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

[Annie]

I have some detailed notes somewhere on GER 6 wheel coaches, but I do remember that partway through the 1890s a change over was made to iron and then steel frames.  During the first decade of the 20th century the top footboard on these 6 wheelers was raised higher to the position you can see in the photo which can help as an aid to dating old photos of GER 6 wheel coaches.

[jamie92208]

I thought that those 4 initials stood for the Late and Never Early Railway.

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

Coal Engine status report:

 

 

On the engine, I've done a bit more at each end - well clear of anything the might create a clearance problem! The dummy frame front ends and guard irons pieces have tabs that slot into the rear of the buffer beam, so soldering those up makes a unit that is easier to align and solder in place to the front of the footplate than would be the buffer beam alone. (Or at least, that's my feeling.) The cab steps went together much more easily than had the tender steps. I think this is down to two things: the lower thermal conductivity of nickel silver and the use of a smaller bit - so the heat transfer is more localised. Emboldened, I had another, more successful, go at the tender steps. I then set about adding the whitemetal axleguard / axlebox castings. I had to file these down on the rear and trim the ends of the springs, to get them to fit. This is down to the position of the brass support plates - I know @Jol Wilkinson suggested omitting those but I couldn't really see how to mount the castings without them. I had to file a notch in the leading axleguard to locate the steps. (Only this side done so far.)

 

A rear guard iron pinged off - it obviously hadn't been well-soldered - and has been lost to the carpet monster so I suppose I'll have to make a replacement; fortunately the brass etch sheets have some spare material that is about the right width. I've also come to the conclusion that I need to invest in an adjustable multi-angle vice as I don't have enough hands to go round. I dare say there are alien species out there that have evolved to be better adapted for the building of etched kits.

 

I had a minor worry about axleboxes but have convinced myself these are the right type for my period. Back in the 1880s there were what look like grease boxes: https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p55397444/e4c70234b; and after my period the "carriage" type: https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p55397444/e4c7024c7; but these oil boxes are just right. This photo is 1907: https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p55397444/e4c702356. This was confirmed checking against the three photos of Improved Precedents at Walsall c. 1903-5 that I linked to recently.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Compound2632]

Another D362/D363 photo, this time converted by the Port of London Authority as a brakedown van, seen in September 1957: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=160153. I do like the end door, with ladder hand handle, and hoist beam.

 

It's unfortunate that the security stamp obscures the numberplate (need to spend 99p!) but it is the pre-1913 rectangular type. The builder's plate is still in place above the right-hand axleguard. Both side brakes, with the short lever, at least on this side. The second set of brake gear could be a later addition. The axleboxes are a later replacement for the original Midland ones, whether those were oil or grease. These features suggest that this vehicle was built prior to Lot 824. It's probably no earlier than Lot 543, since it has the roller rather than slide door runners that were introduced with Drg. 1642 part-way through that lot. Therefore built 1902-1910. Statistically, it's more likely to be 10 ton rather than 8 ton. [Ref. Midland Wagons Vol. 1.]

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

A rear guard iron pinged off - it obviously hadn't been well-soldered - and has been lost to the carpet monster so I suppose I'll have to make a replacement;

 

Good news: I've found the errant guard iron and soldered it back on.

 

One step forwards, two back: I've taken the tender sub-frame apart as it became obvious that it wasn't square.

[Compound2632]

Better. It glides round the reverse curve and through the point:

 

 

In this photo, spacing washers on the outer axles but not on the inner; I've since added them on the inner so it just notices the curves that little bit (2nd radius i.e. 438 mm / 17¼") as otherwise the tyres were touching the frames - no good from an electrical point of view. 

 

The back-to-back gauge is just to give the impression I know what I'm doing.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The back-to-back gauge is just to give the impression I know what I'm doing.

Putting it there raises questions about how you are using it…

[Compound2632]

Just now, Regularity said:

Putting it there raises questions about how you are using it…

 

Quite. It also invites suggestions as to the best way to use it, or better forms of back-to-back gauge.

[Regularity]

Ah, but if you put it between the wheels, whilst the wheels are on the track, you do get a short-circuit…

 

…more seriously, you can know see why I build locos so that all wheels can be dropped out, including trailing wheels.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Regularity

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Ah, but if you put it between the wheels, whilst the wheels are on the track, you do get a short-circuit…

 

Only if you apply a potential difference across the rails. Anyway, that's not how I used it.

