Jump to content

New GWR iron mink


ikcdab
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 23/07/2021 at 09:09, 2750Papyrus said:

Not being a GW modeller but interested in improving the authenticity of my goods stock, please could someone advise whether iron minks were common user or not?  I can't remember seeing photos of them on, say, the ECML - but then I wasn't looking for them!

Not a GWR expert either but to my untrained eye the wagon behind 4471 in this 1938 picture looks like an iron mink

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JamieR4489 said:

Not a GWR expert either but to my untrained eye the wagon behind 4471 in this 1938 picture looks like an iron mink

 

A pre-grouping Iron Mink due to it having it having handles on the ends, possibly of the Barry Railway but cannot saying for certain without looking in the books.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Garethp8873 said:

A pre-grouping Iron Mink 

 

All Iron Minks are pre-grouping!

 

Or perhaps I should be putting that another way: the Great Western was pre-Grouping, for over three-quarters of its existence.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

If that is the case, why has the commercial RTR offering moved from the simple and robust toys of the 1960s-80s to the highly detailed models of today?

 

Because they look good?

 

Just because they want to run what they like doesn't mean they want to run toys - they still want it to look good and run well.  It is merely beneficial to those who want accurate models that they are willing to buy them and thus create a viable market.

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

It's @mdvle's statistic I'm questioning. What is the evidence for it? Or has he just plucked a number out of the air? We live in an age of disinformation which makes it incumbent upon us as responsible members of society to question the evidence behind such sweeping statements. Nullius in verba.

 

It has been mentioned over the years (in North America) by both manufacturers and retailers, and I see no reason the UK would be any different.  A look at those looking for help on here with track plans that are entirely non-prototypical, or pictures/videos elsewhere where combinations of locos and rolling stock that never happened in real life are run is a good indication that it is true in the UK as well.

 

Not to mention all the models that continue to sell despite the complaints on here about accuracy issues, paint colour issues, livery issues, etc, etc.

 

If the topics on here were representative of the hobby at large, half the models produced would never leave the retailer shelf or manufacturer warehouse because of issues.  Yet we know that they do sell, which is a pretty good indication that most of the market simply doesn't care and buys whatever catches their eye when in the store, physical or virtual.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some more thoughts provoked by this thread but Off Topic of the Model (perhaps)

 

Axle boxes

Iron Minks (Ref 2) confirms that oil axle boxes were fitted to new builds from, effectively 1898 (the decision was taken in December 1897).  Retro-fitting, not that any railway would have called it that at the time, commenced from ‘early 1899’ and was completed in 1915.

Whether fitted with grease or oil boxes, all new vehicles, and those converted to oil boxes, were rated at 9 tons until 1904.

 

Grease boxes for 37856 and 57065, and oil boxes for 11070, 11250 (?), 69309 and 69354 are all correct.

 

Brakes

Although GWR Goods Wagons (Ref 1) suggests that some GW Iron Minks had Dean & Churchward brake gear (DCB), the more thoroughly researched Iron Minks (Ref 2) found no evidence of this.  However in the 1920’s some of the older Gunpowder Vans which were fitted with DCB were converted to Goods Vans which might be where confusion has arisen.

I’m excluding vacuum braked Iron Minks from the above observation!

 

The model has the correct 1 and half (!) brakes for the 1937 and BR liveries; and probably for the ‘Late’ livery

 

Cement Vans

Compound2632 comments that the Cement companies did not seem to meet the problems that Spillers did with their vans.

 

I wonder if the difference lay in the nature of the goods.  Would cement dust, inevitable no matter how carefully the caks/bags were loaded or unloaded, mean cement was classed as obnoxious goods?  Goods liable to damage any other goods loaded into a van with it, or to contaminate/spoil the vehicle.

 

Although Common Carriers, I believe the Railways could refuse to convey such goods in their own wagons, or to charge a premium price to do so, as the captions in the Warwickshire Railways website seem to suggest.

 

Common User

Common user for unfitted vans was implemented from June 1919 (Ref 1).  I interpret this to mean that the companies (under the auspices of the RCH?) freely negotiated an agreement between themselves, as opposed to the Government/Railway Executive Committee imposing a ‘common use’ arrangement under the Defence of the Realm Act during the First World War.

