EX LMS 12T PLANKED VAN

[paul 27]

How much smaller is the body of this ex Mainline tooling compared to the 

Airfix / Dapol model any pictures showing them togeather please for comparison.

Edited August 25, 2021 by paul 27

[brossard]

Pretty sure it's not LMS.  LMS vans only had diagonal strapping to the left of the door.  Body to the right had no strapping.  Makes sense really since the strapping shown would interfere with the door.  I remember a while ago wanting to see if the Bachmann LMS van was at all plausible.  There is nothing in Essery's LMS Wagons Vol 1showing this configuration.

 

This is a LMS van:

 

 

BR Standard vans had strapping both sides of the door but these had cupboard style doors.

 

...and a BR std van:

 

 

The only thing that was standard about these is that they were not standard at all.

 

The thing that used to infuriate me with 4mm wagon manufacturers is that they proliferated fictional wagons.  Best thing is to build kits.  I'm doing 0 gauge now and the headaches have stopped.

 

John

[Fat Controller]

Just looked in 'Twilight of the Goods', by the late Don Rowland. On Page 43, there is a photo of a BR-built, LMS-Design van with diagonal strapping on both sides of the door. The strapping is flat section, so as not to foul the sliding door.

[Steamport Southport]

Definitely LMS.

 

D2039. Built during wartime so you got some differences and they had complicated histories afterwards as many got vacuum brakes.

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/215/no-4166-lms-goods-vans

 

Just that the model is of it's day. Pity as that livery is pretty interesting with the ICI label.

 

Previous thread here.

 

 

 

 

Jason

Edited August 25, 2021 by Steamport Southport

[brossard]

13 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Just looked in 'Twilight of the Goods', by the late Don Rowland. On Page 43, there is a photo of a BR-built, LMS-Design van with diagonal strapping on both sides of the door. The strapping is flat section, so as not to foul the sliding door.

 

Right, so I got my Essery out and yes there is version of D1897 (lot 927) with flat diagonal strapping on both sides of the door.  This is on page 43, plate 81.  Van is no.M508587.  Again on page 47, plate 92. No. M501169.

 

7 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Definitely LMS.

 

D2039. Built during wartime so you got some differences and they had complicated histories afterwards as many got vacuum brakes.

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/215/no-4166-lms-goods-vans

 

Just that the model is of it's day. Pity as that livery is pretty interesting with the ICI label.

 

Previous thread here.

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

Jason, D2039 appear to have not had diagonal strapping just vertical T strapping as originally designed.  Page 51, Plate 98.  No. 522305.  However, Sod's Law steps in and I find on page 52, plate 101 a D2039 van with diagonal strapping.  No. M514053.  The two vans pictured in the link are clearly different, the one on the left looks to have sheet metal on it's left side.  However, the numbers quoted fall within the number range for D2039.

 

So, no LMS van looked like the initial picture and I maintain that it is a fiction.

 

It also goes to show the value of having good and reliable source material.

 

John

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

As I stated it was "of it's day". But Mainline would have copied a real one.

 

That came out in about 1976 and was probably amongst the most realistic vehicles available. Although it has lost the opening doors at some point.

 

 

 

Jason

[Clive Mortimore]

4 minutes ago, brossard said:

 

Right, so I got my Essery out and yes there is version of D1897 (lot 927) with flat diagonal strapping on both sides of the door.  This is on page 43, plate 81.  Van is no.M508587.  Again on page 47, plate 92. No. M501169.

 

 

Jason, D2039 appear to have not had diagonal strapping just vertical T strapping as originally designed.  Page 51, Plate 98.  No. 522305.  However, Sod's Law steps in and I find on page 52, plate 101 a D2039 van with diagonal strapping.  No. M514053.  The two vans pictured in the link are clearly different, the one on the left looks to have sheet metal on it's left side.  However, the numbers quoted fall within the number range for D2039.

 

So, no LMS van looked like the initial picture and I maintain that it is a fiction.

 

It also goes to show the value of having good and reliable source material.

