Jump to content
 

Peterborough North


great northern
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

There is a desperate need for a decent LMS van with wrinkly tin ends. Poor Graham is having to make do with the squat Bachmann abomination, 2nd and 4th vans top photo. 

I couldn’t agree more. Even as an ECML 1950s modeller, my biggest gap is LMS vans. They got everywhere. 
 

Of the ones on the list, I’ve built 90% of what I want from kits, but I’d probably go for a couple more fish vans, a Flatrol, a non fitted tube wagon and a single bolster. So 4,5,9,11,12 for me.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Bachmann LMS van is awful - in my view a contender for the worst rtr goods vehicle currently available.  But in the absence of a new all singing all dancing version (come on Bachmann emulate your excellent LNER vans!) the body of the Dapol (ex Airfix) LMS van is pretty good.  Personally I put mine on Bachmann chassis, though fitted vans really need 8 shoe brakes.  Unless they're unfitted vans equipped with AVB by BR which kept 4 shoes.

 

Chris KT

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards the numbers of surviving wooden coal wagons I have a photo of an up coal train passing Elstree Station (MML) in April 1957.  In the part of the train in shot 9 coal wagons are steel and 10 are wood.  And in the goods yard in the background the ratio is 7 steel / 5 wood.  Whether this is 'typical' or not I can't say.   My subjective memory from 1961, when my interests first really got broader than just locomotives, was that there were still quite a few wooden ones about.  Though, admittedly, I was homing in on them in a sea of 16t steel wagons!

 

Chris KT   

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

I agree that the Bachmann LMS van is awful - in my view a contender for the worst rtr goods vehicle currently available.  But in the absence of a new all singing all dancing version (come on Bachmann emulate your excellent LNER vans!) the body of the Dapol (ex Airfix) LMS van is pretty good.  Personally I put mine on Bachmann chassis, though fitted vans really need 8 shoe brakes.  Unless they're unfitted vans equipped with AVB by BR which kept 4 shoes.

 

Chris KT

You can buy undecorated bodies (for that and several other Dapol wagons), although supplies seem to be sporadic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

As regards the numbers of surviving wooden coal wagons I have a photo of an up coal train passing Elstree Station (MML) in April 1957.  In the part of the train in shot 9 coal wagons are steel and 10 are wood.  And in the goods yard in the background the ratio is 7 steel / 5 wood.  Whether this is 'typical' or not I can't say.   My subjective memory from 1961, when my interests first really got broader than just locomotives, was that there were still quite a few wooden ones about.  Though, admittedly, I was homing in on them in a sea of 16t steel wagons!

 

Chris KT   

The decline in wooden coal wagons was quite steady between 1957 and 1961. Although the overall change in balance between the two years is very noticeable in photographs, the year-on-year decline was less dramatic. 

 

There are also photographs around that suggest a few such wagons were still receiving overhauls and fresh paint as late as 1959/60, though one has always to bear in mind that the unusual attracts the attention of photographers disproportionately more than does the commonplace.

 

The really fast reductions in the numbers of wooden wagons started in 1962. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

I agree that the Bachmann LMS van is awful - in my view a contender for the worst rtr goods vehicle currently available.  But in the absence of a new all singing all dancing version (come on Bachmann emulate your excellent LNER vans!) the body of the Dapol (ex Airfix) LMS van is pretty good.  Personally I put mine on Bachmann chassis, though fitted vans really need 8 shoe brakes.  Unless they're unfitted vans equipped with AVB by BR which kept 4 shoes.

 

Chris KT

I too recycle Bachmann underframes, a small supply having been liberated by replacing my Bachmann "Chubby Minks" with Ratio kit-builds. They are gradually finding their way under Dapol/Hornby Meat vans, Dapol banana vans and older Dapol BR vans (the ones with a representation of 3-section ends). I think the latter must have been discontinued quite early as they seem quite hard to find. 

