RTR OO 16T BR Steel Mineral Wagon Lengths

[Frank S.]

Hi Guys,

Apologies If this subject has been discussed before - If so, I'd be grateful If someone could direct me to the posts.

 

The Bachmann and Dapol BR 16T Steel Mineral Wagons differ considerably in length - by approx. 4mm or a scale foot, which is a considerable variation in an approx. 17ft long wagon !

 

Question is - which is right ? or at least closer to right ?.

 

To my untutored eye, the Backmann wagon looks more correct than the Dapol, but I could be wrong. Also I can't find a Hornby offering to compare with the others.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Frank Savery,

w-a-y down South in Tasmania

[cheesysmith]

The correct size of a 16ton mineral wagon is the Bachmann version with the 9ft wheelbase. The Dapol one is of the body stretched to fit a standard 10 ft wheelbase underframe. If you remove the top flap on the Dapol version (ex mainline IIRC) and continue the top edge of the sides across (some 1mm x 0.5mm plastic does it) you can mount it on a 10ft underframe for some of the rebuilds BR did at the beginning of the 80's on ex palbrick 10ft underframes.

[Andy W]

The correct size of a 16ton mineral wagon is the Bachmann version with the 9ft wheelbase. The Dapol one is of the body stretched to fit a standard 10 ft wheelbase underframe. If you remove the top flap on the Dapol version (ex mainline IIRC) and continue the top edge of the sides across (some 1mm x 0.5mm plastic does it) you can mount it on a 10ft underframe for some of the rebuilds BR did at the beginning of the 80's on ex palbrick 10ft underframes.

The Dapol version owes its origin to Hornby Dublo, and reached them via Wrenn.

Mainline did have their own inaccurate 16t mineral, the tooling was owned by Kader, Bachmann's parent company, and eventually it was replaced by the current correct-length tooling that allows production of several subtly different versions.

[cheesysmith]

Thanks for the clarification regarding the pedigree of the Dapol 16ton. I have several that I have been converting to the later rebuild bodies on the ex palbrick underframes, and for its age the bodies are very crisp and neat.

 

Ps-if you do make some of the 10ft rebuilds like I did, I forgot to mention you also need to add a false floor to cover the bottom doors that the molding has.

[Mark Saunders]

The same also applies to RCH mineral wagons as the original ones from Dublo, Wrenn and Airfix were stretched to fit the 17' 6" OH chassis!

 

Triang went the other way with the Medfit and shrank it on to the 16' 6" chassis as on their 16t mineral which was let down by the tall chassis!

 

Mark Saunders

[Il Grifone]

Unfortunately the first accurate R-T-R 16T mineral was made by Bachmann. All the previous efforts were either the wrong length and/or had an incorrect underframe. IIRC the Trix one is OK bodywise*. 'One size fits all' underframes were the order of the day until the nineties unfortunately - they were also usually quite poor.

 

The kits were a bit better - Considering its age, the ERG/Masterpiece/Rex** kit is not bad for an early rivetted version but is too short (the underframe is 'straight to bin'), Airfix/Dapol goes together easily, but needs a little work to correct underframe errors and the Cambrian and Parkside kits are OK (except for PC19***) and add variety.

 

* I have to check on this one, but as 'collectables' they are really out of the running.

** I am going to use the doors of one to make an early example on a spare Airfix underframe it will need new W irons though and some new brakegear.

*** For some reason this has a 10' wheelbase underframe - it can be modified, but is a hassle, though the brown plastic body is usual* for rust effects, under grey paint

 

The 16T mineral underframe is 16' 6" over headstocks on a 9' wheelbase. Most have Morton brakes, but early examples had 2 sets of brakegear with bottom doors and some later ones were vacuum fitted. (The subject is quite complicated!)

 

* Should be 'useful' of course!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...fortunately the first accurate R-T-R 16T mineral was made by Bachmann. All the previous efforts were either the wrong length and/or had an incorrect underframe...

 That's what got my attention a decade and a half ago. At last, modelling the BR steam scene, largely by use of RTR, looked to be about to become a practical possibility. The WD 2-8-0 cemented it. The irony was that for several years after they persisted with the horrible ex-Mainline brake vans, which were some of the most dubiously scaled vehicles ever offered. But at least that's only one kit to build per sixty of mineral with the Bed Iron barking away up front.

