Bachmann 38-080 12T SR-built vent van LMS grey - correct livery?

[BenL]

I've got one of these vans and have been wondering if it's carrying the correct livery. I know very little about LMS stock, but from web searches I understand that these vans were built by the SR for the LMS in 1942 and allocated LMS diagram 2078. I understand that the LMS adopted its bauxite livery for goods stock in 1936 hence I'm wondering if the grey livery applied by Bachmann on its model of this 1942-built van is correct.

 

I would certainly be very grateful for any guidance any better-informed members can provide.

[steveb860]

Plate 106 of Essery's An illustrated history of LMS wagons, show these wagons in original livery. no notes are given on colour, but from the b&w photo. I lean towards weathered light grey. You could of course repaint it into one of the GWR wagons they received at the time! 

[Sasquatch]

Many austere  measures during the second world war meant that whatever paint was to hand got slapped on and in some cases bare wood was normal too!

This situation lasted well into the mid fifties!

[BenL]

Plate 106 of Essery's An illustrated history of LMS wagons, show these wagons in original livery. no notes are given on colour, but from the b&w photo. I lean towards weathered light grey. You could of course repaint it into one of the GWR wagons they received at the time!

 

Thanks very much Steve, that's very helpful. It seems it's another case of livery practice not following policy. I have one of these wagons in GWR livery and bought the LMS one to inject a bit of variety into the goods stock on my GWR layout. Thanks to your info, I will keep the LMS one as it is apart from some weathering.

[asmay2002]

Plate 106 of Essery's An illustrated history of LMS wagons, show these wagons in original livery. no notes are given on colour, but from the b&w photo. I lean towards weathered light grey. You could of course repaint it into one of the GWR wagons they received at the time! 

 

I don't think this opinion is correct.  I have looked at the same photo and cannot see that it is not in the standard buxite colour particularly if you look at the solebars. The lettering follows the standard post 1936 pattern and there is no reason to suppose the colour is not standard.

[kevinlms]

I don't think this opinion is correct.  I have looked at the same photo and cannot see that it is not in the standard bauxite colour particularly if you look at the solebars. The lettering follows the standard post 1936 pattern and there is no reason to suppose the colour is not standard.

I would agree with you, asmay2002. The LMS had given away grey as a standard colour 6 years ago, so it seems unlikely that the LMS would request a new batch of wagons to be painted this shade of grey. You'd expect that the S.R. would use their own body colour, if there was a paint shortage.

 

At least it doesn't sport the large logos!

[BenL]

I don't think this opinion is correct.  I have looked at the same photo and cannot see that it is not in the standard buxite colour particularly if you look at the solebars. The lettering follows the standard post 1936 pattern and there is no reason to suppose the colour is not standard.

Thanks Andy for this further insight, it looks like I will have to buy a tin of bauxite paint after all!

[BenL]

 

 

At least it doesn't sport the large logos!

 

Talking of the large logos, do you think it would be prototypical to have some large logo, grey liveried LMS vans running around post-war albeit it a rather weathered state?

[65179]

You could get away with at least one.  In The 4mm Wagon Vol.2 by Geoff Kent there is a photo at page 46 of an LMS van no.508808 (D1897 - 2 piece corrugated end and horizontal planking) with LMS in large letters in May 1949.

 

Simon

[BenL]

You could get away with at least one.  In The 4mm Wagon Vol.2 by Geoff Kent there is a photo at page 46 of an LMS van no.508808 (D1897 - 2 piece corrugated end and horizontal planking) with LMS in large letters in May 1949.

 

Simon

Thanks very much Simon, that's very helpful. I'll keep one of the large-lettered LMS vans I've got in that livery, with some suitable weathering.

[Sasquatch]

If these vans were painted by the Southern who's standard wagon colour was brown the likely hood of the LMS supplying the Southern with the correct standard paint during 1942 is unlikely.

[Sasquatch]

After some investigation, all I can come up with is that the SR built 150 vans to diagram 1455 in Sept. 1942 and a further 250 in April 1943. Diagram 1455 (LMS dia.2078) were unfitted, unequally planked and given LMS lot numbers 1334 and 1373 respectfully.  There are no pictures of these LMS vans in A History Of Southern Wagons Vol. 4.