 

I use the Parkside PA.16 chassis kit for the LMS van bodies.

 

John

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

I agree that the Bachmann LMS van is awful - in my view a contender for the worst rtr goods vehicle currently available.  But in the absence of a new all singing all dancing version (come on Bachmann emulate your excellent LNER vans!) the body of the Dapol (ex Airfix) LMS van is pretty good.  Personally I put mine on Bachmann chassis, though fitted vans really need 8 shoe brakes.  Unless they're unfitted vans equipped with AVB by BR which kept 4 shoes.

 

Chris KT

 

Although strictly speaking (and depending how fussy you are) the Dapol (ex Airfix) 'LMS' van body only represents the later built ones, maybe only ones built post - Nationalisation in fact I think, as the side stanchions represent the inverted channel section irons of the later vans whereas on earlier ones the stanchions were made with the flat side attached to the sides.  I hope I've described that properly, but anyway they're different!

 

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

  • RMweb Gold

Hello everyone

 

Subsequent to our recent wagon discussions, I asked The Poll Team if they had any comments. I believe Chris Knowles-Thomas will reply directly here shortly, but John Lewis has asked me to post his notes below on his behalf.

 

Brian

 

Notes from John Lewis

 

I do not have figures for post-WW2, but c.1930 the number of PO wagons was approximately equal to the number of railway company owned ones, so you would be advised to buy/make a coal wagon every time you made/bought a company owned one, and I am sure this applied to a post-WW2 layout.

 

I think it is important to realise that there was no such thing as an ‘average railway’. An average is made up of (lots of) individual figures, some of which will differ wildly from the average (the 'outliers’). You have to consider what traffic flows you want to have on your railway and decide what wagons and coaches would be needed for it.

 

Having decided that, you ought to think about what would have been truly common user and what would belong to the pre-WW2 company that operated your railway. In BR days the coaches would be ones from the pre-Nationalisation company, except to which BR coaches had appeared (or if you want BR coaches). In certain cases, there might have been through coaches from other railways, which could complicate matters.

 

In the case of railway company wagons, I think the figures were something like:

5 x LMS

4 x LNER

3 x GWR

1.5 x SR.

 

But this would only really have applied pre-WW2 to common user wagons; vacuum fitted wagons in general were not common user and might have been expected to be most common on their owning company.

 

The majority of (ex-) railway owned wagons would have been ordinary opens followed by ordinary covered goods, plus whatever you wanted to cater for the traffic flows on your line. On and after 1939 things changed and all, except specialist wagons like oil and chemical tanks, were taken over by the Government, later by BR, and became common user. This included PO coal wagons which, as the war went on, started appearing anywhere in the country, a process that continued after the war.

 

If you are modelling this era. you also need to factor in the construction of 16-ton mineral wagons in place of PO coal wagons.

 

I hope this is of some use. The generalisations are rather crude!

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, great northern said:

Back to ground level for a better look at the Compound, which at this time was a Derby engine. It occurs to me that followers of the LMS might be able to help me here. I have read that the LMS was fond of five day cyclical workings which could take a locomotive a very long way from its home shed, and that the practice continued into BR days. Certainly that seems to be borne out by the photos I have seen of the power for the trains running past and through PN, which come from sheds like Derby and Burton on Trent, plus places even further afield, both the Birmingham sheds and even some Liverpool area engines.

 

The Eastern was much more parochial, East Lincs services, for example, being the preserve of New england or Immingham, so it would be interesting to learn more about these LMS workings. It might give me an excuse for more locos too.

 

 

1344662472_611572.JPG.59dfed316aac4caec9b85bb8b4806740.JPG

LMS = Lengthy Meandering Services Gilbert. Not a joke either. The West Midland area Sheds loco's seemed to get all over the place on X Country trains. I know of Bristol and Bath to the West and your way to the East. I am uncertain but I am sure there were workings to York?

Some of those very long Distance X Country services seem to survive today; Liverpool/ Norwich ?