 

John

 

 

Hi John

 

Prewar the 17ft 6in bodied vans on 10 ft wheelbase chassis did not have the diagonal strapping it was added in BR days. Post war and BR built examples had it from new. 

 

The Dapol model is of a post war or BR built wagon. Airfix (and Dapol) placed it on a make believe chassis, more recent versions have an unfitted chassis.

 

The old Ratio kit is about the best model for a pre-war version. Here is mine with the strapping added, is is also on a Morton 4 shoe fitted underframe as up-graded by BR.

 

As for the Mainline/Bachmann model I fully agree about it being a work of fiction.

[Steamport Southport]

Another one with diagonals here.

 

http://www.srpsmuseum.org.uk/10063.htm

 

 

 

Jason

[brossard]

46 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi John

 

Prewar the 17ft 6in bodied vans on 10 ft wheelbase chassis did not have the diagonal strapping it was added in BR days. Post war and BR built examples had it from new. 

 

The Dapol model is of a post war or BR built wagon. Airfix (and Dapol) placed it on a make believe chassis, more recent versions have an unfitted chassis.

 

The old Ratio kit is about the best model for a pre-war version. Here is mine with the strapping added, is is also on a Morton 4 shoe fitted underframe as up-graded by BR.

 

As for the Mainline/Bachmann model I fully agree about it being a work of fiction.

 

Thanks Clive.  I just had a look at the Parkside range and, to my surprise there is only the Fish van.  The van you picture is now under the Parkside brand.

 

I remember fuming at a Dapol LMS Egg van that is also fictional.

 

Cambrian have several LMS van diagrams. https://www.cambrianmodelrail.co.uk/store/LMS-&-MR-c25421705?offset=9

 

48 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Another one with diagonals here.

 

http://www.srpsmuseum.org.uk/10063.htm

 

 

 

Jason

 

The number falls in the D1897 range.

 

Great discussion.

 

The number on the van originally pictured, M518977 is in the D2039 range.  Mutton masquerading as lamb.

 

John

[Poor Old Bruce]

14 hours ago, paul 27 said:

How much smaller is the body of this ex Mainline tooling compared to the 

Airfix / Dapol model any pictures showing them together please for comparison.

 

The Airfix / Dapol body is far more accurate dimensionally. The ex Mainline (now Bachmann) is, in my opinion, awful.

 

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

As I stated it was "of it's day". But Mainline would have copied a real one.

 

That came out in about 1976 and was probably amongst the most realistic vehicles available. Although it has lost the opening doors at some point.

 

Jason

 

If Mainline did look at a real one, they certainly didn't appear to have measured it correctly or make the model to scale - my personal opinion again of course. I have to disagree with  @Steamport Southport about it being "probably amongst the most realistic vehicles available." The Airfix body was much better although the chassis was not so good.

[BernardTPM]

Technically it's a BR van, even having a B prefix number, but it is the last development of the LMS type. The true BR van combined GWR style cupboard doors with the LMS/LNER style corrugated ends.

The mainline version originally had a working sliding door, though with very heavy runners. This restricted the height of the door so made it look even shorter than the current version does.

Trix also produced this type of van (1:80 scale) and had a working door, but did a much neater job of it. Their plastic chassis had LMS style suspension which is actually appropriate for the vans built with vacuum brakes.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by BernardTPM

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

 

The Airfix / Dapol body is far more accurate dimensionally. The ex Mainline (now Bachmann) is, in my opinion, awful.

 

 

If Mainline did look at a real one, they certainly didn't appear to have measured it correctly or make the model to scale - my personal opinion again of course. I have to disagree with  @Steamport Southport about it being "probably amongst the most realistic vehicles available." The Airfix body was much better although the chassis was not so good.

 

Amongst though. It looked like a railway company van unlike most RTR rolling stock in the 1970s.

 

This was the era when Hornby were still making old HD and Triang models, whilst Lima's range consisted of reliveried HO wagons such as this.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

I have 2 of these Mainline/Bachmann LMS vans, and while I was aware of the shortcomings, was able to tolerate them until building a Parkside all-steel version, which shows them up for the rubbish they are.  They are to be chassis donors for Parkside kits now.  
 

