Rails announce SE&CR 16' Covered Goods Wagon

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I listened very closely to the interviews with Oliver and James on Jenny Emily's Youtube video. Now, I'm always pushing earlier - for the early Edwardian period, most of my stock should be from the 80s and 90s. So, I'm wondering, can the research work and CAD development for this 16 ft wagon be put to work to produce the earlier and more numerous 15 ft 5 in wagons, that became SR diagrams 1420 and 1422 (378 and 330 built, respectively, compared to 110 of the SR diagram 1424 wagon). This would also permit a further livery variation, SER red - which would probably have persisted well into the SECR period. Mention was made of Huntley & Palmers biscuit traffic; a couple of the SR diagram 1420 wagons appear in one of a series of photos taken at Huntley & Palmers' factory c. 1900:

 

 

[Crop from a photo in the Huntley & Palmers Collection, Reading Museum.]

 

Note that these both have timber rather than metal angle end pillars. In the background is one of the even earlier wagons from the 60s and 70s that became SR diagram 1419 or 1421, with a different arrangement of six timber end pillars. One of these survived in departmental use at least into the 1930s.

 

Ref. G. Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 3 (OPC, 2000).

 

Stephen, yes, as you know, and as my nom de plume suggests, my interest is in the early 1900s, so wagons from the 1880s and 1890s would be my preference. 

 

The Rails brief in this instance, however, was to find a SE&CR wagon that could span the liveries of RTR SE&CR loco releases, such as the C and the P.  That is tough going for goods stock, which often didn't last as long in service as long-lived locomotives. D1424 fulfilled the brief because it could take you from fully-lined Wainwright right through to Lion & Wheel, albeit in small numbers by the '50s. We could not have done this with an earlier generation of prototype. 

 

I would love to revisit the subject with one of the pure SER designs, but Rails must try to cater for the breadth of subjects and interests out there if it produces future product, so we'll have to see. You may find the next foray very different. 

[Guy Rixon]

To get from D1424 to the vans shown at H&P's, almost every part of the product would need to change; only the doors and the buffer guides would be reusable. It would not be a particularly easy transition.

[Craigw]

1 hour ago, Georgeconna said:

Nice.

 

But £32.99 plus post across the pond for a single Van, Bout €40. I'm out.

 

Got the Contstaints and all that so no lectures needed and no doubt they will sell out as before.

 

Enjoy lads.

 

 

George,

 

I am in Australia, so the same situation for me. 

 

Don't forget that we do not pay VAT, so the price comes down to 27.49 plus post.

 

Whether this pleases you is your decision. I stick strictly to my early 1920s timeframe so if Rails are going to produce an item of rolling stock that suits me I will support them.

 

Craig W

[Jack P]

How long were these vans around for - specifically, did any make it to nationalisation? 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Jack P

[Compound2632]

34 minutes ago, Jack P said:

How long were these van around for - specifically, did any make it to nationalisation? 

 

If you mean the earlier diagrams I was mentioning, then no. @Edwardian has outlined the rationale for choosing the SR diagram 1424 wagon - a handful of examples did make it to nationalisation. 

 

As a rule of thumb, for goods wagons, the outside lifetime is 50 years, with 40 years a bit more realistic - the railway companies were probably trying to look at 30 years. For carriages, ten years less; for express passenger locomotives, even less before rebuilding or retirement. The second world war upset this pattern at least as far as locomotives were concerned.

 

So, if the yardstick of acceptability is to be survival to nationalisation, then as far as nineteenth-century pre-Grouping stock goes, it's going to be 0-6-0 goods engines and 0-6-0T shunting engines only. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Compound2632

[Buhar]

I think you're a bit off on carriages. Many, many Pre-Grouping carriages made it to BR, mostly 20th century builds but knocking on 50 by then.  If a rough figure was needed it would be more like 30 years for a carriage, in progressively less important workings, ending up being used only on high days and holidays. 

