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

[Compound2632]

On 28/10/2017 at 14:47, Lecorbusier said:

Thought I would upload these images as they may be of interest.

 

 

What a feast of D299-ery! Good photos of wagons in traffic at this period seem rare, so these are especially useful references for condition. What's the book?

 

I think the 3-plank dropside wagon is a D305 wagon to drawing 213, still with 8A axleboxes. It seems to have the projecting headstock to act as door-stop but has the standard form of brake gear - not the wooden brake blocks of the pre-Lot book wagons. I'd say its an example that is in regular traffic use rather than specifically a ballast wagon - after all, that's not ballast it's carrying! EDIT: In the "sunny day in 1890" picture, the wagon behind the shunter with his pole is a 3-plank dropside ballast wagon - note the covers over the axleboxes and the initial D in place of R.

 

Meanwhile, I've been dabbling in the dark arts, indulging in occult numerology...

 

I’ve borrowed a copy of Atkins, Beard and Tourret, GWR Goods Wagons, 3^rd edition (Tourret Publishing, 1998). This has rather more complete information on numbering than the two-volume 1^st edition (David & Charles, 1975, 1976) that I had borrowed before. I think it’s true of most companies that rolling stock production was divided into renewals (which could be charged as a working expense) and additions to stock (which would entail an increase in the capitalisation of the company). A renewal wagon would be given the number of the wagon it replaced – which might or might not be of a similar type, though more antiquated design – whereas an addition to stock would take a number at the end of the list. The Midland and North Western did just that but the Great Western seems to have held to a belief that wagons of a given type should be numbered together. Although giving a table with a rather complete list of numbers by Lot, Atkins et al. don’t actually discuss the principles but it seems clear that the system worked in blocks of 1000 numbers, xy001-x(y+1)000, each dedicated to a specific class of vehicle. For example, the block 38001-39000 was given over to 990 cattle wagons of various W diagrams, with just a gap at 38963-38972 at my 1904/5-ish cut-off (unless I’ve missed some). This illustrates another feature: although numbering was usually from the start of the block, there are instances where successive Lots of some diagrams worked down from the end.

 

Looking at diagram V6, the Iron Minks, it looks as if the bulk of the construction were additions to stock. Setting aside for the moment the first 102 vans which were 6” longer in wheelbase and over the body than the standard vans, production began at 37608 and continued to 38000, in the middle of old series Lot 494, when numbering jumped to 47001, continuing to 47107. I infer that the 37001-38000 block was the currently open one for vans when production started. Once this block was full, the next unused block was 47001-48000, other blocks having been taken up by other wagon types in the meanwhile. Going by the sequence of Lot numbers, there was a pause in production after this first 1,100. Meanwhile, numbers 47751-48000 had been taken in descending order by various meat or fruit vans, so when production resumed, a new block was started, 57001 onwards. Production continued at such a pace that the two following blocks were used, up to 59700, with some small gaps occupied by Iron Mink spin-offs: gunpowder vans and stores vans; the remainder of the 59xxx block had been occupied by more fruit or meat vans. The final 890 diagram V6 vans were in the block starting at 69001, immediately followed by 105 of the diagram V5 vans. However, by this late stage in production, some of the V6 vans were being built as renewals – probably replacing broad gauge stock – with 310 vehicles taking numbers in the range 11001-11396; likewise, the balance of the diagram V5 vans also took numbers in the 11xxx block.

 

The diagram V6 vans fall into three groups. Those built between 1888 and 1892, under old series Lots and up to No. 57600, were rated to carry 8 tons. All the remainder were rated to carry 9 tons when built but in December 1897 oil axleboxes were introduced. This was while vans ordered under Lots 172 and 193 were being built, but Lots 182 and 186 had apparently been completed. The numbering becomes a little complicated: the 69xxx block had been started with Lot 171 and continued with Lots 182, 186 and 193 but in parallel Lot 172 continued the 59xxx block and even later, half of Lot 310 reverted to this block, completing the numbers up to 59700. Atkins et al. state that the oil axlebox vans were uprated to carry 10 tons around 1904, with older vans following suit when changed from grease to oil axleboxes.  One further detail is the end ventilator cover, which was longer from 1899 – probably, Atkins et al.  say, only for the last 400 vans, i.e. Lot 255 onwards. Unfortunately they don’t provide systematic order dates for Lots but state that the last vans, Lot 352, were built in 1901. They do though have a photo (Plate 492) of No. 11258 of Lot 217, stated built 1900, with the longer cover. (Also, cast number plates, though in the post-1904 livery with 25” G W initials.) Presumably a design change such as this could be introduced mid-way through the Lot – as with the oil axleboxes – but in the absence of further information I will assume that at least Lot 217 and the adjacent Lot 216 have the longer cover. Does Lewis, Lloyd, Metcalf and Miller, All about GWR Iron Minks (HMRS, 1980) provide enlightenment on this point?

