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

[Compound2632]

Looks good.

Though there are a few photos online that you dont seem to have.

Also, there is a single photo of an end on D3 in one of the other wagon books. If my memory serves correct, Midland Vol 2...maybe?

 

Yes indeed - the moment I read that I could visualise the photo - it's Midland Wagons Vol. 2 Plate 379, illustrating a Midland brake van but as you say, giving a good end view of L&Y D3 No. 23654 - nicely confirming the position of the number on the end and also showing the vertical grab rails on both sides. Unfortunately one can't tell if this van still has both brake levers at the same end - it's post-grouping so it might have been altered but perhaps the modification wouldn't go as far as moving the grab rails. Also, I've re-read the kit instructions which do say 'levers both at one end, converted to diagonal levers from c. 1910' (despite the 1904 photo previously mentioned) - and looking back at your G3 build, I see you went for levers at the same end too.

 

Thanks for that - I was just thinking 'must remember to do the grab rails before tackling the roof'. Which reminds me: what's your view on roof colour? From the photos in Coates Vol. 1, looks like they started out quite light in colour but of course got darker, but never as dark as the tarpaulin sheet covering the roof hatch. Presumably the roof covering was canvas (over boards) which might even be left in its natural state (or treated - if so, how?).

[Compound2632]

If it has both levers at the same end of the wagon it won't have a reversing clutch, just the invisible one to allow only one lever to be operated.

 

Yes, that's what I've modelled. What I meant in my description of the photo (Coates Lancashire& Yorkshire Wagons, Vol 1 Plate 45) when I wrote 'right-facing levers on both sides' was that they were diagonally opposite in the conventional way, not both at the same end. In this case the turning action of the two levers are opposed so the far side one must have the Morton cam. Hope that's marginally clearer!

 

I should go back to those LNWR wagons with one lever working one brake block - no room for confusion!

Edited June 28, 2017 by Compound2632

[Penlan]

...... What I meant in my description of the photo (Coates Lancashire& Yorkshire Wagons, Vol 1 Plate 45) when I wrote 'right-facing levers on both sides' ..........I should go back to those LNWR wagons with one lever working one brake block - no room for confusion!

Or model the wagons shown in plates 217 & 219 of 'Lancashire & Yorkshire Miscellany Vol 2'. (I don't have Vol 1, or the Wagon books).

BTW - In the same Volume, plate 208, even though it has the large L Y on the sides, would you think this is an unpainted wood wagon?  The diagram was introduced in 1905, the photo date is circa 1920.

That is either an unpainted wooden body or a very, very thin layer of paint.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Penlan

[Compound2632]

Or model the wagons shown in plates 217 & 219 of 'Lancashire & Yorkshire Miscellany Vol 2'. (I don't have Vol 1, or the Wagon books).

BTW - In the same Volume, plate 208, even though it has the large L Y on the sides, would you think this is an unpainted wood wagon?  The diagram was introduced in 1905, the photo date is circa 1920.

That is either an unpainted wooden body or a very, very thin layer of paint.

 

Hi Penlan, please see PM re. the photos you mention. But the wagon you described was presumably in the grey paint livery, either poorly applied or very much deteriorated, which is back to the question of how to reproduce a 'worn-out wooden wagon' as opposed to the 'maintained, unpainted, possibly initially varnished wooden wagon' which is what I'm after for the pre-1902 livery.

[Compound2632]

The L&Y D3 build is turning into quite a project:

 

 

The grab rails were bent up from 0.5 mm wire (supplied in the kit) and the ends tinned with the 100°C solder. At the locating positions, the cast boltheads were scraped off and a starter hole marked with a compass point. Holes were then drilled 0.5 mm; the grab rails located and fixed with a touch of the lightly tinned iron. These rails are all at the same end as the brake levers so I’m afraid probably have to do with some dreadfully unsafe shunting procedure that involved standing on the brake lever either to exert more force to put the brake on or, worse, to hitch a ride.