Alan 

[Edwardian]

9 hours ago, Guy Rixon said:

To get from D1424 to the vans shown at H&P's, almost every part of the product would need to change; only the doors and the buffer guides would be reusable. It would not be a particularly easy transition.

 

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

If you mean the earlier diagrams I was mentioning, then no. @Edwardian has outlined the rationale for choosing the SR diagram 1424 wagon - a handful of examples did make it to nationalisation. 

 

If the yardstick of acceptability is to be survival to nationalisation, then as far as nineteenth-century pre-Grouping stock goes, it's going to be 0-6-0 goods engines and 0-6-0T shunting engines only. 

 

As Guy says, a SER covered wagon would be a wholly new wagon.  In stylist terms, there are similarities - the D1424 looks like a stretched SE van with metal end stanchions - but with different dimensions and details, you would be drawing the thing from scratch.

 

So, it would be a case of seeing if a range developed and, then, seeing how long it was before Rails could return to the theme of a SE van.

 

There is no decision, so far as I am aware, to confine any future product to either post 1900 designs or, indeed, to pre-Grouping designs.  This was committed to as a one off test product, so different considerations apply in the event that a range develops, for instance, the flexibility of 3D manufacture would permit, in some cases a CAD suite covering a company's wagon development through several diagrams over a significant period, say 1880s-1920s.

 

44 minutes ago, Jack P said:

How long were these van around for - specifically, did any make it to nationalisation? 

 

Yes, but with RCH-type "Freighter" brakes; see previous release.

 

One, which survived in departmental use to at least 1949, still carried Mansell wheels and early SR livery, but I think again with the later brakes.

[Edwardian]

7 minutes ago, Buhar said:

I think you're a bit off on carriages. Many, many Pre-Grouping carriages made it to BR, mostly 20th century builds but knocking on 50 by then.  If a rough figure was needed it would be more like 30 years for a carriage, in progressively less important workings, ending up being used only on high days and holidays. 

Alan 

 

Indeed, Alan, but Stephen was talking about 1880s-1890s vintage goods stock. With the 30-year lifespan you mention for coaches, not many 1880s-1890s coaches would have remained in service in the 1950s.  The same will be found true of much goods stock of that vintage.

 

I said that locos lasted longer. Well, passenger classes not so much; they cascade down from the top jobs quicker and end sooner.  But goods and mixed traffic classes, and things like Terriers, generally outlasted the rolling stock built contemporaneously with them. 

 

As I say, the brief with the SE&CR was to find a single wagon that covered the length in service of a couple of RTR Wainwright locos. I suggested D1424 because it had that lifespan, and could cover it  with just two basic variants.  3D printing allows us to do multiple variants and, indeed, to release them all at the same time, if we wish, but for the pioneer product we wanted to keep things relatively simple with a late condition version, which we chose to try first, followed, if all went well, with the early condition version, which has just been announced. 

[Buhar]

Thanks James, in my enthusiasm and with my (regrettable) leanings towards the grouped period I rather forgot the context. 

 

Things moved very fast around the turn of the century and the standards in respect of rolling stock developed significantly. 

Alan 

[Edwardian]

35 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Thanks James, in my enthusiasm and with my (regrettable) leanings towards the grouped period I rather forgot the context. 

 

Things moved very fast around the turn of the century and the standards in respect of rolling stock developed significantly. 

Alan 

 

They did, Alan.

 

I find that the 1880s is the great decade for companies adopting 'modern' standard designs for goods stock,and many of the diagram books/numbers start from then, and it is really the generation of development following that which populates the grouping-era goods train.  It would be nice if Rails could ultimately provide a range that gave modellers some prototypical variety in RTR goods stock. 