 

6 minutes ago, Regularity said:

…more seriously, you can know see why I build locos so that all wheels can be dropped out, including trailing wheels.

 

Yes, I fully understand and admire that. Complexity can bring simplicity. But this is just 00.

[Annie]

On 01/02/2022 at 11:53, Compound2632 said:

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=179516

 

Pre-1913 style numberplate so probably an 8 ton van to D362. The bogie carriage, with the characteristic tapering of the brake end, is ex-L&Y but the 6-wheeler is beyond my knowledge - the caption says ex-LNER so as it's evidently not ex-GN and with such deep waist panels I think not ex-GE; definitely not ex-NE or ex-NB so I suppose by elimination ex-GC, or probably more properly ex-MS&L?

After receiving an email from a fellow GER Society member I can confirm that the 6 wheeler is a GER Diagram 533 of which thirty were built in a single order (T51) and were released to traffic in 1901-1902.  They were the final six-wheel brake third design and originally intended for the Liverpool St. to Hertford service.

[Regularity]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Complexity can bring simplicity. But this is just 00.

Simplicity brings complexity?

(Holes in boiler undersides, inability to put a rear face on the splashers, frames ahead of the smoke box which are correctly aligned above the footplate, but not below it…*)

I’ll get my coat…

 

In my single piece of correspondence with the late Bob Essery, he told me that this extra work was the reason he dropped “0 fine” and moved to S7.)

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Simplicity brings complexity?

(Holes in boiler undersides, inability to put a rear face on the splashers, frames ahead of the smoke box which are correctly aligned above the footplate, but not below it…*)

I’ll get my coat…

 

In my single piece of correspondence with the late Bob Essery, he told me that this extra work was the reason he dropped “0 fine” and moved to S7.)

 

All true; I dispute none of it. Had I stuck with P4 in my twenties I might be in a finer place now.

[Crimson Rambler]

The following is a detail taken from View E of the series of photos published by Pouteau recording the Sharnbrook accident of February 1909. The four-plank open wagon caught my eye and I'm hoping that @Compound2632 will be able to say something about it - I'm thinking that it has a Midland look about it.

 

 

It is standing on a goods yard siding while the road next to it gives trailing access to the down passenger line. 

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 03/02/2022 at 14:26, Crimson Rambler said:

The following is a detail taken from View E of the series of photos published by Pouteau recording the Sharnbrook accident of February 1909. The four-plank open wagon caught my eye and I'm hoping that @Compound2632 will be able to say something about it - I'm thinking that it has a Midland look about it.

 

I spent some time staring at photos of the Sharnbrook disaster when writing it up from the point of view of wagon numerology back in August 2019:

From that series, I had only tracked down E and B - and those only in an Ebay seller's listing, so if you have better copes I'm interested! I don't think there's a set listed in the Study Centre catalogue. It had been my belief that the 4-plank seen end-on in View E is the private owner wagon seen sideways-on in View B:

 

 

However, now that I come to look again, that wagon has prominent tail-bolts to the diagonal ironwork, towards the top of the corner plates, which are absent from the wagon in View E. 

 

Comparing with the best photo of a Midland pre-lot-list 4-plank wagon I have:

 

 

[Crop from Midland Railway Study Centre Item 61369]

 

I think it's clear the View E wagon is not one of these - the pattern of bolts on the end pillars is different. Also, the View E wagon has a wider top plank (this also distinguishes it from the PO wagon in View B); although we are looking directly along its left hand side I think the ironwork we see sticking out is consistent with the latch for a three-plank-high door, with the wider top plank running through.

 

I think this wagon is likely to be a PO wagon that, being to hand, has been commandeered, like the View B wagon.

