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

[Rowsley17D]

44 minutes ago, MarcD said:

I just took delivery off vol 12 this morning thinking I had got the lot. Oh well. One day I might get round to building so PO wagons.

Marc

 

RM must be on fire. I only posted it 2nd class yesterday, but then it didn't have far to go! Enjoy.

[MarcD]

I've stopped sending things out first class as 2nd arrives in the same time. and it saves money. Many thanks for the book I have a fick through before being called away on other less important business.

 

Marc

[magmouse]

A few pages back, we were discussing 'Norway poles', and @Nick Lawson wrote:

 

On 23/12/2022 at 09:03, Nick Lawson said:

We have just installed a small Norway Spruce in our living room. I have a funny feeling that early in the new year there will be an abundance of such trees available for "logging" by modellers!

 

Well, 12th Night has passed, so I thought I would see what can be done with out Christmas tree, now evicted into the front garden.

 

The raw material, and the result after stripping the needles, cutting off the knobbly bits (for which there is presumably a technical term), and sanding down with fairly coarse sand paper:

 

 

It seems to scale quite well for 7mm:

 

 

The end result will rather depend on the greenish tint fading to brown/grey as it dries out, so we will have to see, but with any luck, a scene along the lines of the prototype ones posted during the original discussion will be possible:

 

 

Nick.

 

[Mikkel]

From now on I'll be looking at christmas trees in a whole new light!

[Miss Prism]

Mature, leggy, privet is good for unhewn trunks.

[magmouse]

16 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Mature, leggy, privet is good for unhewn trunks.

 

We have some of that - but we quite need it to go on being a hedge!

 

Nick.

[Andy Hayter]

Mature heather stems make excellent tree boughs

[Andy Hayter]

 

Not the best view but right hand side shows a pile of tree boughs = selected heather stems.  Probably been growing 15-20 years and "tree" rings to show for it.  All adds to the illusion.

[billbedford]

On 06/01/2023 at 07:03, jwealleans said:

I'll measure the van today but it's not very far dimensionally from the 17' GC van kit I thought it was.

 

The GC vans were 16' and 19' the later with steel underframes. This one looks like the H&B insulated van that Hornby used for years with imaginary liveries. 

[Compound2632]

On 05/01/2023 at 20:43, jwealleans said:

 

Looking through Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 2 to convince myself this isn't a H&B van, I saw the general resemblance to some NER vans, though the most usual type had a drop flap lower door. However, I think it's a good match for the diagram F2 insulated van No. 90713 illustrated on p. 88. The door ironwork matches, as does the solebar furniture, The springs are the swing link type of the model but the axleboxes are quite different. It's a fitted vehicle, with clasp brakes; the photo shows the side with the vac cylinder, to the right of the V-hanger, and left-facing brake lever. Built 1899 by Metropolitan RC&W Co. but photographed in 1922, with the addition of steam heating pipes in 1909. 

 

There's a drawing from the Railway Engineer on the preceding page, giving length over headstocks 17 ft and wheelbase 10 ft. 

[jwealleans]

Looking back at Dave Geen's website through the Wayback machine, I see that that's exactly what it is, even down to the axleboxes (which I would never have pinned as North Eastern).

 

Now to find some suitable replacement bits from 51L.   Thanks both for taking the time.

[Worsdell forever]

Also, don't forget 3'6" open spoked wheels.

 

[Grahams]

On 02/01/2023 at 12:57, Compound2632 said:

 

It is a curiosity, even more so as the Derby C&W Drawing Office made the drawings for the 1887 RCH Specification.

 

There is a fascinating volume in The National archives, RAIL 1080/386 "RCH Carriage & Waggon Superintendents Meetings Vol. 1" covering 1885-1901. The first part brings together all the documents relating to the establishment of the system of PO wagon inspection and registration, and drawing up of the specification.

 

The story begins with Maj. Marindin's report into an accident at Penistone on the M&SL on 1 Jan 1885, caused by the breaking of an axle of Shireoaks Colliery Co. wagon No. 218, in which he recommended a system of registration and regular inspection of PO wagons.