However  the caption under the picture of the GW vans built around the same time states that "how closely the SR applied GWR livery matched that companies usual shade of grey  is not known". It looks 10 shades too light to me!

If the vans were constructed at Ashford it is likely that the Southern would have used any LSECR paint chart and finished these in Grey. Many wagons would have been finished in Battle ship grey left over from WW1.

 

Hope this is of help.

Shaun

Edited July 12, 2014 by Sasquatch

[BenL]

After some investigation, all I can come up with is that the SR built 150 vans to diagram 1455 in Sept. 1942 and a further 250 in April 1943. Diagram 1455 (LMS dia.2078) were unfitted, unequally planked and given LMS lot numbers 1334 and 1373 respectfully.  There are no pictures of these LMS vans in A History Of Southern Wagons Vol. 4.

However  the caption under the picture of the GW vans built around the same time states that "how closely the SR applied GWR livery matched that companies usual shade of grey  is not known". It looks 10 shades too light to me!

If the vans were constructed at Ashford it is likely that the Southern would have used any LSECR paint chart and finished these in Grey. Many wagons would have been finished in Battle ship grey left over from WW1.

 

Hope this is of help.

Shaun

Thanks very much Shaun for these very helpful extra details, and logical argument as to why these vans may well have been grey. I think I will keep my Bachman version in grey, especially as I already have the older Dapol version which is in bauxite - at least one of them will be right!

[gwrrob]

A revisit to this old thread with the imminent release of the fourth numbered version of this van.

 

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/35084/Bachmann-38-080c-oo-gauge-12-ton-southern-2-2-planked-ventilated-van-lms-grey

 

Just wondering if Bachmann have this wagon correct and it should have been bauxite all these years.

[65179]

As we are reviving an old thread, here's an example of a grey LMS van that made it to BR days in Dave F's photos:

 

Simon 

 

[w124bob]

Can I politely suggest that unless the OP wants a mint exworks van, just weather it to the point where it's 50 shades of grey. One of them will be right, throw in a few brown/bauxite planks just to be sure and fade the lettering too. Remember rule 1 applies and secondly, there's a prototype for everything! 

[MartinTrucks]

We should not lose sight of the vehicle we are discussing.  It was a handbrake-only ventilated van being built for the LMS so that they could fulfil their commitment of similar vehicles to the RCH pool for interchange traffic between the four companies.  It was a simple truck built to do a job during wartime. The LNER built handbrake-only versions of their diag? timber-bodied fitted van for the LMS too. During wartime, the colour of the vehicle was not that important as long as the lettering conformed to RCH standards.

 

The LMS changed its wagon colour from a mid-grey to the lighter sea grey in 1934; why I do not know.  The change to bauxite and indeed a need for a change, might have been down to the white lettering not showing up so well against the light grey when weathered.

 

Having viewed various photos of the two wagon types, I feel certain that the colour of both types of van was grey, the shade being simply black with some white in it, to give a mid grey. I would say that the Bachmann LMS-liveried model is definitely wrong.

 

Martin

[The Johnster]

I have always assumed that the Bachmann Ashford's grey LMS livery is correct, as I can't see why they'd make up an incorrectly livery having several LMS items in bauxite, proving that they were aware of the bauxite livery, if you follow my train of thought... As I understand it, the reason these wagons were built at Ashford for the LMS, GW, et al, was that Ashford happened to have a stockpile of pre-cut timber in the two widths needed for this design.  They were directed to make the vans for the other railways by the Ministry of Supply, which was created as a wartime control of materials, and was very successful in it's work.  The pre-cut timber could not be easily used for anything else and was vulnerable to loss to bombing, especially incendiaries.

 

Grey paint of any sort of quality would have been a priority for the Royal Navy at the time, so I doubt if the paint used was much more than a single coat of grey undercoat.  This sort of thing was in even greater shortage (can you have a greater shortage?) after the war and new wooden opens were being put to traffic completely unpainted well into the 50s.  I have no doubt that the grey used on the GW's Ashford vans was not always the exact GW shade.  I have heavily weathered my LMS Ashford to represent a van as running in the livery in the early 50s; I like to run it coupled to a BR grey unfitted LMS Ashford which is, appropriately for the period, very lightly weathered, just for the contrast...  

