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

[Andy Vincent]

2 minutes ago, Andy Vincent said:

there was a (rough print) wagon i

This was actually the example that showed that I had to change the way washer plates were drawn / fitted as you could see the underlying lines between the planks. It was fixed after that

[richbrummitt]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

 

Thanks Andy. Many 2mm have grown used to cutting and shutting chassis, but conversion etched parts for the existing Association RCH 9' 6" chassis makes sense.

 

Regards,

Simon

Agreed on the first part. In fact, @Andy Vincent, anybody who buys a set of W irons gets a nifty spacing jig to set them out at any spacing of 6” interval.

 

For my own 2mm printed wagons I usually include the solebar, use a set of w-irons or abuse the skeleton of a chassis etch (depending what is available), and then make up the rest from leftover bits. A 9’6” chassis would be easily come by in this way. Soldering 2 or 3 layers of etch together to make a wooden solebar is so last century. Including axle boxes would be a nice touch…

[Chas Levin]

On 15/05/2024 at 11:54, Compound2632 said:

Distraction:

 

Midland sleeper wagons - numerology and typology.

 

High-sided sleeper wagons were being built in Kirtley's day, with 59 built as renewals between 1867 and 1870. Seventy more were built to a typical Clayton design of the 1880s, with buffing springs back-to-back amidships, bearing on the middle bearers or cross timbers. As usual with this design, there was an additional centre cross timber, to which a bracket was fixed to support the inner end of the brake shaft; this can be clearly seen in the photo of No. 33789 of lot 70, built in 1882:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64649.]

 

Hello Stephen, apologies for being a little late on this, but as Sleeper wagons came up, there's something I've been puzzled about for ages and I'll be building a couple of Sleeper Wagons (reasonably) soon, so:

How were sleepers loaded in the wagons?

Were they simply handballed in through the doors and then slid round on the floor to lie parallel to the rails, as they'd clearly be too long to lie crossways? While that might be not too difficult for the first layer, manoeuvering subsequant layers on top of the earlier ones must have been very awkward: was there some trick to it?

Also, were sleeper wagons loaded up to the tops of the sides (apologies, I know there's a term for that 'boundary' whcih I cannot remember!) or were they only loaded a few deep?

I'm asking for modelling purposes, as you may guess...

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Hello Stephen, apologies for being a little late on this, but as Sleeper wagons came up, there's something I've been puzzled about for ages and I'll be building a couple of Sleeper Wagons (reasonably) soon, so:

How were sleepers loaded in the wagons?

Were they simply handballed in through the doors and then slid round on the floor to lie parallel to the rails, as they'd clearly be too long to lie crossways? While that might be not too difficult for the first layer, manoeuvering subsequant layers on top of the earlier ones must have been very awkward: was there some trick to it?

Also, were sleeper wagons loaded up to the tops of the sides (apologies, I know there's a term for that 'boundary' whcih I cannot remember!) or were they only loaded a few deep?

I'm asking for modelling purposes, as you may guess...

 

Calculation here:

 

 

Comment on sleeper dimensions:

 

 

Handling:

 

 

In all cases browse the adjacent posts!

 

Rave's the word.

[Chas Levin]

Thanks Stephen, all very interesting. I'd seen that photo of Bob Essery's S7 wagon - that was one of the things that had made me think about how sleepers were handled. Food for modelling thought...

[Compound2632]

This lot really does look as if a dragon has been sitting on it:

 

 

(Actually it came to me all neatly bagged up, I've just spilled everything out for effect.)

 

There are sides and ends, and probably more than enough underframe parts, here for:

• 2 x D1 1-plank open (fairly sure these aren't the D48 rail wagon re-hash)
• 1 x D2 2-plank open 
• 3 x D4/D9 4-plank open
• 3 x D54 5-plank coal wagon (slated for cutting down to D53)
• 2 x D64 loco coal wagon
• 3 x D62 ballast wagons (though one has had its end pillar extensions lopped off, so will become D3)

Some sides have been painted on the sprue, without primer - so they're due a dunking.

 

Also an unbuilt D&S whitemetal kit for a D32 covered goods wagon - it'll be interesting to see how that compares with the Mousa resin version.