 

“Condemned”

Is ‘Condemned’ the same as ‘withdrawn from traffic use’?  Good question!  I incline to say No.

 

The way I see things, the purpose of the Registers was not, regrettably, to assist modellers over a hundred years later to make accurate models, but to keep a record of the company’s assets.  It would be when that asset could no longer make a contribution to the company’s operations that it would be ‘condemned’.

 

So an Iron Mink could still be contributing to the company as a static, vermin-proof warehouse, rather than wheels turning, conveying goods from one siding to another.

In British Railways days such vehicle were eventually identified with an Internal User number, but I do not know what Great Western practice was, or when the use of Internal Numbers was first implemented.

 

Iron Minks data sources

The Foreward to All about Iron Minks states: Lastly acknowledgement is made that much of the source material used comes from records in the custody of the Public Record Office, Kew and the National Railway Museum, York.  (Ref 2)

 

Longevity

You always think of how you could have said or written something better after it’s too late.  Bearing in mind Compound2632’s views on Victorian goods wagons lasting until the BR era, I did pick out post war withdrawals.  So I probably ought to have said as much.

 

Here are the examples withdrawn by the GW (cty Ref 2):

37608, built 1888, condemned 1936

37666, built 1889, condemned 1937

47305, built 1889, condemned 1945

57066, built 1891, condemned 1935 (noted as being at Brentford Docks from 1933, so as a warehouse not a traffic vehicle)

57244, built 1891, condemned 1938

57353, built 1892, condemned 1938

58074, built 1893, condemned 1938

57917, built 1893, condemned 1934

59620, built 1897, condemned 1946

59621, built 1898, condemned 1947

69627, built 1899, condemned 1947

 

I’m not sure anything can be drawn from the list, but almost 75% of the 16 vehicles listed in Iron Minks went before vesting day, and two of those that made 1948 were withdrawn that year.

 

Salvage

There were two salvage vans, but only 47305 had a ‘life history’.  See first sentence under Longevity!

 

Vent Hood length

Vehicles built from Lot 255 onwards had the longer vents:

Lot 255 (1899) – Nos. 69651-69750

Lot 272 (1899) – Nos. 69751-69850

Lot 310 (1901) – Nos. 11007 and odd nos. to 11342, plus 59651-59700

Lot 352 (1901) – Nos. 11025 and odd nos. to 11396, plus 69851-69890

 

References

1.    GWR Goods Wagons (3rd Edition), Atkins A, Beard W, Tourret R, Tourret Publishing 1998.  pp 364-373 for discussion on Iron Minks.

2.    All about GWR Iron Minks, Lewis J, Lloyd M, Metcalf R, Miller N, Historical Model Railway Society 1980, pp 17 for table of selected examples, pp 11-19 for discussion on Iron Minks.

 

Regards

TMc

27/07/2021

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I have bought one of these, W69552 in BR grey. As my period of interest starts with the winter timetable 57/88 I will have to find some 'non service' use for it. But I was interested to see what a printed wagon looked like in the flesh.  I have not run a ruler over it, so these comments are just visual impressions relating to construction.

 

The printing striations are not visible at normal viewing distance. Close up they are most visible on the underframe (vertical striations) and the roof (which has a swirly pattern on it). The sides are pretty smooth, more so than I expected. At a certain angle there is some slight horizontal undulation just below the roof line. The vertical striation is more visible on one of the ends.

 

As to thickness, then the roof and V hangers are thick, but the rest of the underframe looks reasonable to me. (Ironically the thickness of the V hanger probably reflects the need to have the brakes in line with the 00 gauge wheels.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just flicking through a book looking for something else and came across a glimpse of what may be some BR liveried V6s if someone wants to run the number - W205363 and one other too distant to make out the number. The full van is not shown, just the underframe and  the lower bodywork so I can't be sure it is a standard V6. It has all the right features, the ones that are shown at least. Dated 1954. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When building 4mm wagons I always set the brakes for EM wheels even if the model is 00. The brakes then look right and the wagon can always be converted to EM later (this year, next year...). The wheels are then not quite in line, but it's not very noticeable IMHO.

