Wright writes.....

[Michael Edge]

How many people know enough about wagons to make sensible comments at Exhibitions.

I added a bit more detail to my Triang freightliner set for Shap. New buffer beams, sprung buffers, bumpers on wagon ends, lowered the under frames on the bogies etc. Added a sceatchbuilt "brake caboose" and...... nothing..strange isn't it.

 

I wouldn't worry about wagons too much Tony. You have a lot of them and they are layout wagons. Weathered to give an "in use" look. How many visitors have spotted "wrong" wagons? I know you shuffleda couple of wagons in a train when we visited many moons ago but you didn't take any off the layout,

 

You, like me, have a lot of wagons. If your layout only had up to 20 wagons I am sure that every one would be exactly the correct shape and size, very detailed and would run perfectly.

 

I know some of my wagons are not correct but, with 502 of them, I am not starting to sell on ones which are not exact replicas of the real thing. Life is too short!

Carlisle has very few scratchbuilt wagons but all the RTR have been modified to EM gauge, fitted with scale couplings, vac pipes added ((although this is not complete) and weathered. Could this have been achieved by scratchbuilding? Yes but at a cost (£) and time.

 

Baz

 

Carlisle has a lot more scratchbuilt wagons than you think - and hundreds of kit built ones. I did count the wagons a few years ago and there were over a thousand then.

[Headstock]

Tony et al,

 

This thread never ceases to entertain and enlighten. Having been busy for a couple of days, I’ve enjoyed catching up on several pages of wagon modelling which I find a fascinating and daunting subject.

 

Personally, I find your goods trains look the part. They’re clearly not perfect, but I certainly wouldn’t throw large parts of them away, as it could quickly become an all consuming task to replace them. It seems to me a classic case where taking it steadily and making modest improvements gradually is the answer. As Clive suggested, identify a few wagons in need of replacement and build a handful every year to replace the worst examples. Much of the critique, while clearly valid, is aimed at making a showcase wagon, rather than one wagon of a ~30 wagon train (I.e. a layout wagon). Is having the wrong brake gear any worse than having no brake gear as (I would guess) on many of your coaches, or, for example, missing off the roof alarm gear (as on your recent Kirk Gresley)? NB, this is not a criticism of your coaches, but just making the point that on a layout of LB’s size it’s practically impossible to have every detail correct, and one has to aim at getting the important details right and aim at the ‘big picture’ for smaller details.

 

One question for the wagon experts about the difference between GM wagons and minerals. Is it the case that 5 plank wagons were always GM? If so, I’m sure I’ve seen photos of 5 planks wagons in long mineral trains (e.g. p140 or p181 of the Book of the Great Northern part one). Would they have been co-opted into the mineral fleet, or is it in practice a mixed train? Sorry for my ignorance!

 

Andy

 

GM wagons were co-opted into mineral use when needs must but they were not designed for such work and could be easily damaged. Also, many dirty materials such as coal were not conducive to being mixed with general merchandise. Five plank wagons were not all GM wagons and not all GM wagons were five plank. Five planks did become somewhat of a standard for high goods wagons. BR adopted the LMS five plank and the LNER steel open as their standard high goods wagons. GM wagons differ from mineral wagons in that a larger floor space is desirable, so they were generally longer but do not require to be as tall as mineral wagons, excess height with general merchandise can be dealt with by sheeting. The doors were very specialized, they were not designed for holding back tons of coal but were made as large as possible to allow access. The doors had various features such as a chamfered top edge that made it eay to use them as a ramp in conjunction with a barrow. Such features could be easly damaged in mineral traffic use. The five plank RCH wagon produced by Bachmann is not a GM wagon, though like any wagon they could be used in this context.

[Clive Mortimore]

Tony et al,

 

This thread never ceases to entertain and enlighten. Having been busy for a couple of days, I’ve enjoyed catching up on several pages of wagon modelling which I find a fascinating and daunting subject.

 

Personally, I find your goods trains look the part. They’re clearly not perfect, but I certainly wouldn’t throw large parts of them away, as it could quickly become an all consuming task to replace them. It seems to me a classic case where taking it steadily and making modest improvements gradually is the answer. As Clive suggested, identify a few wagons in need of replacement and build a handful every year to replace the worst examples. Much of the critique, while clearly valid, is aimed at making a showcase wagon, rather than one wagon of a ~30 wagon train (I.e. a layout wagon). Is having the wrong brake gear any worse than having no brake gear as (I would guess) on many of your coaches, or, for example, missing off the roof alarm gear (as on your recent Kirk Gresley)? NB, this is not a criticism of your coaches, but just making the point that on a layout of LB’s size it’s practically impossible to have every detail correct, and one has to aim at getting the important details right and aim at the ‘big picture’ for smaller details.

