Castle Aching

[Skinnylinny]

Indeed! The closest I can find are vertical planking on an outside-framed cattle wagon (no cross bracing), and one outside-framed van with diagonal(!) planking, both on the Manx narrow gauge. 

 

 

 

Now that would be something different! 

[Annie]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

But the general point is right, lots of usable bodies out there, take the humble Triang 7-plank, stick one of these on a Cambrian underframe and you're away!

 

I used to do just that back in the day with Peco Wonderful Wagon underframes.

 

1 hour ago, Skinnylinny said:

Not on the sides, but on the ends?

Were they plagued by thieves nicking off with wheels back then as well?

It's certainly an interesting prototype, - any ideas as to who it belonged to.

[Skinnylinny]

No references as to who it was for - it dates from the 1890s and has a distinctly squat, almost broad gauge look to it, to me!

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, Skinnylinny said:

outside-framed van with diagonal(!) planking

Diagonal boards were quite common on French wagons, which I think were copied from early English practice, but continued for much longer, and on c3ft wagons in several European/Scandinavian countries, again copied from English builds I think. My surmise is that they provide a degree of sway-bracing, but they are a real PITA to the traditional model-maker!

Edited August 3, 2021 by Nearholmer

[jwealleans]

On 03/08/2021 at 15:43, Edwardian said:

'm not sure whether it is an accurate model; it looks like the GNR and GNR-derived LNER vans, but the proportions don't look right (the prototypes I'm thinking of were longer in relation to their height than these models) and they had horizontal, not diagonal, corner brackets.

 

I'm guessing this is not more than an approximation of a real wagon,

 

It's a very accurate rendition of an NER F10 Insulated van on a fictitious underframe.   See what I did with one here.

 

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

It's a very accurate rendition of an NER F10 Insulated van on a fictitious underframe.   See what I did with one here.

 

 

Ah, wrong volume of Tatlow!

 

Still, as a type built from 1909, it's no good to CA (not that it would have had any excuse to go there).

[Edwardian]

Strictly Grouping, I'm afraid, but I thought I'd share what arrived today at Edwardian Towers, as I'm rather pleased with the way they came out.

 

 

Not bad for a 3D print?

 

All we need now are some with 25" initials, or, who knows, some red ones!  I do have the odd test print/second that I could take a scalpel to, so, who knows, one might yet emerge on CA!  I'm tempted to add long bonnets to one and do a grey version of Mikkel's transitional livery (I'm tending towards the old-school view that wagons went grey before or round about the main cast plate era), but, in any case, a repaint to 1904 livery is just about possible for CA, set in 1905.

 

 

[jwealleans]

Forgive my Mink ignorance, but how are they different to the Ratio kit?

[CKPR]

17 hours ago, Edwardian said:

not that it would have had any excuse to go there

The old phrase about taking sausages to Norfolk comes to mind...

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Forgive my Mink ignorance, but how are they different to the Ratio kit?

 

Well, I suppose the obvious first point is that they do not have to be different, as it's a RTR product.

 

But there are some differences. First, the Ratio has some dimensional inaccuracy, I understand, though, I understand, this is fixable. 

 

Second, the Ratio kit lacks the solebar holes for horse shunting, again, easily fixed. 

 

Third, there is a little bracket that was added to connect the W iron to the brake ratchet, which is absent from the Ratio kit.

 

Fourth, the Rails model, this release, represents the physical condition as modified during the late '20s to early '30s, which includes the door retaining catches and corresponding hooks mounted against the side stanchions. The Ratio kit does not feature these, so, strictly, these very fiddly details would need adding to represent a Mink in 1930s.

 

 

Finally, frankly the detail is better on the Rails model. 

 

On the body, the stanchion rivets are finer, closer to scale, than on the Ratio.  The door fastener I would say is finer and better realised on the Rails version.  The ribs on the roof even feature rivet heads, which you might easily miss, and which Ratio's do not.  

 

On the chassis, there are a number of areas that illustrate the greater accuracy and finesse of the Rails product. If you compare, say, the brake shoes. The Rails ones better captures the shape and has surface detail, which the Ratio ones lack. 