 

The riveted object behind the PO wagon in view B is the remains of the Nene Sulphate Company's tank wagon No. 13 that was one of the leading wagons in the down Class B goods train.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Brassey]

On 01/02/2022 at 17:12, Compound2632 said:

Coal Engine status report:

 

 

On the engine, I've done a bit more at each end - well clear of anything the might create a clearance problem! The dummy frame front ends and guard irons pieces have tabs that slot into the rear of the buffer beam, so soldering those up makes a unit that is easier to align and solder in place to the front of the footplate than would be the buffer beam alone. (Or at least, that's my feeling.) The cab steps went together much more easily than had the tender steps. I think this is down to two things: the lower thermal conductivity of nickel silver and the use of a smaller bit - so the heat transfer is more localised. Emboldened, I had another, more successful, go at the tender steps. I then set about adding the whitemetal axleguard / axlebox castings. I had to file these down on the rear and trim the ends of the springs, to get them to fit. This is down to the position of the brass support plates - I know @Jol Wilkinson suggested omitting those but I couldn't really see how to mount the castings without them. I had to file a notch in the leading axleguard to locate the steps. (Only this side done so far.)

 

A rear guard iron pinged off - it obviously hadn't been well-soldered - and has been lost to the carpet monster so I suppose I'll have to make a replacement; fortunately the brass etch sheets have some spare material that is about the right width. I've also come to the conclusion that I need to invest in an adjustable multi-angle vice as I don't have enough hands to go round. I dare say there are alien species out there that have evolved to be better adapted for the building of etched kits.

 

I had a minor worry about axleboxes but have convinced myself these are the right type for my period. Back in the 1880s there were what look like grease boxes: https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p55397444/e4c70234b; and after my period the "carriage" type: https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p55397444/e4c7024c7; but these oil boxes are just right. This photo is 1907: https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p55397444/e4c702356. This was confirmed checking against the three photos of Improved Precedents at Walsall c. 1903-5 that I linked to recently.

 

 

You may find that once you put the front brake hangers on it’’a hard to get the chassis on behind the guard irons. There’s not much room there

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Brassey said:

You may find that once you put the front brake hangers on it’’a hard to get the chassis on behind the guard irons. There’s not much room there

 

Thanks. It's an awkward area, where the dummy frames are set to prototype dimensions so there's an enormous step to the 00-spaced frames. I have been hoping that the brakes will hide the step. I'll be using the wooden brakes which look a bit tricky to solder up though not much worse than the tender brake blocks which I made up yesterday - those are now sitting in a little grip seal bag* waiting for the time when the tender brake rigging gets assembled. These are intrinsically double-thickness unlike the cast iron block brakes which could be made up single thickness for the front pair. 

 

*There's a lot to be said for regular LFT.

[Brassey]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Thanks. It's an awkward area, where the dummy frames are set to prototype dimensions so there's an enormous step to the 00-spaced frames. I have been hoping that the brakes will hide the step. I'll be using the wooden brakes which look a bit tricky to solder up though not much worse than the tender brake blocks which I made up yesterday - those are now sitting in a little grip seal bag* waiting for the time when the tender brake rigging gets assembled. These are intrinsically double-thickness unlike the cast iron block brakes which could be made up single thickness for the front pair. 

 

*There's a lot to be said for regular LFT.

When I did the brakes, I cut off the fret with the hangers and rolled all 6 complete on the fret in one go. Otherwise they are prone to kinking at the holes. I held the wooden blocks in a vice to solder them on individually. All very fiddly p

[Compound2632]

On 04/02/2022 at 09:37, Brassey said:

When I did the brakes, I cut off the fret with the hangers and rolled all 6 complete on the fret in one go. Otherwise they are prone to kinking at the holes. I held the wooden blocks in a vice to solder them on individually. All very fiddly p

 

I did something similar with the tender brake blocks and hangars, though each hanger was rolled separately. After a struggle with the first one, I kept the blocks anchored to the fret at one end while folding them over and soldering on the hangar. That way, I only needed two hands!

 

 

I've ordered an adjustable angle vice.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Crimson Rambler]

I had hoped that @Compound2632 would have identified the wagon as one of the Midland's 4-plank examples but you have convinced me it wasn't.

 

Thank you also for posting view B of the Sharnbrook accident - this was one of the two that I have not seen. There appear to have been five in the series - list attached is taken from the Pouteau catalogue:-

 

With you posting view B the only one I have not seen is view D.

 

Just for fun here are views A and C:-

 

 

Originally I assumed this series of photos were Derby officials but the article in Railway Archive No 16 from which the list and view E were extracted suggests not. However, it would seem there may have been other photos taken - witness the photographer present in view E alongside the 4-plank wagon? Or is he taking view D?