 

One question for the wagon experts about the difference between GM wagons and minerals. Is it the case that 5 plank wagons were always GM? If so, I’m sure I’ve seen photos of 5 planks wagons in long mineral trains (e.g. p140 or p181 of the Book of the Great Northern part one). Would they have been co-opted into the mineral fleet, or is it in practice a mixed train? Sorry for my ignorance!

 

Andy

Hi Andy

 

In addition to the information Andrew has posted. Merchandise wagons could be used for mineral and at times did get in the wrong train. There disadvantage when being used as mineral loads was they could not hold the same tonnage as they were smaller in volume. Another aspect was they needed cleaning out afterwards as there next load being covered in coal dust might not go down well with the customers. 

 

Minerals could be and at times were used for carrying merchandise. There disadvantage was an inability to load them without having to lift every thing over the trough top plank. They too needed to be cleaned before being used to carry general merchandise.

 

There were some minerals that were high density and were carried in five plank wagons or in the case of sand 3 plank. Road stone and china clay are two minerals carried in five plank mineral wagons.

 

The SR didn't build any minerals except a batch for the LNER in the war but had 8 plank merchandise wagons with top doors so they men loading them could do so with sack barrows. They could also take high volume mineral loads.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Enterprisingwestern]

 Enterprising Western has implied (not inferred) that I don't apply the same standards of modelling across the board.

 

More of an observation rather than anything more sinister Tony.

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

Wow!

 

This thread really flies.

 

With regard to low-relief buildings, from my own 'point of view' (sorry about the pun), having built three half-relief cottages for LB, it would seem they only really 'work' visually when looked at front-on. 

 

 

 

In perspective, the effect is not that convincing. I wrote about these in BRM a couple of years ago and I think they just about do their job. The real things still exist, but have been altered substantially over the last 60 years. I had to make them half-relief, otherwise there'd be no front gardens.

 

 

 

When viewed side-on, from the far side of the layout (which only non-fat folk can observe!), the effect is better, though I still have reservations. At least they represent my architectural-modelling input on LB. 

 

 

Another view not available to the obese is this shot of an entrance to a field, between the Willoughby and the cottages. The gate is actually no more than a quarter of an inch from the backscene, but with judicious little daubs of paint, I hope a little distance is given. Backscene colours can dominate too much without care. Because the horizon from the bottom of the Glen Valley (in which Little Bytham sits) is no more than a third of a mile away from the river on both sides, there is no atmospheric perspective to take into consideration on a bright, sunny day. 

 

Finally, to close on perception. At a recent show, one of the dear friends who does my painting of locos for me observed my stand. The other's painting was on also on display along with his. Guess what? He guessed wrongly which was his! 

[Tony Wright]

More of an observation rather than anything more sinister Tony.

 

Mike.

I don't believe you're capable of anything sinister, Mike.

 

All the best for the season,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

GM wagons were co-opted into mineral use when needs must but they were not designed for such work and could be easily damaged. Also, many dirty materials such as coal were not conducive to being mixed with general merchandise. Five plank wagons were not all GM wagons and not all GM wagons were five plank. Five planks did become somewhat of a standard for high goods wagons. BR adopted the LMS five plank and the LNER steel open as their standard high goods wagons. GM wagons differ from mineral wagons in that a larger floor space is desirable, so they were generally longer but do not require to be as tall as mineral wagons, excess height with general merchandise can be dealt with by sheeting. The doors were very specialized, they were not designed for holding back tons of coal but were made as large as possible to allow access. The doors had various features such as a chamfered top edge that made it eay to use them as a ramp in conjunction with a barrow. Such features could be easly damaged in mineral traffic use. The five plank RCH wagon produced by Bachmann is not a GM wagon, though like any wagon they could be used in this context.

Thanks Andrew, Tim and Clive,

 

So I can get away with a couple of these in my 45 wagon coal train. That’s a relief!

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

Tony et al,

 

This thread never ceases to entertain and enlighten. Having been busy for a couple of days, I’ve enjoyed catching up on several pages of wagon modelling which I find a fascinating and daunting subject.