 

A pre-formed but oversize roof of thick plasticard (nearly 1 mm thick) is supplied but rather than use this I decided to try a piece of card about 0.5 mm thick, to try for a finer appearance. I cut this to size (67 mm x 33 mm) and scored it lengthwise at approximately 3 mm intervals to help form the curve – this shows; hopefully it can be interpreted as the roof boards showing through the canvas covering. After offering it up for a trial fit, I cut out a rebate about 30 mm x 0.5 mm on the hatch side, so that the edge of the card lined up with the top of the side. Some more filing of flash off the whitemetal was needed to get the roof to sit properly. Once I was happy, I glued the roof in place with Roket Max thick non-runny cyano glue – I’d finally found the tool for getting the lid off the bottle:

 

 

The kit provides whitemetal arcs that represent the guides for the tarpaulin hatch cover. These are long enough to go the whole width of the roof; the instructions say ‘roof sweeps 8’ apart, end 6” past centre of roof’ which I found a bit cryptic. The Coates wagon book has several good side views of vans with this style of tarpaulin but fortunately I remembered this photo posted by Penlan, which gives a good view of the roofs of these vans. This made everything clear. Unlike the LNWR D32 vans, which had a solid hatch that slid back across the roof, so needed runners going all the way across, the L&Y used a tarpaulin cover that could be rolled back to uncover the hatch; hence the guides or ‘sweeps’ only go part-way across the roof. Their function is unclear – I think they might simply be wind-breaks to stop the tarpaulin from being blown away. I’d marked the line of the sweeps and the centre line of the roof before gluing it. The whitemetal ‘sweeps’ needed careful tweaking to the roof profile. I cyano’d them in place leaving one end overhanging the side – this gave me something to gently tweak to get the ‘sweep’ aligned. Once the glue had set, I trimmed the sweeps back with my side cutters. The overhead view shows a batten along the centreline of the roof between the sweeps – presumably this clamps the tarpaulin in place. I cut this from the same card as I’d used for the roof and glued it in place. The tarpaulin itself was a piece of thin paper, rolled and unrolled and concertina’d several times to try to give a ruckled look. This was glued in place with a thin smear of UHU. It overlaps the top plank of the wagon body; on the next plank down there’s another batten, presumably weighting the tarpaulin – this was cut from card as well.

 

The tarpaulin is held in place by a ring and peg arrangement. The hole for this in the corner of the tarpaulin is reinforced with a plate of some sort. I represented these by small rectangles of paper, then drilled through (0.5 mm) the centre. I threaded a length of sewing thread through each hole, fixed with a dab of cyano on the inside. I then looped the threads round, fixed with a further dab of cyano and, once set, cut to length – I’m hoping these will pass for the chain that holds the securing pin. This is all just about visible in the photo, though the grey thread blends in with the whitemetal.

 

This build has turned out to need quite a bit of research – thanks to Spitfire having gone before me with his G3 version and to Penlan for having posted that key view of the roof. Please note that the hatch is on the side with the right-facing (normally acting) brake lever, as noted previously!

Edited September 3, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Compound2632]

I mentioned a good while back that I had some Mousa kits for LNWR wagons. These feature a one-piece fold-up brass axleguard unit and separate resin moulded or printed axlebox/spring units. As I’m gluing these kits using the Roket Max thick non-runny cyano that I recently got the lid off – that’s why I hadn’t got round to these sooner! I thought I’d try simplifying painting by doing the bodies first:

 

 

From left to right, D1 one-plank open, D2 two-plank open, and D32 covered goods wagon. Diamonds, numbers, and numberplates are from a mixture of the HMRS LNWR Pressfix sheet and a Ratio sheet from a second-hand Permanent Way wagon set (of which more soon); these are also Pressfix in contrast to the waterslide type usually supplied. The numbers on the solebar number plates don’t match the numbers on the ends! The latter are ‘fictional’ on the D1 and D2 in the sense that although there were certainly LNW wagons that ran with these numbers and they’re in the right range for these diagrams, they’re not recorded as being these diagrams. I haven’t checked to see if they are known numbers for any wagons of other diagrams, which would be unfortunate! The D32, on the other hand, is numbered 31074 which I think is the number on the wagon bottom right in this photo. The two-tone livery was quite a faff, especially as I changed my mind about the shade of light grey after the first coat. (It’s less blue than it looks in the photo.) Sources seem vague on the roof colour – it might even have started white but should probably be a dirtier grey than I have it.

