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

[Compound2632]

I think youll have a much harder time with the chains than I will. 

 

Another gauge 3 modeller I was talking to recently said that working in 4mm scale was so much easier because one could get away with any old fudge...

[Compound2632]

I had started on a little project to build all the varieties of covered goods wagons possible from the Slater’s kits but got sidetracked by the fruits of my visit to ExpoEM.

 

John Redrup of London Road Models very generously gave me a couple of sets of parts for the bolster from his new kit for the LNWR D12 timber wagon. At long last I’ve been able to make progress with my D12 and D13 timber wagons, built from Ratio parts:

 

 

The bolster is a whitemetal casting with a spigot that fits into the hole in the bolster support, as a pivot. The stanchions had been my real stumbling block: having seen Mike’s 7mm scale version, I wasn’t going to be happy with a bit of wire. The LRM stanchions are part of a small 15 thou nickel-silver etch which also includes the brake lever and guard. They are designed to be of double thickness, folded over and soldered together. This would give 30 thou thickness, scale 2¼”. I made one up but felt (a) it looked too thick and (b) there was a lot of very fiddly filing and polishing to get a smooth edge, so I decided to just use a single thickness – scale 1⅛”. The prototype dimension is 1¾”, about half way between! I console myself with the observation that Mike’s hand-crafted ones are made from 28 thou material, so about 1¼” in 7 mm scale. The bolster casting has dimples where it needs to be drilled to take the stanchions. I drilled the holes 0.8 mm diameter first then opened up to 1.2 mm, which is a tight fit for the stanchions. With the stanchions wedged in place the holes were filled with low-melt solder from the rear (bottom) side. I still have to work out how to do the D-shackles but I do have some fine chain that came with early versions of the Ratio p/w wagons kit.

 

In view of John’s generosity and out of curiosity, I bought the kit:

 

 

The etch with stanchions is at the bottom of the photo – it should be clear how it’s intended to be doubled over. The resin body has a “skirt” that has to be cut away – this is necessary for successful resin casting, to avoid air pockets:

 

 

I scored along the bottom of the solebars with the craft knife and then cut the skirt lengthways. The resin is brittle; pieces broke away easily along the score line. I cleaned up the surface with fine sandpaper, removing  the dust with a piece of damp kitchen towel rather than blowing it away:

 

 

The usual way of making dumb buffers was to make the oak solebars about 3’ longer than the wagon body; a block of oak was fitted behind the part of the solebar that projected beyond the headstock and firmly bolted to the solebar by several (in this case four) carriage bolts. This gave the buffers a square cross-section and also meant that their centres were close to the standard 5’8½” centres of sprung buffers. To prevent the buffer from splitting under impact, an iron hoop was shrunk around the end. The seating for this hoop was carved out of the timber, so that it sat flush with the solebar, rather than being raised. On my kitbashed models, I’ve represented this by a score-line, whereas the resin body has a raised hoop. Being finicky, I used this as a guide to score a line then carved the raised part off flush with the solebar.

 

A timber wagon had to be designed to take the load – up to 10 tons – at its centre, rather than evenly distributed as in a mineral wagon. To this end, the bolster support was a very substantial piece of timber, the weight of which was transmitted to the mid-point of the solebars. The short wheelbase helped to reduce the bending stress in the solebars; in addition they were made thicker than the standard 4½”; 5½” according to the drawing in LNWR Wagons Vol. 1, and reinforced on the outside with ⅜” iron plate. This plate extended about 7½” beyond the end of the headstocks and in photos the step where it ends is noticeable; I tried to show this on my kitbashed wagon but it isn’t represented on the resin body. Apologies for this criticism – in other respects the resin body is much better than my effort: the bolt-heads are much finer than my crude plasticard squares.

 

The etched axleguards are attached to a sub-base using a piece of brass wire to keep them aligned:

 

 

I left the tabs on the W-iron on the right, so that it is fixed in position, but cut them off the other, leaving it free to rock. To fix the wire in place, I applied a dab of solder to one of the inner fold-down sub-floor tabs. Here I blundered: I soldered the rocking end! Although I’d only used a minute amount of solder, several attempts demonstrated that it wasn’t going to unsolder. So I settled for adjusting it as square on to the other axleguard unit as I could, checking by standing the assembly on a flat surface. Oh well, compensation isn’t really necessary on such a short wheelbase wagon in 00…

 

The kit is supplied with Alan Gibson shouldered bearings. I’d had a bad experience with these on my first Mousa kit: Bill’s suspension system needs the greater depth of the MJT bearings. The LRM axleguards are designed around the Gibson bearings, so no problem here. The grease axleboxes were tidied up with a fine file and soldered in place – glueing would have been easier and quicker but as I had the temperature controlled iron out, I decided to practice my technique. The springs are glued to the resin body using Rocket Max cyano:

 

 

Time for a trial assembly and comparison with my home-made version:

 

 

The sub-floor has to be pushed very firmly into place to get the ride height right – I’m thinking I’ll use a small clamp when I finally glue it.

