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

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

These would have been pooled in 1939 and promptly scattered to the 4 winds within very little time. 

 

The Midland PO Registers do include withdrawal dates for many but by no means all wagons - in the range late 1930s - 1949.

[corneliuslundie]

"wrong sort of farm animals "

which is why I read the book "Welsh sheep" before choosing the sheep for my mid Wales 1930s layout - Kerry Hill and Improved Welsh Mountain. A modern period layout would have completely different breeds. The wagons in a train would not tell me that because of pooling, though of course the loco and brake van would be GWR. 

And woodland in the 1930s would have included elm; not now.

But more to the point, different companies had distinctive styles of architecture. There was a layout at last year's Machynlleth show (organised by the Corris Railway people). I looked at a layout and it shouted out Cambrian, probably Llanbrynmair just by the style of the station buildings and signal box.

I am sure there were distinctive architectural styles on the Midland too, though with a big company like that which had absorbed many smaller companies, there would be numerous styles, each typical of the original line.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I am sure there were distinctive architectural styles on the Midland too, though with a big company like that which had absorbed many smaller companies, there would be numerous styles, each typical of the original line.

 

There was a very strong house style, or progression of house styles. The "Settle & Carlisle" style of the 1870s is well-known and was used elsewhere, for example on the Avon valley line - the preserved station at Bitton is a good example. Less well-known but equally distinctive and rather more ubiquitous is the style of the later 1860s, during the period of the great expansion - a homogeneous style use for everything from station buildings to loco sheds. Its characteristic feature was the round-headed window:

 

 

[Leeds Holbeck. MRSC 64525.]

 

 

[MRSC 12397.]

[jamie92208]

The lime wagons are an Interesting case as in service they usually carried coal in one direction and lime products in the other, then went to a colliery for their return load.   Delaneys ended up owned by ICI but not until the early 50's I think.  My main interest is to see if there are any more photos of Beadman wagons.  Obviously as the LMS PO wagon books haven't been studied it's difficult to know.  From reading one of Turton's articles in the HMRS journal, they are split between Kew for the early ones and the NRM at York. 

 

As to architectural style I can recognise the houses and stations built by the Little North Western.  One house still exists.  My own researches centered on bridge styles and certainly again the Little North Western had a distinctive style using a semi elliptical arch. 

 

Jamie

Edited March 11 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

 

A great deal of what is said in this interesting video is of general, non-gender-specific, applicability.

[Chrisbr]

On 10/03/2024 at 15:46, Compound2632 said:

According to my notes from Atkins et al., No. 34920 is from os Lot 289, the second lot with flat ends, so I'm hoping that its condition is otherwise representative of the last lots with round ends. What I'm ignorant of is when iron frames were adopted, in other words what range of lots I'm looking at for a number.

 

Anyway, in conversation with @Western Star at Basingstoke yesterday, I learned that (unsurprisingly) Atkins et al. is unreliable on these 3-plank wagons.

 

Apart from brakes, brake vee-hanger, and lever, I've realised I also need to bodge up some wooden spring stops - as for my Salthey wagons - and modify the spring shoes to represent the solid type.

 

At least by doing one of these iron framed wagons rather than one of the earlier wood-framed ones, I avoid the faff of having to make another curved brake lever:

 3 plank underframe history from the GWR Lot Book - 

 

First 4 Lots, some 700 wagons are built with Iron Frames
Next Lot, 200 wagons built with wooden frames and Iron solebar plates (Flitched)
Next 2 Lots, 400 wagons, back to Iron Frames
One Lot of 100 wagons with Wooden Frames
One Lot of 100 with Iron Frames
One Lot of 200 wagons built with wooden frames and Iron solebar plates (Flitched)
One Lot of 200 with Iron Frames
Next 2 Lots, 250 wagons, back to Wooden Frames with 50 being marked as "Various sizes" in the Order Book
Remaining 26 lots of 4660 wagons on Iron Frames, of which 3310 were built with straight ends and including 50 with Iron Bodies.

There's also 400 BG convertibles in that list. just to add to the fun....

 

Now the question to actually ask is why did they build the wooden and flitched underframes???

 

Edited March 11 by Chrisbr

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

 3 plank underframe history from the GWR Lot Book - 

 

Many thanks for this. I'm updating my list; there are some conflicts with G.W.R. Goods Wagons (as I was warned).