 

The Ratio kit represents a van with oil axleboxes and a short ventilator cover, i.e. for c. 1902-3, one built between December 1897 and c. 1899 and hence in the number range 59621-59650 (the last 30 of Lot 172), 69303, 69305-69450 (all but three of Lot 193 plus Lot 201). There are also the vans built to Lot 207, numbered in the 11xxx block (Atkins et al. list the individual numbers. That’s 277 vehicles out of the total of 4,766 Iron Minks, excluding the 102 early 16’6” long vans, 15 Stores and 8 Loco Dept. vans, and 10 built with 3’6” wheels and vacuum brake for use in passenger trains. (As all vans were upgraded to oil axleboxes by 1915, the kit becomes good for the vast majority of Iron Minks at a later period.)  At my chosen period, such a van would be rated to carry 9 tons and would have been in traffic for 3-4 years, so still in its first coat of paint:

 

 

No. 69354 of Lot 201, built c. 1898. The rub-down transfers are from the Broad Gauge Society. My reference for the layout of the lettering is Plate 448 in Atkins et al., showing No. 57604 of Lot 2, as built in 1893. I very gently scribed guide-lines level with the top of the door framing on each side and 10 mm above the top of the headstocks on the ends. The BGS sheet doesn’t stint on digits so I had no compunction about scraping off numbers that weren’t quite aligned and trying again. There’s not much space between the vertical stanchions: I fudged To Carry 9 Tons – working from right to left, first Tons, 8, rry, and then cutting out Ca, trying to rub down a on its own before moving the C in as far as possible. With the advent of the large G W, the Swindon signwriters gave up and started writing just 10 Tons – trying to squeeze in the extra width of the 1 was evidently just too much! My reference photo showed a tare weight of 5 tons 19 cwt 0 qtr, but this is a vehicle with grease axleboxes. I suspect that oil boxes were a little heavier, pushing the weight a smidgen over 6 tons – the 1 is narrower than 0, though in the event I think I could have got 6_0_0 in comfortably – though 5_19_0 would have been touch-and-go.  The BGS transfers work with very little pressure. I cut each transfer from the sheet and at first used low-tack tape to hold the transfer in place before rubbing down – the first side took me over an hour – but I discovered that it was enough to hold the cut-out bit of sheet in place with the point of a cocktail stick, make fine adjustments in position with the point of the craft knife and finally press down lightly with the point of a blunt pencil – no need to rub. Once I’d mastered this, progress was much quicker – the rest of the van was done in about 40 minutes. Once all the lettering was in place, I gave it a rub over with a piece of the backing paper left over from a POWSides transfer pack, then when all was done, sealed the transfers with a coat of Humbrol spray can matt varnish. It is possible that this is all wrong and vans to this lot were built with cast plates, as, it would seem were the next batch, Lot 207. (cf. the photo of No. 11258 mentioned above – in which case my van might have been grey from new, as Dana Ashdown infers from pleasingly close observation this photo.)

 