 

 

Crimsom Rambler

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 04/02/2022 at 11:04, Crimson Rambler said:

Just for fun here are views A and C:

 

Thank you for those, though I'm not sure "fun" is the word I would choose to use. When I started using the accident reports as a resource for the make-up of goods trains and wagon numerology I wrote:

  

On 16/03/2019 at 22:23, Compound2632 said:

in using this information to inform my modelling, I’m very mindful that these “useful” accidents resulted in injury or death to railwaymen and the travelling public.

 

Eternal rest grant to them, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon them. 

May their souls, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

 

Anyway, it turns out I had seen Views A and C, but not in as sharp reproduction as you have posted, since they were used in a memorial postcard printed by W. Gothard of Barnsley in support of the relief fund for the bereaved families. 

 

 

Note that it says "accident photos reproduced by permission of B. Percival, Kettering". That other photographers were on the scene would seem to be confirmed by another postcard I came across:

 

 

While from about the same position as "View A", this is clearly a different photo - possibly the same group of people, though. [I'm afraid I didn't keep a note of the provenance of these images.]

 

In the background of View C is the 4-plank PO wagon seen in View B, "Croft Granite", buffered up to a 2-plank dumb-buffered wagon. A quick bit of googling establishes that the firm operating Croft Quarry, was from 1872 the Croft Stone & Brick Co., which was served by sidings on the LNWR South Leicestershire line. The granite was, I think, of the artificial kind.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Rail-Online]

Stephen,

 

You said "the granite was, I think, of the artificial kind"

 

What do you mean by this please?

 

Tony

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Rail-Online said:

You said "the granite was, I think, of the artificial kind"

 

What do you mean by this please?

 

I had in mind the account of the paving slab-making plant at the Cliffe Hill quarry, on the Midland's Leicester and Burton line, in E. Jarvis, Signalman, Midland Record No. 6, pp. 19-31. Although "granite" is not mentioned, this plant used the coarse dust waste from stone crushing as the raw material for reconstituted stone paving slabs. This started around the late 1890s, I think. I suppose the geology at Croft is similar to Cliffe Hill - carboniferous limestone, certainly no naturally-occurring granite. The 1901 OS 25" map of Croft linked above shows a large building labelled "Granite, Brick and Concrete Works".

 

Artificial granite is still much in demand for the more affordable sort of kitchen worktop, though the more superior sort of kitchen outfitters would have you turn your nose up at it.

[Compound2632]

Now, my turn for a question. See this brake van:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of Midland Railway Study Centre Item 64608.]

 

On most ordinary wagons, the springs bear on cast iron shoes fixed to the underside of the solebar - they are not fixed. This brake van sports a more superior suspension, with the ends of the springs connected to fixed mounts via short swing links. This is the usual sort of suspension seen on carriages, horseboxes, etc. before J-hangers came to be used (early 1880s in the case of Midland vehicles). In this case, as in early 4-wheeled NPCS, the inner links are connected via an elegantly-curved strip of wrought iron bolted to the solbar through wooden blocks. This drawing extract shows the arrangement:

 

 

[Crop from scan of MR C&W Drg. 171, Midland Railway Study Centre Item 88-D0006.]

 

My question is in two parts:

• why this rather than simple brackets for the swing links, as at the outer ends?
• and what do I call this?

Edited September 23, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[magmouse]

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

My question is in two parts:

• why this rather than simple brackets for the swing links, as at the outer ends?
• and what do I call this?

 

A speculative answer: the swing links each carry a share of the weight of the van, downwards, at one end, and of course the reaction force, upwards, at the other. They are therefore in tension. However, because they aren't vertical, there is also a significant horizontal force - actually larger than the vertical. With the arrangement shown, this substantial horizontal force is carried by the wrought iron strip more or less along its length.

 

Also, the horizontal force from the spring of the other axle is pulling in the opposite direction, and will be roughly the same, so these two forces balance each other in the wrought iron strip, rather than being transmitted to the wooden solebar via the bolts. Overall, it makes good use of the materials' properties to create a strong structure, in a way a blacksmith could readily make (much easier than the j-hanger design - are these cast?).

 

I'd be interested too see the part of the drawing showing the other end of the spring, but for some reason the search engine at the Midland Study Centre won't reveal it's treasures... Could you post it or give a direct link?

 

Nick.