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Remaining 26 lots of 4660 wagons on Iron Frames, of which 3310 were built with straight ends and including 50 with Iron Bodies.

 

This agrees: iron frames from os Lot 247 onward, with straight ends from os Lot 284 onward. The lots with iron frames and rounded ends included wagons Nos. 30704-30725, 36001-36350, 34724-34843, according to G.W.R. Goods Wagons.

 

I'm curious about the 50 with iron bodies!

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

There's also 400 BG convertibles in that list. just to add to the fun....

 

According to G.W.R. Goods Wagons, os Lots 345 and 369, Nos. 11501-11900.

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

First 4 Lots, some 700 wagons are built with Iron Frames

 

According to G.W.R. Goods Wagons, os Lots 188, 196, 202, and 209, including Nos. 30501-30800.

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Next Lot, 200 wagons built with wooden frames and Iron solebar plates (Flitched)

 

os Lot 210, Nos. 30801-31000.

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Next 2 Lots, 400 wagons, back to Iron Frames

 

os Lots 211 and 212, Nos. 31401-31800. My notes say that G.W.R. Goods Wagons says flitched frames for Lot 211 but that might be my transcription error, it may be that that note is for Lot 210.

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

One Lot of 100 wagons with Wooden Frames
One Lot of 100 with Iron Frames
One Lot of 200 wagons built with wooden frames and Iron solebar plates (Flitched)
One Lot of 200 with Iron Frames

 

os Lot 213, but G.W.R. Goods Wagons says this lot was for 200, Nos. 31801-32000.

os Lot 219, 100, various numbers.

os Lot 226, but G.W.R. Goods Wagons says this lot was for 100, Nos. 23791-23806, 31337-31376.

os Lot 231, 200, including Nos. 34001-34100.

 

Is it simply the case that you have listed the lots in order of construction / completion, rather than numerical order? 

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Next 2 Lots, 250 wagons, back to Wooden Frames with 50 being marked as "Various sizes" in the Order Book

 

os Lots 233 and 237, but this is where things really fall apart, as G.W.R. Goods Wagons has these as two lots of 200 each, with Lot 233 taking Nos. 31377-31400, 34101-34276.

 

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Now the question to actually ask is why did they build the wooden and flitched underframes???

 

Using up material on hand? As the Midland directors discovered in 1902, with wooden wagons one couldn't just change wagon design overnight; the timber had to be bought in two or three years in advance. Obviously Swindon could make the change to iron frames more quickly, but there would still be valuable oak scantlings stacked in the drying sheds for two or three years' worth of wooden frames.

Edited March 12 by Compound2632
typo.

[corneliuslundie]

"Now the question to actually ask is why did they build the wooden and flitched underframes???"

To confuse us modellers of course.

Or to give us plenty of choice when building our models. Choose almost any combination of frames etc and all one has to di is find a number which fits.

But this is so unlike the later GWR where one gets the feeling that changing the length of the bolts holding the buffers on would have led to a new diagram number.

Jonathan 

[WFPettigrew]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Obviously Swindon could make the change to iron frames more quickly, but there would still be valuable oak scantlings stacked in the drying sheds for two or three years' worth of wooden frames.

 

The other factor would be the price of iron.  Just as today, the price could and can vary wildy. 

 

Taking a geographical side step, but historians have charted the periods of investment and expansion of the Furness Railway as being directly linked to periods of boom in the iron industry (due to the FR carrying the very rich haematite ore needed for the best iron and steel making in Victorian times - and the pig iron and finished iron and steel products from the numerous works in the area).  When the iron market was in a slump, some furnaces came out of blast, reducing supply and so putting the price up.  

 

More recently the heritage railway charity that I am a trustee for purchased a new hefty piece of threaded bar for a locomtive screw reverser.   The quoted price was only honoured for the day of the quotation.  Not even one week.. 

 

So it might simpy have been better value to build with wood. 

 

All the best

 

Neil

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, WFPettigrew said:

The other factor would be the price of iron.  Just as today, the price could and can vary wildy. 

 

This would imply that a stock of oak scantlings was being held as insurance against such price fluctuations, which seems to me unlikely. There is, however, another factor: the need to retrain the workmen, used to assembling timber frames, with the skills needed for working with iron frames.