Onward and upward…

[brossard]

58 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I have 2 of these Mainline/Bachmann LMS vans, and while I was aware of the shortcomings, was able to tolerate them until building a Parkside all-steel version, which shows them up for the rubbish they are.  They are to be chassis donors for Parkside kits now.  
 

Onward and upward…

 

Just out of curiosity, are the M/B underframes an improvement on Parkside?  Lots of scope to add extra detail for the AVB underframes either way.

 

John

[The Johnster]

I have occasional problems with Parkside underframes, because the location for the solebars is against a relief on the vehicle floor and they should not be positioned inboard of this.  One expects this to be the correct position, and I am always careful to butt the solebars tight against the relief before glueing it.  But despite this, sometimes the wheelsets do not sit securely enough in the brass bearings in the axleboxes, are prone to dropping out if the vehicle is picked up, and have too much sideplay, affecting running.  I have learned to not drive the bearings all the way into their recesses in the rear of the axleboxs to gain an extra half a millimetre, but this is not always enough and is clearly not the way the kit is intended to be put together.

 

It is by no means all Parky kits, and most of my Parkside stuff runs well, using the supplied Gibson wheelsets and brass bearings, but I gave up on an LMS 5-plank open and substituted a Baccy chassis from their risible LMS cattle wagon, which I have taken out of service on the basis that it was more accurate for the open than for the RTR cattel wagon it came with.  A Parky 'French' cupboard door mineral gave trouble as well, and an underframe from a MoS liveried 16tonner that a friend gave me that had a damaged door end is now sitting beneath it,  The Baccy RTR chassis are pretty good when they are the correct length and wheelbase (cattle wagon), but of course are not designed for kits, so using a kit body with them means that a false floor has to be made up to cover the multitude of sins, but the running of Baccy chassis' are faultless, and it is a quick and easy, though not cheap, fix; against that, one must factor in glue, paint to finish, couplings and pockets, and buffers; the kit plastic ones are hopeless.  Parkside chassis are more adaptable to specific prototypes and, if they assemble properly and the wheelsets fit correctly, run well but one has to ballast, find couplings and pockets (the mounts come with the kit and are available as a seperate part, PA14, very useful).

 

So, it seems to me to make sense to scrap the Baccy LMS van body and replace it with a Parky one using the Baccy underpinnings. since my beer vouchers have already been wasted on the inaccurately bodied vans

.  This also has the advantage of coming with NEM couplings and metal buffers.

 

I had the same loose wheelset problem with a Kitmaster meat van kit, but intend to scrap this and get a Hornby RTR replacement.

 

On 26/08/2021 at 07:49, Poor Old Bruce said:

 

The Airfix / Dapol body is far more accurate dimensionally. The ex Mainline (now Bachmann) is, in my opinion, awful.

 

 

If Mainline did look at a real one, they certainly didn't appear to have measured it correctly or make the model to scale - my personal opinion again of course. I have to disagree with  @Steamport Southport about it being "probably amongst the most realistic vehicles available." The Airfix body was much better although the chassis was not so good.

 

The bad old days, and yer paid yer money, which fair play wasn't much, and yer took yer choice.  Airfix chassis had the brake blocks in line with the wheels (one of my soap boxes, as I sympathised with RTR producers who modelled them in the correct location, but because of the incorrect narrow 00 gauge it looked daft.  I preferred the Airfix couplings for appearance, but converted everything to scale in those days.

 

The big advantage of kits back then was that, as well as being able to obtain accurate non-generic models, the handbrake levers were separate.  RTR producers have largely caught up (but not completely, I'm looking at you, Dapol and Hornby Railroad) and with a greater range of accurate models, the situation is immesurably improved, but there are still serious gaps in the RTR provision, of which the LMS 12ton van is one.  The GW 5 plank open is another if you want an open, rather than a china clay wagon.  Baccy's (I have not investigated anyone else's) conflats are generic, but one of them is probably correct.