[Andy Vincent]

15 hours ago, richbrummitt said:

Soldering 2 or 3 layers of etch together to make a wooden solebar is so last century. Including axle boxes would be a nice touch…

 

I assume that the 2mm Association went down this route to provide strength for the outer brake hanger and so you aren't trying to take something very small and stick on something even smaller (although that might be the definition of 2mm modelling!). I agree though that the latter part of this philosophy then falls apart if you end up 'cutting and shutting' to get a solebar that matches your needs. 

 

You could get the same advantage through an etched solebar detail layer and print the inner part but then that part would be only 0.6mm although that is doable - it is about the same thickness as the body sides in 2mm. However, you would then need to attach the springs - my understanding is that these are etched on more recent 2mm Assoc underframes. It could be argued, I suppose, that gluing these gives more prototype flexibility but I always think of 2mm layouts as being great examples of 'railway in the landscape' and so are viewed at a distance from which (pages of MRJ aside) you aren't going to be able to count the number of leaves in a spring.

 

I do share your thoughts on lamination - indeed a fellow modeller at South Hants MRC last night showed me an LNWR fence post that he had built up from several laminations and wanted to know if I could print it complete with the slots as he had calculated how long it was going to take to build a length of fencing. However, it may be the least worst option if it also provides strength and the springs and you (or I suppose, me, in this context!) provided the solebar (plus etched spring) that correctly matched the prototype and which just needed a underframe of the correct wheelbase. (At this point LNWR modellers and others will shudder as not all W irons are the same but that is likely less of an issue in 2mm)

 

I did supply @queensquare with printed axlebox and springs combined. However, I hadn't appreciated that the donor chassis he planned to use had the springs already in situ and I dont think he managed to extract just the axlebox. In future I would just supply the axleboxes.

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, Andy Vincent said:

 

I assume that the 2mm Association went down this route to provide strength for the outer brake hanger and so you aren't trying to take something very small and stick on something even smaller (although that might be the definition of 2mm modelling!). I agree though that the latter part of this philosophy then falls apart if you end up 'cutting and shutting' to get a solebar that matches your needs. 

 

You could get the same advantage through an etched solebar detail layer and print the inner part but then that part would be only 0.6mm although that is doable - it is about the same thickness as the body sides in 2mm. However, you would then need to attach the springs - my understanding is that these are etched on more recent 2mm Assoc underframes. It could be argued, I suppose, that gluing these gives more prototype flexibility but I always think of 2mm layouts as being great examples of 'railway in the landscape' and so are viewed at a distance from which (pages of MRJ aside) you aren't going to be able to count the number of leaves in a spring.

 

I do share your thoughts on lamination - indeed a fellow modeller at South Hants MRC last night showed me an LNWR fence post that he had built up from several laminations and wanted to know if I could print it complete with the slots as he had calculated how long it was going to take to build a length of fencing. However, it may be the least worst option if it also provides strength and the springs and you (or I suppose, me, in this context!) provided the solebar (plus etched spring) that correctly matched the prototype and which just needed a underframe of the correct wheelbase. (At this point LNWR modellers and others will shudder as not all W irons are the same but that is likely less of an issue in 2mm)

 

I did supply @queensquare with printed axlebox and springs combined. However, I hadn't appreciated that the donor chassis he planned to use had the springs already in situ and I dont think he managed to extract just the axlebox. In future I would just supply the axleboxes.

Have to be honest, I remain a fan of soldered overlays for solebars in 2mm. I like the strength and find them straightforward to assemble. Likewise the etched spring/axlebox layers. I did have a go with the 3D ones Andy provided (they are beautifully printed) but sticking them on top of the etched outline on a 2mm chassis made them stick out too far so I reverted to the layered ones. 
3D buffers, in my hands, are a non starter in 2mm - I just break them!

 

I have just ordered a couple more of the Association RCH 9’6” chassis etches so will do a photo heavy post of how I cut and shut Midland 9’ solebars on them - it’s pretty straightforward. I will post it in the 2mm area somewhere but will link it back here. This probably won’t happen now until after Railtec at Aylesbury.