Phil

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

  • RMweb Gold

Hello everyone

 

Chris has asked me to post his initial comments on his behalf. More to follow, I believe.

 

Brian

 

Notes from Chris Knowles-Thomas

 

Firstly (notwithstanding the pre-1923 spec POs and BR single bolsters), your Mini-Poll No.4 was largely orientated to LNER wagons. As the LNER is the only company (in my view) to have any decent 'high goods' opens on the RTR market I think you were justified in not including any.

That said I agree with Graham's broad thrust – we are poorly served as regards General Merchandise Opens (and to a lesser extent vans). As Graham says the majority of wagons (apart from minerals) in 1948 were opens and ordinary vans. On top of that, of the vans and opens alone, only 31% were vans while 69% were general merchandise opens.

As far as the RTR market is concerned there are only 2½ high goods (ie 5-/6-planks or so) which are worth considering in my view:

* LNER 6-plank by Oxford, presumably Diag.3. Very nice, though it ought to have Morton brake gear rather than the 'Either Side' it has.

* LNER Steel by Bachmann, Diags.186, 190, 194.  Again, very nice.

* LMS 5-plank currently (only?) by Hornby, Diag.1892. This is the venerable Airfix (?) moulding as far as the body is concerned. I give it half because:

   a) Hornby don't give it the obvious LMS or BR liveries, only spurious PO ones, and

   b) it could do with a decent underframe. 
 

Incidentally the LMS built these both unfitted and with AVB. The fitted ones had 8-shoe brakes which has never (?) been offered RTR. Ramsay describes this as a hybrid LMS/GWR Open but to me it looks more LMS. It does look a lot like some late LNER and SR 5-planks as well.

There is a Dapol 4-plank which Ramsay describes as based on a GWR design. If so, how accurate it is I don't know and I doubt that they survived to 'modern' times.

To be continued…

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

  • RMweb Gold

Hello everyone

 

Chris has kindly sent the additional notes.

 

Brian

 

Additional Notes from Chris Knowles-Thomas

 

SR

Diag.1379. 8-plank. 9ft wb. Unfitted.
Diag.1380. 5-plank. 9ft wb. Unfitted

Diag.1400. 8-plank. 10ft wb. Unfitted.
Diag.1377. 8-plank. 10ft wb. AVB.
Diag.1375. 5-plank. 10ft wb. Unfitted. Wartime design; also supplied to LNER & LMS.


BR
Diag.1/039. 5-plank. 10ft wb. AVB (& unfitted?). Corrugated steel ends, sheet rail.
Diag.1/044. 5-plank. 10ft wb. Unfitted. Corrugated steel ends.
Diag.1/041. Steel. 10ft wb. AVB & unfitted.

NB. I have concentrated on straight 'High Goods' wagons but there are shock absorbing variants which could be added. Also note that under the 1955 Modernisation Plan, BR equipped multitudes of previously unfitted wagons with AVB if their wheelbase was 10ft+.

 

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

  • RMweb Gold

Hello everyone

 

In the light of Graham's comments and the notes just arrived from Chris, I will be slightly revamping Mini-Poll No.5 to include what I can without knocking off balance what is already listed.

 

Brian

Edited by BMacdermott
spelling
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Final Call for Votes - 00 Rolling Stock Mini-Poll No.4

 

Hello everyone

 

A reminder that your 'Polling Station' closes at 1700 today. Results are expected during tomorrow, Friday 11 June.

 

Although we have had much discussion about these vehicles, the 'turnout' is not as high as one might expect. Are there any 'underlying reasons'? Do you have too many wagons already? Do wagons not appeal to you? Do you find the complexity perplexing? I'd be interested to hear.

 

If you haven't already voted, here’s what to do…

1. You may vote for any or all of the items listed.

2. They must be items you would realistically wish to buy if made RTR.

3. Submit your entries on this thread simply as (for example): 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 – with comments and explanations following.