 

Thomas Clayton's comments on iron v. wood framed wagons, in the discussion on a paper "On the Mineral Wagons of South Wales" given by Alfred Slater of the Gloucester Wagon Co., are of interest [Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Nov. 1884 p. 430]. With regard to iron-framed or wood-framed wagons:

 

"he might mention that as far back as 1844 the Great Western Railway had a large number of their wagons built with iron frames. Having been himself engaged on that railway as carriage superintendent, his experience of the iron frames had been that they were both troublesome and expensive in maintenance. Certainly they possessed greater durability, inasmuch as they would not rot away so soon as timber ; but they could not be repaired anywhere and everywhere like timber frames, and in being shunted they frequently got bent and buckled up and out of square. The result of that experience was that ultimately the Great Western Railway found it would be better to revert to the wood frames, which were accordingly adhered to for some years : until there had recently been a return to the iron-framed wagon—why he could hardly say."

 

The sources I've found for Clayton's early career are inconsistent but according to one source he joined the Locomotive Department of the Shrewsbury & Birmingham at Wolverhampton in 1850, when he was 19, under Joseph Armstrong, which would mean that he was on the Great Western for nearly 20 years - September 1854 to July 1873. Another source has him joining the Great Western in 1859, with various unspecified employment in London and elsewhere through the 1850s, so he may have left Wolverhampton after an apprenticeship and then gone back to work for Joseph Armstrong, who was then still at Wolverhampton. When Armstrong moved to Swindon in 1864 as successor to Gooch, his title was Locomotive, Carriage & Wagon Superintendent; was it at this point that Clayton was made responsible for the Carriage & Wagon side of things, as Armstrong's deputy? His salary on the Great Western in November 1870, when the Midland board was starting to think about separating responsibility for carriages and wagons out from the Locomotive Department, was £365 pa. His starting salary on the Midland was £700 pa, which shows how much the Midland board wanted him - as I believe, chiefly for his experience in setting up the Swindon Carriage & Wagon Works.

Edited March 12 by Compound2632

[corneliuslundie]

I, like you, am curious about the iron bodied batch. Early on many companies had iron bodied wagons, but wood soon took over. The GWR had metal bodied loco coal wagons but I think that there were problems even there with corrosion. And of course in BR days the 16 ton minerals suffered the same way.

Wood certainly has advantages, even if it may mean more maintenance.  And plenty of pre-grouping wooden wagons lasted to BR days.

BTW I have noticed that in the GWR withdrawal registers there seems to be a blurring between timber wagons and Iron Ore & Rail wagons. Certainly some of the South Wales companies had dedicated Iron Ore & Rail wagons, but some of those so described in the registers were definitely timber wagons, albeit that they might have been used as rail wagons in later days. As in these Rhymney Iron Ore & Rail wagons: low sides for the iron ore and wooden stanchions for the rails.

 

Sorry if I am hijacking the thread yet again.

Jonathan

 

[WFPettigrew]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

This would imply that a stock of oak scantlings was being held as insurance against such price fluctuations, which seems to me unlikely

 

That is a fair point Stephen, though it assumes that all carriage and wagon construction would go over to iron frames, which may or may not be the case.   And it ignores the need to repair wooden framed wagons.  Both of these would require a stock of oak being laid up?

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

44 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I, like you, am curious about the iron bodied batch. Early on many companies had iron bodied wagons, but wood soon took over. The GWR had metal bodied loco coal wagons but I think that there were problems even there with corrosion. And of course in BR days the 16 ton minerals suffered the same way.

 

The Manchester Ship Canal Railway, which favoured purchasing open wagons second-hand from the main-line companies, had several open wagons with iron/steel bodies and underframes. Some photos exist, though there are no close-ups of complete wagons there is a pretty good view of half a wagon and 5 or 6 views which show them in the background. They had cupboard doors. 

I made a model of one by cutting down an Iron Mink. Since making the model I think I was erroneous in retaining the curved corners of the Mink, as photos I've found since then have square corners. But the Mink-style cupboard doors and the underframe of the prototype have a GWR flavour. Shall I dig out some images and post them here in case they are relevant?

[Compound2632]

52 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Sorry if I am hijacking the thread yet again.

 

I think that's well-established to be the thread's modus operandi.

 

4 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Shall I dig out some images and post them here in case they are relevant?

 

Very welcome!

[WFPettigrew]

40 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

As in these Rhymney Iron Ore & Rail wagons: low sides for the iron ore and wooden stanchions for the rails.

 

Those are interesting Jonathan.  So were they used (some of the time) for carrying iron ore from the mines/quarries between Tredegar and Treorchy?  (This is where Google is telling me is there were iron ore deposits in the valleys would therefore include the upper reaches of the RR?)