 

Jerry

[65179]

7 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

 

I assume that the 2mm Association went down this route to provide strength for the outer brake hanger and so you aren't trying to take something very small and stick on something even smaller (although that might be the definition of 2mm modelling!). I agree though that the latter part of this philosophy then falls apart if you end up 'cutting and shutting' to get a solebar that matches your needs. 

 

You could get the same advantage through an etched solebar detail layer and print the inner part but then that part would be only 0.6mm although that is doable - it is about the same thickness as the body sides in 2mm. However, you would then need to attach the springs - my understanding is that these are etched on more recent 2mm Assoc underframes. It could be argued, I suppose, that gluing these gives more prototype flexibility but I always think of 2mm layouts as being great examples of 'railway in the landscape' and so are viewed at a distance from which (pages of MRJ aside) you aren't going to be able to count the number of leaves in a spring.

 

I do share your thoughts on lamination - indeed a fellow modeller at South Hants MRC last night showed me an LNWR fence post that he had built up from several laminations and wanted to know if I could print it complete with the slots as he had calculated how long it was going to take to build a length of fencing. However, it may be the least worst option if it also provides strength and the springs and you (or I suppose, me, in this context!) provided the solebar (plus etched spring) that correctly matched the prototype and which just needed a underframe of the correct wheelbase. (At this point LNWR modellers and others will shudder as not all W irons are the same but that is likely less of an issue in 2mm)

 

I did supply @queensquare with printed axlebox and springs combined. However, I hadn't appreciated that the donor chassis he planned to use had the springs already in situ and I dont think he managed to extract just the axlebox. In future I would just supply the axleboxes.

 

Etched solebars still have their place, as you note Andy, the external V hanger and doorbanger are more easily incorporated on something like a D663A (keeping things vaguely on topic - thanks Stephen!) with a more robust end result.  I can see though that a well-designed built in solebar where V hangers aren't an issue does make it easier to hide the chassis to body join.

 

Here's a fellow 2mm modeller's NQP GER open with a 9ft 6in chassis using separate W irons and bits from leftover wagon chassis etches (along with one of Kevin Knight's designs on the right):

 

Both wagons have had the etched springs chopped off and 3D printed alternatives used instead (and the van's brakegear was subsequently corrected).

 

I have to say that the 2mm market is so small that I'm just very happy when producers of larger scale stuff offer any of it in our scale!  That so many people are, and have been willing to do so in the past, is a real blessing. Alongside things like Easitrac and our small band of etchers, it has transformed what's possible in the scale.

 

Simon

Edited May 17 by 65179

[richbrummitt]

I don’t consider the printed solebar an issue. Here’s a couple of pictures of passenger cattle boxes in the process of painting. Fold up w-irons, printed axle boxes with springs fitted separately, door bangers from etch strip bent up and glued on. (If really paranoid these could be put back through slots/holes in the solebar and the holes filled.)

 

 

Here the underside of a different example of the same construction showing the underside. The painting ‘handle’ still in place. The W-irons are cut from a 12’ wheelbase horsebox chassis and spaced closer to suit this van. 
 

 

I always fit brass buffers, except where GW self contained type are appropriate. The latter are substantial enough in printed form to survive shunting. 

 

Edited May 17 by richbrummitt

[Compound2632]

There are a couple of more-or-less complete Midland wagons in the hoard. Here's one, D385 gunpowder van No. 32510, one of 15 built as lot 583 of March 1904:

 

 

The model has independent eitherside brakegear; a moment's glance at the two photos in Midland Wagons, plates 222 and 223, will show that they were built with the simple form of Morton brake, with both brake levers facing the same end of the wagon - the standard arrangement around 1904-1907. One tell-tale is that there is a single vee hanger on each side, mounted on the rear face of the solebar. So a little modification will be needed! Otherwise it's a fair representation of the prototype, though the oil axleboxes are perhaps a bit on the chunky side. The numbers are given on the diagram, from which one can see that they were built as renewals of highside wagons of lot 29 built in 1879-80 and lowside wagons of Lot 54, built 1881, and Lot 66, built 1882 - i.e. renewing wagons around 22-25 years old - Traffic Committee minute 33469 of March 1904 requests these vans in lieu of renewal of 26 open goods wagons.