 

The D1 has the ‘dining table’ varnished-effect interior I mentioned earlier: certainly not right and will be weathered down later. I haven’t painted the interior of the D2 – this is printed rather than moulded resin; the sides have bowed in (I wouldn’t like to say if this was due to the different production method) so it’ll get a load to push the sides into shape and then probably a sheet.

 

An advantage of painting the bodies first is that I can fit the sprung buffers next, without the axleguard unit in the way – this was a bit tricky on my first D32 build.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

I’ve spent too much modelling time over the last few days on a feasibility study for the creation of a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Nevertheless, there continues to be progress on the North Western frontier. I painted all the running gear components for the three Mousa wagons before gluing them in place, so these wagons are now on their wheels:

 

 

They’re unweighted so riding a bit unevenly on their springs, hence the wonkiness.

 

I’ve also started work on the long-promised D13 dumb-buffered twin timber trucks. Work in progress, seen here alongside the D12 singleton:

 

 

These use parts for the D48 rail wagons from the Ratio Permanent Way set (kit 575 – though the actual kit I’m using is a very early one, labelled as kit 755, with lengths of bullhead rail rather than moulded plastic girders, and Pressfix rather than waterslide transfers, a lucky find at only £8 from a local second-hand model railway dealer). The D488 wagons are 15’6” over headstocks but to make up the semi-dumb-buffered 7’ wheelbase underframe I used one pair of solebars for a 15’6” wagon and one for a 16’0” wagon. As a result, I’m left with two sets of ends and sides for 16’0” long D62 ballast wagons but one set of long and one of short solebars. My cunning plan is to use these parts to make another 15’6” D2 two-plank wagon, by trimming 1 mm off each end of one pair of sides and scraping away the dropside hinges, end knees, latchs, etc. and replacing with corner plates:

 

 

On close inspection, this isn’t entirely satisfactory. The D2’s sides are two 11” planks sitting on a 3” siderail, whereas the D62/D3 dropside is 1’8” high, sitting on a thicker (5”?) siderail. On the Ratio moulding, the lower plank is 9” and the upper, 11”. The difference is noticeable – though photos of the prototype show equal-height planks. I’ll see how it looks alongside my earlier kit/scratch version and the Mousa model.

 

That leaves a complete set of parts for another D62 ballast wagon – which could become another D3 conversion. Finally, I’m left with four D48 ends complete with buffer housings… which will tempt me into buying another underframe kit (Ratio kit 570 – comes without headstocks). What bodies should I scratchbuild for these? I’m like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice – the leftovers from one kit lead into another – can I stop building LNW wagons for long enough to complete some of the other projects left dangling in this thread?

 

To make matters worse, a few moths ago I won on ebay Ratio kit 753 (c. 1982 vintage) – another D64 loco coal wagon and D54 traffic coal – which could be cut down to make another D53 coal wagon…

My LNW wagon fleet, built or pending, now totals twenty-two vehicles. I need to get to the point where I can churn out some Midland D299 wagons to redress the balance!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Mikkel]

Very creative work and thinking. Sorcerer's apprentice is too modest, I am reminded more of the chap who turned 5 loaves into food for 5000 people.

 

Are you planning to load the twin timber trucks? If so it must be a bit tricky to make them operate well in model form. This set me looking for other examples, including this (7mm though, and apologies to Derby yet again).

[Compound2632]

Very creative work and thinking. Sorcerer's apprentice is too modest, I am reminded more of the chap who turned 5 loaves into food for 5000 people.

 

Are you planning to load the twin timber trucks? If so it must be a bit tricky to make them operate well in model form. This set me looking for other examples, including this (7mm though, and apologies to Derby yet again).

 

Hum, I do seem to end up with twelve baskets of left-overs after each modelling session and I do have a long-term ambition to build some Midland D425 fish trucks. However, there’s nothing miraculous going on here – the number of LNWR wagons I’m building does not exceed the numbers of pairs of solebars I have from my stock of Ratio kits.