 

Personally, I find your goods trains look the part. They’re clearly not perfect, but I certainly wouldn’t throw large parts of them away, as it could quickly become an all consuming task to replace them. It seems to me a classic case where taking it steadily and making modest improvements gradually is the answer. As Clive suggested, identify a few wagons in need of replacement and build a handful every year to replace the worst examples. Much of the critique, while clearly valid, is aimed at making a showcase wagon, rather than one wagon of a ~30 wagon train (I.e. a layout wagon). Is having the wrong brake gear any worse than having no brake gear as (I would guess) on many of your coaches, or, for example, missing off the roof alarm gear (as on your recent Kirk Gresley)? NB, this is not a criticism of your coaches, but just making the point that on a layout of LB’s size it’s practically impossible to have every detail correct, and one has to aim at getting the important details right and aim at the ‘big picture’ for smaller details.

 

One question for the wagon experts about the difference between GM wagons and minerals. Is it the case that 5 plank wagons were always GM? If so, I’m sure I’ve seen photos of 5 planks wagons in long mineral trains (e.g. p140 or p181 of the Book of the Great Northern part one). Would they have been co-opted into the mineral fleet, or is it in practice a mixed train? Sorry for my ignorance!

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

I, too, have been looking at prototype pictures of full and empty coal trains, and pictures exist of similar trains to mine, inasmuch as their are five-plank wagons in among the normal coal wagons. I include a couple of 21T hoppers in my trains, having seen a picture of two of them in the coal yard at Welwyn North.

 

The more you look, the more you find, and the more I want to look, the more I want to find (out). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

Not a wagon expert .... but the midland certainly regularly used the D299 5 plank for coal.

 

Totton.jpg

 

Well, I think they're talking about the 1950s. Certainly in the late 19th /early 20th century heyday of the railways, there were plenty of 4- and 5-plank wagons of 8 tons capacity or less being used for coal, both by the railway companies and by collieries, coal factors, and coal merchants.

[t-b-g]

Thanks Andrew, Tim and Clive,

 

So I can get away with a couple of these in my 45 wagon coal train. That’s a relief!

 

AndyBFD69F95-CA36-440D-A625-2AD095E187CE.jpeg

 

The 5 plank 13T wagon looks a little unusual. Is it based on a prototype?

Edited December 23, 2018 by t-b-g

[thegreenhowards]

The 5 plank 13T wagon looks a little unusual. Is it based on a prototype?

I’m afraid you’d have to ask Mr Bachmann that question! I just took their clean P.O. livery wagon and tried to ‘1950s-ise’ it.

[Headstock]

Thanks Andrew, Tim and Clive,

 

So I can get away with a couple of these in my 45 wagon coal train. That’s a relief!

 

AndyBFD69F95-CA36-440D-A625-2AD095E187CE.jpeg

 

Morning Andy,

 

the wagon in the picture is a 1923 RCH 5 plank. By the time these wagons came out the 5 plank coal wagon had been superseded by the 1923 7 and 8 plank designs. These 5 plank wagons were designed with higher density materials in mind such as road stone, tarmac etc, hence the smaller internal volume. Some had steel floors for this purpose. They were a genuine private owner type as apposed to the GM wagons that were built by and for the railway companies. They would be a very likely candidate to make there way into mineral trains. Due to the lack of GM wagons on many model railways, this 1923 RCH PO design as produced by Bachmann, has come to fulfill the role of GM wagon on many layouts. Conversely, Oxford rail have produced one of the only RTR GM wagons available, the LNER 6 plank but are currently selling it as a PO mineral wagon!

 

P.S. I'm not shore what that white van is behind it.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Headstock

[thegreenhowards]

Morning Andy,

the wagon in the picture is a 1923 RCH 5 plank. By the time these wagons came out the 5 plank coal wagon had been superseded by the 1923 7 and 8 plank designs. These 5 plank wagons were designed with higher density materials in mind such as road stone, tarmac etc, hence the smaller internal volume. Some had steel floors for this purpose. They were a genuine private owner type as apposed to the GM wagons that were built by and for the railway companies. They would be a very likely candidate to make there way into mineral trains. Due to the lack of GM wagons on many model railways, this 1923 RCH PO design as produced by Bachmann, has come to fulfill the role of GM wagon on many layouts. Conversely, Oxford rail have produced one of the only RTR GM wagons available, the LNER 6 plank but are currently selling it as a PO mineral wagon!