 

These 7 ton vans are strictly out of period for me but I do have @k22009's kit for the D384 6 ton van. These five were also all built as renewals. Locomotive Committee minute 6222 of April 1870 authorises the building of one additional gunpowder van, which was probably No. 18208, in which case it would be logical for this to be the number taken by the solitary van D384 van of lot 328 of 1893, the pairs of vans built to lots 68 and 179 in 1881 and 1887 being renewals of gunpowder vans dating from the 1860s. The Locomotive Committee minutes record one being authorised to be built in 1859 - which might therefore by No. 7599 - but I've found no trace of the others.

 

The statement of wagon stock at 31 December 1894 (C&W minute 3037) reports three 6 ton and six 8 ton gunpowder vans, which would appear to imply that there were four old Kirtley vans still in stock. The capacities don't match up, though. Drg. 528 for the Clayton vans does not state the capacity. It specifies the same underframe as for the 8 ton lowside wagons of the time but the bodywork is necessarily rather heavier - tare weight 7 ton 7 cwt compared to 4 ton 13 cwt for a lowside wagon. Maybe they were nevertheless originally rated at 8 tons capacity.

Edited May 18 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

I had meant to say, manufacturer unknown.

[Rail-Online]

47 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I had meant to say, manufacturer unknown.

The Midland gunpowder van is an old Cambrian kit. From the era when they did pre-lettered PO's.......

 

Very scarce now!

 

Tony

[Compound2632]

The other complete wagon is from a PC Models kit that is still available from 51L-Wizard (though currently showing as out of stock), the D379 meat van:

 

 

This is in-period for c. 1902, the last to this design having been built in 1896. This were also the Midland's first design of purpose-built ventilated goods meat vans, as opposed to refrigerated meat vans. There seem to have been no goods stock meat vans of any sort until 1877, when the Traffic Committee noted the necessity of providing trucks suitable for carrying American meat, the LNWR having already altered some of their stock. It was resolved that twenty cattle wagons be altered for the purpose. 

 

Two years later, the Traffic Committee noted that the Midland was getting a better share of the dead meat imported from America through Liverpool and that a line of steamers was about to start between America and Barrow for the same traffic, and requested the conversion of a further 100 cattle wagons. It is unclear if this was done; within two months the Traffic Committee was requesting that twenty vans be constructed for American meat, in renewal of the same number of cattle wagons broken up, the extra cost of £12 per van being charged to capital. These were the twenty wagons of lot 32, built to Drg. 419 in 1879, diagram D370:

 

 

(My model, from the Mousa kit, depicts a later example, from lot 305.)

 

The next we hear of meat vans in the minutes is in December 1881, when the Traffic Committee requested twelve meat vans for the Scotch traffic. These were the passenger-rated vans of lot 57 of the following February, to Drg. 508 [no copy in MRSC collection], turned out in full passenger livery:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64196.]

 

The next batch of twenty vans were requested in July 1882, for the conveyance of meat by goods trains. These formed lot 81 and were built to Drg. 568, three copies of which are in the Study Centre collection [MRSC 88-D1750/2/6]. Of these, 88-D1750 appears to be the earliest. It is marked "Body same as Lot 57 Drawing No. 508"; the differences to that drawing are presumably all in the running gear: goods draw-gear with the 5-link coupling shackled to the draw hook in the usual style of the period; 8A axleboxes and 3 ft wagon springs bearing on ordinary cast iron spring shoes.  These vans were numbered 35450-35469. They cost £120 each, whereas the passenger stock vans were £200 each.

 

An official photo of No. 35468 is reproduced as plate 214 in Midland Wagons, while a 20th century in-service photo of No. 35463 appears as plate 216. Both show passenger-style suspension, with 4 ft 6 in springs with J-hangers. No. 35468 has 8A axleboxes and 5-link coupling but 35463 has gained oil axleboxes. In June 1887, the Traffic Committee asked for six goods meat vans to be altered to be suitable for running in passenger trains, at £28 each. Was this just alteration from wagon springs to passenger springs? Neither of the photos mentioned show any change to drawgear or brakes - not even a vacuum through pipe' both have ordinary goods wagon brakes on one side only, per the model. So, were these vans all actually built with passenger springs, or were they all modified, by 1887? MRSC 88-D1750 is annotated in red ink "Springs to Scotch Vans to be the same as Lot 57, Drawing No. 508", with J-hangers sketched in in pencil - that at least gives a hint to what traffic they were converted for. 