 

As to loading the timber trucks, yes, I plan to run them as a threesome with an appropriate load. Appendix 3 of LNWR Wagons Vol. 1 reproduces a LNWR instruction booklet on ‘loading and securing long and projecting traffic’. This shows how to load rigid round timber (tree trunks), flexible loads such as rails or poles, and rigid loads such as girders or squared timber on combinations of three, four or (don’t tempt me) five trucks. The basic rule is that the load is only chained to the bolsters on two wagons. Depending on the type of load, the other wagons may be taking part of the load on their bolsters or may have the bolsters removed, so simply be acting as runners. I quite like the latter option as it means I only have to make two bolsters! As you hint, setting this up to run satisfactorily through a reverse curve will need some thought and experimentation. I think the bolsters will need to swivel and there has to be enough lengthways play in the securing chains to allow for the loose coupling between the twin trucks and the single truck. A large tree trunk secured to the bolsters on the twin with the single truck as runner might be easiest to set up but I think it will be hard to model the load convincingly. For my north Warwickshire/south Staffordshire setting, a less rural load might be more appropriate – I’m thinking of a lattice girder or similar. As the LNWR booklet points out, the load on any one wagon should not exceed 10 tons, i.e. 20 tons in total – so some research on late 19^th/early 20^th century girder design is required. For this load, the middle wagon would be the runner; on the model I expect it will be important that it is adequately weighted – to the same weight as the other wagons including their load. 

 

By the way, also from this LNWR booklet, if loading timber in an open wagon so that it overhangs (e.g. third wagon in this train), the projection must not exceed 5’ and the maximum load is de-rated as a function of the overhang, down to 3 tons for 5’ overhang in a 10 ton wagon – consider the uneven load distribution. And for heaven’s sake, don’t use an end-door wagon! Either way round would be a disaster waiting to happen…

[Compound2632]

I have been digging deep in the garage and finally found the box containing the wagons I built in my late teens through to my mid-20s – quite a few with P4 wheelsets. This has added a further ten Ratio LNWR wagons to my stock; along with half-a-dozen Slaters Midland D299 wagons, four D305 dropside wagons, a coke wagon and three brake vans; assorted Coopercraft GWR wagons (too many O4s for my present purposes); a D&S NER van that I must have glued together but really looks rather nice, some Slaters 20 ton hoppers (why?) and a birdcage brake; some hand-lettered POs; and this:

 

 

… which is what I was particularly looking for, given my rash of L&Y wagon building. I believe this is an Ian Kirk kit for a D5 12 ton (loco) coal wagon, which, you will note, I painted in my naïve idea of ‘unpainted wood’ livery. I don’t know how it works out dimensionally, not having the second volume of Noel Coates’ Lancashire & Yorkshire Wagons, but the bodywork certainly looks very like the photo in Vol 1 (Plate 50) – also in unpainted wood livery. The underframe is rather generic RCH 1923-ish and the end pillars don’t reach all the way down to the headstocks, which must be wrong, but I think that there’s scope for upgrading it to something a bit more like.

 

I was going to hold it back but I can’t resist showing you the NER van too – from a D&S whitemetal kit, glued together about 30 years ago:

 

 

I’m really rather proud of what I achieved then. I’ve only recently got back up to the same standard.

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Edwardian]

Nowt wrong with them.  Very tidy.

 

Did you ever get round to posting the D299 guide?  My stash contains 3 of these, and, as every goods yard I'm ever likely to model will need at least one, I feel I should crack on with them. 

[Mikkel]

That box sounds like quite a treasure trove. The NER van doesn't look 30 years old and proves that glued whitemetal can give excellent results and will last if you do it right.

 

I have always thought that it would be nice to model a particular goods train from a prototype photo. Do you have any such plans?  

[Compound2632]

I have always thought that it would be nice to model a particular goods train from a prototype photo. Do you have any such plans?  

 

An interesting topic, as they say. Firstly, photographs of goods trains on the move are rare once one goes back to the early Edwardian period - even the wealthy gentleman photographers saved their expensive glass plates for Scotch expresses on the main lines. Most photos of goods engines are posed broadside or three-quarter views, as we've seen from your Dean Goods project. Goods traffic is mostly seen in photos of goods or marshalling yards. The next point to bear in mind is that this is the pre-pooling era: Midland traffic in Midland wagons, returned empty if consigned to a non-Midland destination. Question: what happened at locations where the Midland had a goods agent or traffic canvasser but no goods station, e.g. Southampton - once the agent had secured a consignment, did he request a Midland wagon be sent to collect it? Thirdly, covered goods wagons (vans) were thin on the ground - most merchandise would travel in open wagons, suitably sheeted to protect goods in transit.