 

I've found that I have a couple of exiled iron minks (one Ratio (an early kit I think since it bears a collection number 1) and an ABS (acquired pre-assembled). I'll try and get my daughter the (photographic expert in the family) to take their portrait and post them here.

 

We survived the big fire here in Sardinia, but it did come a bit too close for comfort!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/07/2021 at 21:52, JamieR4489 said:

Not a GWR expert either but to my untrained eye the wagon behind 4471 in this 1938 picture looks like an iron mink

 

I’m not GWR expert either, although I seem to have written a lot about GW Iron Minks just recently.

 

Garethp8873 has the answer I believe; this seems to be a former Barry Railway ‘Iron’ Mink – it appears that the bodies were of iron sheets but had steel stanchions.

 

Considering a different set of page in Iron Minks (see Ref) pointers to the Barry Railway origin are:

  • The roof radius was different resulting in a slightly higher side, which I think is visible in the image, compared to the van next to it.
  • There were ‘commode handles’ on the ends – the sloped grab rail we can certainly see.
  • The headstock appears to be cropped at an angle, a feature only found on the Barry vans.
  • The van seems to be fitted with independent brake either side, which was a Barry feature.

 

I’m intrigued by the door catches.  I would have expected than to match each other.  Yet one appears to be inside the central stanchion on the left hand side, but on the outside of the central stanchion on the right hand side.  They also seem to be at different heights.

 

Reference

1.    All about GWR Iron Minks, Lewis J, Lloyd M, Metcalf R, Miller N, Historical Model Railway Society               1980, pp 29 -32 for discussion on Barry Railway Iron Minks.

 

Regards

TMc

27/07/2021

 

 

Edited by watfordtmc
Damned formatting!
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/07/2021 at 20:18, Steamport Southport said:

Try and get a copy of this. Don't pay daft Amazon prices though. Should be less than a tenner, you just need to be patient as they come up all the time. No idea where my copy is though.

 

https://hmrs.org.uk/all-about-gwr-iron-minks-150222.html

 

 

 

 

Jason

I am reliably informed that the remaining stocks of this book are being sold by the Great Western Study Group at £8 + postage.

 

http://www.gwsg.org.uk

 

Last item on publications page.

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting book (having just bought a second-hand copy) but I felt that it didn't really add much to the information I already had on the standard Iron Minks, chiefly from Atkins et al. It does, however, cover many of the variants - especially the South Walian ones - unsurprising given the authorship - but by no means all. For example, the LNWR gunpowder vans I mentioned earlier are not included and the PO cement wagons are only very briefly acknowledged. This leads to an inevitable imbalance, in that 36 pages are given over to variants and non-GW vehicles and only ten to the standard vehicle, despite the latter being overwhelmingly the most numerous (unless you're looking post-second world war, in which case the 20th-century-built non-GW vehicles are the more likely survivors).

 

But I did find the introduction on the background and development of the design new (to me) and interesting.

 

So, overall, I'm glad I bought it. From my point of view, a better purchase than the Rails model! I am feeling the temptation to sharpen my knives and have a go at turning the Ratio kit into (1) a Greaves cement wagon and (2) a LNWR gunpowder van - neither of which is in the book and the first of which has only been brought to my attention by this thread!

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

However if you had the original version of the GWR Wagons book it only covered them in passing with about two photos and a drawing ISTR.

 

I wish they would hurry up and reissue the newer version though, had it on pre-order for a very long time. About as long as the LNER Passenger Train Formations books....

 

Still no idea where my copy is though. 

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to my desk after a week away, I've just had the chance to catch up. It's difficult to make a model of an 'iconic' prototype; people inevitably have a view.  Some of the points can be readily addressed, however, and I offer some comments in case they might be of interest. 

 

Price: Price is a function of the technology, and it really is not possible to reduce unit costs; unlike injection moulded products, with which, in theory, the price can be reduced the more you make, provided you can make them in fairly vast quantities.  Given, however, the cost of some of the more modern injection moulded vans, I suspect there is an element of many of us just not liking how much many things in this hobby now cost.  The corresponding advantage is flexibility, with the ability to represent different physical versions without the consequent increase in tooling costs that tends to limit accurate physical variety in injection-moulded wagons.   