 

P.S. I'm not shore what that white van is behind it.

That’s good, if I understand you correctly I can probably get away with the Roberts wagon in my mineral train (it was Roberts Tarmacadam before I obliterated some planks and has a steel floor) although I should probably change the tonnage.

 

The white van (as I suspect you know!) is a horrible Hornby (Prime Pork I think) which I repainted some years ago. I realise it’s wrong, and I’m slowly replacing such horrors as I build Parkside vans, but they have to stay until I have enough.

 

Andy

[Headstock]

That’s good, if I understand you correctly I can probably get away with the Roberts wagon in my mineral train (it was Roberts Tarmacadam before I obliterated some planks and has a steel floor) although I should probably change the tonnage.

 

The white van (as I suspect you know!) is a horrible Hornby (Prime Pork I think) which I repainted some years ago. I realise it’s wrong, and I’m slowly replacing such horrors as I build Parkside vans, but they have to stay until I have enough.

 

Andy

 

Sort of, the problem with the RCH design is that it was more of a specification, thus you got variations between builders. As far as liveries is concerned, EKK, that's an even bigger can of worms.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Headstock

[Headstock]

Wow!

 

This thread really flies.

 

With regard to low-relief buildings, from my own 'point of view' (sorry about the pun), having built three half-relief cottages for LB, it would seem they only really 'work' visually when looked at front-on. 

 

low-relief 01.jpg

 

low-relief 02.jpg

 

In perspective, the effect is not that convincing. I wrote about these in BRM a couple of years ago and I think they just about do their job. The real things still exist, but have been altered substantially over the last 60 years. I had to make them half-relief, otherwise there'd be no front gardens.

 

low-relief 03.jpg

 

low-relief 04.jpg

 

When viewed side-on, from the far side of the layout (which only non-fat folk can observe!), the effect is better, though I still have reservations. At least they represent my architectural-modelling input on LB. 

 

low-relief 05.jpg

 

Another view not available to the obese is this shot of an entrance to a field, between the Willoughby and the cottages. The gate is actually no more than a quarter of an inch from the backscene, but with judicious little daubs of paint, I hope a little distance is given. Backscene colours can dominate too much without care. Because the horizon from the bottom of the Glen Valley (in which Little Bytham sits) is no more than a third of a mile away from the river on both sides, there is no atmospheric perspective to take into consideration on a bright, sunny day. 

 

Finally, to close on perception. At a recent show, one of the dear friends who does my painting of locos for me observed my stand. The other's painting was on also on display along with his. Guess what? He guessed wrongly which was his! 

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

with regard to the painting of locomotives, I have always found your own efforts in this respect perfectly respectable, I think that you do yourself a disservice, many would be extremely happy to reach the same standard.

 

On the subject of LB goods stock, I can't imagine that there is a problem with the vast majority of wagons running on the layout, I would have a closer look at anything RTR if you have a concern. I can guarantee that if there are problems, then this is were they will be. I also think it is worth thinking about what is missing, what should be there and isn't.

 

On the subject of observation and perception and back to the subject of working signals. I was carefully observing the crowd at the last exhibition with LSGC, with the intent to see if anybody noticed the signals working as I operated the Southbound main line. To a man/woman, and time after time, all eyes would follow a train around and just before the last carriage reached the signal, the eyes would turn away missing the signal drop as the train passed. When asked, people just assumed that the signals were always working, even when they were not. Should what other people do not notice, be it working signals or the correct brake gear on a wagon, determine what we do as a modeler, I think not, others may disagree.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Headstock

[Compound2632]

Sort of, the problem with the RCH design is that it was more of a specification, thus you got variations between builders. As far as liveries is concerned, EKK, that's an even bigger can of worms.

 

 

That became progressively less the case from 1887 to 1907 to 1923; the 1923 specification was very prescriptive, with the object of full interchangeability of parts so any wagon could be repaired by any repair outstation. In any case in 1918 the various wagon companies' maintenance operations began to be consolidated with the formation of Wagon Repairs Ltd. But there were plenty (over half in 1948) of wagons to the 1907 specification still in use.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Thanks Andy,

 

I, too, have been looking at prototype pictures of full and empty coal trains, and pictures exist of similar trains to mine, inasmuch as their are five-plank wagons in among the normal coal wagons. I include a couple of 21T hoppers in my trains, having seen a picture of two of them in the coal yard at Welwyn North.