Atkins et al. don’t give much information about the wood-bodied vans that preceded the Iron Minks. They mention the Lots and describe the developments in underframe construction – from wood to bulb iron to channel for the last Lot. They’re a bit vague on quantities, but given only four Lots with iron frames following the single pattern van No. 1939, and typical Lot sizes of 100 or 200 vehicles, there can’t have been more than about 500 to 700 built. Numbering detail is not included (unlike the pre-diagram opens) but Plates 482 and 483 show Nos. 37517 and 22332 with bulb iron solebars, said to be of Lot 339 of 1885. They give 27655 as a sample number for Lot 358 with channel iron solebars, while the sketch drawing of this Lot carries No. 22509. Fortuitously, Plate 2 shows two further vans at Acton c. 1910, Nos. 22583 and 37023. This starts to suggest some number ranges – helped by noting that one of the two pioneer 16’6” Iron Minks of 1887 was given No. 22325. The 37xxx block appears to have 607 vacant numbers (at c. 1904/5). With just two numbers, one from near each end the end of the range, I’ll stick my neck out and guess that any number from 37001 to 37607 has a good chance of being applicable. Numbers 22801-23000 were 3-plank opens, so the 22xxx block included a mix of types, but  we have four numbers (including the prototype Iron Mink) in the range 22325-22583, a span of 259, so I’d feel reasonably confident picking a number in this range. This already gives six known and 859 proposed numbers, more than enough to go round, before we consider No. 27655. The 27xxx block is rather thin on known numbers c. 1904/5 – a handful of well wagons in the first half and a pre-diagram cattle wagon No. 27698. I’m tempted to speculate that this number is a typo – if the 7 is a 2, it sits reasonably well with the other 22xxx numbers, though extending the range somewhat.

 

It’s tricky to decide whether the solebars of the old Kirk kit are supposed to be bulb or channel; on the whole I feel that because they’re not as crisp and well-defined as on the Ratio and Coopercraft wagons, I’ll deem them to be bulb. I plumped for No. 22378:

 

 

Atkins et al. don’t have any photos of these vans in the pre-big G W livery, so I made a best guess at the layout based on photos of open wagons, which mostly show the capacity and tare weight above the number and G.W.R. Lettering was a much quicker job – I could apply To Carry and the widely-spaced G  .  W  .  R as single units, likewise 23 and 78 (hence the choice of number – also I had these digits left in the same area of the sheet as I’d taken 69354 from!). The position of the number on the left-hand side of the end follows the Acton photo. For the tare weight, I took a hint from the photo of No. 22332 that it would be heavier than an Iron Mink – around 6 tons 4 cwt – but on re-reading the caption I find that this example has internal partitions to suit its role as a sand van and the photo of No. 37517 in traffic (after 1920) might have been a better guide at 5 tons 13 cwt. But the matt varnish was on before I had that re-think…

 

Now, running gear: red or black? Or even black solebars?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Lecorbusier]

What a feast of D299-ery! Good photos of wagons in traffic at this period seem rare, so these are especially useful references for condition. What's the book?

 

They were scanned from Glynn Waite's book on Rowsley (Midland Railway Soc. publication). .... you may have noticed my Avatar is from the front cover  

Edited October 28, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Compound2632]

They were scanned from Glynn Waite's book on Rowsley (Midland Railway Soc. publication). .... you may have noticed my Avatar is from the front cover  

 

That's a book I've clearly been foolish to pass over.

[Penlan]

Thought I would upload these images as they may be of interest......

Yes they are, many thanks.

Always nice to see some 'New' pre-group photo's.

[Compound2632]

Coopercraft kit 1004 is (or was) advertised as representing Great Western diagram O5, of which there were but 200 wagons to the single Lot 374, built in 1902 with DCI brakes, presumably as renewals since they took random numbers below 12000. Compared with the 3,286 5-plank wagons to diagram O4 built in 1901-1904, these 4-plank wagons appear esoteric. However, they are but the Edwardian tip of a Victorian iceberg of construction of 4-plank wagons: 24,208 built to 133 Lots from 1887 to 1902. Of these, 12,136 took new numbers so were presumably additions to stock: Nos.  41512-41711, 54211-55000, 61001-67722 and 71001-74725; the balance were renewals or replacements, many, I presume, of broad gauge stock, taking various numbers below 11000.

 

Most Lots were for 200 vehicles, which is with but a few exceptions the maximum number for Lots at this period. They accounted for about one-fifth of Lots issued and well over half of all wagons produced in this 15-year period. With a total wagon stock of around 75,000 vehicles by 1904, they made up nearly one third of the Great Western’s fleet. They were long-lived: with nearly 19,000 being given double-sided brakes in 1927-1930, becoming diagram O21, they must have remained a very common up to nationalisation. Surely no Great Western layout can be without several? They were, in fact, the Great Western’s equivalent of the Midland D299 5-plank open, with the proviso that they seem to have been for goods traffic only, whereas many of the Midland vehicles were in mineral traffic. (This seems to reflect different attitudes to PO wagons – as far as I can make out, the Great Western built no coal wagons for revenue service in the nineteenth century.)