 

On 20 Feb 1885, Henry Calcraft, Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, wrote to the Chairman of the RCH General Managers’ Committee, enclosing Maj. Marindin’s report and drawing attention to the recommendations therein. The GMs' Committee considered this letter at its next meeting and resolved to form a Sub-Committee to address the question. This Sub-Committee was made up of the GMs of the "principal companies" (Caley, GE, GN, GW, L&Y, LNW, LSW, LCD, MSL, Mid, NB, NE, NS, SE) or their representatives and first met on 23 June 1885, with Grierson of the GW in the chair. The Sub-Committee resolved to pass the technical element of the question to a Committee of Locomotive and Carriage and Wagon Engineers. This met on 10 Sep 1885, with Clayton of the Midland in the chair. It agreed an outline specification but passed the preparation of specification and drawings to a Sub-Committee.

 

All these meetings had been at the RCH but the Sub-Committee of Engineers met at Derby, at 9 am on 8 Oct 1885, with Clayton in the chair. The other members were Drummond (Cal), Dean (GW), Attock (L&Y), Emmett (L&NW), and Sacré (MS&L).

 

They reviewed specifications and drawings for PO wagons already in use by the GW, L&Y, L&NW, and Taff Vale and agreed details for the RCH specification. Clayton undertook to complete the specification and prepare the drawings, with Dean to prepare modifications to the specification and provide drawings for iron or steel underframes.

 

The specification and drawings were reviewed by the full Committee of Locomotive and Carriage and Wagon Engineers on 23 Dec 1885, Clayton in the Chair. The specification was gone through clause by clause and various amendments made. 

 

This came back to a meeting of the Sub-Committee of General Managers on 9 March 1886, with Tennant of the North Eastern in the Chair. This meeting resolved to recommend the standard specification and system of regulation drawn up by the Committee of Locomotive and Carriage and Wagon Engineers.

 

There was then a period of correspondence and niggling over details of tyre profile and back-to-back... 

 

It was not until the GMs' Committee meeting of 10 Feb 1887, with Findlay of the LNW in the chair, that a letter from Clayton explaining the resolution of these niggles wa read and the Midland GM, Noble, was instructed to draft "a circular letter to parties sending private wagons on to the companies’ lines".

 

Finally, at the GMs' Committee on 4 Aug 1887, Noble's circular was adopted and passed to Mr. Dawson of the RCH for issue to all concerned.

 

Of course that wasn't the end of the story. Revisions were found necessary, with revised specifications issued annually for the following few years. One of the questions that the GMs' Sub-Committee was tasked with addressing was the legal basis for enforcing the specification and regulations. The Hon. Solicitors of the Railway Association were asked to advise but I have not found note of their response. Bound into RAIL 1080/386 is a full transcript of the hearing of Gloucester Wagon Co. v. Great Western Railway before the Railway and Canal Commissioners in 1894. This was a test case in support of the PO wagon builders, owners, and hirers' contention that the RCH specification required them to supply wagons of higher specification than those supplied by the railway companies themselves. The consequence of this case was the introduction of separate requirements for "reconstructed" wagons.

 

The final section of RAIL 1080/386, which I did not have time to examine closely, is mostly concerned with wagon brakes, in response to the Royal Commission on Accidents to Railway Servants, which reported in 1900.

@Compound2632Stephen, do you intend to publish this as part of an article or book and if so, whereabouts please? The historical detail you are providing here is very interesting. 

Also, are copies of the RCH 1887 drawings available anywhere please? I already have my Midland 14'11" underframe modelled and mostly manufactured (D305 will come before D299). It would be interesting to see what modifications will need to be made to it to produce an early RCH wagon. 

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Grahams said:

@Compound2632Stephen, do you intend to publish this as part of an article or book and if so, whereabouts please? The historical detail you are providing here is very interesting. 

Also, are copies of the RCH 1887 drawings available anywhere please? I already have my Midland 14'11" underframe modelled and mostly manufactured (D305 will come before D299). It would be interesting to see what modifications will need to be made to it to produce an early RCH wagon. 

 

I hope to work most of this information into the series of articles I am writing for the Midland Railway Society Journal, but that means publication is probably about a year away.

 

There is a selection of RCH drawings for the 1887 and later specification in Tony Watts' Ince book, still available from the HMRS at the bargain price of £7:

https://hmrs.org.uk/private-owner-wagons-ince-waggon-co-book.html

 

Although this book is ostensibly about the products of one particular builder, it provides a good overview of the development of the RCH specification.

 

One point of note is that whereas the Midland's own wagons had principal frame members of 11" x 4½" timber, the RCH specification calls for 12" x 5", with length over headstocks 15 ft.