 

The more you look, the more you find, and the more I want to look, the more I want to find (out). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Careful, wagons is a slippery slope!!

 

Mike.

[Daniel W]

 

Slippery slope indeed! An interest in wagons can be dangerously bad for your health wealth! Albeit, very rewarding in the long run. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Daniel W

[Headstock]

That became progressively less the case from 1887 to 1907 to 1923; the 1923 specification was very prescriptive, with the object of full interchangeability of parts so any wagon could be repaired by any repair outstation. In any case in 1918 the various wagon companies' maintenance operations began to be consolidated with the formation of Wagon Repairs Ltd. But there were plenty (over half in 1948) of wagons to the 1907 specification still in use.

 

Fair comment, what a shame that another RTR manufacture has chosen to replicate the less common 5 plank 1923 RCH design rather than something from the more numerouse 1907 specification.

 

 

Slippery slope indeed! An interest in wagons can be dangerously bad for your health wealth! Albeit, very rewarding in the long run. 

 

Dangerous indeed. On the other hand, it is probably a reasonable investment. I'm not in a position to have the time to spare, nor the wealth to waste on made up stuff.

[Tony Wright]

Afternoon Tony,

 

with regard to the painting of locomotives, I have always found your own efforts in this respect perfectly respectable, I think that you do yourself a disservice, many would be extremely happy to reach the same standard.

 

On the subject of LB goods stock, I can't imagine that there is a problem with the vast majority of wagons running on the layout, I would have a closer look at anything RTR if you have a concern. I can guarantee that if there are problems, then this is were they will be. I also think it is worth thinking about what is missing, what should be there and isn't.

 

On the subject of observation and perception and back to the subject of working signals. I was carefully observing the crowd at the last exhibition with LSGC, with the intent to see if anybody noticed the signals working as I operated the Southbound main line. To a man/woman, and time after time, all eyes would follow a train around and just before the last carriage reached the signal, the eyes would turn away missing the signal drop as the train passed. When asked, people just assumed that the signals were always working, even when they were not. Should what other people do not notice, be it working signals or the correct brake gear on a wagon, determine what we do as a modeler, I think not, others may disagree.

Thanks Andrew,

 

I do, usually, paint my own black locos - it's the BR lined green I struggle with.

 

You ask a most interesting question. Should what others see, or not see, determine what we do as modellers? Certainly, if all one does is put together/operate a model railway in the comfort of one's home, where nobody else sees it, then who gives a fig? Definitely not me. However, if it's an exhibition layout, I think there is a responsibility to make it as 'accurate' as possible, and have what should be working, working. That said, I've yet to be convinced of any working model roadway. It's also the same, in my view, where one invites visitors to see a fixed layout at home. It matters not whether the majority of viewers don't know if things are right or wrong, or, don't notice if signals work or not, it matters to me. That's why I'm investigating what's wrong with my freight stock.

 

Speaking of freight stock, here's some more of LB's fleet for folk to comment on/criticise.

 

 

 

This LNER bogie bolster wagon was scratch-built by the late Cliff Bate of Wolverhampton MRC, more than 40 years ago. Certainly before suitable transfers were available. What type is it, please, and is it accurate? Knowing Cliff, I would think it is, though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of brake gear. 

 

 

Another late friend from WMRC, Pete Lander, built the two low wagons to the right from kits. Rob Davey made/painted/weathered the long-wheelbase mineral wagon. 

 

 

Mention has been made of it being more likely that RTR wagons/vans are inaccurate/incorrect. I don't think that's the case with this Hornby LNER CCT. All I've done is to weather it, having first chopped off the couplings.

 

 

When John Houlden graduated to 7mm Scale, I acquired a few items of his OO rolling stock, ex the now-burnt Gamston Bank. This is a Comet BZ.

 

 

And a Comet Stove R.

 

 

The MR/M&GNR bit of LB is much more flexible in its time period (Rule 1 applies), ranging from Nationalisation to closure a decade later. Thankfully, friend Norman Turner of WMRC is very much alive and well and he made several of the wagons from kits or from scratch which run on the 'higher' railway at Little Bytham. The coke wagon in the middle of this cut was weathered/distressed by Rob Davey. It's RTR-based and I would think the wheelbase is too long.

