Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Could this be one as the fourth vehicle in this ECML fully-fitted northbound freight at Grantham? If not, what?

 

And, what actual colour is BT bauxite? I think this question has been asked before...............

 

Conspiracy, that's not 1958, pull the other one it's got a dining service.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm rather hesitant about posting these images showing various vans I've built in the last three years. However, if they're wrong I'd like to know (and the whole world as well). 

 

 

Standard Parkside, just built as prescribed using the transfers provided. 

 

 

And clipping the buffers.

 

 

My attempt at different colours.

 

 

Between a couple of RTR vans.

 

As mentioned, these were built (mainly at exhibitions, where I was demonstrating - things like these make excellent starting points for the inexperienced). 

 

I even tackled a Parkside O Gauge 12T van.............

 

 

From memory, I think I got muddled by the brake gear (it probably shows). 

 

The number might not be right. On application of the all-in-one transfers, all the digits escaped in every direction.

 

I painted it and Geoff Haynes weathered it.

 

The question of SR vans in far-away goods trains came up again (I was accused of 'spinning' by illustrating them in passenger trains). 

 

 

Could this be one as the fourth vehicle in this ECML fully-fitted northbound freight at Grantham? If not, what?

 

And, what actual colour is BT bauxite? I think this question has been asked before...............

Could be a Circus train, the SR built several scenery and elephant coaches which looked like SR brakes, CCTs and PMVs. The van in the photo looks like it has bogies.

[65179]

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Re the dia. 1/204 dia. 2039, not a BR 1/204, see Simons (65179s) post with regards to the raised strip that the Dapol van has and the one in the photograph doesn't. In addition, it has RCH vac brake gear, that would suggest a genuine conversion from an LMS unfitted van. The two put together might be an LMS dia. 2039.

 

Quite possibly a D2039, although very similar to several thousand other vans (D1897 etc). Someone with ready access to ...LMS Wagons Vol.1 to hand would have to check whether the change to that pattern of 3 part corrugated end (see the positions of the two lines of rivets) happened before D2039 or only came in with that diagram.

 

Simon

[Dunsignalling]

BR Bauxite? On photographic evidence at least three different colours at various times plus the effects of weather, pollution and sea air accumulated over varying timescales.

 

Not quite anything goes, but there are probably few shades* that couldn't be defended....

 

Main thing is, unless modelling the output of a wagon overhaul works (as shown in that picture earlier) there shouldn't be too many of any one shade!

 

John  

 

PS: * For the second cattle wagon, Humbrol 98 Matt chocolate looks a good match...

Edited December 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling
PS

[90164]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

day seven of isolation and still no PCR test results, I must be going wagon crazy. Your van spotting reveals an LMS and a BR vanfit. The really interesting thing is that the LMS van has the RCH vac brake, while the BR van has eight shoe clasp brakes. You would on some occasions perhaps expect the reverse to be true.

The BR Van looks to be one of the ones with planked sides but ply doors. Quite a few of these had BR's version of 8 shoe brake gear and this is what this van appears to be fitted with.

 

Regards

 

Frank

[Jol Wilkinson]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Jol,

 

that's an interesting one because we start to get into the more specialised open wagons, those not built specifically for general merchandise traffic. It also features the other thing that Railway modelers tend to be very bad at on the whole, the loading of wagons. I suspect the photographers and staff trainers would have a field day at the average model railway exhibition. 

 

This ones a classic you see on many layouts that combines the two. How not to load a Pipe wagon

 

 

Those look more like beeswax candles than pipes.

 

The pre-group railways had many speci.alist wagons, did that diminish much with the Big Four? Presumably it did so post WW2 when the road haulage industry grew significantly

[Dunsignalling]

23 minutes ago, 90164 said:

The BR Van looks to be one of the ones with planked sides but ply doors. Quite a few of these had BR's version of 8 shoe brake gear and this is what this van appears to be fitted with.