[hmrspaul]

Unfortunately the first accurate R-T-R 16T mineral was made by Bachmann. All the previous efforts were either the wrong length and/or had an incorrect underframe. IIRC the Trix one is OK bodywise*. 'One size fits all' underframes were the order of the day until the nineties unfortunately - they were also usually quite poor.

 

The kits were a bit better - Considering its age, the ERG/Masterpiece/Rex** kit is not bad for an early rivetted version but is too short (the underframe is 'straight to bin'), Airfix/Dapol goes together easily, but needs a little work to correct underframe errors and the Cambrian and Parkside kits are OK (except for PC19***) and add variety.

 

* I have to check on this one, but as 'collectables' they are really out of the running.

** I am going to use the doors of one to make an early example on a spare Airfix underframe it will need new W irons though and some new brakegear.

*** For some reason this has a 10' wheelbase underframe - it can be modified, but is a hassle, though the brown plastic body is usual* for rust effects, under grey paint

 

The 16T mineral underframe is 16' 6" over headstocks on a 9' wheelbase. Most have Morton brakes, but early examples had 2 sets of brakegear with bottom doors and some later ones were vacuum fitted. (The subject is quite complicated!)

 

* Should be 'useful' of course!

Agreed the ERG one is remarkably good considering how awful the remainder of the range were. I have always thought the Trix version was too wide. You have overlooked the Graham Farish version of the LMS type with the very angular pressed steel end. Unfortunately I can't find mine to check (may well have gone years ago!) but I thought it looked well with the Airfix kits.

 

Don't forget BR copied the toy companies and introduced a batch of wagons using the conventional vacuum brake underframe of 17ft. 6in oh on a 10ft wb. But they didn't have the top door unlike the PC19 which you mention as being wrong.

 

Paul

[petethemole]

The Farish LMS type is a scale 6" short but the body is otherwise quite good. Unfortunately the underframes were awful. I have two undergoing a chassis transplant but they got put away unfinished some time ago. One was lettered 'GW' and the other 'SC' in the pre-war large style. I believe some of this pattern were built for private owners by one of the wagon builders, but they would probably have been finished with the small post-1942 lettering. They came with two different patterns of both side and end doors; the GF version is apparently a less common combination of pressed steel end door and flat side doors. 

 

Pete

[hmrspaul]

The Farish LMS type is a scale 6" short but the body is otherwise quite good. Unfortunately the underframes were awful. I have two undergoing a chassis transplant but they got put away unfinished some time ago. One was lettered 'GW' and the other 'SC' in the pre-war large style. I believe some of this pattern were built for private owners by one of the wagon builders, but they would probably have been finished with the small post-1942 lettering. They came with two different patterns of both side and end doors; the GF version is apparently a less common combination of pressed steel end door and flat side doors. 

 

Pete

I've always assumed GF worked from a photo the same as or similar to, Plate 208 in Essery, R, J, (1981) An illustrated history of LMS Wagons, Volume 1, Oxford Publishing Co. SBN 86093 127 7. viii + 180 pages This has the end door and side door as GF reproduced. Yes the underframe of the model was poor and IIRC the wheels were appalling. Mine was in LMS or MoT bauxite.

 

Paul

[petethemole]

I understood the caption to mean that variant was less common, but it may mean they only had one photo of it. I can't remember where, if at all, I saw a reference to PO versions; I may have confused them with Charles Roberts who did PO versions of the slope side MOT mineral.

 

Pete

[Il Grifone]

Agreed the ERG one is remarkably good considering how awful the remainder of the range were. I have always thought the Trix version was too wide. You have overlooked the Graham Farish version of the LMS type with the very angular pressed steel end. Unfortunately I can't find mine to check (may well have gone years ago!) but I thought it looked well with the Airfix kits.

 

Don't forget BR copied the toy companies and introduced a batch of wagons using the conventional vacuum brake underframe of 17ft. 6in oh on a 10ft wb. But they didn't have the top door unlike the PC19 which you mention as being wrong.

 

Paul

 

The ERG 5 plank is OK, (if rather generic) considering the period, in which they were produced. The vans are all too tall and too short, especially the brake van.

 

I was only dealing with the kits in my previous post, but IIRC R-T-R were available from Farish, Dublo (die-cast and later in plastic the latter in grey and bauxite*) Trix, Tri-ang and Mainline (Lima and Tri-ang did them in 0 gauge as well - IIRC Lima also did an H0 version?).