 

 

Just brakes and couplings to go. I’m planning to use the etched brake lever and guard on my D13 pair too. I’ve been a bit fussy about the dumb buffers but this is a very nice little kit that makes good use of a combination of materials – I’ve not weighed it yet but its’s heavier than my all-plastic version. It illustrates once again how techniques such as resin casting can make it viable to produce a prototype that wouldn’t be viable as an injection-moulded kit.

 

While I had the temperature-controlled soldering iron out, I also made a start on a couple of 51L whitemetal kits from the Wizard Models stand at ExpoEM. First, a covered goods wagon of the type ordered by William Kirtley for the opening of the Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Company (hereinafter HB&WRJR&DCo for short) in 1887, later Diagram 13 according to the instructions:

 

 

The castings are very sharp and with large mating surfaces thoroughly polished up, it soldered together more easily than anything else I’ve done to date. I used my small engineer’s square to keep the side and ends perpendicular as I soldered, with some card packing to prevent heat transfer.

 

I struggled a bit more with the kit for the Midland D336 long low wagon:

 

 

The joining surfaces are smaller and encumbered with detail so it was much harder to get good clean surfaces and to hold everything square in both planes when soldering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Spitfire2865]

I remember building that long low kit. Mine had a strange twist in both solebars that was near impossible to fix. Was yours any different?

[Mikkel]

Excellent work and an informative read, Stephen.

 

I had been wondering about those skirts on resin castings, good to know they are necessary. And nice to see a resin body that is flat when supplied. The resin kit seem to compare reasonably well with your DIY version (I switched that around on purpose, I think yours has the edge!).

Edited June 10, 2018 by Mikkel

[Compound2632]

I remember building that long low kit. Mine had a strange twist in both solebars that was near impossible to fix. Was yours any different?

 

The sides are free of twist - which I agree would be a disaster. The whole thing is a bit banana-shaped when seen in plan view - I'm hoping fitting the floor will fix that - but fortunately it's flat and level. 

 

I have a feeling I've got another of these bought many years ago but not attempted; it way well have been under a different brand label then. I think it must be a much older kit than the H&B* van. I'm wondering if any of the 51L range are ex-D&S because they have a NER covered goods wagon that looks very like the one I glued together from a D&S kit many years ago - unless I'm mistaken and that wasn't a D&S kit? None of these feature in the Spring 2005 D&S list I have but by then I think Danny had already wound down the whitemetal side of things.

 

*Yes, I give in...

Edited June 10, 2018 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

D12 masses (including whitemetal bolster):

 

Home-made: 14 g

LRM: 21 g

 

Target mass around 50 g! Eventually, the load will provide some extra mass, at least on the wagons with bolsters. The problem will be weighting the wagon acting as runner, to keep it similar to the others. I imagine this may have been a problem on the real thing; three wagons each not much more than 4 tons tare with two wagons sharing a 20 ton load.

 

The HB&WRJR&DCo. van already comes in at 54 g!

[Rail-Online]

I remember building that long low kit. Mine had a strange twist in both solebars that was near impossible to fix. Was yours any different?

 

There have been two whitemetal kits , Model Wagon Company and David Geen.  I suspect it was the former with the twisted solebars.

 

Tony

[Compound2632]

There have been two whitemetal kits , Model Wagon Company and David Geen.  I suspect it was the former with the twisted solebars.

 

Tony

 

Ah, it may be the David Geen kit I have lurking somewhere. But that is (or was) for the D339 double bolster wagon, not the D336 long low. Perhaps the 51L kit is in fact the Model Wagon Co one but better cast?

[Rail-Online]

There have been two whitemetal kits , Model Wagon Company and David Geen.  I suspect it was the former with the twisted solebars.

 

Tony

Sorry, memory is going.......I meant Model Wagon Co and 51L/Wizard, the one being built is more likely the former as I had seperate axleboxes and springs and of course was made for ethed (Colin Waite) W irons.

 

Tony

[Compound2632]

Sorry, memory is going.......I meant Model Wagon Co and 51L/Wizard, the one being built is more likely the former as I had seperate axleboxes and springs and of course was made for ethed (Colin Waite) W irons.

 

Tony

 

Just to avoid confusion, the kit for the D336 long low wagon that I am building at the moment is recently purchased from 51L/Wizard and has the springs integrally cast with the sides and also etched W-irons.

[Spitfire2865]

The kit I had was definitely from 51L. Only ever had 2 Geen kits, neither was MR. Maybe a better batch. I know Nile also built one and his had the same twist.

