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

[Compound2632]

I thought i would load this D305 Midland 3 plank wagon I have been having a first go at scratch building as I would love suggestions as to how I might better model the chain and locking peg for the drop sides in 4mm scale. I have posted elsewhere on the web and am now aware of the need to reposition the name plate etc on the sole bars. Any other suggestions for adjustment/improvement gratefully accepted. Still very much a steep learning curve.

 

Superb work - the detail of the door catches and chains puts my Slaters / Mousa kit built efforts to shame! Also of course in P4 you'll always get a finer appearance below solebar level, with the etched axleguards and brake gear. The etched solebar detail looks good too. One place where this really scores over the Slater's kit is the etched V-iron. This represents a piece of ironwork 3/8" thick; even thinning the plastic as much as i dare it's more like 2" on mine!

 

What is your method for the bolt heads?

 

As we discussed elsewhere. I gathered this started out with the intention of being a Drg 213 wagon from the 1880s, hence the numberplate position; but has morphed into a Drg 1143 wagon - built 1897/8 for Monsal Dale's 1903? date.

 

On the other hand, for Monsal Dale you'll need how many? - at a minimum say half-a-dozen of these and two dozen D299s to keep the balance of numbers right. Still, once you're in the groove I expect you can mass-produce the parts. Looking forward to seeing them!

Edited December 28, 2018 by Compound2632

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks for your kind words Stephen ... I think you do your own efforts a disservice, I have learnt much from your modelling and also your detailed appreciation of the nuances of the differing wagon types.

 

I suppose on the numbers front it all depends on how impatient one happens to be or what time scales one is working to .... I find I get a great deal of pleasure out of the build process itself - maybe that will change. I would say that I tend to wagon model using a stolen hour here and there ... it is amazing how these build up and a vehicle gets finished. This method means that you don't tend to get board or fed up with the process. I think sitting down for an extended period to do such work might drive me nuts .... but as things stand I find it very therapeutic after a busy day.

 

On the bolt head front I started by playing around with some of John Hayes' suggestions. In the end I settled on using the unscrewable guide portion at the business end of a propelling pencil (0.3mm) as a makeshift punch into 0.005" evergreen 9009 sheet. A gentle tap with a hammer produces the bolt heads (using a cutting mat as the base) and I found you can punch up to 4 times and then use a suitable piece of wire to extract from the tube. I place a dab of slaters MEK where I wish to locate the bolt and then place the bolthead using the tip of a scalpel blade. If you get it wrong, once dry you can simply cut the head off and have another go.

Initially I intend to model a local drop off ballast train ... Glynn Waite at the Rowsley Ass informs me that such a train ran up the line regularly from a very early date to drop off ballast for packing at various locations .... I thought it could comprise of one of the Rowsley or Buxton 1F 0-6-0 tanks (via the shed allocations circa 1903) with say four 3 plank wagons? (3 for ballast and one for sleepers) with a ballast brake van bringing up the rear to drop of gangs in the more remote locations. One of the wagons could be full, one perhaps half full with shovels etc on the load? and one empty having already been unloaded? It would be an interesting train to model and have running through the station.

 

I love this training film explaining the job of routine track maintenance

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[John_Miles]

I know there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but I do find some stats interesting. These come from the HMRS newsletter, Points and they are from a letter which quotes one D. Rowland.  I can't vouch for their accuracy.

 

In 1938, the main line railways owned 663,500 wagons. The GWR had 82,400, LNER 258,200, LMS 285,600, SR 33,700.

 

I think this puts the number of D299s nicely in perspective.

[Regularity]

I think those figures were obtained from RCH returns, so probably fairly accurate - and D299 was originally a big chunk of the LMS’ figure, but how many remained in 1938, and how many wagons (and D299) did the LMS have at grouping rather than 15 years later?

 

Incidentally, the original quote from Disraeli was in response to a Bishop trying to demonstrate that the Church of England needed more money from the Government, and he actually said, “There are three categories of falsehood: lies, damned lies and Church statistics.” (My emphasis.)

He was being specific, and making a much stronger condemnation when you think about it.

