramatic difference to the appearance of goods yards. Here's Birmingham Central Goods (Midland Railway), before and after pooling, thanks to the wonderful Warwickshire Railways website.

[Antony Farrell]

For my layout I want nothing later than 1913. It is supposedly on the GW/GCR Joint line so what would I likely see there goods wise? Plus are any of the wagons from this period still available. The lists have a lot of NLAs showing.

[Miss Prism]

22 minutes ago, Antony Farrell said:

For my layout I want nothing later than 1913.

 

Unless you have a stash of old kits, or get lucky on the second-hand market, or start investing in the bespoke 'print your own' area, you have major challenges. Many wagons for that era will be pre-1900 construction.

 

One general characteristic (and I am generalising) of the average pre-1914 GWR goods train is the preponderance of opens (with the majority being sheeted) and the comparative rarity of vans. For the latter, half a dozen Ratio Iron Minks would be a flying start.

 

[Antony Farrell]

Well I suppose I could dig out a CAD program and try going that root. I do have a number of V4 and 5's from Coopercraft though some will need new ends to fit my period. Perhaps time to look into 3D printing.

[Guest WM183]

This conversation has really taken off; wow. I always figured that the distribution of common pool wagons would be pretty relative to the size of the company's fleet, save in places where single commodity trains (like coal) dominate - a whole different story. So I'd figured that with regard to non-mineral wagons, GWR wagons might be a bit over represented, perhaps 30% of the stock, with the remaining 70% being mostly dominated by LMS and LNER, with a handful of Southern types, with these wagons mostly consisting of opens and vans, in roughly equal numbers. Would this be fairly accurate?

[Miss Prism]

No foreigners evident here, pre-1914