4. If you vote by PM, please only list your selection of numbers without explanations.

 

1. Banana Vans (there are too many to list individually)

2. Bulk Grain Hopper Wagon 22½-ton (Diag.73 of late 1930s)

3. Cattle Wagon, 10ft wheelbase (1920s)

4. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as built (Diag.134 of 1938)

5. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as rebuilt, Recessed Doors, Branded ‘XP’/‘Insul Fish’, Painted White (Originally Diag.134 of 1938)

6. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Vertical Plank Sides, Horizontal Plank Ends with Small Shutters (Diags.14-17 of 1926)

7. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Plywood (Diags.172, 176, 195 of 1943-1948)

8. Low Machinery Wagon, Lowmac 4-wheel, 21-ton (inc BR Diags.2/240 etc of 1949/51)

9. Low Machinery Wagon, Flatrol 4-wheel, 20-ton (inc BR Diag.2/512 of 1949)

10. RCH Coal Wagon 5-, 6-, 7- & 8-plank (1887-1907)

11. Single Bolster Wagon (inc BR Diags.1/400, 1/401, 1/402 & 1/405 of 1949 on)

12. Tube Wagon Unfitted, 30ft 6ins & 32ft 0in (BR Diags.1/447 & 1/448 of 1951 and 1954)

 

Brian

Edited by BMacdermott
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Final Call for Votes - 00 Rolling Stock Mini-Poll No.4

 

Hello everyone

 

A reminder that your 'Polling Station' closes at 1700 today. Results are expected during tomorrow, Friday 11 June.

 

Although we have had much discussion about these vehicles, the 'turnout' is not as high as one might expect. Are there any 'underlying reasons'? Do you have too many wagons already? Do wagons not appeal to you? Do you find the complexity perplexing? I'd be interested to hear.

 

If you haven't already voted, here’s what to do…

1. You may vote for any or all of the items listed.

2. They must be items you would realistically wish to buy if made RTR.

3. Submit your entries on this thread simply as (for example): 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 – with comments and explanations following.

4. If you vote by PM, please only list your selection of numbers without explanations.

 

1. Banana Vans (there are too many to list individually)

2. Bulk Grain Hopper Wagon 22½-ton (Diag.73 of late 1930s)

3. Cattle Wagon, 10ft wheelbase (1920s)

4. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as built (Diag.134 of 1938)

5. Fish Van 10-ton, 12ft wheelbase, as rebuilt, Recessed Doors, Branded ‘XP’/‘Insul Fish’, Painted White (Originally Diag.134 of 1938)

6. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Vertical Plank Sides, Horizontal Plank Ends with Small Shutters (Diags.14-17 of 1926)

7. Goods Van 12-ton, Sliding Doors, Plywood (Diags.172, 176, 195 of 1943-1948)

8. Low Machinery Wagon, Lowmac 4-wheel, 21-ton (inc BR Diags.2/240 etc of 1949/51)

9. Low Machinery Wagon, Flatrol 4-wheel, 20-ton (inc BR Diag.2/512 of 1949)

10. RCH Coal Wagon 5-, 6-, 7- & 8-plank (1887-1907)

11. Single Bolster Wagon (inc BR Diags.1/400, 1/401, 1/402 & 1/405 of 1949 on)

12. Tube Wagon Unfitted, 30ft 6ins & 32ft 0in (BR Diags.1/447 & 1/448 of 1951 and 1954)

 

Brian

Perplexed of 36E here Brian. I like wagons and vans for the interest they provide, giving huge variety and nostalgia of a different era. However, I need fewer of these things as I don't model the main freight routes and not the ER. I know wagons and vans travelled far and wide, however the SR West of England Main Line was quite conservative in the type of traffic handled and I also have far too many wagons and vans many of which are not suitable anyway!!!!

I love these polls but forgive the no participation here as it is aimed at those that would actually purchase said items.

Phil

  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
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...