 

I have GW, LMS, and SR vans in large initials, but these are very heavily weathered and, as they should, look due for the attentions of the Ideal Wagons Committee, but the GW is fitted and has a fairly secure future...

 

[MartinTrucks]

On 19/10/2020 at 09:48, The Johnster said:

I have always assumed that the Bachmann Ashford's grey LMS livery is correct, as I can't see why they'd make up an incorrectly livery having several LMS items in bauxite, proving that they were aware of the bauxite livery, if you follow my train of thought... As I understand it, the reason these wagons were built at Ashford for the LMS, GW, et al, was that Ashford happened to have a stockpile of pre-cut timber in the two widths needed for this design.  They were directed to make the vans for the other railways by the Ministry of Supply, which was created as a wartime control of materials, and was very successful in it's work.  The pre-cut timber could not be easily used for anything else and was vulnerable to loss to bombing, especially incendiaries.

 

Grey paint of any sort of quality would have been a priority for the Royal Navy at the time, so I doubt if the paint used was much more than a single coat of grey undercoat.  This sort of thing was in even greater shortage (can you have a greater shortage?) after the war and new wooden opens were being put to traffic completely unpainted well into the 50s.  I have no doubt that the grey used on the GW's Ashford vans was not always the exact GW shade.  I have heavily weathered my LMS Ashford to represent a van as running in the livery in the early 50s; I like to run it coupled to a BR grey unfitted LMS Ashford which is, appropriately for the period, very lightly weathered, just for the contrast...  

 

I have GW, LMS, and SR vans in large initials, but these are very heavily weathered and, as they should, look due for the attentions of the Ideal Wagons Committee, but the GW is fitted and has a fairly secure future...

 

Sorry, but I have read your post several times and still find it somewhat confused.

 

The official photo of van No. 521202 in Essery's 'LMS Wagons Vol. 1' shows it to be in a colour DARKER than pre-1937 LMS grey. The Bachmann model, although very attractive, is therefore incorrect in its light grey livery. 

 

I don't believe that there was any shortage of grey paint in particular during WW2. It was 'vanity' colours like blues, yellows and reds that were in short supply. As I stated previously, grey is simply black with some white in it, easily produced and readily (within reason) available.

 

I do not know specifically why these vans were needed. It may have been to increase the size of the RCH van pool or to replace wartime losses.

 

Why did the SR build them? I don't know where you get the impression that the SR had obtained an excess of timber and needed something to do with it! In any case, it would have been the steel supply for the vans that would have been critical and this may well have had to have been specifically authorised by the MoS.

 

The LMS had been building all their own vans in the run-up to WW2 (in 1936 most LMS open wagons were still being built by outside builders like Cravens, Birmingham etc.). The LMS wagon works were still building vans during WW2. Perhaps they did not have the capacity and, as the SR was producing these vans currently, the MoS considered that it was more expedient for Ashford to knock out a few more?

 

However, the SR also built some vans to LMS diagrams circa 1942, but that is a matter for discussion at a later date!  

 

Best regards,

Martin

 

.

 

 

 

 

[hmrspaul]

5 minutes ago, MartinTrucks said:

Sorry, but I have read your post several times and still find it somewhat confused.

 

The official photo of van No. 521202 in Essery's 'LMS Wagons Vol. 1' shows it to be in a colour DARKER than pre-1937 LMS grey. The Bachmann model, although very attractive, is therefore incorrect in its light grey livery. 

 

I don't believe that there was any shortage of grey paint in particular during WW2. It was 'vanity' colours like blues, yellows and reds that were in short supply. As I stated previously, grey is simply black with some white in it, easily produced and readily (within reason) available.

 

I do not know specifically why these vans were needed. It may have been to increase the size of the RCH van pool or to replace wartime losses.

 

Why did the SR build them? I don't know where you get the impression that the SR had obtained an excess of timber and needed something to do with it! In any case, it would have been the steel supply for the vans that would have been critical and this may well have had to have been specifically authorised by the MoS.