 

I am curious that ore could be economically carried in such low side wagons, but I don't know what sort of ore it was, and how dense.  The haematite ore found in Furness was typically carried in 4 or more plank hopper wagons rated to 10 tons - so relatively high sided wagons for before the Great War (ignoring the FR's unusual side tip wagons dating back to the 1850s) - but it was a fairly soft crumbling ore hereabouts, and the FR used low side wagons like this in numbers not for ore but to move the newly cast iron pigs to the steelworks/foundries/export to other parts of the rail network.   Such low side wagons were also used to bring the limestone to the ironworks for use as a flux, as its density meant you didn't need a heavier wagon - which is what made me wonder if the Welsh ore was more dense.

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[Baldyoldgit]

On 10/03/2024 at 11:04, corneliuslundie said:

And almost certainly no 12 inch steel buffer heads anywhere at the moment.

Jonathan 

Wizard models have some in stock

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/loc412/

Tony

[corneliuslundie]

I don't know about the iron ore, but I think it was often imported through Cardiff Docks. So the rails would be going downhill, for export, and the iron ore uphill. There are certainly photos of these wagons in the docks. See for example page 100 of the WRRC Rhymney Railway drawings book.

And re buffer heads, I suspect that the answer is "but not for long". I have just ordered some.

Jonathan

Edited March 12 by corneliuslundie

[Northroader]

On the subject of iron bodied GWR wagons, there’s 31076, the number falling between blocks of the various 3 plank builds listed above. It’s pictured at Newquay Harbour, loaded with coal, presumably imported by sea from South Wales. Would it be one of the mentioned jobs, or just absorbed from the Cornwall Minerals Railway? The wagon next to it still has dumb buffers… then there’s the spring shoes, either they’re a very good fit, or there’s extensions down from the solebars? Flitched?

 

 

Edited March 12 by Northroader

[Chrisbr]

3 hours ago, Northroader said:

On the subject of iron bodied GWR wagons, there’s 31076, the number falling between blocks of the various 3 plank builds listed above. It’s pictured at Newquay Harbour, loaded with coal, presumably imported by sea from South Wales. Would it be one of the mentioned jobs, or just absorbed from the Cornwall Minerals Railway? The wagon next to it still has dumb buffers… then there’s the spring shoes, either they’re a very good fit, or there’s extensions down from the solebars? Flitched?

 

 

Ex CMR N0 214 - Body 11' long, 6'9" wide and 2'6" high, wood underframe (not flitched), 3' wheels with 6' 6" wheelbase. Wagon Stock Book records buffers as changed to self contained, but no date, 12 Ton load and as built recorded as 4.15.2 weight. Built by Swanage Wagon Co. in 1874, renumbered into GWR in Oct 1878 and condemned at St Blazey in April 1914.

[Pete Haitch]

On 11/03/2024 at 12:41, Andy Hayter said:

 

But it can be just as easy to make fundamental mistakes in scenic modelling.  Perhaps these go unnoticed because while some of us a true experts in the railway, I suspect few of us would claim to be experts in the wider world.  This can result in an almost anything goes view of what happens beyond the railway fence.

 

Examples of the above would be:

vehicles out of period

too many vehicles in periods when motorised transport was much rarer

wrong sort of farm animals - no a cow is not just a cow for example and cows were bred and raised for particular regions.

out of period advertising

wrong sort of road signs or road markings

Many layouts I saw in the early sixties were only modelled to the railway fence. Reasons for this were not necessarily through lack of desire, but could be lack of materials due to post war recession and the demands for materials for rebuilding (remember all those model fields that were coated in a mix of sawdust mixed with army surplus green paint?); longer working weeks and much shorter period between retirement and setting-off to meet one's maker. 

 

Whist I would agree that the necessary skills to be able to both proffer and receive helpful criticism, offered with positive intent, appear to be declining; I certainly question any suggestion that increasing the scenic fidelity is contributing to mediocracy any more than swapping brass sheet and files for CAD and 3D printing represents a decline in skills, rather than an adjustment to equally skilled use of new materials and tools. 