 

Although the Midland Railway Study Centre has a copy of the RCH specification as issued by the Midland, as far as I recall it doesn't have the drawings that were supposed to be attached.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Compound2632

[Rowsley17D]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

There is a selection of RCH drawings for the 1887 and later specification in Tony Watts' Ince book, still available from the HMRS at the bargain price of £7:

https://hmrs.org.uk/private-owner-wagons-ince-waggon-co-book.html

 

 

I just put one on "Classifieds" for £10! but I could include the postage in that.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Rowsley17D said:

 

I just put one on "Classifieds" for £10! but I could include the postage in that.

 

Just checked - HMRS shipping is £5.50 so the price is effectively £12.50, unless one buys something else with it. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Compound2632

[Grahams]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I hope to work most of this information into the series of articles I am writing for the Midland Railway Society Journal, but that means publication is probably about a year away.

 

There is a selection of RCH drawings for the 1887 and later specification in Tony Watts' Ince book, still available from the HMRS at the bargain price of £7:

https://hmrs.org.uk/private-owner-wagons-ince-waggon-co-book.html

 

Although this book is ostensibly about the products of one particular builder, it provides a good overview of the development of the RCH specification.

 

One point of note is that whereas the Midland's own wagons had principal frame members of 11" x 4½" timber, the RCH specification calls for 12" x 5", with length over headstocks 15 ft.

 

Although the Midland Railway Study Centre has a copy of the RCH specification as issued by the Midland, as far as I recall it doesn't have the drawings that were supposed to be attached.

Thank you very much. 

As you know, I receive my copies of the Journal. It does seem to me that your work deserves a wider audience than that reached by the Journal. There must be an opportunity to collect your articles into one of the Society's excellent books. 

I have the Ince book. This is a timely reminder that I must explore my library and become more familiar with the contents! I've had many of the books for decades. Google obviously makes me lazy. Thanks again. 

The D663A (!) underframe, with which I am very familiar, used 12" x 5" timber for the solebars and headstocks. I suppose the Midland switched when changing to the 16ft underframe. It would have required a lot of new tooling, jigs and fixtures. 

[Compound2632]

57 minutes ago, Grahams said:

There must be an opportunity to collect your articles into one of the Society's excellent books. 

 

I'll have to write them all first... "Publishing" on here is a free-and-easy way of going about things; it doesn't matter too much if one blunders and the feedback received is invaluable. As I go on with my research at the National Archives and at the Study Centre, I find I'm accumulating material that will lead to correction of things said in earlier articles - notably in the "Overview" article, and again, I'm getting valuable feedback and additional information through the "comments" section of the Journal. But given the rate at which the Journal appears - three times a year - and the amount of space I could look for in each issue without loss of overall balance of subject matter, enough material for any sort of collected publication is at least several years away!

 

There might be ways of making the material available in some other format. But for the moment, I'll just observe that three Journals per year can be had for the modest sum of £20, along with all the other benefits of membership of the Midland Railway Society:

https://www.midlandrailway.org.uk/how-to-join/index.html

Edited January 9, 2023 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Interesting bit of wagon-spotting here:

I was a bit puzzled by the engine, until the location was identified as Aylesbury. That got me leafing through a SmugMug gallery of Met engines - it's a Jones 4-4-4T:

 

 

[Embedded link to SmugMug gallery.]

 

Those curved handrails either side of the footplating are an unusual feature - not on the engines as first built, other photos reveal. Stephenson Clarke wagon No. 8369 on the coaling stage; No. 4535 appears in another photo in a similar position, so I deduce the firm were suppliers of loco coal to the Met.

 

Leafing through the gallery, I came upon the photo @Western Star had mentioned, as showing a Midland D357 covered goods wagon with left-facing Morton brake lever:

 

 

[Embedded link.]

 

Unfortunately no date is given, but the L&Y D72 fish van looks very freshly painted, and not white (therefore green?) which suggests late 1906 [N. Coates, Lancashire & Yorkshire Wagons Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 2006)].

 

The second wagon is a Midland D299, with 8A axleboxes. I think, with diminishing degrees of certainty, that the fourth, eighth, and ninth are too. The two dropside wagons, with chunky door stops, look like the GCR type, though I don't know enough about Met wagons to say it's not one of theirs. The sixth vehicle is another Midland D357. 

 

It's an altogether charming little goods train but the high proportion of Midland stock is a bit of a surprise, if the date is pre-Great War (and if those opens are all D299). One does not associate the Met with heavy mineral traffic, but:

 

 

[Embedded link.]