 

The Traffic Committee called for another twenty meat vans in August 1888; these formed lot 215, cost £145 each, and were probably numbered around 35571-35590. (There were only 100 covered goods wagons, one crane match wagon, and one 18 ton boiler truck ordered as additions to stock in the intervening six years, an indication of the trade depression of the mid-1880s. The boiler truck seems to have been No. 7149, for some reason taking an old number.)

 

In January 1891, the Traffic Committee called for twenty additional meat vans to run in passenger trains and thirty for goods trains. The passenger vans were built to Drg. 508 at a cost of £225 and the goods vans to Drg. 568 at £177 each, lots 274 and 275. However, by August the Traffic Committee had changed its mind, noting that the goods vans would also have to work in passenger trains, so asked for them to be fitted with the vacuum brake at an extra cost of £48 each - exactly the difference between the previously-quoted prices. So it seems probable that there was no difference between vans of the two lots! They were probably numbered in the range 111740-111789 or thereabouts; leastways No. 111778 was a meat van involved in the accident at Whitacre in August 1903. However 111759 is known to have been a crane match wagon, probably from lot 276.

 

The final vehicles of this design were 100 ordered as lot 371 in February 1896, at the same time as 100 covered fruit vans, lot 370, and 100 refrigerator meat vans, lot 372. These 300 vans were not additions to stock but were additions to the covered goods wagon fleet; their construction in 1896 and 1897 can be traced in the half-yearly Returns of Working Stock. They were presumably built as renewals of ordinary wagons on a cost-for-cost basis, hence the silence of the minutes. The lot book records 50 fitted and 50 piped. 

 

MRSC 88-1752 may be the version of Drg. 568 prepared for piped version of this lot; it's a beautifully clean drawing with no emendations. It does show a vacuum pipe standard on the end elevation but otherwise it has ordinary wagon brakes (though adapted for the 3' 6" wheels). Midland Wagons plate 215 shows a fitted van form this lot, No. 5817 - a renewal number of course. Both have 4 ft 6 in springs with J-hangers and Ellis 10A grease axleboxes. 

 

The listing of stock at 31 December 1894 in the Carriage & Wagon minutes gives a total of 90 4 tons meat vans for passenger trains, along with 101 8 ton refrigerator vans. The latter are satisfactorily accounted for by the D370 vans, a further 81 of which had been built by the end of 1894, lots 305 and 333, all as additions to stock (bar one of lot 333) and probably numbered 114121-114150 and 114907-114956. No. 114128 of lot 305 was the subject of an official photo, Midland Wagons plate 212.

 

So all ninety D379 vans of lots 81, 215, 274 and 275 counted in the goods stock at the end of 1894 were regarded as suitable for running in passenger trains; certainly the 50 of lots 274/5 were, being vacuum braked, although with grease axleboxes. Nevertheless it is clear from the photo of No. 35463 that at least some of lot 81 were lacking either vacuum brakes or through pipe in the 20th century.

 

The third version of Drg. 568, MRSC 88-1756, is a bit of a mystery. The other drawings call for the space between inner and outer panelling to be filled with sawdust. This shows and additional false floor, the space between it and the original floor also filled with sawdust, and also lambswool cloth sealing the door joint. Version MRSC 88-D1752 of the drawing notes "Sides and Ends to be covered with Zinc" - this is struck out and the ventilator panels, previously covered with zinc gauze on the inside, are now to be panelled up and the spaces between the ventilator slats filled with sawdust - all this to SWO (Special Work Order) No. 586. Unfortunately there seem to be no surviving list of SWOs, so the date is unknown. The underframe is not drawn in at all beyond the outline of solebars, headstocks, and wheels, with the annotation "Vans built to this with either Carriage or Wagon Running Gear".

Edited May 19 by Compound2632
typo.