 

 

 

Norman also built the PO mineral wagon, sandwiched between two further examples of Rob Davey's work.

 

 

And he built these.

 

 

And this, which is hand-lettered. 

 

 

Often, RTR vehicles are let down by incorrect chassis, but the bodies might be all right. Rob Davey made a correct chassis for this Mainline LMS 12T van.

 

 

Here's one van which will be going - the 9' ex-LNER cattle wagon - 1958 is way too late for this. Another ex-Gamston vehicle.

 

What do all the above show? That LB has a very varied selection of freight vehicles, some of which (I hope not too many) might well be incorrect. However, almost without exception, they're all weathered. Little to me looks less-natural than pristine freight stock. Perhaps the odd new/refurbished example, but very, very few. 

 

I've just done a rough 'head-count', and it would appear I have nearly 300 wagons to use on LB. I hope not too many are too wrong! 

 

Comments please. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Tony Wright

[APOLLO]

Tony, as some of your stock was made by close friends, some many years ago their worth to you is more than their absolute accuracy / compatibility.

 

I have a few such models, some not really compatible but I run them nethertheless. 

 

The "real" British Railways did throw up anomalies and surprises in train formations, stock etc every now and then - why not such on a model railway also (but not overdone) ? I remember seeing very old and decrepit wagons around Springs Branch at the end of steam back around 1967, one or two pre-grouping wagons also here and there - sometimes tucked at the end of sidings & left for many a year.

 

You could gather such stock together and run a train of condemned stock off to Central Wagon for the scrap man !!

 

Brit15

Edited December 23, 2018 by APOLLO

[Headstock]

Thanks Andrew,

 

I do, usually, paint my own black locos - it's the BR lined green I struggle with.

 

You ask a most interesting question. Should what others see, or not see, determine what we do as modellers? Certainly, if all one does is put together/operate a model railway in the comfort of one's home, where nobody else sees it, then who gives a fig? Definitely not me. However, if it's an exhibition layout, I think there is a responsibility to make it as 'accurate' as possible, and have what should be working, working. That said, I've yet to be convinced of any working model roadway. It's also the same, in my view, where one invites visitors to see a fixed layout at home. It matters not whether the majority of viewers don't know if things are right or wrong, or, don't notice if signals work or not, it matters to me. That's why I'm investigating what's wrong with my freight stock.

 

Speaking of freight stock, here's some more of LB's fleet for folk to comment on/criticise.

 

scratch-built bogie bolster wagon 01.jpg

 

scratch-built bogie bolster wagon 02.jpg

 

This LNER bogie bolster wagon was scratch-built by the late Cliff Bate of Wolverhampton MRC, more than 40 years ago. Certainly before suitable transfers were available. What type is it, please, and is it accurate? Knowing Cliff, I would think it is, though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of brake gear. 

 

Rob Davey and Pete Lander wagons.jpg

 

Another late friend from WMRC, Pete Lander, built the two low wagons to the right from kits. Rob Davey made/painted/weathered the long-wheelbase mineral wagon. 

 

Hornby LNER CCT.jpg

 

Mention has been made of it being more likely that RTR wagons/vans are inaccurate/incorrect. I don't think that's the case with this Hornby LNER CCT. All I've done is to weather it, having first chopped off the couplings.

 

Comet BZ.jpg

 

When John Houlden graduated to 7mm Scale, I acquired a few items of his OO rolling stock, ex the now-burnt Gamston Bank. This is a Comet BZ.

 

Comet Stove R.jpg

 

And a Comet Stove R.

 

Norman Turner wagons 01.jpg

 

The MR/M&GNR bit of LB is much more flexible in its time period (Rule 1 applies), ranging from Nationalisation to closure a decade later. Thankfully, friend Norman Turner of WMRC is very much alive and well and he made several of the wagons from kits or from scratch which run on the 'higher' railway at Little Bytham. The coke wagon in the middle of this cut was weathered/distressed by Rob Davey. It's RTR-based and I would think the wheelbase is too long.

 

 Norman Turner wagons 02.jpg

 

Norman also built the PO mineral wagon, sandwiched between two further examples of Rob Davey's work.

 

Norman Turner wagons 03.jpg

 

And he built these.

 

Norman Turner wagons 04.jpg

 

And this, which is hand-lettered. 

 

Mainline 12T van.jpg

 

Often, RTR vehicles are let down by incorrect chassis, but the bodies might be all right. Rob Davey made a correct chassis for this Mainline LMS 12T van.