 

I had thought that I had acquired too many examples of the Coopercraft kit but now consider myself lucky to have three, all now being (re)built as pre-diagram O5 vehicles:

 

 

These are not supposed to represent three different livery options!

 

On the left, one snapped up in my ebay fad earlier this year and put together today and, centre, one of the batch of second hand wagons that I was given last year. These have been given grease axleboxes as described earlier; I’ve taken the plates off the one shown in that post, despite that I’d already sprayed it red, as all the wagons with plates shown in Atkins et al. also have oil axleboxes, which seem to have been used as early as 1894, though at least some wagons built to Lots 76 and 122 in 1895 had grease boxes. I’ve also remembered that I should pare off the door-banger on the non-brake side. The centre one is looking a bit worn – it’s perhaps an early build, with a number in the 44xxx-46xxx range, about 15 years old by c. 1902-3. My ebay wagon will be a bit younger – though still with grease axleboxes, it’ll be early-mid 1890s, in the 61xxx-64xxx range, perhaps. The wagon on the right is one I built in the late 80s; I’ve replaced the DCI brakegear with conventional single-sided brakes as on the other two. I’ve kept the G.W.R plates but changed the numberplates. This had been No. 10070, one of the three number plate choices provided in the kit. This isn’t a number recorded by Atkins et al. as a diagram O5 number – it’s possibly a brake van number; I’m wondering if it’s a mistake for 1070. But I do have an idea for it…

 

The other two sets of plates in the kit are genuine O5 : 781 and 1460. With careful trimming, I made a set of plates for No. 71460, a wagon from Lot 220 of c. 1900:

 

 

There’s something a bit fishy about that V-hanger – it doesn’t extend low enough… Did the DCI gear use a shorter V-hanger?

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Miss Prism]

There’s something a bit fishy about that V-hanger – it doesn’t extend low enough… Did the DCI gear use a shorter V-hanger?

 

No. Cooper-Craft (the original tool sinker) got the vee height wrong (as well as the push-rod pitching from the shaft). Here's some of my suggestions to Cooper-Craft of several years ago, when he expressed an interest in updating the underframes:

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

Spurred on by Miss Prism’s sketches, I’ve had a go at making replacement V-hangers for the Coopercraft wagons, using 20 thou plasticard. It took a few attempts to get ones I was happy with:

 

 

The dimensions aren’t from Miss Prism’s sketch but rather sized to match the rivet positions on the solebar and the actual axis of the brakeshaft. The new V-hanger sits behind the solebar, so it’s a bit further back than either the prototype or the Coopercraft original, but as the brake gear is also set back to match the narrow OO gauge wheelsets, I think it doesn’t look too bad:

 

 

I’ve not attempted to represent the short brakeshaft.

 

I was sufficiently pleased with this to make up a batch while I had the knack:

 

 

The V-shapes are 13 mm tall by 11 mm wide, so the line of the solebar bottom is at the 6.5 mm centreline. It’s easier to cut out the triangular hole before snapping the piece off the strip of plasticard; I grip the V-hanger piece in flat pliers along the scribe line when snapping off from the strip, to avoid distortion – hence also the 4 mm waste space between each piece. The nose of the V is then rounded off. The solid part is made too deep, so when fitting to the wagon, about 1 mm needs trimming off.

 

I’ve fitted these to all three 4-plank wagons and have enough to refurbish my small stock of other Coopercraft wagons.  

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Compound2632]

In addition to the three examples of Coopercraft kit 1004, nominally the diagram O5 4-plank open but built as examples of the very numerous undiagrammed 4-plank wagons, my Coopercraft collection includes four of kit 1001, the diagram O4 5-plank wagon with sheet rail, along with one each of kits 1002 (diagram N13 loco coal wagon), 1003 (V5 goods van), 1006, (O2 7-plank wagon), and 1007 (the 8’0” tall version of the V4 goods van). These are in addition to the O4 and 7’6” V4 I built last year. As far as I can work out, all these were built with DCI brakes so I will have to do something to make their operation seem a little less magical – as the kits stand, there’s no connection between the little levers at the end and the cross-shaft. Even after staring at a drawing of the DCI gear for a while, I’m fogged as to how it gives any mechanical advantage over a nice long lever attached directly to the shaft, such as most wagons used.