 

I have in mind a West Midland setting - taking inspiration from aspects of the North Warwickshire coalfield (Kingsbury branch) and Cannock Chase coalfield (Sutton Park line). I envisage a Midland line with running powers for the LNWR - at least for some exchange traffic. The Great Western presence is more tenuous, their lines not extending north of their main Birmingham - Wolverhampton line, but we can suppose Cannock Chase to be a sufficiently desirable target for some access arrangement to have been made. The Midland and Great Western rubbed shoulders well enough south of Birmingham, e.g. the Halesowen branch.

 

This gives me four varieties of goods train:

 

1. Midland mineral trains (full and empty): PO wagons and D299 opens. The PO wagons I've built have been chosen to reflect a North Warwickshire - Worcestershire/Gloucestershire flow, which seems to be evidenced by Keith Montague's book on Gloucester C&W Co. wagons, although there's also some North Warwickshire - Reading traffic postulated. The latter would in reality be exchanged with the Great Western at Bordesley, though I will argue that in my adjusted geography it's going via the OWW route. I haven't given much thought to the Cannock Chase traffic. There's also block working of D342 coke wagons from Saltley gas works.

 

2. Midland goods trains: mostly Midland wagons, many D299 opens - after all they accounted for half of the Midland's stock - but with a smattering of other types, chiefly D305 dropside wagons and various vans.

 

3. LNWR goods train: mostly LNWR wagons - a mix of coal (including a few appropriate POs) and opens with a few vans.

 

4. Great Western goods train - transfer trip: Great Western wagons consigned to Midland destinations (and beyond) and returned Midland wagons from Great Western stations. Possibly the odd PO wagon of South Wales coal.

 

That justifies the majority of my wagon building. Then there are the strangers: take that NER van for example. It appears that they were assigned home stations - in this case Hull. It's been dispatch to Birmingham laden with some imported high-value Danish goods - Lego or bacon maybe - passing onto Midland metals via the Swinton & Knottingley joint line. The North Eastern's dock agent must have been on his toes, getting to the shipper before the Hull & Barnsley's agent, who would have pointed out the merits of the route via Cudworth. Or maybe the Alexandra Dock was too far from the best pubs for the Danish skipper's liking. I have more trouble justifying the L&Y wagons. The Midland worked closely with the L&Y in respect of Lancashire - Scotland traffic whilst simultaneously poking its tentacles into the L&Y's West Riding territory but I suspect that traffic south and west would have been transferred to the LNWR route - so could end up in my LNWR train. But equally, the LNWR had a strong presence in Lancashire and the West Riding so would more likely have captured traffic for Birmingham at source. 

 

There are more exotic traffics to consider: cattle - a regional market could attract vans from at least the three local companies; racecourse traffic - ditto; but here we're venturing into NPCS.

 

A favourite photo from Essery & Jenkinson's Midland Locomotives, Vol. 3, provides a counter-example: a short Midland goods train at Devynock on the Neath & Brecon Railway - part of the Midland route to Swansea - c. 1900. Headed by a 1102 class 0-6-0T running bunker first, the only identifiable Midland wagon in the train (apart from the brake van) is the second vehicle, a D353 van. The first wagon is a 2-plank wagon with fixed sides but centre door. The third vehicle is another outside-framed van, a bit bigger than the Midland one, possibly with some company initials high up on the side. It's got Scotch brake and a tie-bar linking the axleguards. Both these wagons might belong to local companies - Neath & Brecon or Brecon & Merthyr? After the vans, three dumb-buffered POs - I get the impression from marshalling yard photos that these were already rare on the Midland main line (fruit of the buy, scrap and build D299 policy of the 1880s - the many POs one does see would be to the 1887 RCH spec). The seventh wagon is a sheeted open, followed by the brake. It's a posed phot with engine crew looking out along with four station staff and a dog.

[Mikkel]

Excellent plan and some interesting trains for us to look forward to.

 

I understand Lego shipments were unpopular with the railways as they could only fit one brick per wagon.

 

You mention drop sides. I tend to like these but have never been sure how many I can justify in a train, compared to regular opens.

[Edwardian]

Excellent plan and some interesting trains for us to look forward to.

 

I understand Lego shipments were unpopular with the railways as they could only fit one brick per wagon.

