brossard Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 I am a tad confused about these. I have an old kit purporting to be of the MCV. The kit has a 9' WB underframe of the 90 degree beam type. Also two vacuum cylinders. Here is what I got with the kit: Yes, my copy is cut off. Two very indistinct pictures of 8 clasp and 4 shoe examples: This picture shows a ruined underframe with an angled arrangement of beams: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brmineralclaspvb It is hard to tell what the wheelbase is but my guess it is 9'. A lot of pictures of MCV appear to be of a 10' WB wagon. Am I right in thinking that some unfitted 9' WB wagons were converted to AVB while new builds incorporating AVB were 10' WB? John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted November 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2019 (edited) Ok.... where to start. The 10’ wagons were rebuilds.... using mostly (exclusively?) Palbrick chassis.... they were mostly ‘push’ brake fitted but I believe some had 8 shoe vac brakes. Now the 9’ wagons came in various diagrams. Confusingly (infamously) BR was unsure about what was built. Batches built unbraked were later rebuilt with vac brakes. Some should have been built with vac brakes but weren’t and I believe some were built with brakes but lost them. For this reason I won’t get into diagram numbers because they don’t always help. There were even some (but not many) fitted wagons with riveted bodies. Best to find a photo. The majority of vehicles built braked were of the 8 shoe variety. They had 2 brake cylinders of 2 different diameters (18” and 21”). Cheers Griff Edit BTW The 9’ 8 shoe vac braked wagon was the most common type of vac braked MCV.... Parkside and Bachmann produce the less common 4 shoe vac brake vehicles.... Can I enquire the manufacturer of your kit? From the instructions it looks a bit like an early Cambrian kit? I didn’t know they made one if it is? Edited November 28, 2019 by griffgriff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted November 28, 2019 Author Share Posted November 28, 2019 Right thanks for getting back to me. Focus is on 9' WB wagons because that's the kit I have. Also welded so some version of Dia 1/108. I want to understand whether I should use this style of underframe (from MMP steel mineral wagon kit): Or the one shown in the sketch above (I suspect this is what is meant by "Palbrick" chassis). Interesting snippet about the cylinders. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted November 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2019 Nice bit of brass....Not a Palbrick chassis I wager. it looks like 9’ but that’s not the reason I suspect it’s not from a Palbrick. It looks like an RCH chassis for a wooden bodies mineral? I say that because the axel guards look light. The Steel bodied minerals had plate axle guards with a hole in it. Griff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted November 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2019 Nice bit of brass....Not a Palbrick chassis I wager. it looks like 9’ but that’s not the reason I suspect it’s not from a Palbrick. It looks like an RCH chassis for a wooden bodies mineral? I say that because the axel guards look light. The Steel bodied minerals had plate axle guards with a hole in it. Griff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted November 29, 2019 Author Share Posted November 29, 2019 Steel chassis from a steel mineral. Could be late LMS, it was a while ago (this model defeated me at the working leaf springs ). Yes, 9' WB, wagon was unfitted. Maybe it doesn't matter, I'm guessing BR had lots built from various suppliers so possible that underframe layout varied. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted November 29, 2019 Share Posted November 29, 2019 15 hours ago, brossard said: I am a tad confused about these. I have an old kit purporting to be of the MCV. The kit has a 9' WB underframe of the 90 degree beam type. Also two vacuum cylinders. Here is what I got with the kit: Yes, my copy is cut off. Two very indistinct pictures of 8 clasp and 4 shoe examples: This picture shows a ruined underframe with an angled arrangement of beams: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brmineralclaspvb It is hard to tell what the wheelbase is but my guess it is 9'. A lot of pictures of MCV appear to be of a 10' WB wagon. Am I right in thinking that some unfitted 9' WB wagons were converted to AVB while new builds incorporating AVB were 10' WB? John The original fitted examples were 9' wheelbase, with lifting-link 8-shoe brakes and 2 brake cylinders. A large number of unfitted examples were fitted with Morton 4-shoe brake gear, gaining tie-bars between axle-boxes and short extensions on the buffer stocks. There were something over 400 wagons constructed on second-hand 10' wb chassis. These were 17'6" over body, rather than 16'6", and had a mixture of fittings like buffers and axleboxes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted November 29, 2019 Share Posted November 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Fat Controller said: .................. A large number of unfitted examples were fitted ....., gaining ..... short extensions on the buffer stocks ................................ ... or self contained buffers of umpteen different varieties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted November 29, 2019 Author Share Posted November 29, 2019 Thanks FC and WG. That begins to clear things up. BR Oleo buffers and instanter couplings are in my plan. I think I will go with 8 shoes since that appears to be more typical (am I allowed to say "typical" when it comes to steel minerals?) John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green Posted November 29, 2019 Share Posted November 29, 2019 If the sides are bruised an' rusted it'll be typical - structurally, there were so many variants that virtually anything's acceptable ................... I'd love to see how those ally-bodied ones looked - new or battered - definitely NOT typical tho'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted November 29, 2019 Share Posted November 29, 2019 16 minutes ago, brossard said: Thanks FC and WG. That begins to clear things up. BR Oleo buffers and instanter couplings are in my plan. I think I will go with 8 shoes since that appears to be more typical (am I allowed to say "typical" when it comes to steel minerals?) John I wouldn't like to guess which is the archétypal 16t mineral; there were some 'built as VAC' wagons that had all the impedimenta except for the vacuum cylinders. Likewise, there were almost certainly conversions which were never recorded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted November 29, 2019 Author Share Posted November 29, 2019 (edited) Cheers guys. I must stop overthinking and get on with it. I'll put the model itself in a separate thread. I'll go with the underframe shown in the link in post #1. John Edited November 29, 2019 by brossard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted December 1, 2019 Author Share Posted December 1, 2019 Another question occurs to me since Griff mentioned that the two cylinders were different diameters. How were these arranged relative to the actuator rod? John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Was there a changeover valve? Empty/full or Western region/everywhere else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted December 2, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) And then theres this summary... https://www.ltsv.com/w_profile_041.php And Paul B says yes to change over lever https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brmineralclaspvb But would assume this was for loaded/empty - by the time fitted minerals were around in any number it was getting in to the diesel era and vacuums were becoming standardised.... Edited December 2, 2019 by Phil Bullock Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Titan said: Was there a changeover valve? Empty/full or Western region/everywhere else? There was for empty/loaded. Any user who tipped the wagon end-ways to empty it via the end door didn't appreciate the 8-shoe brakes 'cow the outer shoes got in the way. I believe that's why, in TOPS days they were split into MCVs and MXVs. Edited December 2, 2019 by Poor Old Bruce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 So the changeover lever was for switching from large to small vac cylinder? Seems odd to have two cylinders when everything else got by with just one. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, brossard said: So the changeover lever was for switching from large to small vac cylinder? Seems odd to have two cylinders when everything else got by with just one. John More likely, one cylinder for empty, both cylinders for loaded. Fully loaded, the wagon weighed roughly three times its unladen weight. Jim 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Thanks Jim, trying to deconfuse. Still don't know which side the small cylinder was on. I want to get details correct. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45125 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 From working on them as an apprentice, with the door at the right hand end the small cylinder was on that side. When empty only one cylinder was used, the larger one when loaded the other smaller cylinder was brought into use to provided the additional brake force. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Thanks for that 45125. I'm thinking you mean the end door. Still not quite clear. Perhaps you could orient me by referring to the sketch in post 1. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 10 hours ago, brossard said: Thanks for that 45125. I'm thinking you mean the end door. Still not quite clear. Perhaps you could orient me by referring to the sketch in post 1. The left hand end of the body side has a diagonal stripe and the wording "END DOOR" if that helps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted January 5, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 5, 2020 Depends which side you’re looking at Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted January 5, 2020 Author Share Posted January 5, 2020 Thanks all. I received a picture last night of a tippler that was involved in accident and lying on it's side. The two cylinders can be clearly seen along with the location of the small one. The pic also shows a plethora of other details so I'm pretty delighted with that. John 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