 

The O4s were pretty much brand new around my favoured period but there were quite a few of them: 3,286 built between 1901 and 1904 (an extra 500 seem to have been found between the 1^st and 3^rd editions of Atkins et al.), so I’m not too uncomfortable at having so many myself – though it would be better to have more of the 4-plank opens. In the discussion following my first O4 post last year, I mentioned having seen a c. 1910 goods yard photo which included an end view of a 5-plank open with sheet rail that had a cast plate, No. 77445. With the more detailed numbering info in the 3^rd edition, I now know this wagon was from the first batch of 500 wagons, Lot 474, to diagram O3. (The O3 was a little wider and deeper than the O4.) This Lot actually preceded the final batch of O4s in the Lot list if not in actual date of building. This leads me to believe that all the O4s  would have had the cast numberplates when built.

 

The O2s were built after the O4s but Atkins et al. has a photo of No. 29301 of the second batch, Lot 496, built in 1906, with cast numberplates but 25” G W initials in lieu of the cast G.W.R plate. It starts to become moot whether one can reasonably assert that any wagon built with a cast numberplate was necessarily turned out in red – it is a grey area. It seems probable that anomalies appeared during the change-over from red to grey and the move away from cast numberplates.

 

There were only 325 diagram V5 vans, built 1902-1904, with the last batch being Lot 443. The logical conclusion is that these wagons were given cast plates and painted red – the only 20^th century wooden-bodied vans to be so treated. The only photo in Atkins et al. is from 1947…

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that with these Great Western wagons the apparent surfeit of information rapidly dissolves into a morass of uncertainty.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Compound2632

[wagonbasher]

In addition to the three examples of Coopercraft kit 1004, nominally the diagram O5 4-plank open but built as examples of the very numerous undiagrammed 4-plank wagons, my Coopercraft collection includes four of kit 1001, the diagram O4 5-plank wagon with sheet rail, along with one each of kits 1002 (diagram N13 loco coal wagon), 1003 (V5 goods van), 1006, (O2 7-plank wagon), and 1007 (the 8’0” tall version of the V4 goods van). These are in addition to the O4 and 7’6” V4 I built last year. As far as I can work out, all these were built with DCI brakes so I will have to do something to make their operation seem a little less magical – as the kits stand, there’s no connection between the little levers at the end and the cross-shaft. Even after staring at a drawing of the DCI gear for a while, I’m fogged as to how it gives any mechanical advantage over a nice long lever attached directly to the shaft, such as most wagons used.

 

The O4s were pretty much brand new around my favoured period but there were quite a few of them: 3,286 built between 1901 and 1904 (an extra 500 seem to have been found between the 1^st and 3^rd editions of Atkins et al.), so I’m not too uncomfortable at having so many myself – though it would be better to have more of the 4-plank opens. In the discussion following my first O4 post last year, I mentioned having seen a c. 1910 goods yard photo which included an end view of a 5-plank open with sheet rail that had a cast plate, No. 77445. With the more detailed numbering info in the 3^rd edition, I now know this wagon was from the first batch of 500 wagons, Lot 474, to diagram O3. (The O3 was a little wider and deeper than the O4.) This Lot actually preceded the final batch of O4s in the Lot list if not in actual date of building. This leads me to believe that all the O4s  would have had the cast numberplates when built.

 

The O2s were built after the O4s but Atkins et al. has a photo of No. 29301 of the second batch, Lot 496, built in 1906, with cast numberplates but 25” G W initials in lieu of the cast G.W.R plate. It starts to become moot whether one can reasonably assert that any wagon built with a cast numberplate was necessarily turned out in red – it is a grey area. It seems probable that anomalies appeared during the change-over from red to grey and the move away from cast numberplates.

 

There were only 325 diagram V5 vans, built 1902-1904, with the last batch being Lot 443. The logical conclusion is that these wagons were given cast plates and painted red – the only 20^th century wooden-bodied vans to be so treated. The only photo in Atkins et al. is from 1947…

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that with these Great Western wagons the apparent surfeit of information rapidly dissolves into a morass of uncertainty.