 

The Rails version depicts the brake ratchet and separate safety guard.  The Ratio one just has a simple vertical form. Similarly, the Rails brake lever has a loop at the end (albeit it's too deep due to printing constraints), the Ratio one does not.

 

The brake rods are, like on the SECR van, are double or split, and the safety loops are actually, loops.

 

 

The Rails Mink has the correct number of solebar rivets, for any who choose to count them, the Ratio one does not, and the necessary circular holes.  

 

The Rails version has a nicely detailed label clip, the Ratio version just has rectangle with no detail.

 

The spring stops on the Ratio kit are overscale and relatively crude compared with the finer rendering on the Rails version. On the Rails version the spring shoes are a better shape and better detailed.

 

Put simply, the Rails version is to a modern standard, with finer and more accurate detail. 

 

Now, that is not to say that there are not areas in which the Rails model could not be enhanced. There are some areas where the technology required thickening above scale.  I have already mentioned the end of the brake lever.  The buffer guides are also a little thickened, as is the roof.  Another consequence of the process is that there will be some support traces. These are all matters that the discerning modeller can take in had with a scalpel.

 

I would replace the Dapol wheels with Gibsons, the NRM coupling mounts can be simply unscrewed, but I would cut off the drawbar hook and drill through the headstock to fit 3 links with a metal hook and spring etc. 

 

 

 

[jwealleans]

Thank you.   I had no idea Rails were doing this.    I suppose my question was really whether they were supposed to be the same vehicle, which a cursory glance suggested they were.   The same vehicle to a modern standard is entirely understandable if you like your Minks.

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

the Ratio kit lacks the solebar holes for horse shunting, again, easily fixed. 

 

Bother. I'm going to have to drill some holes!

[Nearholmer]

The wheels shown in the photo above are interesting. They look very wide across the tyre, so probably way overscale thickness. But, I would wager that they will track through r-t-r pointwork very smoothly, because of that "excess" width, which means they will never suffer "frog drop".

 

All this 4mm r-t-r finesse is very educational to me - last time I was into 4mm, things were still at the stage where a ratio kit was considered the very height of finesse, a thing which there would be no need, let alone possibility, of improving upon. Mind you, the quality of moulds that Hornby Dublo bankrupted themselves paying for c1960 takes some beating, even if they did stretch wagons around rather, to fit a standard underframe.

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Well, I suppose the obvious first point is that they do not have to be different, as it's a RTR product.

 

But there are some differences. First, the Ratio has some dimensional inaccuracy, I understand, though, I understand, this is fixable. 

 

Second, the Ratio kit lacks the solebar holes for horse shunting, again, easily fixed. 

 

Third, there is a little bracket that was added to connect the W iron to the brake ratchet, which is absent from the Ratio kit.

 

Fourth, the Rails model, this release, represents the physical condition as modified during the late '20s to early '30s, which includes the door retaining catches and corresponding hooks mounted against the side stanchions. The Ratio kit does not feature these, so, strictly, these very fiddly details would need adding to represent a Mink in 1930s.

 

 

Finally, frankly the detail is better on the Rails model. 

 

On the body, the stanchion rivets are finer, closer to scale, than on the Ratio.  The door fastener I would say is finer and better realised on the Rails version.  The ribs on the roof even feature rivet heads, which you might easily miss, and which Ratio's do not.  

 

On the chassis, there are a number of areas that illustrate the greater accuracy and finesse of the Rails product. If you compare, say, the brake shoes. The Rails ones better captures the shape and has surface detail, which the Ratio ones lack. 

 

The Rails version depicts the brake ratchet and separate safety guard.  The Ratio one just has a simple vertical form. Similarly, the Rails brake lever has a loop at the end (albeit it's too deep due to printing constraints), the Ratio one does not.

 

The brake rods are, like on the SECR van, are double or split, and the safety loops are actually, loops.

 

 

The Rails Mink has the correct number of solebar rivets, for any who choose to count them, the Ratio one does not, and the necessary circular holes.  