 

When I used to reach statistics for a living, I always made the point that properly quoted in context, statistics help shed light on issues, not support - the same difference between how a normal person uses a street light compared to how a drunk uses it.

 

But mention of Don Rowland and stats, to close the circle, brings us back to his off-quoted series of articles entitled “Getting the Balance Right”. He didn’t. He used averages from across the whole LMS, and applied them to a modeller having a collection based on a few locos. Doesn’t work, for several reasons.

Firstly, a small snapshot of any large sample is too small to be representative, and thus was a very small snapshot of a very large sample.

Secondly, no part of the LMS had traffic that would be represented by the average. If you sat by the southern end of the West Coast Main Line, you would see big express engines, big suburban tank engines, big mixed traffic engines and big freight engines, but few small engines.

Thirdly, no account was made of special traffic flows/stock. You wouldn’t see the big hoppers for ICI stone traffic anywhere but on their dedicated route. These are either always appearing, or almost never appearing, so you either have a disproportionate number of them (compared to the “average”) or they should be excluded completely.

Fourthly, local variations need to be considered, with respect to time. (Similar but not the same as point 2.) The Midland rebuilt mist of its 0-6-0s in the early twentieth century, but the LNWR stopped building them in 1903 and switched to 4-6-0s and 0-8-0s. The LMS built more 4Fs, of course, and there was a certain amount of movement of stock, but something set in ex LNWR country will have more 4-6-0s and 0-8-0s, with some 0-6-0s (mostly of its own design, decreasing over time as the SDXs were withdrawn) whereas the MR will be 0-6-0s plus some new grouping designs, e.g. 2-6-0s, 4-6-0s (class 5), and on the mainline, the 2-6-0+0-6-2T.

 

His articles were a good starting point for demonstrating how the real railways balanced motive power provision against traffic, but his analysis was too generic to be the revered Gospel some authors have subsequently made them out to be.

 

As ever, if you want to get it right, you have to delve into the detail. Photos are the best source for most of us, but so few people “wasted film” on the everyday background of a working railway.

[Miss Prism]

His articles were a good starting point for demonstrating how the real railways balanced motive power provision against traffic, but his analysis was too generic to be the revered Gospel some authors have subsequently made them out to be.

 

I feel that is being a bit unkind to Don Rowland and what he was trying to illustrate, namely the preponderance of opens in the pre-nationalistion eras. Generic though that message might be, its fundamental truth is in stark contrast to what our model manufacturers offer.

[Regularity]

I feel that is being a bit unkind to Don Rowland and what he was trying to illustrate, namely the preponderance of opens in the pre-nationalistion eras. Generic though that message might be, its fundamental truth is in stark contrast to what our model manufacturers offer.

If that was his only point, then that’s a fair criticism, but it would take a table and a few words to make it.

Besides, in the quote you selectively took, I was being critical not so much of Don - although he should have made more about his figures being overall averages and not specifics - but the subsequent authors who have blindly quoted and indeed misquoted (by a factor of 100 in one memorable case) him. I did actually state that his work was a good starting point...

 

There were several parts, which went into the “balance” for such as coaches, loco stud, etc. These were misleading. In the case of passenger trains, potentially very misleading.

 

“Our” model manufacturers generally produce what they think will sell, and that tends to be novelty. I think you are being a bit unkind to them. It is modellers who clamour for models of such as Lion and other prototypes, when there is much of the typical which doesn’t get produced.

[sharris]

That's a very cunning use for a propelling pencil - must try that!

 

Whose couplings did you use? I've got to the end of my PC Models stash, which I liked, and found the Smiths ones I tried since somewhat oversized.

[Penlan]

To bring further joy to Compound 2632's life  
Those Blaady M.R. Wagons get everywhere : Dowlais Iron Works - New Blast Furnaces circa 1881 - 1888.
Why wasn't there a majority of LNWR wagons there?

 

[Compound2632]

On 30/12/2018 at 13:04, John_Miles said:

I know there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but I do find some stats interesting. These come from the HMRS newsletter, Points and they are from a letter which quotes one D. Rowland.  I can't vouch for their accuracy.