 

The 'wrong sort of farm animals' is so true.  There is a picture of Gloucester cattle in Cornwall and another from the 1930s showing (IIRC) an ox-plough pulled by a couple of longhorns.  Therefore I'm trying to produce some gloucesters with typical markings  because, as a triple purpose breed, I can use one or two span as draught animals.  As mediocre as using the the right axleboxes, or makers plate on the sole bar.   I can think of 4 UK breeds of pig that would have been common in their native area in  the 19th Century, but became extinct in the 2nd half of the 20th Century. Researching these can be just as demanding as that required to build a Victorian Era wagon.

 

The form and, particularly, height of trees is another area that I feel is frequently ignored.  This can give a false sense of perspective to a loco running in the countryside compromising the visual perception of its size. The limits of material technology mean that even the finest P4 model that overcomes gauge shortcomings, is compromised, but good scenery can help overcome this by giving a setting to provide some kind of relevant visual reference.

 

The Lizard Peninsular has produced several different granites each of unique colour. I was so impressed to see @Andy Keane consider this before opting for the local greenstone as the basis for the road/yard surface colour on his outstanding Helston Revisited layout.  This is detailed scenery research that will  enhance a far from mediocre layout. Similarly, some 19th Century railways used local bricks for buildings. The brick size varied tremendously from what has become the Standard British Brick size - which is why some modelers will scribe the bricks for a building rather than using a brick paper or embossed sheet.

 

 

All these things help build research and modelling skills as well as enhancing the railway operations by illustrating their social and commercial purpose. With a proposed layout name of Polhelyk, I'm studying willow trees to try and find a suitable one on which to base a model 'feature' tree. Its also stimulating me to consider whether I could create a master from which I could create a mould and cast some Panter axle boxes rather than live with what is currently on the wagons. For me, good practice and attention to detail in one area stimulates the same in another.  

Edited March 12 by Pete Haitch

[corneliuslundie]

With trains a persistent problem is length. We often have to compromise  and use shorter than prototype rakes.

With track layouts we constantly have to compromise because of lack of space.

With trees there is a similar problem. A mature tree can be well over 100 ft tall (discounting the Canadian redwoods near here) and a 120 ft tree will be over 18 inches high. But on most layouts it is not practical to have the trees higher than the backscene, perhaps 8 inches at most.

At least we can make our individual wagons accurate.

Jonathan

[Pete Haitch]

6 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

With trains a persistent problem is length. We often have to compromise  and use shorter than prototype rakes.

With track layouts we constantly have to compromise because of lack of space.

With trees there is a similar problem. A mature tree can be well over 100 ft tall (discounting the Canadian redwoods near here) and a 120 ft tree will be over 18 inches high. But on most layouts it is not practical to have the trees higher than the backscene, perhaps 8 inches at most.

At least we can make our individual wagons accurate.

Jonathan

That's why I'm planning a small layout with a 40cm high backscene. Agree with you about wagons, I've got a couple on accommodation underframes pending more research and a final decision on couplings.  I love the diversity of interest areas this hobby offers. I visited a model shop about 3 years ago when I returned to modelling - they offered me a heavy goods loco for £250 and a number of wagons at £25 each.  I've seen some great layouts using such RTR items; but I bought some plastic, wheels and fittings and scratch built a wagon from 1905 instead. Each to their own.

[wagonman]

2 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Ex CMR N0 214 - Body 11' long, 6'9" wide and 2'6" high, wood underframe (not flitched), 3' wheels with 6' 6" wheelbase. Wagon Stock Book records buffers as changed to self contained, but no date, 12 Ton load and as built recorded as 4.15.2 weight. Built by Swanage Wagon Co. in 1874, renumbered into GWR in Oct 1878 and condemned at St Blazey in April 1914.

 

I totally agree – except they were built by the Swansea Wagon Co. Slip of the finger?

[Andy Vincent]

4 hours ago, Pete Haitch said:

Its also stimulating me to consider whether I could create a master from which I could create a mould and cast some Panter axle boxes rather than live with what is currently on the wagons

Is this for 4mm or something larger?

[Chrisbr]

11 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

With trains a persistent problem is length. We often have to compromise  and use shorter than prototype rakes.

With track layouts we constantly have to compromise because of lack of space.

With trees there is a similar problem. A mature tree can be well over 100 ft tall (discounting the Canadian redwoods near here) and a 120 ft tree will be over 18 inches high. But on most layouts it is not practical to have the trees higher than the backscene, perhaps 8 inches at most.

At least we can make our individual wagons accurate.

Jonathan

Mea Culpa - quite correct it was Swansea not Swanage - confused by the capital C in the line below making it look like a g....