 

Dimensional accuracy. It would seem a shame if anyone were influenced negatively by speculation here; I believe the designer, who is prototype literate and steeped in matters GWR, worked off GA drawings and the prototype at Didcot.  The design was produced at dead scale, and elements were thickened only to the extent necessary to allow printing.  That said, the tolerances of this medium are generally finer than injection moulded items, witness double brakes on the SE&CR van compared with any injection moulded brake gear we've seen. 

 

Smoothness of the material.  After the SE&CR van, it very much remained to be seen if a metal-bodied wagon, with all its curves and facets could be successfully developed in this medium, but the skill and efforts of the new factory have made a success of this.  

 

Here is an early test print, which has since been improved upon, so all the usual caveats associated with an RTR EP apply:

 

20210731_100409.jpg.9e048d3d0ebabdc7920983f6077d58da.jpg

 

Wheels. Yes, these are the Dapol wheels. I prefer Alan Gibson wheels, which are generally finer in appearance than RTR wagon wheels. e.g. Bachmann's split-spoke compared with the Gibson equivalent. However, Alan Gibson is simply not set up to meet demand within lead-times commensurate with the 3D print and finishing cycle.

 

Versions & Liveries. 

 

As has been pointed out, this model is nothing like the Rapido gunpowder van, which would be very obvious if the respective models were placed together.  Rapido's model, I understand, is of the GW diagram Z4 of 1939. A much more modern vehicle, it's squared at the body and roof corners and 6'' longer.

 

The Rails model is of the GW V6, built from 1888, and 16' over the body. It does not, therefore, represent the GW 1887 Minks, or any of the Spillers or South Wales company vehicles, but the GW standard type, of which nearly 5,000 were built.

 

The models released are all physically the same, and the liveries on offer reflect that; 1921, 1937 and BR freight grey. Because of withdrawals, evidence of the latter two liveries is scant. In the case of the ex-SE&CR van, BR livery was required, as it was correctly anticipated that modellers would want that option. This proved to be the case notwithstanding the fact that the only BR in service photograph showed SR brown with BR lettering.  The freight grey versions were, thus, conjectural treatments of a handful of survivors. Likewise Rails have given the modeller the same option to represent those few minks remaining in service long enough perhaps to gain freight grey, and, of course, account was taken of the fact that Minerva have done this in 7mm.

 

The description 'late condition' refers to the fact that physical changes made from the mid-twenties to the early thirties are included on the model. Thus, it is possible to have the 1921 livery on both this 'late condition' version and on a wagon in a physically earlier condition.

 

The model features OK oil axleboxes, fitted new from the late 1890s and then retrofitted in the 1900s.

 

What dates them more specifically is the additional single brake and the door retainers and catches.

 

Iron minks were built with two brakes on one side and a conventional lever. Due to Board of Trade regulations dating from, IIRC, 1911, the brakes needed to be uprated, and, again, IIRC, I think the GW was ultimately given up to 1938 to complete such work.  I can only conclude that the V6 Iron Minks were not considered likely to last long enough to justify the fitting of DC brakes.  Rather, to allow them to limp on through the remainder of their time in service, in the late '20s to early '30s, the GW instead fitted a single brake and lever on the previously unbraked side. The brakes were independent, so there is, correctly, no transverse linkage on the model. 

 

Many model Iron Minks I have seen feature double brakes both sides. This treatment was not unknown, but photographic evidence suggests that this was very rare. 

 

Around the same period, the door catches and retaining hooks were fitted. This makes the 1921 livery wagons in this release representative of the late-'20s onward.

  

   

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Smoothness of the material.  After the SE&CR van, it very much remained to be seen if a metal-bodied wagon, with all its curves and facets could be successfully developed in this medium, but the skill and efforts of the new factory have made a success of this.  

 

Aha. Now I understand why the Iron Mink was chosen over a well-known pre-grouping wood-bodied type (for which there is photographic evidence of BR livery) - it's a case of pushing the new technology as far as it will go.