 

You mention drop sides. I tend to like these but have never been sure how many I can justify in a train, compared to regular opens.

 

Mikkel, can you help me out here, because I believe that 'lego' is in fact the Danish word for that distinct, but excruciating, form of pain one experiences when inadvertently treading upon a small plastic brick with moulded studs with bare feet.

 

Compound - sounds like a great plan.  Eaton Gomery is a great layout where MR, GWR and LNWR trains all share the stage, with Cambrian Railways in that case.

 

My own plan is for a fictitious branch of the GW-LNWR joint line on the Welsh Marches, with the Midland worked in, c.1905, so your project is right up my street!

[Spitfire2865]

You mention drop sides. I tend to like these but have never been sure how many I can justify in a train, compared to regular opens.

A dropside if used in goods traffic, is nothing different than a lowsided open, just easier to use as whatever your loading doesnt need to clear the side.

Though closing it could get difficult as something like 3x 16'x 9"x 3" planks could get quite heavy.

[Mikkel]

A dropside if used in goods traffic, is nothing different than a lowsided open, just easier to use as whatever your loading doesnt need to clear the side.

Though closing it could get difficult as something like 3x 16'x 9"x 3" planks could get quite heavy.

 

I was wondering about that, ie why were not all low-sided wagons of the dropside type - as logically you'd think that would also make manual loading easier and quicker? I suppose it makes sense if part of the reason that it is more cumbersome to close them. And maybe more expensive to build, and less "solid" too, I suppose. 

[Compound2632]

The Midland built over 14,000 D305 3-plank dropside wagons, well over a tenth of its wagon stock. If one considers that many of the D299 5-plank opens (which accounted for half the Midland's wagon fleet) would be being used for mineral traffic, it's clear that the dropside wagons would be very common in ordinary goods trains. The Midland had very few wagons with fixed low sides, like the LNWR's D1 1-plank and D2 2-plank wagons. In the last decade of the 19th century, the D1 wagons accounted for about a third of the LNWR's fleet - some 20,000 wagons - with a further 14,000 of the D2 wagons. The D3 dropside wagons seem to have been far fewer in number. That's two of the largest companies in the country, competing for traffic in many of the same areas, but with quite different approaches to how to convey it.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Compound2632

[Spitfire2865]

Well Im not going to complain about the simplicity of the LNW D2. No hinges makes my G3 scratchbuilding easy.

 

But you have to consider the facilities available to the two companies as well.

The Midland standardized on no roof access in vans, while the LNW used them up until their D88 in the early 20th century.

This meant the LNW facilities, along with relying heavily on turntables, had plenty of small cranes for loading. If you have the facilities for lifting already, why waste on hinging lowsided opens?

Obviously you need hinged doors on medium and high sides, but that borders on mineral traffic.

 

All this is wild speculation, and I am aware cranes were a common site in all facilities. But possibly it was a difference in loading philosophy between the Midland and LNW which stemmed from the points I noted.

[Mikkel]

The Midland built over 14,000 D305 3-plank dropside wagons, well over a tenth of its wagon stock. If one considers that many of the D299 5-plank opens (which accounted for half the Midland's wagon fleet) would be being used for mineral traffic, it's clear that the dropside wagons would be very common in ordinary goods trains. The Midland had very few wagons with fixed low sides, like the LNWR's D1 1-plank and D2 2-plank wagons. In the last decade of the 19th century, the D1 wagons accounted for about a third of the LNWR's fleet - some 20,000 wagons - with a further 14,000 of the D2 wagons. The D3 dropside wagons seem to have been far fewer in number. That's two of the largest companies in the country, competing for traffic in many of the same areas, but with quite different approaches to how to convey it.

 

Thanks. I’m away from my books now so don’t have the numbers, but the GWR was not much of a dropside company in the pre-grouping period at least, so for me the type has always been a bit exotic (and hence desirable!). 

[Miss Prism]

Were the LNWR roof-access vans used for specific types of merchandise?

[sharris]

Were the LNWR roof-access vans used for specific types of merchandise?

Giraffes

 

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

[billbedford]

Were the LNWR roof-access vans used for specific types of merchandise?