 

Regards

 

Frank

The 8-shoe BR brake came in on stock constructed from 1957-8 onward so OK for LB but don't weather it too much! Ply doors are also (generally) a sign of a latish build date (except where acquired during repairs).

 

An LMS van with 4-shoe AVB signifies one built unfitted (often, but not exclusively, during WW2) and updated by BR, rather than fitted from new, in which case it would have had LMS pattern 8-shoe AVB and J-hanger suspension.

 

John  

Edited December 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[FarrMan]

What a wealth of information there is on this thread! Very many thanks to all who have taken time to respond to my initial query, three pages ago now. I had never noticed that coal and mineral wagons did not have side doors going full height, though looking at Atkins et al on GWR wagons, I can see it now. The different densities of the cargoes are also useful to know. Though loading is given by weight, it is usually judged by volume (i.e. is the wagon full to the top), and therefore more dense cargoes such as minerals would need to be smaller for the equivalent load. Thanks again for all the info, and for Tony letting us use his thread for what interests him least!

 

Lloyd

[Headstock]

11 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

Those look more like beeswax candles than pipes.

 

The pre-group railways had many speci.alist wagons, did that diminish much with the Big Four? Presumably it did so post WW2 when the road haulage industry grew significantly

 

Good question,

 

some disappeared over time, there wasn't much call for new wagons to carry large Naval guns post WW2 but new ones were also created, the Pal van for instance. The specials were always a small percentage of the whole.

[Dunsignalling]

21 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

What a wealth of information there is on this thread! Very many thanks to all who have taken time to respond to my initial query, three pages ago now. I had never noticed that coal and mineral wagons did not have side doors going full height, though looking at Atkins et al on GWR wagons, I can see it now. The different densities of the cargoes are also useful to know. Though loading is given by weight, it is usually judged by volume (i.e. is the wagon full to the top), and therefore more dense cargoes such as minerals would need to be smaller for the equivalent load. Thanks again for all the info, and for Tony letting us use his thread for what interests him least!

 

Lloyd

Also because it was normal for mineral wagons to carry their full permitted weight, and having continuous upper planks helped prevent the body spreading under load.

 

Merchandise wagons, and vans for that matter, often carried a fraction of their rated tonnage. I remember a traffic survey from the sixties or seventies that revealed van loads seldom exceeded four tons.

 

Merchandise wagons were occasionally loaded with coal, but it was frowned upon as they wouldn't last long if subjected to such treatment too often.

 

John

 

   

Edited December 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Northmoor]

10 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good question,

 

some disappeared over time, there wasn't much call for new wagons to carry large Naval guns post WW2 but new ones were also created, the Pal van for instance. The specials were always a small percentage of the whole.

As well as the lack of "specials" in reality (compared to what most of us operate), is it also the case that the "typical mixed freight" was actually even less mixed than we like to think?  For instance, would fish vans - which most people would see as just vans like any other - ever run in a mixed formation (unless to/from from works etc.), surely they were normally in express block trains as the cargo was perishable.  Likewise Tony's cement train; common types like Presflos would normally have been in block services, which for a long time steam era enthusiasts seemed to think were the preserve of the "modern" diesel era.

[65179]

13 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Also because it was normal for mineral wagons to carry their full permitted weight, and having continuous upper planks helped prevent the body spreading under load.

 

Merchandise wagons, and vans for that matter, often carried a fraction of their rated tonnage. I remember a traffic survey from the sixties or seventies that revealed van loads seldom exceeded four tons.

 

Merchandise wagons were occasionally loaded with coal, but it was frowned upon as they wouldn't last long if subjected to such treatment too often.

 

John

 

   

 

Overloading, particularly at the outer ends of 9ft merchandise wagons was certainly an issue and no doubt played a part in the move from 9ft to 10ft chassis on at least the LNER wagons. Recreating the effects of overloading can be fun:

 

Simon

[bbishop]

24 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good question,

 

some disappeared over time, there wasn't much call for new wagons to carry large Naval guns post WW2 but new ones were also created, the Pal van for instance. The specials were always a small percentage of the whole.