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Price: Price is a function of the technology, and it really is not possible to reduce unit costs; unlike injection moulded products, with which, in theory, the price can be reduced the more you make, provided you can make them in fairly vast quantities.  

 

The Ratio Iron Mink tooling must have paid for itself many times over by now. The only really cheap injection-moulded kits are those for which the tooling was made in the last century*. The price of the Rails vans should be compared with that of recent 3D printed kits, such as those from Mousa Models - there's not much in it.

 

*Fortunately that includes most of the wagons I'm interested in.

Edited by Compound2632
word order
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

I'm warming to the Rails door frame proportions (the original pics had some confusing shadows), but I'd like to know these dimensions on the Rails product:

 

v6-rails-door.png.a8c7d71d672b2bf03ad4abc7936e8b93.png

 

My eyesight's not up to that! They appear to match the 4mm scale drawings, but, obviously, the CAD will have been more precise. Given the source material used, I have no reason to assume that these are not correctly scaled on the model.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The Ratio Iron Mink tooling must have paid for itself many times over by now. The only really cheap injection-moulded kits are those for which the tooling was made in the last century*. The price of the Rails vans should be compared with that of recent 3D printed kits, such as those from Mousa Models - there's not much in it.

 

*Fortunately that includes most of the wagons I'm interested in.

 

I beg to differ.

 

This is recent and is a fraction of the price of the rip off Mink. £10 including Gibson wheels and Modelmaster transfers. 

 

PC87_3355203_Qty1_1.jpg

 

Brand new hopper wagons are £13.

 

PC90_202106011120_3718405_Qty1_1.jpg

 

How about the Toad? £13. Also recent.

 

PC89_3355205_Qty1_1.jpg

 

 

Can't do reasonably priced RTR pre grouping wagons for less than £41? There are £13.

 

OR76GEGV001_202106031455_3552308_Qty1_ca

If Oxford can make those for that price, why can't Dapol?

 

It's a case of using the wrong technology for the wrong item. 3D printing has it's place, just not for making model railway items such as rolling stock.

 

 

 

Jason

Edited by Steamport Southport
  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steamport Southport Jason, you have me there. I had not taken the more recent Parkside releases into account. I had in mind the Ratio, recently re-released Slaters, and sadly demised Coopercraft kits. (Being relevant to my preferred modelling era.)

 

27 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

It's a case of using the wrong technology for the wrong item. 3D printing has it's place, just not for making model railway items such as rolling stock.

 

You may well be right in principle; one has to see this as an experiment in the medium. From a commercial point of view, the SECR van appears to have been a success for Rails, in the sense that virtually all produced have been sold, and there appears to be no sign that this won't be the case for the Iron Mink. It's not clear that if the much larger quantity needed for an injection moulded model was to be produced and sold at, say, half the price, they would sell out. I suspect that Rails (and even Dapol) may not have the resources to take that risk, unlike Bachmann and Hornby. And for once, we've not seen a duplicate model appear!

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2021 at 06:46, Mikkel said:

 

I'm one of those who agree with you on that.

 

Although that hasn't stopped me from playing around with one particular van - on the right below -  based on speculative interpretation of one particular photo  :) (details in this post).

 image.png.092b9dfcc9bf56944861b4f7778528a3.png

 

 

So, this is interesting, because it illustrates the two challenges of modelling the period (as well as being excellent modelling, of course).

 

We do not know how extensive the application of the red livery was.  There are at least three possibilities, one of which is represented here; red body and solebar, black running gear. 

 

We do not know when the change from red to grey was made.

 

I appreciate that people have to make a difficult choice in these areas, because there really isn't conclusive evidence and, yet, we have to decide how to paint our models.  That means that sometimes people can develop definite and strong preferences, but it seems to me that it is not possible to prove who is right and who is wrong.

 

The so-called 'hybrid' livery on the right is a good illustrative example of the limitations of knowledge and the assumptions we need to make. It's based on a photograph that shows the application of the 1904 lettering scheme, but with the patch left by removing the cast number plate visible (the long bonnet places its construction within the main cast-plate period). You can see how Mikeel has reproduced this, with a darker rectangle of red at the base of the right-hand panel.