[Compound2632]

I was intrigued by the difference in hue in the two photos of models in yesterday's post - especially the blueish tinge in the photo of the D370 van, a photo taken some time ago. So here are the two vans under the same lighting conditions, firstly at the default exposure setting of my little Panasonic Lumix camera, 0 EV:

 

 

And at greater exposure, +1 EV:

 

 

If nothing else, this highlights a ride height issue with the D379 van!

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

If nothing else, this highlights a ride height issue with the D379 van!

The springs need retempering perhaps 🤔

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, Annie said:

The springs need retempering perhaps 🤔

 

I expect I'll need retempering after I've tried fixing it!

[billbedford]

The colours do really show the influence of titanium dioxide white pigment. 

[Compound2632]

36 minutes ago, billbedford said:

The colours do really show the influence of titanium dioxide white pigment. 

 

I wouldn't depend too much on the photos - any blue cast may be due to lighting conditions. The aim of the photos is just to show that the colours are not as dissimilar as might appear from the individual photos first posted. I hope at some point we could compare them in the flesh. The Mousa D370 is painted with Precision LMS Freight Stock Grey; the paint used on the PC D379 is unknown.   

Edited May 20 by Compound2632

[Rail-Online]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

If nothing else, this highlights a ride height issue with the D379 van!

It looks like it is fitted with P4 flanged wheels as well as sitting low -PC's own design had pretty small flanges..........

 

Tony

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, Rail-Online said:

It looks like it is fitted with P4 flanged wheels as well as sitting low

 

That is correct, so if standing on 00 flanges it wouldn't look so low, but turning it round confirms that it isn't level.

[jamie92208]

7 hours ago, Annie said:

The springs need retempering perhaps 🤔

Just say it's fully loaded. 

 

Jamie

[corneliuslundie]

Fully loaded but unevenly.

Jonathan

[Chas Levin]

On 17/05/2024 at 22:38, richbrummitt said:

I don’t consider the printed solebar an issue. Here’s a couple of pictures of passenger cattle boxes in the process of painting. Fold up w-irons, printed axle boxes with springs fitted separately, door bangers from etch strip bent up and glued on. (If really paranoid these could be put back through slots/holes in the solebar and the holes filled.)

 

 

Here the underside of a different example of the same construction showing the underside. The painting ‘handle’ still in place. The W-irons are cut from a 12’ wheelbase horsebox chassis and spaced closer to suit this van. 
 

 

I always fit brass buffers, except where GW self contained type are appropriate. The latter are substantial enough in printed form to survive shunting. 

 

 

Very handy painting stands you have there: are they commercial, or homemade?

[Compound2632]

He's a good salesman is @MarcD - knows his customers' weaknesses. I passed by the Pre-Grouping Railways stand at ExpoEM and commented that my build of his Midland S294 16' 6" medium cattle wagon had stalled due to not being able to fit the HMRS transfers for the word "medium" between the framing:

 

 

He waved his hand over his D296 large cattle wagon - the earlier version than the Slaters kit, and hence suitable for my period - I said oh! but he said, sold out.

 

So I somehow came away with his S&DJR large cattle wagon:

 

 

These differed subtly from the Midland design in having fewer gaps between the side planks:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2015-0211, DY 9165, Derby cattle dock, November 1909.]

 

I don't have a postable photo of a S&DJR cattle wagon (apart from the Eastleigh-built ones that were to a LSWR design). There's a broadside view of No. 9 in Southern Wagons Vol. 1, plate 147, and drawing of No. 12, figure 58; the same photo appears, in a rather better print, as plate 75 in Colin Maggs, Highbridge in its Heyday. Photo an drawing show a wagon with four gaps between the planks in the sides and just one at the ends, at the bottom. The drawing shows a length of 18' 11" over headstocks, whereas comparable Midland wagons were 19' 1" over headstocks. Both photo and drawing show the battens for a partition, so that the wagon could be used as large (18' 0"), medium (15' 6") or small (13' 6"). The comment is made that older S&DJR cattle wagons had an inside length of 17' 9", which corresponds to the dimensions of Midland cattle wagons to Drg. 101, which were 18' 6" over headstocks. This is the length of Mark's body - 74 mm - and his box art depicts No. 866. 

