Garethp8873 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 A few years ago I came across GWR V16 Mink A 95166 preserved at the Derwent Valley. Interestingly the side diagonals go upwards rather than downwards on this wagon. I thought nothing of it until I was googling a few days ago and came across the same wagon in Departmental Use livery and numbered as 042016 at the following link. It's also listed on the Wagon Survey, having been built in 1915 to Lot.784 and has a short brake lever and is steam heated. I'm always interested in adding new wagons to my collection which have unique differences. However before I go ahead and ask my friend to replicate GWR 95166 in OO, can anyone tell me whether the reversed diagonals would've been done during building at Swindon or a later modication by the GWR/BR? I've only ever seen reversed framing once before and this was on a GWR Y4 Banana Van on P.448 of the GWR Wagon Bible and this has been replicated in OO below... ATB, Garethp8873. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 It is interesting because IMO (engineers please correct me) the structure is weakened by having reversed framing. ... the weak point is the roof join at each corner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium NCB Posted March 20, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 20, 2016 A strange beast. Seems to have had several alterations. If it was indeed V16 95166, then it would have started life as an unfitted van. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwinian Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It looks like a repair bodge to me. It would be interesting to know what the other side looks like as both photo's referenced are of the same side. Also the left hand side diagonal L-irons are upside down, normally they would have the projecting part at the top. On the right the tapered end of this upstand is also at the top whereas in the other GWR vans it is at the bottom, again suggesting that perhaps it has been re-assembled subsequently. These features can be seen on the photos of the other GWR vans on the same site. EDIT: But I have found that in "GWR wagon and loads" later GWR vans do have the angle irons either way up, and some have T section in this position too. Also the SR diagram vans built at Swindon have the bottom corner to top of upright style of cross brace angle. A protoype for everything? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 A protoype for everything? Something the GWR excelled in. Especially in one off diagrams and prototypes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I believe they were built this way. 1921 build Y4 fitted steam banana van (with the end centre sliding vent) 95079 has the same feature. I cannot find any record of individual numbers against the reversal. The Y16 is basically the same van but unfitted and with just the two corner vents. Note the very early wooden minks had the wooden bracing fitted in this way as standard. There is a David Geen white metal kit for this van Way back in January 1979 Brian Huxley began a very detailed series of article in the Modeller on producing all the different mink vans based on Kirk and K's kits, detailing all the differences. there were further articles in November 1981, November 1983 plus an earlier article in January 1976 on producing a 1946 build plywood sided MOGO. Mike Wiltshire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garethp8873 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 I believe they were built this way. 1921 build Y4 fitted steam banana van (with the end centre sliding vent) 95079 has the same feature. I cannot find any record of individual numbers against the reversal. The Y16 is basically the same van but unfitted and with just the two corner vents. Note the very early wooden minks had the wooden bracing fitted in this way as standard. There is a David Geen white metal kit for this van Way back in January 1979 Brian Huxley began a very detailed series of article in the Modeller on producing all the different mink vans based on Kirk and K's kits, detailing all the differences. there were further articles in November 1981, November 1983 plus an earlier article in January 1976 on producing a 1946 build plywood sided MOGO. Mike Wiltshire Thanks Mike. GWR 95079 is who I'm going to replicate when the wagon is completed. As GWR 95166, looks like P. Dundas will be getting an order through this week for some GWR V12/14/16 kits...!! My mate is going to be a happy bunny!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted April 6, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2016 It is interesting because IMO (engineers please correct me) the structure is weakened by having reversed framing. ... the weak point is the roof join at each corner. Curious why you think that is a weak point? The triangulation should work with the strapping in either direction (look at it on the ends). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Curious why you think that is a weak point? The triangulation should work with the strapping in either direction (look at it on the ends). My thoughts (I did ask for an engineer's input), and they were (remain) thoughts, were that the weakest point of the "box" would be the join at the roof corners - two curved surfaces (roof and ends) meeting with the squared side. This would be exaggerated by the potential outward bursting pressure resulting from the contents of the van (boxes, sacks, etc) stacked and potentially moving. The triangulation of the strapping either of the ends or sides would be best applied to that corner. Though I guess the similar agument can be also applied to the doors which would also be a weak point on the sides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simond Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Presumably the cant rails (the longitudinals, just under the roof) would be reasonably strong in tension, so there would be little or no difference in strength or stiffness whichever way the diagonals are fitted. Nice to have an unusual, usual model. Best Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted May 16, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 16, 2016 The diagonals are there to triangulate the sides and stop the rectangular side from going in to a non-square parallelogram. The planks need to be taken into account when considering the whole triangulated structure. This page shows how it works in fairly simple terms. Note one of the final paragraphs on the page: Notice that despite having a single diagonal, the triangulated structure is rigid for forces applied to any corner in any direction in the plane of triangulation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.