 

The LMS had been building all their own vans in the run-up to WW2 (in 1936 most LMS open wagons were still being built by outside builders like Cravens, Birmingham etc.). The LMS wagon works were still building vans during WW2. Perhaps they did not have the capacity and, as the SR was producing these vans currently, the MoS considered that it was more expedient for Ashford to knock out a few more?

 

However, the SR also built some vans to LMS diagrams circa 1942, but that is a matter for discussion at a later date!  

 

Best regards,

Martin

 

White paint was in short supply - after WW2 stone was officially to be used for insulated vans until white became available again. 

 

I think on here there was the good suggestion that Ashford was being used for wagon building because they were of less critical importance than the building of munitions. Ashford (and other South East Works) were seen as more vulnerable to both bombing and invasion than the works further north, so the northern ones supplied armaments etc. Seems a sensible suggestion. They built these vans for the GWR as well. 

 

Paul

 

 

[The Johnster]

The building of vans at Ashford was ordered by the Ministry of Supply who prevented the LMS and GW from wasting resources (timber especially) and being able to divert their own production facilities to war work (the mini submarines used in the attack on Tirpitz were built at Swindon). I believe Swindon C & W built gun carriages at this time, as well as their railway work.  All production was under the direct control of the Ministry of Supply who had to give permission for any new railway work; there is the famous story of Bulleid gaining permission to build the MNs by claiming that they were mixed traffic locos, while Hawksworth's pacific was denied.

 

Wars are allegedly won or lost by the men at the front line, or by the battalions with bigger guns, but it is to a large extent true to say that they are won by the nations that can source raw material and organise production more efficiently.  We were quite good at this in WW2, as were the Americans and Russians, the one time Soviet central control was effective, while the Germans went for a more 'free enterprise' approach from loyal Nazi supporting companies, a system riddled with corruption, nepotism, and inefficiency.  Even such efforts as had the 'benefit' of slave labour used it wastefully and inefficiently (you don't get a lot of productivity out of people who are being systematically stared to death), and sabotage, especially in French and Polish factories, hampered production.

 

Germany's defeat is correctly put down to their failure at Stalingrad to access oil supplies; they were on the back foot from that point, but they were badly organised economically which must have been a major factor as well.  They almost managed a U-boat blockade of the UK, and nobody can blame their armed forces who fought very hard and very well throughout; the failures were political and economic.  Same goes for Japan, inefficient and wasteful use of resources, particularly kame kaze.  Significantly, both these countries organised their industrial production with great efficiency and effect after the war!

 

Now, I'm not saying that Ashford vans on the LMS and GW defeated the Axis, but they are an example of the sort of work the MoS was doing across British industry to maximise the use of materials, ensure that the war effort was supplied with product, and prevent wastage.  Government ministries, the civil service, are often mocked for inefficiency and excessive bureaucracy, and anyone who's ever dealt with the Dept. of (un)Employment will testify to it, but we should give the MoS it's due!

[The Johnster]

The livery question is confusing, and I don't have the answers, but am working to an assumption in lieu of hard facts, the assumption being that Bachmann did some research on this model.  it is possible that they made the mistake of assuming that the LMS was still using grey for unfitted wagons, but in view of their production of LMS proper designs in brown late (small initials) livery they have had plenty of opportunity to rectify it; my opinion, which may well be proved eventually erroneous and which anyone is at liberty to dispute, it is an opinion not a statement of fact, is that the Bachmann LMS livery for the wartime-built Ashfords is correct.  

 

I am something of a fan of the fidelity of Bachmann's work, but have learned that assuming it to be correct is wobbly ground, with the cattle wagon being dimensionally out and on the wrong chassis, never mind being produced as a generic in wrong liveries.  So all this has cast doubt on my LMS grey Ashford and I may repaint and/or renumber it, or scrap it and use the chassis for something else.  I arguably have too many Ashfords for a 1950s WR BLT, 4 altogether in different liveries and I'd like a BR liveried fitted plywood as well, but I like the attractive roof profile...

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by The Johnster

[Steamport Southport]

The LMS had switched to production of bombers. A lot of it wasn't final construction, but fuselage and wings.

 

At the loco works they built tanks such as Matildas. The LMS also designed it's own tank, the unsuccessful Covenanter.  By the time it was ready, they had started to receive Lee/Grants and then Shermans in number.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter_tank

 

 

 

Jason