 

The SDR's half-yearly Returns of Working Stock show an unchanging total of 65 cattle wagons from 1868 to 1875. The company's minutes record 25 ordered from Shackleford & Ford in 1865, on the never-never (15 years' redemption, @DenysW); the other 40 are a bit of a mystery but it seems there may have been some dual-purpose open and cattle wagons - there was a HMRS Journal article on these.

 

These 65 were inherited by the Joint Committee, the stock remaining unchanged until 1883, when 50 were built by Stableford to an order placed in November 1882 [Joint Committee minute 1033]. the Joint Committee (composed of directors from the Midland and LSWR) always did what the Officers' Committee advised. (This committee was composed of officers of the two companies according to the division of responsibilities, i.e. at this time S.W. Johnson for loco & C&W matters.) Their minute 1803 of 10 October 1881 reads:

 

"The necessity for increasing the wagon stock was considered, and it was agreed to recommend that 50 seventeen-feet six-inch cattle trucks be provided in lieu of the present cattle wagons, which are unsuitable for the traffic, and that 50 open eight-ton wagons be also ordered, the present cattle trucks, 49 in number, to be converted into box wagons at the cost of revenue."

 

Quite apart from introducing another dimension, this poses a number of questions. The reported stock of cattle wagons rose to 115, so cattle trucks must have been built as renewals as old cattle trucks were converted to box wagons. Total numbers of other types didn't change, so did these go straight onto the duplicate list. And what of the other 16 cattle wagons? As to numbering, these would seem not to be the same type as Nos. 9 and 12.

 

The next we read of cattle wagons in the minutes is in early 1893, when the Joint Committee approved the Officers' recommendation that movable partitions be fitted "in the 103 large and medium size Cattle Trucks belonging to the Committee". 

 

This implies that there were eight short cattle wagons (nominally 13' 6" inside) and some medium wagons (nominally 15' 6" inside). Given the 50 large wagons from Stableford, there can't have been more than 53 medium wagons. That's assuming there were no cattle wagons lurking in duplicate stock...

 

The stock remained at 115 until 1902, when twenty additional cattle wagons were bought, the ones built at Eastleigh to LSWR design. Throughout all this period, cattle wagons will have been built at Highbridge as renewals, to progressively more modern designs - one might suppose that the type represented by Nos. 9 and 12 post-dated 1893, as they were built to accommodate the partition whilst preserving the nominal 18' 0" length for a large cattle wagon.

 

From reports made to the Joint Committee in October 1885 and October 1888, the renewal rate for wagons had been on average 51 per year from 1875 to 1885 (equivalent to a life of 20 years), increased to 80 per year for the following three years (life of 13 years), and reverting to 52 per year (20 years life) thereafter. The accelerated renewal rate in the mid-1880s, which also applied to carriage stock, was owing to the age and decrepitude of the surviving ex-SDR stock. Twenty years life is equivalent to 5% renewal rate, so the 65 cattle wagons inherited in 1875 would have been renewed at the rate of around three per year; this might be taken as an estimate of the average rate at which Highbridge built cattle wagons right up to 1913.

 

So, are there any photos of these Highbridge-built cattle wagons of the type represented by the model? I will note also that Garner's Register and other sources give No. 866 as one of the 8-ton opens converted to peat wagons in 1911. Garner lists Nos. 407 - 456 as cattle wagons c. 1885, i.e. the fifty built by Stableford in 1882. He also suggests, drawing on Southern Wagons, that Nos. 1-30 were all cattle wagons built at Highbridge in the period 1903-1912 (which would indeed average out at three per year). The numbers of the twenty Eastleigh-built vehicles are at least well-established: 1222-1241. So, accepting these number blocks, this leaves 35 of the final stock of 135 cattle wagons unaccounted for.

 

At the division of stock in 1914, the LSWR took 68 cattle wagons, including all the 20 Eastleigh-built ones. The Southern numbering list accounts for 14 8-ton and 6 10-ton wagons, plus the one conversion to a special cattle wagon, so there had been 17 withdrawals. In Southern Wagons Vol. 1, it is stated that the ones that received SR numbers were all ones built 1903-1912, so, despite the mix of capacities, were presumably all of the type illustrated in that volume.

 

So, I'm still scratching my head...