 

 

[Compound2632]

The technique used to produce this model is, we are given to understand, well-suited to relatively low-volume production, in contrast to an injection-moulded model that needs to be produced - and sell - in much greater volumes to be viable. (Many thousands rather than a few hundreds, I suppose.) Now, what Rails have demonstrated with this model is that supply creates demand - there was not, as far as I am aware, much sign of popular demand for an ex-SECR covered goods wagon before this model was announce, yet it has sold like loo roll. The next question to be tested is whether the market will bear repetition, with further models of rare prototypes. (The SR diagram 1424 covered goods wagons account for 0.015% of British railway company-owned wagons at grouping and 0.0008% at nationalisation.) 

 

Looking at potential subjects for RTR wagons from a rational historical perspective, one of the most obvious gaps is the LMS standard 5-plank merchandise wagon to D1666, 54,450 of which were built 1923-1930 (8.0% of railway company-owned wagons at 1931). This is the subject of a Cambrian Models kit in 4 mm/ft scale, though in my view not one of their best. In theory, this is an obvious candidate for an injection-moulded RTR model and a poor choice for Rails' technique, since demand ought to outstrip by a very great margin their ability to supply.

 

However, observation leads one to the conclusion that most purchasers of RTR wagons do not base their choices on a rational historical perspective; an exceptionally common wagon such as the LMS D1666 would probably turn out to be a drug on the market - it is the unusual and obscure that sells. 

 

My hair shirt is particularly itchy this morning...

[phil gollin]

.

 

As ever, surely an accurate "Edwardian", or late Victorian SECR coal wagon would be invaluable, as coal was required in vast quantities, both industrially and domestically ?  (Or would a GWR, or NER, one be more useful as most coal would be "imported" ??????)

 

By the way is there a nice website for SECR liveries, wagons, carriages and locos ?

 

.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

As ever, surely an accurate "Edwardian", or late Victorian SECR coal wagon would be invaluable, as coal was required in vast quantities, both industrially and domestically ?  (Or would a GWR, or NER, one be more useful as most coal would be "imported" ??????)

 

 

For coal south of the river in the pre-Great War period, you're looking at MR or GNR standard mineral wagons, or private owners - collierys, coal factors (e.g. Stephenson Clarke), and local coal merchants. The GWR did not build wagons for coal traffic, apart from for loco coal, relying entirely on PO wagons. Coal from NER territory arrived by sea. 

 

So the gap in the market there is for a good PO wagon. The RCH 1907 standard wagons still retained quite a lot of individual variation according to the builder, along with the variations of side or side and end doors; going back further, the RCH 1887 standard permitted even greater variety and in the early 20th century there were still a moderate number of pre-1887 dumb buffer PO wagons in traffic.

 

The Hornby 6-plank wagon passes for a generic 1887 wagon, or did so until they revamped it with oil axleboxes. A "typical" 1907 wagon would be a good commercial prospect since in the grouping era and even at nationalisation they outnumbered the RCH 1923 standard wagons - though not surviving long after - and can more properly carry some of the more colourful liveries of which the RTR manufacturers and their customers are fond.

[Edwardian]

44 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

For coal south of the river in the pre-Great War period, you're looking at MR or GNR standard mineral wagons, or private owners - collierys, coal factors (e.g. Stephenson Clarke), and local coal merchants. The GWR did not build wagons for coal traffic, apart from for loco coal, relying entirely on PO wagons. Coal from NER territory arrived by sea. 

 

So the gap in the market there is for a good PO wagon. The RCH 1907 standard wagons still retained quite a lot of individual variation according to the builder, along with the variations of side or side and end doors; going back further, the RCH 1887 standard permitted even greater variety and in the early 20th century there were still a moderate number of pre-1887 dumb buffer PO wagons in traffic.

 

The Hornby 6-plank wagon passes for a generic 1887 wagon, or did so until they revamped it with oil axleboxes. A "typical" 1907 wagon would be a good commercial prospect since in the grouping era and even at nationalisation they outnumbered the RCH 1923 standard wagons - though not surviving long after - and can more properly carry some of the more colourful liveries of which the RTR manufacturers and their customers are fond.