 

The Rails version has a nicely detailed label clip, the Ratio version just has rectangle with no detail.

 

The spring stops on the Ratio kit are overscale and relatively crude compared with the finer rendering on the Rails version. On the Rails version the spring shoes are a better shape and better detailed.

 

Put simply, the Rails version is to a modern standard, with finer and more accurate detail. 

 

Now, that is not to say that there are not areas in which the Rails model could not be enhanced. There are some areas where the technology required thickening above scale.  I have already mentioned the end of the brake lever.  The buffer guides are also a little thickened, as is the roof.  Another consequence of the process is that there will be some support traces. These are all matters that the discerning modeller can take in had with a scalpel.

 

I would replace the Dapol wheels with Gibsons, the NRM coupling mounts can be simply unscrewed, but I would cut off the drawbar hook and drill through the headstock to fit 3 links with a metal hook and spring etc. 

 

 

 

The two biggest differences, of course, which may or may not matter according to personal preference, are that a) you have to build the Ratio one yourself and b) the Rails one costs more than three times as much as the Ratio one.

 

Take your pick.

[jwealleans]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

you have to build the Ratio one yourself

 

That's the critical point.   I have never built one which ended up as a GWR Mink.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

That's the critical point.   I have never built one which ended up as a GWR Mink.

 

Which begs the question! Presumably you were turning them into other companies' gunpowder vans, rather than hurling them in the bin in frustration.

[Edwardian]

When I was asked to draw up a list of potential subjects, I avoided all those that were the subject of relatively easy plastic kits.

 

I was wrong.  There is a large section of the 'mass' market that will not build, paint or customise anything. So, what goes on in the kit-building world is literally irrelevant in the calculations of RTR retailers.  This product, and one planned product, will duplicate kits, just as the forthcoming Rapido SE&CR opens will duplicate Cambrian Kits models.

 

My instinct was to 'fill in the gaps' - to my knowledge there is not a kit of the Wainwright van that we did - as it seemed senseless to me to duplicate kits, but that is not the way the RTR world works.

 

I suspect that the Rails model will get one closer to the ultimate V6 Mink than the Ratio kit can, with the limitations of the moulded detail on what is now quite an old kit, but the Ratio kit can still be the basis of a very good model.  The ABS kit is reckoned to be better, though I have never seen one, ditto the brass kit.

 

The Ratio kit is also good for happy hacking - someone I think hacked a Spillers van out of one, and I suspect that is Jonathan's chief interest in them. 

[jwealleans]

48 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Presumably you were turning them into other companies' gunpowder vans,

 

43 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The Ratio kit is also good for happy hacking ... and I suspect that is Jonathan's chief interest in them. 

 

Not wrong.  This is where it started and this is where it went:

 

 

Incidentally, there's an ABS one in the same initial post, just above.   I'm surprised you've never seen one, James, they were as common as muck round shows and trade stands at one time.  He must have sold hundreds more than were ever built of the prototype.

 

I have vague recollections of doing an LMS contituent (LNWR?) one and maybe also an LSWR version, but those predate RMWeb and the digital camera and are no longer in my possession.

Edited August 6, 2021 by jwealleans

[Edwardian]

Given the result, Jonathan, the desecration is almost forgivable!

 

No, I think Adrian had pretty much stopped selling apart from odd stock by the time I got back into modelling. When corresponding with him in the last years before his death, I don't think he had anything much left.

 

I don't recall seeing any at shows, so, again, I must have been too late on the scene.  While long aware of the range (and, IIRC, having one or two LNER wagon kits somewhere, intended for a 1930s project for which I still make the occasional purchase*), I recall seeing remarkably few ABS kits anywhere. Even on the Bay of Fleas, it's the D&S kits (albeit at silly prices) one tends to see. ABS, not so much.

 

What happened to them all?!?

 

* Hence the 3 1930s condition V6 Minks just acquired.

[Edwardian]

Finally seem to have made a successful purchase from the Bay of Fleas.