 

Running a ruler, over the GF mineral I have to hand, it measures 64.5 mm over headstocks, 22mm high (Body) and 32mm wide overall. The door is 18.5mm wide and lacks any framing to the outer edges (!?). The underframe is almost as bad as the ERG one, but does have brake gear (in line with the axleguards!) The less said about the wheels the better! (bakelite (rubbish) and metal tyred (slightly better) with 'solid' spokes). They  also often suffer from mazak** pest. (This one has lost most of its brakegear and the two pieces of one of the axleguard units are held in place by cyano adhesive'

 

Tri-ang's is too short (all in the door)*** and I don't have Trix or Mainline ones to hand, though the latter is too long to fit their 18' (! IIRC) underframe.

 

* Later (still) available by Wrenn and Dapol (AFAIK the P.O. versions are all fantasy). My Wrenn example has become a rebodied PALBRICK. It had faded to a greenish shade, but now has a fresh coat of brown paint, lacks top doors and has rounded angles at the bottom of the sides. It just needs lettering and a replacement for the Wrenn underframe. The bottom door problem will be solved by a load of coal.

 

** Mazak is a trade name, but is used here as a generic term for zinc alloy (cf 'hoover' for vacuum cleaner). I gather the problem here could be a shortage of magnesium in the mix, due it having other uses during the Korean war.

 

*** Hornby's Iron Ore Tippler has a longer underframe, but the sides are too low.... (The end stanchions of both are in the wrong place.)

[Johnfromoz]

Frank S.

 

You have PM

 

Cheers

 

John

[forest2807]

I have to admit to a fondness for the Palitoy/Mainline version, despite its inaccuracies. Probably due to its late 70's vintage when I was first becoming aware of model railways, I had the Mainline J72 Branch Line set, and similar misty-eyed, rose-tinted nostagic reasons

[Frank S.]

Thanx Guys,

Obviously there is a lot more to 16T minerals than meets the eye   

 

Cheers,

FrankS

[Il Grifone]

Further to my earlier post, the Trix 16T mineral wagon is actually stretched to fit their 17' 6" underframe. However, since Trix models were made to 1/80 scale (approximately), the underframe comes out about right for 16' 6" length. As regards width, Trix buffers are set at the 4mm spacing* (or even more), so here it should also be OK. Not having one to hand, I can't comment on the height, but their 1/204 van body, which fits the same underframe, measures 66.7 x 31.3 mm (according to my digital caliper which has a tolerance of +/- 0.2mm).

 

I was toying with the idea of using the body for a 1/206 SHOCVAN, but it appears a millimetre or two short on height (which would be correct seeing the smaller scale).

 

* For some strange reason and similar to, but different from Rivarossi, who set theirs at the H0 spacing, while also using the 1/80 scale.

[corneliuslundie]

If you really want chapter and verse I think these two books will give you more than you can cope with:

 

WAGONS OF THE MIDDLE BRITISH RAILWAY ERA by David Larkin, ISBN 978-1-905505-7.  

British Railways Wagons the First half million by Don Rowland. ISBN 07529 03780

 

Jonathan

[hmrspaul]

If you really want chapter and verse I think these two books will give you more than you can cope with:

 

WAGONS OF THE MIDDLE BRITISH RAILWAY ERA by David Larkin, ISBN 978-1-905505-7.  

British Railways Wagons the First half million by Don Rowland. ISBN 07529 03780

 

Jonathan

The best source for modellers is the series by Peter Fidczuk,, there are a number of mistakes in the Don Rowland book, as indeed there are in

 

Bartlett, P., Larkin, D., Mann, T., Silsbury, R., and Ward, A. (1985) An illustrated history of BR wagons, Volume 1 published by Oxford Publishing Company, 192 pages.

Drawings slope-sided mineral ex WD 1/100; Mineral weld ex WD 1/102; ex SNCF Mineral 1/112; Weld Mineral 1/108; Weld Mineral rebody 1/108; Double door Mineral 1/110; Double door VB Mineral 1/119 & 1/120; Double door Mineral rebody; Double door Mineral 24.5t 1/115; Ironstone tippler 1/181.

 

 

Fidczuk, Peter. (1991a) The 16ton steel mineral wagon, part one Prewar and wartime designs.   Modellers Backtrack vol. 1 (part 3) pp 124 - 133.