 

58 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

As ever, surely an accurate "Edwardian", or late Victorian SECR coal wagon would be invaluable, as coal was required in vast quantities, both industrially and domestically ?  (Or would a GWR, or NER, one be more useful as most coal would be "imported" ??????)

 

 

Yes, the ability to continue to sell era-inappropriate liveries on RCH 1923 RTR wagons, even to a market apparently more demanding of prototype fidelity than ever before, is no doubt a disincentive for RTR manufacturers to invest in injection-mould tooling for RCH 1907 and RCH 1887, leaving these for the likes of Cambrian and Slaters kits.

 

If one were starting from scratch, it might be a different matter. Potentially Rails could look at this, but see my comments above about a satisfactory means of weighting open wagons. 

 

We are not yet in a position to respond effectively to wish-listing specific wagons, but I think a general sense from parishioners of the sorts wagons they might want and how they might want them produced is useful. We are not confined to previous notions of minimum numbers, that said, we do need to believe we can sell the batch, and something that could go to a second or third run would be best. The signs are encouraging, however. Yesterday I was told that something like half the batch for the SE&CR wagon had sold. That's half in half a day.  My chums in Big Retail tell me this is rare, even for a 'prestige' item, let alone a humble wagon.  I can only feel gratitude to those of you who have responded to this new venture by so decisively voting with your hard-earned pounds - this is not a cheap way to produce such a wagon, would that such a thing existed, but it is a way of producing to a good standard stuff we could not otherwise see and I appreciate the fact that people in numbers are responding so positively to that. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, we are not confined to pre-Grouping prototypes and would not expect to be.  That said, this is the most neglected source of interesting prototypes and the hardest for RTR otherwise to reach. There are still some big gaps in later periods, for instance, Compound mentions the LMS D1666, a major gap. 

 

This brings us to some of the more numerous types, like PO or company general merchandise or mineral Opens. Assuming Opens were to be produced, would enough people want wagons that were once ubiquitous, or would the market gravitate, as has been suggested, to the rare, wagons built in the 100s rather than 1,000s?

 

I'd like to think that people would want some of the more commonly found or representative types, but I cannot assume that to be the case.  Views on this welcome. 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Edwardian
spelling and grammar

[truffy]

19 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

This brings us to some of the more numerous types, like PO or company general merchandise or mineral Opens. Assuming Opens were to be produced, would enough people want wagons that were once ubiquitous, or would the market gravitate, as has been suggested, to the rare, wagons built in the 100s rather than 1,000s?

 

I'd like to think that people would want some of the more commonly found or representative types, but I cannot assume that to be the case.  Views on this welcome. 

 

I'm no expert, and in that perhaps I represent at least a proportion of the great unwashed.

 

PO wagons are nice, because they have different liveries, but they're often a pig to renumber. So you end up with trains consisting of one of this and one of that.

 

Company-specific wagons look alike, but at least they can be renumbered, and trains based on them might be more prototypical.

 

Fo me, at least, a variety of wagon types is desirable: goods/box vans; mineral wagons (open's fine, I can cover them myself); milk/fuel tankers; fish/refrigerated vans etc.

Edited March 22, 2020 by truffy

[phil gollin]

.

 

Purely for myself, I would be looking for wagons to be used with the full colour loco liveries that have been proved to be so popular.   

 

IF (???) the most numerous answer is a RCH 1907 and RCH 1887 wagon, or popular PO wagon then the question becomes what is the cost of a PO livery ?   If a complicated/colourful one adds a couple of pounds then wonderful, if it adds £10-plus pounds then that is a major disincentive.  Short runs of particular liveries MIGHT encourage collectors ????

 

Good luck with whatever is chosen.

 

.