[Coal Tank]

Nice read Stephen I've started two of these

John

[Compound2632]

Nice read Stephen I've started two of these

John

 

Yes, I thought you'd posted something and wanted to cross-reference but couldn't find it.

[Lecorbusier]

I have a pretty basic question which hopefully someone can give me a steer on. I am looking to model the brake gear on a D351 8T (what Essery describes as the front opening version of the D299). I just want to be sure of the hanger positions for the gear.

 

[Spitfire2865]

I have a pretty basic question which hopefully someone can give me a steer on. I am looking to model the brake gear on a D351 8T (what Essery describes as the front opening version of the D299). I just want to be sure of the hanger positions for the gear.

 

D299.jpg

Ok. To give some answers.

Pre 1903 axleboxes would be grease, as is in the photo you have, which I believe dates from around the mid 1910s.  Wagons were the last concern for railways so often they were last to be overhauled.

 

Brake gear would originally be on one side of the wagon only.  Then the RCH decided all wagons should have brakes on both sides, and those brakes should be released from the side they were applied (to GWR annoyance).

Again, you would often find wagons in years past this rule change still with antiquated brakes.

On single sided brakes, there was often two brake hangers (the V shaped supports) on either side of the solebar to equally support the brake shaft.  Beyond this, to the inside would sit the brake cam that attached to the pushrods.  The brake shaft would only be as long as needed.  If the wagon had floor drop doors as in the Midland D299 pictured, the brake pushrods were actually angled towards the outside of the wagon rather than parallel to the solebars so that the cross shaft would clear the swing of the door. 

 

For the brake lever, yes it was bent to avoid the axlebox after passing through the rack.  

 

Looking at the drawing attached (provided by the Midland Study Center), you can clearly see the brake linkages on the top view drawing.  

Edited June 25, 2018 by Spitfire2865

[Lecorbusier]

Ok. To give some answers.

Pre 1903 axleboxes would be grease, as is in the photo you have, which I believe dates from around the mid 1910s.  Wagons were the last concern for railways so often they were last to be overhauled.

 

Brake gear would originally be on one side of the wagon only.  Then the RCH decided all wagons should have brakes on both sides, and those brakes should be released from the side they were applied (to GWR annoyance).

Again, you would often find wagons in years past this rule change still with antiquated brakes.

On single sided brakes, there was often two brake hangers (the V shaped supports) on either side of the solebar to equally support the brake shaft.  Beyond this, to the inside would sit the brake cam that attached to the pushrods.  The brake shaft would only be as long as needed.  If the wagon had floor drop doors as in the Midland D299 pictured, the brake pushrods were actually angled towards the outside of the wagon rather than parallel to the solebars so that the cross shaft would clear the swing of the door. 

 

For the brake lever, yes it was bent to avoid the axlebox after passing through the rack.  

 

Looking at the drawing attached (provided by the Midland Study Center), you can clearly see the brake linkages on the top view drawing.  

MR end door.jpg

Thanks very much for such a comprehensive answer .... now I need to adjust my set up    Proves the adage ... if your not sure ASK!

 

Tim

[billbedford]

 If the wagon had floor drop doors as in the Midland D299 pictured, the brake pushrods were actually angled towards the outside of the wagon rather than parallel to the solebars so that the cross shaft would clear the swing of the door. 

 

All brake push rods were set at a 1:20 angle relative to the sole bar to match the coning on the wheels.

Edited June 25, 2018 by billbedford

[Spitfire2865]

 

All brake push rods were set at a 1:20 angle relative to the sole bar to match the coning on the wheels.

Not all.  

For one, I have a drawing of an LSWR twin timber that has parallel pushrods.  L&Y also did parallel pushrods with brake blocks that bore on the tread AND flange.  

[Compound2632]

Spitfire's pretty much covered it - building in Gauge 3 he's had to look at these things closely. For the D351 5-plank end-door wagons, the Midland Railway Study Centre* website has a scanned copy of Drawing 790. 

 

That photo of D299 No. 37195 deserves further comment. It has the earlier 8A grease axleboxes (per the Mousa kit), rather than the later Ellis 10A type (per the Slaters kit). MJT do both types in cast whitemetal, should one want to mix and match. Roughly speaking, the 8A axleboxes were standard on wagons built in the 1880s, with the 10A type on wagons built in the 1890s, though I haven't been able to pin down exactly when the change-over happened. The very last batches of D299 had oil axleboxes from new and there may have been some retro-fitting in the last years before the grouping. The number 37195 does suggest earlier construction - where numbers are known, 1890s wagons seem to be in the 6XXXX range or higher. 

