More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[phil_sutters]

42 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Informative/useful for the wagon...sure...

 

...but...

 

Check out that Stroud barge! Can't think of another pic of one at work like this, so this photo is a great reference for this winter's project, many thanks for re-posting :) 

There are a lot of barge photos connected to the collision with the bridge, but as this was in 1960 they may not be relevant.

[Compound2632]

The queue for the paint shop is getting longer:

 

 

A Slater's Charles Roberts tank wagon kit, one of a small number of purple box-era kits picked up for a song at the Uckfield exhibition last October. There's a bit of a fudge: the tension rods should really terminate in the middle at the block just above where the plastic rod passes. 

 

Next up is a Coopercraft kit 1004, yet another Great Western 4-plank. This was snapped up off Ebay earlier this year (with apologies to @Lacathedrale). I've bodged up grease axleboxes in my usual way. The cast buffers are from MJT. Basic assembly:

 

 

I've cut away anything to do with the Dean-Churchward brake, also the too-short brake V-hangers. Looking again through my selection of photos of conventionally-braked 4-plank opens, I see that the bottom push-rod should be more or less horizontal. The kit includes a molding for such:

 

 

... with lots of beautiful detail but unfortunately the wrong way round. Simple enough to reverse it, but a shame to loose the detail!

[phil_sutters]

As usual, when seeking out info in answer to a query in a thread like this, I wandered down an initially related path - or tow path and found this wonderful article about trolley powered barges. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/12/trolley-canal-boats.html  Now they are a challenge for someone to model, unless of course someone has already worked out how to keep the water in the canal and turn the barges at the ends of the layout!

[Miss Prism]

On 18/06/2022 at 20:03, Compound2632 said:

 

Wrong way around or right way around, the most obvious fault of the CC brakegear is the distance between the arms. The armpitch across the pivot should be approx 10".

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Miss Prism
Armpitch re-estimated at nearer 10" rather than 9"

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Wrong way around or right way around, the most obvious fault of the CC brakegear is the distance between the arms. The armpitch across the pivot should be approx 9".

 

I'll contemplate surgery.

[Western Star]

4 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

Is this the photo in question? It is in the file I made when researching my family's Forest of Dean connections. 

Yes, thank you for posting.

[Rail-Online]

21 hours ago, Adam88 said:

 

 

It has bottom doors as indicated by the \  / , this makes it a very rare Dia 300.

Do we know how many were built and indeed if they were conversions?

 

Tony

 

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, Rail-Online said:

It has bottom doors as indicated by the \  / , this makes it a very rare Dia 300.

Do we know how many were built and indeed if they were conversions?

 

Not so, I'm afraid. All D299 wagons were built with side and bottom doors, likewise D351 had side, end, and bottom doors [Drgs. 550 and 790 respectively]. The bottom door release mechanism that became the RCH standard was, I think, first designed in connection with Drg 550.

 

Earlier Midland high side wagons, up to those built to lot Drg. 402, lot 29, did not have bottom doors; the rather similar wagons built for or by the S&DJR likewise were without bottom doors, which leads me to suspect that they were derived from Drg. 402 rather than Drg. 550 - they have other features in common with Drg. 402, although later-built ones were kept up-to-date with contemporary Midland practice - 10A axleboxes etc. 

 

D300 is for wagons to Drg. 550 fitted with AVB through pipe, but in all other respects identical to D299. This is a little odd since for covered goods wagons, one finds vehicles with AVB through pipe, AVB and Westinghouse through pipe, and without brake pipes, all listed on the same diagram (and largely for the sake of giving the different nominal tare weights). It is unknown to me how many were so fitted or when, though the Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes for the period 1901-1914 that I will be going through on my next visit to TNA might shed some light, as the expense of fitting through brake pipes required financial approval. However, the fact that the diagram number is in the main sequence suggests that it pre-dates c. 1911.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Compound2632

[Rail-Online]

Apologies, I must have completely mis-read Essery's book.  The drawing does not show bottom doors.