Edited March 22, 2020 by phil gollin

[Guy Rixon]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

For coal south of the river in the pre-Great War period, you're looking at MR or GNR standard mineral wagons, or private owners - collierys, coal factors (e.g. Stephenson Clarke), and local coal merchants. The GWR did not build wagons for coal traffic, apart from for loco coal, relying entirely on PO wagons. Coal from NER territory arrived by sea. 

Broadly true, but the SER did build traffic coal wagons from the 1860s through to the advent of the management committee and the SE&CR built updated versions of the same, then switched to lightly customized versions of trade mineral-wagons. There are kits for the SER versions (by Prickley Pear and TS Designs).

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

Broadly true, but the SER did build traffic coal wagons from the 1860s through to the advent of the management committee and the SE&CR built updated versions of the same, then switched to lightly customized versions of trade mineral-wagons. There are kits for the SER versions (by Prickley Pear and TS Designs).

 

Indeed, the SECR even had some Midland D299 wagons on hire - given C prefix, it would seem, possibly from 1912 (from memory - there was some discussion of this that I can't now track down, re. a Ken Werrett drawing in an old MRN).

 

It would be interesting to understand how the SECR was using its mineral wagons - is there any photographic evidence of them north of the river?

Edited March 22, 2020 by Compound2632

[Buhar]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, the SECR even had some Midland D299 wagons on hire - given C prefix, it would seem, possibly from 1912 (from memory - there was some discussion of this that I can't now track down, re. a Ken Werrett drawing in an old MRN).

It was here.  The drawing was in the Railway Modeller, however.

Alan

[No Decorum]

Apologies for repeating myself but I’ve said before that I think an early RCH open wagon of some sort would be an obvious (to me) choice for a major RTR manufacturer. Once tooled up, it would go on and on earning money in the various PO liveries beloved by manufacturers and, apparently, the market. As truffy has pointed out, these wagons are pigs to renumber and the numbers are often very prominent, leading to trains of singleton wagons which are as unrealistic as multiples with the same running numbers. An extreme example is the Nathaniel Atrill wagon, produced (if my errant memory serves me) by Bachmann, Hornby and Dapol, all with the same running number.

 

The major manufacturers haven’t done it. It would be welcome if Rails were to give it a go. Twin or triple packs or just singles with different numbers as is done with the vans, sorry, covered goods wagons.

[County of Yorkshire]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I'd like to think that people would want some of the more commonly found or representative types, but I cannot assume that to be the case.  Views on this welcome. 

 

I've long thought that the average UK railway modeller at large has knowledge 'blind spots' when it comes to rolling stock; coaching stock yes, but certainly wagons in particular. Locomotives inevitably take people's focus, but I do think there's room to encourage and foster an heightened interest in getting your rolling stock prototypically accurate on your layout.

 

Is this an opportunity to 'educate' (in the least didactic and patronising sense possible) the British railway modelling community? I think the big RTR retailers are ideally placed to facilitate such learning and Rails could do this by proxy via their wagon range. 

 

Look at Hattons' period formation guides here. I suspect these were created as a marketing tool, and I would think it will have had some positive impact on sales. Why not something wagon-centric from Rails that is based upon era, geography and company lines (pun not intended)? One could inspect the wagon formation charts, and they 'click through' to the relevant 4mm model product on the Rails site for purchase. A mixed 1930's London to Birmingham goods train, featuring a Rails ex-SECR van, some Oxford Rail 1923 PO wagons, a Bachmann LNER box van, a Cambrian Models SR open, and a GWR AA15 Toad break van from Hornby. Something like this, but with live links to product pages of each bit of rolling stock; you get the idea. 

 

So then, how about Rails doing similar with its wagon range? From the generic & omnipresent (LMS Dia 1666 opens, LNER 5 plank opens, GWR Minks, 1907 and 1923 RCH POs) to the esoteric (bogie bolsters from the big 4, private owner tank wagons, departmental stock). Integrate the new products with an accompanying 'educational' promo campaign and I think you might be onto someting. 