[jamie92208]

The Met would still need quite a bit of Loco coal for their steam services so might well have bought in bulk.

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

47 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

The Met would still need quite a bit of Loco coal for their steam services so might well have bought in bulk.

 

And also coal for their electricity generating station at Neasden. Thinking about it, that's probably what we are seeing in the photo of the Class K 2-6-4T (made in part from Woolwich mogul components); I suppose before that, the Class F 0-6-2Ts, such as seen in the earlier photo, would have been used.

[Western Star]

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Leafing through the gallery, I came upon the photo @Western Star had mentioned, as showing a Midland D357 covered goods wagon with left-facing Morton brake lever:

 

 

 

Stephen @Compound2632,

 

Sorry to draw your attention to your comment on the photo above, I believe that you are wrong to describe the brake gear of the MR covered wagon as "left handed Morton brake".

 

From study of photos in MIdland Wagons (Essery, OPC) I suggest that the arrangement of the brake gear on the wagon in question has both handbrake levers mounted on the same brake cross-shaft with the connection of each lever to the shaft through an in-line clutch.  Applying the handbrake on either side of the wagon causes the corresponding hand brake lever to engage with the cross-shaft through the adjacent clutch and thereby apply the brakes without any movement of the other handbrake lever.

 

This MR design does not utilise the Morton clutch design and hence does not contravene the Morton patent.

 

regards, Graham

Edited January 12, 2023 by Western Star

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Western Star said:

Sorry to draw your attention to your comment on the photo above, I believe that you are wrong to describe the brake gear of the MR covered wagon as "left handed Morton brake".

 

From study of photos in MIdland Wagons (Essery, OPC) I suggest that the arrangement of the brake gear on the wagon in question has both handbrake levers mounted on the same brake cross-shaft with the connection of each lever to the shaft through an in-line clutch.  Applying the handbrake on either side of the wagon causes the corresponding hand brake lever to engage with the cross-shaft through the adjacent clutch and thereby apply the brakes without any movement of the other handbrake lever.

 

The mechanism you describe is exactly what I intended to indicate by the shorthand phrase "left handed Morton brake". Both brake levers are at the same end of the wagon; we happen to be looking at the non-brake or offside of the wagon, the side where the lever faces to the left.

 

6 hours ago, Western Star said:

This MR design does not utilise the Morton clutch design and hence does not contravene the Morton patent.

 

As far as I have been able to find out, Morton, who was an employee of the L&Y C&W Department, held a succession of patents, including for the simple clutch as used in this arrangement with the levers facing the same end. Confusion arises because his name is most often associated with the arrangement that later became standard, with the brake levers facing opposite ends of the wagon - always the RH end as seen by someone looking at the wagon straight on. This was made possible by the introduction of the reversing cam, which was covered by a later Morton patent.

 

The relevant Midland drawings do in fact include Morton's name in their titles.

 

For more discussion, see S. Lea, "Low side goods wagons part II - Twentieth century", Midland Railway Society Journal No. 79 (Summer 2022) pp. 14-21 and also P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005) p. 2. I did get in touch with Noel Coates to see if anyone in the L&Y Society had researched Morton but alas it seems not.

 

Going back to the photo, a feature of the Midland's arrangement of the Morton brake is that, with the cross-shaft, only one V-hanger is needed per side, and it's mounted on the rear face of the solebar rather than the front.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Compound2632

[Western Star]

Stephen @Compound2632,

 

A good reply and one which expands upon our knowledge base, thank you.

 

regards, Graham

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Western Star said:

A good reply and one which expands upon our knowledge base, thank you.

 

Thank you. I think this has already been discussed upthread, about a year ago or so. At any rate, it was you who corrected by statement that only low side wagons built c. 1905-7 had this arrangement of brake by pointing out this photo. Apart from around 160 vehicles built in 1893, D357 covered goods wagons were a consequence of the cessation of building 8-ton open wagons (D299 and D351) in 1902, with surplus underfame material to use up. Lot 562 for 2,496 was raised in June 1903, and Lot 625 for 471 in August 1905; in February 1905 the General Manager reported to the Traffic Committee that the Morton brake (he used that name) was being fitted, so I think it's reasonable to assume that vans from the tail end of Lot 562 and all of Lot 471 were so equipped - perhaps 500 - 600 vehicles.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Compound2632