 

Of the traditional manufacturers, the later Hornby Dublo range was probably the most accurate and best detailed, but the chassis was, well, of it's era.  Triang clotted their botty book by making everything too high at the buffers for year, and Trix, in the 60s, were pretty good, but persisted in the 1/80 hybrid scale, which looked odd running with other makes and kits.  Their free running capabilities were remarkable; they could find a hill in Holland!  Generic vans and opens were the norm, which is why anyone who wanted to move away from the train set level got into kitbuilding early.  Ratio, and later Kirk, Coopercraft, and Parkside Dundas, were our saviours, along with the Peco Wonderful Wagons chassis.

 

Over time, some manufacturers, and those that took their toolings on if they went under, curbed their tendency to provide generic wagons in spurious liveries, but there is still far too much of this sort of thing about.  Hornby use marketing gimmicks and Lima were known for cutting deals with grocery companies, so you could have a 'Persil' vanfit for example; Hornby were still doing this with the old Triang Hull and Barnsley Insulfish until quite recently.  The situation has improved and is still improving, but we have a long way to go yet, and the LMS 12ton van problem is symptomatic of this.

 

 

[brossard]

It's a long time since I built a 4mm Parkside kit but off the top of my head nothing springs to mind.  I have had 7mm kits with loose axles but nothing a few washers can't handle (7mm kit bearings are sleeve type, although Dapol use pinpoint).

 

You mention the Bachmann LMS cattle wagon and that surely is horrible and one of my (many) pet peeves.  I did build a trio of Slaters LMS exMR Cattle Wagons and they are very much nicer being accurate in all respects.   (Also built the Slaters 7mm version)

 

John

[BernardTPM]

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

So, it seems to me to make sense to scrap the Baccy LMS van body and replace it with a Parky one using the Baccy underpinnings. since my beer vouchers have already been wasted on the inaccurately bodied vans

The same type of van (BR built, LMS design), but dimensionally accurate, is available as an unpainted body from Dapol, ex-Airfix.

[The Johnster]

So it is, but the Parkside kit comes with transfers and a 'free' underframe, Gibson wheels, bearings, and NEM coupling mounts, all of which are of potential use and will not be thrown away.  The main issue is that the Parkside ends are tooled to include the buffer beams, and these have to be cut off so that the kit body sits on the RTR Baccy chassis, hardly a dealbreaker, whereas the Dapol unpainted body is a simple sit on top job.  The price differential is hardly a dealbreaker either, though it would be if I were building up a rake!

[brossard]

The Dapol van body looks pretty good to my eye, corresponding to D1897 or D2039.  I am mystified by the horizontal on the left side.  None of the wagons pictured in Essery have this.

 

John

[Clive Mortimore]

50 minutes ago, brossard said:

The Dapol van body looks pretty good to my eye, corresponding to D1897 or D2039.  I am mystified by the horizontal on the left side.  None of the wagons pictured in Essery have this.

 

John

The Dapol wagon is a BR built LMS design to dia 1/204

Check out Paul Bartlett's photos.

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brlmsvan

 

 

Pre war LMS vans in BR days looked like this, very similar but without the broad plank at the top going full length.

 

Earlier designs of vans, both horizotal and vertical planking had a different design of tin end and internal straping.

Again Paul Bartlett's photos.

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/lmsvan

 

 

 

[brossard]

Right thanks Clive.  Essery doesn't cover BR built vans.  The modeller needs to beware that this van body isn't appropriate for LMS era.

 

John

[Fat Controller]

3 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

The same type of van (BR built, LMS design), but dimensionally accurate, is available as an unpainted body from Dapol, ex-Airfix.

And if you're a cheapskate like me, you'll use the Parkside Vanwide underframe kit PA16. This will give one set of solebars with longer springs and J-hangers, and one normal type; hence you can do both one van built with vac-brakes, and one retro-fitted one.

[The Johnster]

It'd be fine for me, and in that livery, allowing for the usual Dappydroopol couplings and replacing the wheelsets.  I might well replace one of my Baccys with it and save the surplus Baccy chassis for another job; I'm sure I won't have to look far to find one.  What horizontal 'pon de lef' han' side?