The "specials" probably cost more to design and build and often did very little mileage, so would last much longer; possibly until the cessation of the traffic for which they were designed.

Bill

[great central]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

And, what actual colour is BT bauxite? I think this question has been asked before...............

 

Never mind about the actual colour of bauxite, how about the loco livery? 

Presumably fresh from overhaul and a repaint, the works paintshop have obviously misread the painting spec!

Smokebox and first two sections of boiler cladding in black??

[westernviscount]

10 minutes ago, great central said:

 

Never mind about the actual colour of bauxite, how about the loco livery? 

Presumably fresh from overhaul and a repaint, the works paintshop have obviously misread the painting spec!

Smokebox and first two sections of boiler cladding in black??

 

It does look that way, however, is that a green streak on the second row of cladding? So very heavy weathering? What would have caused this if it is indeed weathering?

[Dunsignalling]

35 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

Overloading, particularly at the outer ends of 9ft merchandise wagons was certainly an issue and no doubt played a part in the move from 9ft to 10ft chassis on at least the LNER wagons. Recreating the effects of overloading can be fun:

 

Simon

I think the design of the 9' LNER underframes was inadequate for most purposes. The cattle wagons, in particular, were dreadful, presumably due to being longer overall. 

 

As a result, few of them lasted in traffic more than 20 years and the last of them were withdrawn once the end of WW2 reduced the need for "anything with wheels".

 

John

Edited December 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[bbishop]

The typical freight wagon at the end of the nineteenth century  was some 15 foot long and had a capacity of 10 ton.  Several railways experimented with larger capacity wagons, the LYR was one, the LSWR was another.  So the LSWR introduced the 8 plank open goods wagon in 1904; 21 foot long, 10'6" wheelbase, 15 ton capacity.  The SECR introduced their 7 plank wagon a decade later and the SR continued with the 8 plank wagon, albeit on a 9' RCH underframe.  They all had three-part doors, a drop flap with two hinged doors above.

 

A problem was they looked very similar to mineral wagons and it was not unknown for them to acquire a load of coal.  So the LSWR reduced their stated capacity to 12 ton so that, if they were misappropriated, the consequential load would be below the level of the hinged doors and wouldn't burst them open.  

 

The LSWR built to last so most of the wagons survived over 40 years and were scrapped in the early 1960s because there was no traffic for them.

 

Bill

[cctransuk]

11 minutes ago, westernviscount said:

 

It does look that way, however, is that a green streak on the second row of cladding? So very heavy weathering? What would have caused this if it is indeed weathering?

 

Just a trick of the light - the different tapers of the boiler cladding catching the light - or not!

 

CJI.

[bbishop]

5 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the design of the 9' LNER underframes was inadequate for most purposes. The cattle wagons, in particular, were dreadful, presumably due to being longer overall. 

 

As a result, few of them lasted in traffic more than 20 years old and the last of them were withdrawn once the demands of war reduced the need for "anything with wheels".

 

John

The 9 foot wheelbase was a requirement of the RCH 1923 standard.  The LSWR had standardised on 10'6" and the SECR on 9'6" so the shorter length was retrogressive.

 

Bill

[Dunsignalling]

4 minutes ago, bbishop said:

The 9 foot wheelbase was a requirement of the RCH 1923 standard.  The LSWR had standardised on 10'6" and the SECR on 9'6" so the shorter length was retrogressive.

 

Bill

Yes, but other companies' 9' wb wagons didn't go banana shaped.

 

Structural aspects of the LNER underframes had clearly been skimped. 

 

John

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

43 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

As well as the lack of "specials" in reality (compared to what most of us operate), is it also the case that the "typical mixed freight" was actually even less mixed than we like to think?  For instance, would fish vans - which most people would see as just vans like any other - ever run in a mixed formation (unless to/from from works etc.), surely they were normally in express block trains as the cargo was perishable.  Likewise Tony's cement train; common types like Presflos would normally have been in block services, which for a long time steam era enthusiasts seemed to think were the preserve of the "modern" diesel era.