     

Drawings - official of the slope sided mineral, Hurst Nelson 14/16t private owner (435), ex MWT/SNCF diag. 1/112 (119).

 

Fidczuk, Peter. (1991b) The 16ton steel mineral wagon, part two Later Pre-Nationalisation    developments.  Modellers Backtrack vol. 1 (part 4) pp 148 - 156.

Drawings - LNER diag. 188/BR diag. 1/103 ex MOT rivet (439); BR diag. 1/105 ex MOT rivet (418); BR diag. 1/102 ex WD welded (123).

 

Fidczuk, Peter. (1991c) The 16ton steel mineral wagon, part 3: Developments under British Railways. Modellers Backtrack vol. 1 (part 5) pp 220 - 230.

Drawings - BR diag. 1/108 welded (116); BR diag. 1/109 riveted (117); BR diag. 1/108 rebody welded.

 

The larger minerals were partially covered in

Larkin, David & Mann, Trevor (1983b)  British Railways 21 ton Mineral Wagons. Model Railway Constructor vol. 50 (part 595) pp 637 - 641.

Drawings - Welded double door diag. 1/107 (126); Riveted double door diag. 1/110 (127); VB double door with SAB diag. 1/120 (131) and manual load  diag. 1/119 (130)

 

Larkin, David & Mann, Trevor (1983c) British Railways 21 ton Mineral Wagons - the rebuilding programme.  Model Railway Constructor vol. 50 (part 596) pp 708 - 711 & 697.

Drawings - Double door welded rebody; single door welded rebody.

 

[ignore the numbers in parentheses]

 

Paul

[stovepipe]

I'm going to need a few of these, and I get that only Bachmann have made them with the correct wheelbase and length. Can I assume that all the 16 ton mineral wagons made by Bachmann are correct? Or are some of the early ones actually Mainline warmed over?

 

If so, which are the first correct ones? Sorry for all the questions, but I missed 1983 to 2013......

[Poor Old Bruce]

I'm going to need a few of these, and I get that only Bachmann have made them with the correct wheelbase and length. Can I assume that all the 16 ton mineral wagons made by Bachmann are correct? Or are some of the early ones actually Mainline warmed over?

 

If so, which are the first correct ones? Sorry for all the questions, but I missed 1983 to 2013......

 

The early Bachmann wagons in the 33-xxx number series were the old Mainline stretched ones. Those produced after 1998 in the 37-xxx number series are the correct length, they have the 'Blue Riband' accolade. This is OK if you are buying new boxed wagons but if you are getting S/H wagons at swapmeets etc you may have to compare the lengths with a known standard (e.g. 12T Van) or take a measuring stick with you, the correct length will be 66mm (or 4mm shorter than the van) over headstocks.

[petethemole]

A dead giveaway is the position of the brake blocks. In line with the W-irons and it's Mainline.

[stovepipe]

Thanks to you both. I will be trying to pick up a few at the upcoming shows near me, so they may be boxed or unboxed - that's if there's any at all.

[Il Grifone]

Further to my earlier post, the Trix 16T mineral wagon is actually stretched to fit their 17' 6" underframe. However, since Trix models were made to 1/80 scale (approximately), the underframe comes out about right for 16' 6" length. As regards width, Trix buffers are set at the 4mm spacing* (or even more), so here it should also be OK. Not having one to hand, I can't comment on the height, but their 1/204 van body, which fits the same underframe, measures 66.7 x 31.3 mm (according to my digital caliper which has a tolerance of +/- 0.2mm).

 

I was toying with the idea of using the body for a 1/206 SHOCVAN, but it appears a millimetre or two short on height (which would be correct seeing the smaller scale).

 

* For some strange reason and similar to, but different from Rivarossi, who set theirs at the H0 spacing, while also using the 1/80 scale.

 

I've finally located my Trix 16T mineral. Comparing it against an Airfix wagon (assembled kit), it is a whisker too wide, but OK otherwise (ignoring the underframe - the later pinpoint version of which the best feature is its free running, The earlier diecast one is rubbish). The detail is rather inferior especially the end door. It doesn't stand out in a moving train however (It's true my eyes aren't what they used to be!). Since it needs a new underframe, IMHO it can be safely passed over in favour of a Bachmann or kit version.