 

Cheers Tony

[Compound2632]

Just now, Rail-Online said:

Apologies, I must have completely mis-read Essery's book.  The drawing does not show bottom doors.

 

Which drawing?

[Compound2632]

On 18/06/2022 at 20:28, Miss Prism said:

Wrong way around or right way around, the most obvious fault of the CC brakegear is the distance between the arms. The armpitch across the pivot should be approx 9".

 

I think you did previously post a dimensioned sketch of the brake gear but it's probably not yet been restored. How far below the solebar (or above the nominal axle position) is the pivot centre?

[Miss Prism]

This was my suggestion (at the time - 10 years ago!) to Paul Dunn of Coopercraft on how the brake rod pitch could be improved. Dimensions are generally GWR of course, but I imagine other companies are not significantly different.

 

 

[Western Star]

On 14/06/2022 at 10:50, Western Star said:

Stephen @Compound2632,

The reason that I am asking is that I thought that the wagon was being tipped at Lydney whilst Ian Pope tells me that the location is Bullo Pill.  So the reason for asking is not D299 versus D351; the reason is the question "why would a MR wagon be tipped at a dock in the FoD?" and to resolve that question Ian and I wish to know "Lydney or Bullo".

 

 

On 18/06/2022 at 17:29, phil_sutters said:

Is this the photo in question? It is in the file I made when researching my family's Forest of Dean connections. 

This is the image that I remembered when I asked the question a couple of weeks back.

 

Yesterday I had lunch with Ian Pope and we talked about the photo.  Ian has convinced me that the location is Bullo Pill rather than Lydney, further Ian has given the name of the trow as Finis and that the trow was owned by the Trigg family (who provided Ian with access to the original print).

 

The wagon is probably tipping small stone into the trow - where probably is close to certainly, the Trigg family used their trow for carrying stone to re-inforce the banks of the River Severn. The stone may have come from a quarry on the Forest of Dean Branch, "small" so as to not damage the bottom of the trow and that implies that the quarry which supplied the stone probably processed the stone before loading.

 

regards, Graham

Edited June 22, 2022 by Western Star
Correct historical details of vessel.

[Compound2632]

21 hours ago, Western Star said:

Ian has given the name of the barge as Tigger and that the barge was owned by the Tigg family (who provided Ian with access to the original print).

 

The D351 being in Midland livery* indicates that the photograph most likely dates from before the publication of The House at Pooh Corner in 1928, so one deduces that the name Tigger was arrived at without any influence from A.A. Milne's character and solely from the family name.

 

*Though with a hint of the number below the M indicating post-1917.

 

EDIT: Argument is moot since @Western Star says he mis-spelt the family name, which should be Trigg (see here - featuring any of your ancestors, @MikeOxon?) so the barge's name may be Trigger. 

 

Further edit: The trow (not barge) is in fact named Finis (see posts below).

Edited June 22, 2022 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

On 18/06/2022 at 20:28, Miss Prism said:

 

Wrong way around or right way around, the most obvious fault of the CC brakegear is the distance between the arms. The armpitch across the pivot should be approx 10".

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

This was my suggestion (at the time - 10 years ago!) to Paul Dunn of Coopercraft on how the brake rod pitch could be improved. Dimensions are generally GWR of course, but I imagine other companies are not significantly different.

 

 

 

The Coopercraft kits come with three sets of brakes, one on each of the main underframe sprues and one on the floor sprue. The latter is handed for the Dean-Churchward brake, where the swan-necked lever is raised to apply the brake, producing an anti-clockwise rotation of the tumbler; the other two are handed for  a conventional brake lever, which is dropped to apply the brake, producing a clockwise rotation of the tumbler. These two are arranged with the push-rods at the same angle, which is right if the pivot is in line with the axles, but wrong for these Great Western wagons, where the pivot point is higher, with the consequence that the bottom push-rod is near horizontal. The Dean-Churchward molding replicates this, hence reversing it being my first thought, but as @Miss Prism notes, the tumbler is far too long, resulting in the upper push-rod being at an exaggerated angle, as seen on the left in the photo below. So for my second attempt, I have altered the conventional brake gear molding, as seen on the right, with the original in the centre:

 

 

The first step was to cut away the molded struts representing the safety loops. Next, the tumbler was carefully cut away from the push rods and shortened by about 0.5 mm at each end. D-limonene was then used to soften the push rods at the brake block end so that they could be bent to the desired angle. The tumbler was glued back in with MekPak and a piece of microrod used to represent the strut that supports the tumbler shaft from behind - not only does this strengthen the piece but it also helped pull the assembly into the correct orientation. Finally the safety loops were represented with microstrip. I'm aware this doesn't properly represent the Great Western style of safety loop.

[Miss Prism]

Looks better already!

 

[Worsdell forever]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The D351 being in Midland livery* indicates that the photograph most likely dates from before the publication of The House at Pooh Corner in 1928, so one deduces that the name Tigger was arrived at without any influence from A.A. Milne's character and solely from the family name.

 

*Though with a hint of the number below the M indicating post-1917.

 

EDIT: Argument is moot since @Western Star says he mis-spelt the family name, which should be Trigg (see here - featuring any of your ancestors, @MikeOxon?) so the barge's name may be Trigger. 

 

So that moves the date on to 1934... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_(horse)

 

Sorry 😆🤠

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

So that moves the date on to 1934... 🤠

 

On the other hand, I read that the word "trigger" is derived from Dutch trekken, meaning to drag, draw, or pull, which seems appropriate for a barge. 

[Adam88]

Do these sorts of vessels ever appear in Lloyd's List or are they too humble?  I once spent an afternoon in a reference library thumbing through old copies of LL for something I was interested in at the time.

[Western Star]

Stephen et al,

 

Gentlemen, my apologies for what comes hereafter, a serious case of mis-representation has occurred and must be corrected.

 

In writing about the MR D351 being tipped into a vessel along the River Severn I referred to the vessel as a "barge";  Ian Pope has put me right on that matter...  what is shown in the photograph is a Trow.  Sorry Ian, must try harder.

 

Worse is to come...  in a case of mistaken identity I have got the name of the trow completely wrong.  I have received a severe wrist slap from Ian because (a) the mistake is mine and (b) the name of the trow is "Finis".  How I made such a mistake is lost to me, time to have my hearing checked.

 

regards, Graham

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Western Star said:

the name of the trow is "Finis". 

 

On that note, to save Graham further embarrassment, we can declare the subject closed!

[jwealleans]

Right, change of subject.   This photo came up in my FB feed this morning, a Henry Casserley from May 1952.

 

What's the van attached to the J77?   Very short, 3'6" Mansell wheels (?) - is it LBSCR?  

Edited June 23, 2022 by jwealleans

[chris p bacon]

8 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

What's the van attached to the J50? 

Surely that's a J77 Jonathan....

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Right, change of subject.   This photo came up in my FB feed this morning, a Henry Casserley from May 1952.

 

What's the van attached to the J50?   Very short, 3'6" Mansell wheels (?) - is it LBSCR?  

 

It was the SER that was really into Mansell wheels on goods stock but I think in fact this was originally a LSWR refrigerator van, SR diagram D1461 or D1462, although it looks to have lost the roof hatches for the ice chambers. I think the shortness is an illusion due to being next to a 17' 6" open - it's 16' 0" over headstocks. [G. Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 1: LSWR & S&DJR (OPC, 1984) pp. 43-46.] (Short is anything under 14' 11" over headstocks!)

 

There's some serendipty there - thinking of SER wagons, I was aiming for Vol. 3 but pulled out Vol. 1 by mistake and it fell open in my hand at the right page!

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

Surely that's a J77 Jonathan....

 

Pah, It's only an engine. Who cares?