There are two freight 'block' trains which run on Little Bytham.

 

The fish..........

 

 

 

 

 

Two 'swingers' complete the rake (I think up to six behind the brake were allowed - it enabled vans to be added or detached en route without having to split the train). 

 

The whole rake (apart from the first van, which is modified Hornby) was built/painted/weathered by Rob Davey using Parkside kits.

 

 

V2s are popular on it. 

 

Strictly speaking, I've an idea that these dedicated long-wheelbase vans might just be a titchy bit late for Little Bytham, but, heh-ho, Rule 1 and all that. 

 

A similar rake, built by Rob Kinsey, used to run on Stoke...........

 

 

Again, V2-hauled. 

 

The other block train is the cement.....

 

 

This was built/painted/weathered from Airfix/Dapol kits for Stoke by Rob Kinsey.

 

With Stoke Summit sold, he had no further use for it. So, I built a couple of locos for him and it now runs on LB.....

 

 

 

It was an early acquisition. 

 

True to form, since the A2/3s were the only class which could time this heavy train up to Stoke Summit, I generally use them...........

 

 

But, on other occasions....................

 

 

I put a 9F on it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

The "specials" probably cost more to design and build and often did very little mileage, so would last much longer; possibly until the cessation of the traffic for which they were designed.

Bill

 

Agreed, some also found employment on new traffic, extending their lifetime still further.

[Headstock]

46 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the design of the 9' LNER underframes was inadequate for most purposes. The cattle wagons, in particular, were dreadful, presumably due to being longer overall. 

 

As a result, few of them lasted in traffic more than 20 years and the last of them were withdrawn once the end of WW2 reduced the need for "anything with wheels".

 

John

 

I'm not aware of any particular problem with the 9' wb on the 6 plank LNER wagons. Examples were still going strong in 1978, fifty years after building. I have examples of bent 9' wb GM wagons  from a cross section of the big four and earlier. The thing the have in common is wooden underframes. The LNER cattle wagons were just a stupid design and another example of a dodgy RTR model.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

As well as the lack of "specials" in reality (compared to what most of us operate), is it also the case that the "typical mixed freight" was actually even less mixed than we like to think?  For instance, would fish vans - which most people would see as just vans like any other - ever run in a mixed formation (unless to/from from works etc.), surely they were normally in express block trains as the cargo was perishable.  Likewise Tony's cement train; common types like Presflos would normally have been in block services, which for a long time steam era enthusiasts seemed to think were the preserve of the "modern" diesel era.

 

 That's an interesting post. I would have thought most people would see Fish vans as operating in dedicated rakes and never anything else. I seem to have spent quite a bit of time explaining radom Fish vans to punters in the past. Fish vans are really 'specials', being passenger rated. The Fish vans that I have constructed are not in fixed rakes. Five vans were dropped of at Leicester Central by a Grimsby - South Wales bound Fish train and attached to the backend of a Manchester - Marylebone express. The express was in effect a giant bogie van train with three passenger carriages for the fee paying public. Fish vans could indeed run in mixed rakes. My other two Fish vans are really ex fish vans, being LNER 9' wb vans that were downgraded from Fish to ordinary fitted van traffic. They are in a Dringhouses -  Woodford Fitted freight, as per the photo I have of the working, stopped on the mainline for inspection at Leicester South Goods. Slightly cheating that one but another example of Fish vans not in a block train.

 

On the mixed freight side, there were General Merchandise runners on the GC that produced some interesting formations and the evening goods to Woodford from Leicester and the early morning goods from Woodford into Leicester were more varied. Generally though the GC LE probably had a higher proportion of block trains than many places, most of which was coal or empty wagons.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Headstock
clarify a point

[Compound2632]

Fish are passengers.