 

I had thought that the DCI brake levers at one end with the cross shaft enabled the brake to be applied and released from either side of the wagon regardless of which side the brakes were.

That is an advantage although clearly not much of an advantage as they were discontinued.

 

 

 

Andy

[Compound2632]

I had thought that the DCI brake levers at one end with the cross shaft enabled the brake to be applied and released from either side of the wagon regardless of which side the brakes were.

That is an advantage although clearly not much of an advantage as they were discontinued.

 

My understanding is that the levers-at-one-end arrangement fell foul of a BoT requirement that the brake should be applied from the right-hand-side of the wagon as you faced it. Also, as wagons went into the pool, other companies' guards and shunters would be confronted with an unfamiliar system which might not be too helpful when hurriedly trying to pin down the brakes on an unfitted goods train about to go down grade on a cold, wet, dark night. 

[Spitfire2865]

I had thought that the DCI brake levers at one end with the cross shaft enabled the brake to be applied and released from either side of the wagon regardless of which side the brakes were.

That is an advantage although clearly not much of an advantage as they were discontinued.

 

 

 

Andy

Of what I know, they were too good for the rest of the country.  Similar to the downfall of Broad Gauge.  Change almost everything or change some things.  Conformity was more important than which design was better.  

[wagonman]

My understanding is that the levers-at-one-end arrangement fell foul of a BoT requirement that the brake should be applied from the right-hand-side of the wagon as you faced it. Also, as wagons went into the pool, other companies' guards and shunters would be confronted with an unfamiliar system which might not be too helpful when hurriedly trying to pin down the brakes on an unfitted goods train about to go down grade on a cold, wet, dark night. 

 

 

The DC brakes – there was later a cross-cornered version of the DC1 brake as well – also fell foul of the BoT edict that said all brakes must only be releasable from the same side they were applied: DC brakes, as they relied on a ratchet, could be released from either side.

[Siberian Snooper]

I don't know if any of you pre-group GW modellers have picked up on the Cambrian Kits Herring kit to the earlier diag P7 modifications in MRJ 257. For the more adventurous kit bashers, the smaller earlier versions look to be possible, by cutting the hopper down by about 6mm, looking at the GW wagon bible, Atkins et al.

[Compound2632]

I don't know if any of you pre-group GW modellers have picked up on the Cambrian Kits Herring kit to the earlier diag P7 modifications in MRJ 257. For the more adventurous kit bashers, the smaller earlier versions look to be possible, by cutting the hopper down by about 6mm, looking at the GW wagon bible, Atkins et al.

 

Thank you for mentioning that! I did read the article thinking aha! Cambrian have produced another pre-grouping wagon by stealth. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I'm not sure I can justify a p/way wagon as transfer traffic onto the Midland. I'm already fighting a losing battle with my conscience with LNWR ballast wagons...

[Mikkel]

Have we seen this one before? D299 I assume:  http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/stories/getobjectstory.php?rnum=L1724&enum=LE123&pnum=2&maxp=8

[Compound2632]

Have we seen this one before? D299 I assume:  http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/stories/getobjectstory.php?rnum=L1724&enum=LE123&pnum=2&maxp=8

 

Ah yes - I've not seen one in passenger traffic before! The Midland did quite well out of the construction of the London Extension and I've never read that it suffered unduly from the subsequent Great Central competition - perhaps because it was confined to London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Manchester whereas the Midland expresses served a greater variety of intermediate destinations.

 

The Henry Lovatt contractors wagons are interesting too - judging by the self-contained buffers, I guess the nearer one was converted from dumb buffers, the further one still having them.

 

I've seen a few photos from this archive before but never really explored it - the Great Central not being a particular interest. Though I would like to find some details of MSLR wagons. The kits available all seem to be of GCR - i.e. 20th century - designs.

[Rail-Online]

Another D299 spotted here:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/36891793@N08/6892809263/in/photostream/

 

I think the date is slightly later than 1915 though as pooled 5 plankers should not have been that mixed up in 1915, I would guess 1918

 

Tony

[billbedford]

I've seen a few photos from this archive before but never really explored it - the Great Central not being a particular interest. Though I would like to find some details of MSLR wagons. The kits available all seem to be of GCR - i.e. 20th century - designs.