 

 

No. The specialist vans tended not to haver of doors.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Giraffes

 

IMG_3352.JPG

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

This sort of traffic was only carried in countries without the loading gauge restrictions we have in the UK. Elephants could be carried in vans but giraffes had to be trained to sit down in well wagons and duck when instructed. Alligators, crocodiles, sharks, etc. were carried in tank wagons and therefore not visible, which is probably why there isn't a wish list thread for a RTR model of them being transported. They were usually dropped in head first from a crane inside a  goods shed, so as not to create an uproar from the League for the Protection of Nasty Animals. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Jol Wilkinson

[Compound2632]

Well Im not going to complain about the simplicity of the LNW D2. No hinges makes my G3 scratchbuilding easy.

 

But you have to consider the facilities available to the two companies as well.

The Midland standardized on no roof access in vans, while the LNW used them up until their D88 in the early 20th century.

This meant the LNW facilities, along with relying heavily on turntables, had plenty of small cranes for loading. If you have the facilities for lifting already, why waste on hinging lowsided opens?

Obviously you need hinged doors on medium and high sides, but that borders on mineral traffic.

 

All this is wild speculation, and I am aware cranes were a common site in all facilities. But possibly it was a difference in loading philosophy between the Midland and LNW which stemmed from the points I noted.

 

Yes, I was wondering about this point. I have a gut feeling that many features of LNWR goods wagons and operation were archaic and the fruit of being first in the field: preference for low-sided wagons, single-sided vans, primitive brakes. I suspect that in the early days, most goods traffic may have been between the major centres - Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London - with distribution to wayside stations developing later. Thus the early practice could have been geared to loading and unloading in large warehouses. Towards the end of the 19th century higher-sided wagons gained ground - the D4 4-plank wagon was the next most numerous type of general merchandise wagon. The bottom-hinged side-door was convenient for barrowing goods on and off at a goods platform. As far as I can work out, most types of goods traffic would be dealt with under cover; only bulky goods not requiring protection from the elements would be dealt with outdoors: timber and of course minerals, along with the occasional specialised load such as farm machinery.

 

The Midland started out (and remained) very much a mineral line - so high-sided coal wagons would have been dominant from the beginning (1840s rather than 1830s for the LNWR's antecedents) so, maybe, the Midland was coming at wagon design from literally the opposite direction!  

 

Were the LNWR roof-access vans used for specific types of merchandise?

 

Later, the LNWR developed a very slick goods handling operation based on the tranship shed at Crewe, opened in 1901 and replacing the system of consigning small loads from point to point. There is a delightfully graphic account of this dating from 1907, written by the Crewe Goods Agent and reproduced in Talbot's The LNWR Recalled (OPC, 1987). The only goods explicitly mentioned as arriving in a covered van is a crated Shetland pony from Aberdeen, consigned to Swansea, along with a stray cat. It's certainly clear that open wagons were used for mixed small consignments, and well loaded too:

 

'He will single out all the heaviest packages ... for the ends, and so make a nest for the smaller articles in the centre. By loading the goods in this way the tendency of the load, if roughly shunted, will be to move towards the middle of the wagon...'

 

'The load is just completed ... nearly seven tons of miscellaneous articles, from an empty box to a wringing machine. We glance at that semi-circular loading gauge frame suspended at the end of the shed, and see that the load is just about up to the maximum height for travelling. Those two men on the top are unfolding the tarpaulin sheets to cover the goods, and these will be tied down when the wagon gets outside, by a gang of men who are there for the purpose.'

 

The article brings to life just how labour-intensive the work was - and certainly not all done by crane:

 

'Look at this veteran building up his load! See him guiding that heavy case ...'; 'Notice with what ease this man places weighty articles in position. That sack of meal he is lifting across the truck weights over two hundredweight, and he neither pants nor puffs with the exertion. See him raise that barrel of beer on to its end! To him it is nothing but so much bonus in an easy lump.'

 

One should bear in mind that this description may not be entirely typical of wagon loading, especially at smaller stations where the likelihood of being able to fully load a wagon was presumably much lower, and railways that had not adopted the LNWR's efficient systems. However, there is much food for thought for me, as I have a large number of LNWR open wagons in the queue for loading and sheeting. I will undoubtedly be making errors: 

 

'Loading is really an art which requires years of training to cultivate, and no book or theorist can teach it.'