 

9' LNER cattle van.jpg

 

Here's one van which will be going - the 9' ex-LNER cattle wagon - 1958 is way too late for this. Another ex-Gamston vehicle.

 

What do all the above show? That LB has a very varied selection of freight vehicles, some of which (I hope not too many) might well be incorrect. However, almost without exception, they're all weathered. Little to me looks less-natural than pristine freight stock. Perhaps the odd new/refurbished example, but very, very few. 

 

I've just done a rough 'head-count', and it would appear I have nearly 300 wagons to use on LB. I hope not too many are too wrong! 

 

Comments please. 

 

Evening Tony,

 

one thing is for sure, how fantastical interesting the photographs are of your goods stock. Sometimes the old thread dose get  stuck in a bit of a cyclical time warp between DCC and Thompson Pacific, its nice to see it take a left turn on occasion.

 

The bogie bolster is a Warflat bought by the LNER and converted into a bogie bolster, so bang on the money.

 

Edited to add, Shame about the LNER cattle wagon, probably the worst thing that they ever built. To be prototypical it should be bent like a banana. I don't think a photograph has ever been found of one in BR livery. I seem to recall that a lot were converted into conflats, but memory may be cheating on that one.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Headstock

[Barry Ten]

Not a wagon, but on and off my workbench at the moment is this detailing job on a GWR H33 restaurant car, based on the 1970s Hornby model, which is not too terrible a representation of the prototype.

 

 

The main task with these old-style Hornby Collett coaches is to fix the clip-on plastic "bow-end" permanently in replace, then fill and sand until there's a seamless continuation of the body side. I've never managed to do this without a complete repaint and re-line of the model, as done here. Flush-glazing was then added using an SEF pack, with "glue and glaze" used to fill the tiny panels above the main windows. It would be nice if there was a laser-glazing option but as this is an older model, I don't imagine there'd be much demand, and I'm happy enough with the effect of the SEF packs in a "layout coach" context (to be honest, that goes for all my modelling!). I also removed the corridor connectors, fitted replacement ones from MJT, as well as new handrails. I've made a start on replacing the ventilators but have run out of the Ratio ones for now, so I've just done the awkward ones behind the handrails for the time being. My model had the incorrect Mark 1 bogies but Hornby later changed them for Collett versions and I've found that these coaches can be had for very little money on ebay and at second-hand stalls, so I found some replacement bogies very easily.  They're also still in the Railroad range, and also quite affordable as base models. The crude Hornby wheels will be replaced in due course, and the underframe will receive some appropriate details.

 

The roof profile isn't quite right (but then neither would be Comet's equivalent, I believe) but if you can live with that, and the other shortcomings of the Hornby model, it's a fairly quick way to obtain a restaurant car suitable for the early inter-war period. As far as I'm aware, this is the only RTR GWR restaurant vehicle that's ever been offered?

 

Al

 

ps -- thanks Tony, and all the contributors, for the excellent, inspiring modelling and erudite, informative discussion here all year round. It's always the first place I visit on Rmweb! I hope everyone has a suitably relaxing and enjoyable Christmas break.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Wow!

 

This thread really flies.

 

With regard to low-relief buildings, from my own 'point of view' (sorry about the pun), having built three half-relief cottages for LB, it would seem they only really 'work' visually when looked at front-on. 

 

low-relief 01.jpg

 

low-relief 02.jpg

 

In perspective, the effect is not that convincing. I wrote about these in BRM a couple of years ago and I think they just about do their job. The real things still exist, but have been altered substantially over the last 60 years. I had to make them half-relief, otherwise there'd be no front gardens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if the effect could be helped by adding some judicious foliage curling around the sides of the houses from the rear, to soften or completely conceal the point where they meet the backscene?

 

(Edit - I see Grahame has made a similar point earlier in the thread; I'm afraid my laptop broke down yesterday so I've only just been catching up!)

Edited December 23, 2018 by Barry Ten

[Mark C]

Hello Tony

 

I whizz through Welwyn North twice daily on my commute and I can still make out what I believe to be the structures for coal drops - which would fit in with 21t hoppers and their bottom discharge doors.

 

Like most other locations, comparing days gone by (goods yards, loading docks, signal boxes etc etc) to today (nothing!) shows a stark difference and Welwyn North is a good example.

 

Best wishes for Christmas.

 

Mark