 

Cosmetically awful, but, 8 cotton buds, a finger of white spirit and some drops of oil later, a good runner.

 

I've wanted a 517 with a straight-back Swindon bunker for a long time, and next time I have 3-days spare in which to do so, I'll again go through the RCTS section and seek potential identities for this combination of details.

 

 

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The two biggest differences, of course, which may or may not matter according to personal preference, are that a) you have to build the Ratio one yourself and b) the Rails one costs more than three times as much as the Ratio one.

 

Take your pick.

 

Until of course you have to / want to buy:

A new bottle of liquid cement

Replacement metal wheels

Paint

transfers

varnish

 

But this is an argument that has been replayed many times over

[CKPR]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

ABS, not so much. What happened to them all?!?

Three GWR ones (two Mites and an Iron Mink) are sitting in my steadily decreasing stash of 4mm wagon kits but I suspect quite a few were actually built. They were pretty common on layouts in the press  and at exhibitions in the 1970s-80s and assembled ones show up fairly often on the Bay of Fleas as 'metal kit built Hornby Bachmann Lima'  rather than ABS  -  It's a bit like birdwatching but with model wagons !

Edited August 6, 2021 by CKPR

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The two biggest differences, of course, which may or may not matter according to personal preference, are that a) you have to build the Ratio one yourself and b) the Rails one costs more than three times as much as the Ratio one.

 

Not having seen the Rails one other than in photos, it does seem to me that James' point that the body detail is finer and more accurate than the Ratio one is valid. 

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

When I was asked to draw up a list of potential subjects, I avoided all those that were the subject of relatively easy plastic kits.

 

I was wrong.  There is a large section of the 'mass' market that will not build, paint or customise anything. So, what goes on in the kit-building world is literally irrelevant in the calculations of RTR retailers.  This product, and one planned product, will duplicate kits, just as the forthcoming Rapido SE&CR opens will duplicate Cambrian Kits models.

 

My instinct was to 'fill in the gaps' - to my knowledge there is not a kit of the Wainwright van that we did - as it seemed senseless to me to duplicate kits, but that is not the way the RTR world works.

 

I have no doubt that is true. However, there are many obvious gaps, certainly now that a number of whitemetal kit ranges have gone the way of all flesh, with a decreasing number of second-hand examples about, being picked over by the vultures rather than the crows, it sometimes seems.

 

So I'll be very interested to see what comes next!

[St Enodoc]

52 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Until of course you have to / want to buy:

A new bottle of liquid cement

Replacement metal wheels

Paint

transfers

varnish

 

But this is an argument that has been replayed many times over

Of course. No argument. All I was pointing out was the choice between RTR at a high price and a kit at a lower price.

 

Take your pick (again!).

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Of course. No argument. All I was pointing out was the choice between RTR at a high price and a kit at a lower price.

 

Take your pick (again!).

 

My point, though, is that I have learnt that RTR models are produced for people who won't even try kits, as these folk appear to constitute the bulk of the mass market.

 

Those of use who might buy both kits and any suitable RTR models are only a minor part of the RTR market, so duplicating kits is not a concern for RTR producers.  Nor is the price differential.

 

Where you are a kit-builder, I think it's horses for courses. At one end of the scale there might be, at best, half a dozen people who could build and finish something like, say, Rapido's Stirling Single to the same standard as the RTR model.  Particularly with locos, the kit built route  can often be the at least if not more expensive than RTR and the outcome less certain.

 

In other cases kits will be cheaper and more accurate that any RTR equivalent.

 

In this specific case, the comparison between the Ratio and the Rails V6 Minks, I think you might fairly conclude that both benefit from some additional enhancement work, but that the virtues of the Rails model will get you closer to perfection. It depends on how much the additional detail/finesse/greater accuracy matter to you as an individual modeller, because the Ratio kit can still produce excellent results and for some the Rails version just won't have advantages significant enough to warrant the extra cost.

 

If you are the market for whom the model, any RTR model, is primarily intended, however, kits are irrelevant and it is currently the only model of the prototype available to plonk and play.