Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 11 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said: Looking at the length and round buffer stocks I'd say that was an NER V4. If it speaks in a high pitched voice it's definitely from Shildon. I think you right regarding the V4 @Worsdell forever. I have a Hornby Toad B on the way. Would it just be the case of changing the buffers to back date? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 I suppose my next question @Worsdell forever, if it's just a case of replacing the buffers, who does a suitable type. What type should I be looking for? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Worsdell forever Posted July 30, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, Hawin Dooiey said: I suppose my next question @Worsdell forever, if it's just a case of replacing the buffers, who does a suitable type. What type should I be looking for? V4 was shorter by 2' and 6" in wheelbase. Timber vs steel underframe and axleboxes. Mr Franks buffers with a spacer behind. http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_094.htm 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said: V4 was shorter by 2' and 6" in wheelbase. Timber vs steel underframe and axleboxes. Mr Franks buffers with a spacer behind. http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_094.htm Isn't the fact that the Brakevan depicted being shorter than the normal Toad B down to the painting using a Triang Van as a model? 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Worsdell forever Posted July 30, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Aire Head said: Isn't the fact that the Brakevan depicted being shorter than the normal Toad B down to the painting using a Triang Van as a model? Probably. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said: V4 was shorter by 2' and 6" in wheelbase. Timber vs steel underframe and axleboxes. Mr Franks buffers with a spacer behind. http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_094.htm Ah....hmmm, might not bother in that case and leave it as it is if it's too long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 There's my sort of canon argument that the NWR was buying up older pregrouping stock....would explain what happened with the incident with Douglas. Or perhaps it could be an early Toad B sold off by the LNER. 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I can certainly imagine them using the LMS and LNERs cast offs. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 (edited) A question for those who know their wagons. Sorry for tagging you @jwealleans, At nationalisation, would quarry wagons become the property of BR? I seem to think there was a wagon prefix for ex quarry stock. Edited July 30, 2020 by Hawin Dooiey 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted July 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 30, 2020 My (limited) understanding is that private owner wagons that weren't in the pool were not nationalised. This included wagons dedicated to specific mineral traffics, e.g. salt, sand for Pilkingtons at St Helens, ICI limestone from Buxton (no doubt elsewhere). So if your quarry company was operating a fleet of wagons that had escaped going into the general pool during the war, through being of specialised design, I suspect they would have remained privately owned but if they were just run-of-the-mill lowsided wagons, I suspect not. I hope that putting up my relatively uninformed speculation will flush out some authoritative responses - nothing like saying the wrong thing to be told the right answer! 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: I suspect they would have remained privately owned but if they were just run-of-the-mill lowsided wagons, I suspect not. I beleive a large number of 5 Planks were absorbed into BR stock and given M Prefixes. In fact I'm sure someone once said that at one point the only accurate livery on a Bachmann 5 Plank was BR grey with an M390xxx number. I do suspect they were exaggerating slightly 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Compound2632 said: My (limited) understanding is that private owner wagons that weren't in the pool were not nationalised. This included wagons dedicated to specific mineral traffics, e.g. salt, sand for Pilkingtons at St Helens, ICI limestone from Buxton (no doubt elsewhere). So if your quarry company was operating a fleet of wagons that had escaped going into the general pool during the war, through being of specialised design, I suspect they would have remained privately owned but if they were just run-of-the-mill lowsided wagons, I suspect not. I hope that putting up my relatively uninformed speculation will flush out some authoritative responses - nothing like saying the wrong thing to be told the right answer! 1 hour ago, Aire Head said: I beleive a large number of 5 Planks were absorbed into BR stock and given M Prefixes. In fact I'm sure someone once said that at one point the only accurate livery on a Bachmann 5 Plank was BR grey with an M390xxx number. I do suspect they were exaggerating slightly Thank you gents. Referring back to the illustrations, they seem to be run of the mill 3-5 planks and I do like the idea that they are now BR/NWR owned. You would have an interesting mix of ex FQC alongside completely repainted types. Having faded FCQ liveries wagons, with replacement planking/ BR number would be very nice to model. For the transport of rough and shaped stone, I'd be going with the LMS medifit repainted. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Hawin Dooiey said: For the transport of rough and shaped stone, I'd be going with the LMS medifit repainted. I'd be tempted to use the unfitted version available as a kit from Ratio. I think there are kits for RCH 3 planks aswell for a bit of added variation. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, Aire Head said: I'd be tempted to use the unfitted version available as a kit from Ratio. I think there are kits for RCH 3 planks aswell for a bit of added variation. Is the Bachmann model the same type? Some variation would be welcome though. Incidentally I've been re viewing these illustrations which essentially show the situation regarding wagons from book 16, all 3 plank. Rough stone behind Percy after his runaway from Anopha Quarry, surrounded by the rubble of shaped stone he's collided with. I also notice the packing of straw as protection for the shaped stone....reminiscent of slate packing on the Cambrian. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 The only wagons exempt from pooling were those which could only be used on specific traffics. Salt wagons spring to mind; some specialist tankers and tipplers. Such wagons had a large yellow and black 'Non-Pool' marking which is visible on some for years after the War. See the ICI open eight images down this page. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 31, 2020 Author Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 hour ago, jwealleans said: The only wagons exempt from pooling were those which could only be used on specific traffics. Salt wagons spring to mind; some specialist tankers and tipplers. Such wagons had a large yellow and black 'Non-Pool' marking which is visible on some for years after the War. See the ICI open eight images down this page. Cheers Jonathan. That makes sense in that case. As they are just 3 planners then it’s fair to say they would be pool’d. It’s fair to say there would be a priority to make sure they worked back to their origin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 9 hours ago, Hawin Dooiey said: the Bachmann model the same type? Some variation would be welcome though. The Bachmann one might be a different diagram I can't remember off the top of my head. What I will say is that the Bachmann one is completely incorrect to represent a fitted version except for conversions made by BR towards the end of the 50s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, Hawin Dooiey said: It’s fair to say there would be a priority to make sure they worked back to their origin "Non Common User" label and a "Return to Anopha Quarry" wouldn't be unreasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 31, 2020 Author Share Posted July 31, 2020 11 minutes ago, Aire Head said: The Bachmann one might be a different diagram I can't remember off the top of my head. What I will say is that the Bachmann one is completely incorrect to represent a fitted version except for conversions made by BR towards the end of the 50s. Ha, that doesn’t surprise me. I’m guessing they should be duel clasp brakes? Seen as what happened to Percy, we know the Anopha fleet are most definitely unfitted. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted July 31, 2020 Author Share Posted July 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Aire Head said: "Non Common User" label and a "Return to Anopha Quarry" wouldn't be unreasonable. Perfect, that makes sense. Almost depicted here.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) For a bit of variety you could look at the Cambrian 4 plank minerals. Ian Kirk also did a 4 plank wagon which turns up second hand from time to time. I have a couple for one of the local coal merchants on Grantham. Edited July 31, 2020 by jwealleans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharky Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 14 minutes ago, Hawin Dooiey said: Perfect, that makes sense. Almost depicted here.... Just a thought for the use of these particular wagons (and those that resemble the ubiquitous 16ton Mineral wagons). They may have been used to transport loose stone and rubble from the quarry to else where on the Island/mainland. It was/is quite common for quarries to try and get money out of everything they can. So why not make money off what would be considered 'rubbish'? Would give you another option for wagon variation, as well as more traffic. Also another factor to be mindful off in reference to this picture. The writing in this part of the story goes something like this, ...."Did you say third truck from the back?" The ball was there, nestling under some straw.... That should indicate that these wagons were also used for the finished stone products and were running empty back to Ffarquhar from the Harbour. I see no issue with having some steel wagons like this, they could definitely take a fair bit more of a beating than the timber wagons. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 The issue would be with unloading them - because the door isn't full height, it's not possible - or very awkward - to barrow the blocks out and the higher sides make craning them out harder than if they were in a lower sided wagon. Stone is very heavy, so you can' t make use of the extra size of the wagon - they'd only be used if there was nothing else. Didn't the ones used for stone ballast have slots cut into the sides so they couldn't be overloaded? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aire Head Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 hour ago, jwealleans said: Didn't the ones used for stone ballast have slots cut into the sides so they couldn't be overloaded? Holes were cut into the side to stop overloading but you wouldn't see that in the 1950s setting for this model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Bucoops Posted July 31, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 31, 2020 13 hours ago, Compound2632 said: I hope that putting up my relatively uninformed speculation will flush out some authoritative responses - nothing like saying the wrong thing to be told the right answer! I rely on that technique too! Very effective even if it does make me (correctly) look like a plonker 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now