 

How often is it said that anyone who models (for example) British steam railways in the grouping period gets it wrong by only buying freight stock models from their big 4 company company of choice? With the common user pool any big four wagon (with some exceptions) could by seen from Penzance to Thurso, and from Hull to Fishguard. 

 

As you may tell, i'm a big fan of rolling stock, with freight stock in particular holding much interest. The Rails range of wagons holds much promise and I cant wait to see what the future of the range holds. 

 

Can we have one of these next please? 

 

Cheers, 

 

CoY

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Now, what Rails have demonstrated with this model is that supply creates demand - there was not, as far as I am aware, much sign of popular demand for an ex-SECR covered goods wagon before this model was announce, yet it has sold like loo roll. The next question to be tested is whether the market will bear repetition, with further models of rare prototypes. (The SR diagram 1424 covered goods wagons account for 0.015% of British railway company-owned wagons at grouping and 0.0008% at nationalisation.)

 

You need to bear in mind that with all the ornately liveried SECR locos that have been released in the past few years (C, H, P, etc) modellers are increasingly looking for roiling stock for these locos to pull. So far, in RTR we have only had the Bachmann birdcage coaches, plus a a few inaccurate wagons.

 

As such anything SECR (with the caviat that it can run behind the SECR locos already released as well as preferably lasting long enough to get to nationalisation) is a good choice.....

[Buhar]

If we're focusing on post-pooling options, the net can be cast very wide indeed for vans, and even some non-pooled vehicles such as horseboxes or carriage trucks.  The originating company matters less.  Vans in trains up to probably the late 50s were notable for their variety in respect of height and framing.

 

I believe there is some interest in turn of the century prototypes; perforce these must be linked to an RTR loco of the period, which limits us a bit (actually a lot) at the moment.  Most models and proposals seem lean a bit to the passenger side of things (LYR Radial, MR 0-4-4T) so perhaps NPCS is an option there.

 

There might be some value in seeking to maximise the virtues of tampo printing.  LYR or LYR Butter Van,  LNW Banana/Fruit Van, LNW Cattle Box (for prize cattle so not with slatted sides).  Tricky lettering being done for you is always a boon.

 

In respect of opens, it seems to make little sense to try for widespread designs (D299, 1907 RCH).  The virtue of this process is flexibility and small runs.  Even sold out 2 and a half times, the SECR van isn't going to be populating every exhibition layout, it will remain a lovely oddity.  I think opens could be done with a weighted, removable load,  This would retain the RTR principle but allow some folk to remove the load and weight the empty wagon themselves or sheet it. 

 

I wonder of Dapol's involvement will lead them to see the virtues of accuracy and retire/replace the stretched PO wagons they continue to inflict on us.  They could tool up an RCH 1907 underframe and go from there.

 

Alan 

 

Similar points made by Phil and CoY while I was typing this.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Buhar
Seen other posts

[Edwardian]

Reference the last three posts, some good points, and what CoY says is very much music to my ears, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

In the description of these vehicles and the press releases notes etc, we do try to say something informative about the wagons, so people can 'place' them.  In contrast, I find confining information to the "era system" unhelpful to the point of being misleading as to what might go with what - one of my real bêtes noires, I'm afraid - so, yes, I love the idea of people thinking about where wagons fit in and "curating" (terribly over-used and abused term) their wagon collections in appropriate trains.  Jenny Kirk and I had a discussion on her expo livestream yesterday exactly about things like rolling stock variety and distribution.

[Invicta]

With Rails having the CR '812' commission in the pipeline from Bachmann, then one pretty obvious open goal would be something Caledonian to tie in with that- I have to admit my knowledge of Scottish freight stock is pretty much non-existent, but a CR brake van might be a useful thing to have.

 

As for the SECR van, having missed out on the original batch, I'm just pleased I managed to get an order in this time!