 

 

Mousa Models' GCR open wagons are all from the late 19th century. They were developed from measurements taken by Guy Hemmingway in the late 20s/early 30s.

Edited November 5, 2017 by billbedford

[Compound2632]

Mousa Models' GCR open wagons are all from the late 19th century. They were developed from measurements taken by Guy Hemming way the the lie 20s/early 30s.

 

Apologies for not spotting those. From what you say, I gather that these are based on individual examples - but is anything known of build dates and quantities? There's a gap in the market for a volume on MSLR/GCR wagons! I note that the Diagram 8 5-plank wagon, kit BWK0553, looks to be the same type as the only photo I've come across of a wagon in MS&L livery, though that has a sheet rail.

 

Today we finally had a sunny morning so I've been able to take some photos in natural light. Firstly, the three 4-plank wagons, a type which accounted for about a third of the Great Western’s wagon fleet in the early years of the twentieth century. Firstly, an early example, No. 44510 of old series Lot 442, built in 1888:

 

 

The lettering is based on a 1902 photo of No. 44600, the last-numbered of the same Lot [Atkins, Beard and Tourret, GWR Goods Wagons, 3^rd edition (Tourret Publishing, 1998), Plate 351, p. 277]. According to the GWR Modelling website, the style with G W R at the left-hand end was not used after c. 1893, which suggests that No. 44600 at least had never been repainted although I wouldn’t say it looks any shabbier than the average – but clearly a bit of weathering would be in order. The lack of dots between G and W and R is per the photo; also, it would seem that at this date it wasn’t usual to paint the number on the end, which is a relief as that’s a bit of a pig to do on such a shallow wagon, it being difficult to keep it end upwards and steady!

 

Next, a wagon built seven years later, as part of Lot 122 of 1895: No. 64508:

 

 

This one is based on a 1901 photo of No. 64493 of the same Lot [Atkins et al. Plate 350, p. 276]. This has the “standard” livery with G.W.R at the right hand end and number on the end. The photo shows the tare weight numbers 6 4 0 painted in a block rather than script style; the BGS transfer sheet doesn’t have this. I realised too late that the POWSides LSWR sheet I was using might have a near enough style and size… Let us suppose that No. 64508 passed under the hands of a different signwriter to No. 64493! My choice of numbers was influenced by the fact that I’d already used up a lot of 2s, 3s, 7s, 8s and 9s of the Iron Mink and outside-framed van but had a column of ‘45’s flapping around.

 

In the same photo in Atkins et al. is No. 73691 of Lot 305, built in 1900 so nearly new at the time the photo was taken. That wagon has oil axleboxes and the cast number, G.W.R, and Load/Tare plates, a style I’ve followed for my model of No. 71460 of Lot 220:

 

 

… which principally demonstrates that I need to work on my dry-brushing technique for the white numbers and letters on the plates. Anyway, I’m rather pleased that I’ve been able to do three of these wagons based on early, middle and late-built examples, in three different livery styles, all based on photographs that are just a year or two earlier than my target c. 1902-3 period.

 

As I described earlier, No. 71460’s number plates are made by chopping up the 781 and 1460 plates that come with the Coopercraft kit 1004. The other plate supplied is 10070. By carefully scraping away the first zero and substituting a sliver of microstrip, I’ve made plates for another Iron Mink, No. 11070 of Lot 207, built c. 1899:

 

 

My reference for this is a photo of No. 11258 of Lot 217, built 1900 [Atkins et al. Plate 492, p. 369]. This photo shows the post-1904 25” G W lettering but still cast plates, leading to speculation that it might still be red.

Whatever the merits of that argument, it would be too late for my period – I’m going for plates all round. Lot 217 had the longer end ventilator cover; I’m hoping that Lot 207 didn’t have this innovation. The plates are recycled from the 4-plank wagon No. 44510 in its previous incarnation as my teenage build of an O5; I couldn’t salvage the solebar Load/Tare plate so I’ve tried printing one – I drew it out at 20 times scale size (in CorelDraw), scaled it and printed at the best resolution my printer offers, on photographic paper. After scoring round, it’s possible to peel off the top layer of the paper, giving a thin piece to stick onto the rectangle of plasticard I’d fixed in the solebar. I was surprised to find that the lettering is clear and well-defined, though it’s come out yellow rather than white, presumably from the yellow component of the red colour. I thought I’d got the red about right on screen but it’s clearly too bright – I’ll try again. I do have another complete set of plates along with the ‘81’ left over from 781; I’ve been juggling various combinations of this and 10070 to get a good number for an O4 5-plank wagon…