 

The D351 end-door wagons were built to lots ordered from 1890 to 1900 and all had the 10A axleboxes; the Derby official in Midland Wagons shows No. 100000 of the batch, lot 244, with 10A axleboxes. Note that as built with single-sided brakes, the brakes are on the side with the end-door at the right-hand end. Although any quantity of wagons pales into insignificance compared to the 62,000 D299s, this was a very numerous type, with 9,000 built. As the known numbers roughly correlate to the total Midland wagon stock at the time of building (and are all in the 1XXXXX range) I have a theory that they were built as new capital additions to stock, rather than renewals of old wagons, whereas the D299s were mostly replacements of the bought-up PO wagons and thus charged to revenue.

 

I think that on wagons (at least Midland wagons) with single-side brakes, the push-rods are angled in order to bring the ends as close as possible to the short cross-shaft, to avoid stressing the unsupported end. Bill's point about matching the cone angle is a subtle one - perhaps true of later design practice? - but not borne out by the Midland drawings, which show a clearly steeper angle than 1:20. 

 

I'm afraid there's been a bit of a lull in my wagon building. My weekends have largely been taken up with visiting my father in hospital - a 200-mile round trip. I hope to be back in the swing in a few weeks time. In addition to all the half-finished projects already described on here, a couple of the Mousa kits for each of the earlier variants of the Midland 3-plank dropside wagon have joined the pending pile. The Slater's kit represents D305 wagons built from 1897 onwards to Drawing 1143 (with 10A grease axleboxes; later production had oil axleboxes from new); Bill's kits represent the earlier version of D305 built between 1877 and 1887 to Drawing 213 (with 8A axleboxes), and the pre-Lot Book version with wooden brake blocks, of which there were still around 15,000 in traffic in 1894 and were probably the type used for ballast around the turn of the century. It looks as if, prior to the late 1870s, the 3-plank dropside wagon was the Midland's standard merchandise wagon. I've been thinking about the development of this wagon type since Lecorbusier first raised the question of ballast trains last autumn.

 

*Spitfire: note spelling!

[Spitfire2865]

Spitfire's pretty much covered it - building in Gauge 3 he's had to look at these things closely. For the D351 5-plank end-door wagons, the Midland Railway Study Centre* website has a scanned copy of Drawing 790. 

 

*Spitfire: note spelling!

Ahh you got me! My days of quickly writing posts are over!

 

Also, Dont forget Bills older etched 3 plank which I believe was D8?? something or another. 

[Compound2632]

Ahh you got me! My days of quickly writing posts are over!

 

Also, Dont forget Bills older etched 3 plank which I believe was D8?? something or another. 

 

D818 - only 550 built 1915/16 and hence"after my period". 9'6" wheelbase and 16'0" over headstocks, in common with most Midland designs after Bain took over from Clayton - but these wagons were always built in fewer numbers than the designs of the 1880s and 90s. 

[Compound2632]

i'm not that great a Brighton enthusiast - nothing against the line, just not really in my sphere of interest - but I found this photo of Brighton Works interesting. Apart from contributing to a discussion on the Castle Aching thread about the variability in apparent colour of locomotives in identical livery, in nineteenth-century photographs, I'm intrigued by the markings on the Stephenson Clarke wagon in the right foreground:

 

 

Is this merely nineteenth-century grafitti or do these cabalistic symbols have some arcane meaning to Stephenson Clarke's agents?

 

There was some discussion on this thread a good while back about Stephenson Clarke wagons; some dumb-buffered ones are still on my list, for my biscuit factory project, along with some Gloucester-built ones for general use.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Spitfire2865]

i'm not that great a Brighton enthusiast - nothing against the line, just not really in my sphere of interest - but I found this photo of Brighton Works interesting. Apart from contributing to a discussion on the Castle Aching thread about the variability in apparent colour of locomotives in identical livery, in nineteenth-century photographs, I'm intrigued by the markings on the Stephenson Clarke wagon in the right foreground:

 

brighton_steam_engines_crop.jpg

 

Is this merely nineteenth-century grafitti or do these cabalistic symbols have some arcane meaning to Stephenson Clarke's agents?

 

There was some discussion on this thread a good while back about Stephenson Clarke wagons; some dumb-buffered ones are still on my list, for my biscuit factory project, along with some Gloucester-built ones for general use.

I would think archaic graffiti would be a little less crude.  

Looks more like a child got bored. 

[wagonman]

I would think archaic graffiti would be a little less crude.  

Looks more like a child got bored. 

 

 

 

I'd have thought any child in the Brighton Works yard would have been kept hard at work...

[wagonman]

In case anyone is interested there's a Slater's D299 kit on eBay at the moment https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SLATERS-4MM-SCALE-OO-EM-P4-GAUGE-LMS-MIDLAND-5-PLANK-WAGON-KIT-NEW-BOXED/153081216332?hash=item23a459fd4c:g:b7QAAOSwEjlbN4ev

 

And no, it's not one of mine!