 

Mikkel concludes, I think entirely reasonably, that this means that the wagon was not repainted before the 1904 lettering scheme was applied. If you subscribe to the (generally nowadays more fashionable) school of thought that grey was not adopted until the change to the 1904 livery, then you are driven to assume that the wagon was red when built with its cast plate number, and, so, was not repainted grey at the time the 1904 scheme was introduced. Hence you have discovered a hybrid livery.

 

That may be exactly right.

 

On the other hand, if you consider it likely that the grey livery was introduced earlier, probably sometime in the late 1890s, then what the photograph shows is a wagon out-shopped in grey with a cast plate, which plate has now been removed and that, without re-coating the grey, the 1904 lettering has been applied. 

 

That might, equally, be what the photograph shows.

 

What we cannot do is insist upon our preference, however strong it may be, because the evidence is inconclusive.  There are some fascinating discussions (fascinating if you're interested in this stuff, of course) in a couple of places on RMWeb and there is a good summary of the evidence on Miss Prism's gw.org site.

 

So, you could, I think with equal legitimacy, model the right-hand wagon in dark grey! 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the element of inference from limited data and informed speculation that makes modelling the pre-Great War period so interesting - liberation from the tyranny of the dated colour photos of both sides, ends, top, and underside of your prototype.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

This is recent and is a fraction of the price of the rip off Mink. £10 including Gibson wheels and Modelmaster transfers. 

Can't do reasonably priced RTR pre grouping wagons for less than £41? There are £13

If Oxford can make those for that price, why can't Dapol?

It's a case of using the wrong technology for the wrong item. 3D printing has it's place, just not for making model railway items such as rolling stock.

 

Jason

(Photos removed to shorten post).

You should never forget that manufacturing cost is not necessarily an indicator of what the retail price will turn out to be.  That comes down to all sorts of other factors including longevity of the tooling, the rate at which the 'manufacturer' is prepared to recoup their investment. what they expect the volume of sales to be over a particular period, and the 'manufacturer's overheads.  Thus in r-t-r land a smaller concern using Chinese manufacture will inevitably be able to offer a lower price (if it wishes) than a large concern because its overheads are lower but equally it might need a higher price in order to more quickly rebuild its working capital which might be tighter than in a large concern

 

Some more radical methods of manufacture - such as that used for the Rail's Mink will inevitably cost more per unit produced than mass manufactured moulded items where the production cost, especially with little or no assembly involved, is a small part of the overall cost.  So we're back, as so often in model railways, to comparing apples with olives or spuds - there are so many differences that comparison of retail price is not necessarily a simple straight line process and it becomes even more distorted once we start looking at retail price discounters.

 

The ultimate decision will always lie with us, the consumers.  none of these items are essential to our lives and well being, they are discriminatory purchases which we might, or might not like to make - in no case is purchase compulsory.  So if it is something we might like or need for our layout, or collection, or whatever, we look at the choices available, our skills, and how much we are prepared to spend on it, and purchase, or don't purchase, accordingly. The choice is ours and if you think something is too expensive or you don't want it then don't buy it.  But equally don't moan about, prices are what they are and moaning won't alter them - please!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/07/2021 at 18:06, Compound2632 said:

The Ratio kit can be very greatly improved by cutting about 1 mm off the top of the sides and ends, so that there is no space between the top of the door frame and the roof. It's a simple modification to make to a new kit; a bit trickier when renovating a well-stuck-together one one built as a teenager!

 

Mine's a BR SAWDUST VAN - which is prototypical.

 

CJI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

OR76GEGV001_202106031455_3552308_Qty1_ca

If Oxford can make those for that price, why can't Dapol?

 

Is there really a great deal more of a market for a GER van than an iconic GWR one?

 

It astonishes me that, in light of recent commission debacles, anyone - let alone Rails - chooses to partner with Dapol.

 

The strategy with this latest venture seems to be that there is only a limited market for wagons at silly prices, so we'll produce them by 3D printing because that way we can do a short run.

 

The capital to do the subject justice is apparently not there, but there'll be a quick killing, nonetheless.

 

JMHO,

 

CJI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...