 

Thinking about colour, here’s another photo of No. 69354, taken just seconds after the photo of No. 11070:

 

 

The sunlight must have been just a bit brighter – illustrating how difficult it is to pin down this “red lead” colour. (Plus, what the eye sees in the flesh isn’t the same as what it sees by way of the camera’s response and the computer screen displays…) No. 69354 is from Lot 201, so only marginally older than No. 11070 – it might well have had plates too. Plates do save on the fiddle of getting To Carry 9 Tons into the space between two vertical stanchions! I’m still not entirely convinced by the grey rather than red roof – the photos in Atkins et al. are no help since the roof invariably looks brighter from the direct sunlight. Perhaps some of the shots of Reading goods yards taken from high vantage-points might reveal something on this score? Both these V6s are from the last 980-odd, built with oil axleboxes. I have one more teenage built one to rebuild; this will have grease axleboxes and so be representative of the great majority of Iron Minks as running c. 1902-3.

 

For completeness, another shot of the outside-framed van No. 22378, now with buffer heads. (I have blackened and bare metal 12” buffer heads but the packets have become detached from their header cards and I can’t recall which are MJT and which 51L.) Also, I’ve fallen in line with the view that ironwork below solebars was black but haven’t gone so far as to try black solebars:

 

 

Whatever colour this “red lead” is, it’s not bauxite and very definitely not brown. This is brown:

 

 

LSWR covered goods wagon No. 8114 (SR Diagram 1410), also now finished with a touch of body colour on the edges of the roof, a coat of Humbrol matt varnish, and buffers. All these wagons are without couplings: I’ve run out, and Slater’s tell me they are awaiting supplies of springs…

Edited November 5, 2017 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Question/thought: is there anyone etching these plates in 4 mm scale?

Edited November 5, 2017 by Compound2632

[BG John]

Question/thought: is there anyone etching these plates in 4 mm scale?

Not that I know of. I wonder if Narrow Planet would do them.

Edited November 5, 2017 by BG John

[Mikkel]

Oooh, that's a very attractive suite of red wagons. Interesting observation too on the lack of end numerals, hadn't noticed that.

 

I'm impressed you managed to get a numeral scraped off and replaced, must have required great care. For drybrushing of the plates, I find that diagonal strokes seem to work best.

 

Good idea about Narrow Planet, I'm in the market for a number of plates.

[Compound2632]

I'm impressed you managed to get a numeral scraped off and replaced, must have required great care.

 

Just the usual bodgery with the point of a sharp blade. I've been trying to work out if I can get away with making any other number using slivers of microstrip - 7 seems possible and useful, the problem being the next digit - one needs numbers in the range 75001-76580 - starting with 10070, could I replace a 1 with a 7 and somehow persuade a 0 to become a 6? - giving No. 76070 of Lot 414. I've also got some '81's to cut-and-shut with - turned through 180 degrees, I could get 76180. Another 1,300 O4s were in the range 24006-26000 and 400 in the 12xxx series - more challenging; but these numbers (renewals of old 1 or 2-plank opens?) are for later Lots anyway so of less interest to me.

[Miss Prism]

Masokits does a bunch of etched GWR wagon plates:

https://traders.scalefour.org/downloads/masokits/michaelclark19-12Jul.pdf

[Compound2632]

 

Masokits does a bunch of etched GWR wagon plates:

https://traders.scalefour.org/downloads/masokits/michaelclark19-12Jul.pdf

 

 

Apparently, did, but now discontinued. V5 plates are also something I have in mind - I have a V5 currently in 25" G W livery but given the 1902-1904 build dates they would have been turned out red with plates - numbers in the 699xx region look particularly challenging (starting from '10070' and '81' again) but there are also some with 11xxx numbers - interleaved with the last Lots of V6s - in fact 11118 (Lot 406) could be one I could make mostly from scratch, incorporating the '81' fragment...

 

Of course I could go down the tromp l'oeil route again, then any number is possible. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Compound2632