 

In 1938, the main line railways owned 663,500 wagons. The GWR had 82,400, LNER 258,200, LMS 285,600, SR 33,700.

 

I think this puts the number of D299s nicely in perspective.

 

All the grouping companies managed to reduce their wagon stock over the fifteen years to the outbreak of war. My recent purchase Christmas present of P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005) provides totals at Grouping (nominally for 31 December 1922): LMS: 303,797; LNER: 284,488; GWR: 87,432; SR: 36,121; other lines*: 7,917; private owners: 626,233. That's a grand total of 1,345,988. 

 

*of which the largest contribution was the CLC, which had 4,119 wagons when the stock was divided between the LNER and LMS in 1930.

 

My impression is that there was a steady increase in the number of wagons during the last two decades of the 19th century but during the early 20th century, numbers stabilised with new construction being renewals rather than additions to stock - in other words, the Edwardian era marked the start of the stagnation of the railway industry. This seems true of the Midland, which reached a total of around 124,000 wagons (half of which were D299) by c. 1902 and had about that number at the grouping - about two-fifths of the LMS wagon stock at grouping. So, c. 1902, about one in every twenty-two wagons on the railways of mainline Britain was a D299. By grouping, the oldest D229 wagons were 40 years old; it seems likely that the LMS build of 66,000 12 ton 5-plank wagons to D1666 and D1667 in 1923-1930 was in large part a renewal programme for D299 and similar 19th century merchandise wagons, such as the LNWR D4/D9 wagons.

 

Don Rowland's top-level analysis was the spur to Tatlow's research, as he says in his preface. It might seem odd that the standard work on LNER wagons should be written by a member of the LMS Society. Tatlow appreciated that, with the pooling of nearly all but some specialised types of wagon, a model railway based on LMS practice ought to feature nearly as many LNER wagons as LMS wagons. This argument does not apply to most of the pre-grouping period, up to the Great War: no pooling, so home company wagons must predominate, except for inter-company consignments.

 

Applying this to the c. 1902 scene. Modelling a Midland line, one needs many more than 1-in-22 D299s; approximately half of the Midland wagons will be D299 - perhaps even more if one excludes rarely-seen special wagons. Despite the Midland's attempt to buy up PO wagons in the 1880s, by 1902 they had proliferated - the Midland was a coal line so let's say as many PO wagons as company wagons. As I wrote in my opening post, every fourth wagon I build should be a D299. (Although I've refined my estimate, playing down the proportion of non-Midland company-owned wagons.) 

 

Now to take Simon's critique of this analysis. Of course one needs to consider the types of traffic. As was pointed out in an earlier post (my apologies that I forget by whom), very many D299 wagons were in mineral traffic, as seen in this photo at Cricklewood, March 1905 (DY2806):

 

 

But no model of a Midland line would be representative of the company without plenty of mineral trains!

 

For other Midland wagons, the proportions of other types will depend on the date and the traffic. Plenty of D305 3-plank wagons - the next most numerous type to D299; not very many covered goods wagons c. 1900, but a considerably higher proportion by c. 1910. More specialised vehicles require careful justification. If I fancy a refrigerated meat van, I think it's unlikely I can justify a singleton, but there's evidence for several together in this BoT report on an accident at Whitacre in 1903. In 1903, the Midland had around 600 meat vans - one-hundredth the number of D299 wagons - but for a specific train, I can happily justify a much higher proportion.

 

In this topic, I've shown my builds of a lot of LNWR and GWR wagons - many more than I could justify for a purely Midland line. My excuse is to presume the LNWR and GWR are exercising running powers for twice-daily goods trains over my Midland line; reasonable in the context of my north-of-Birmingham scenario. Any other "foreign" wagons need to be kept few in number and have a story behind them - a NER or H&B covered goods wagon with a consignment for Birmingham from the port of Hull, for instance. That Birmingham Central - Manchester Ancoats train that came to grief at Whitacre included a L&YR wagon and couple of CLC wagons, working back - probably empty - to their parent systems. (Hence my sudden interest in the Tatlow volume.)

 

What about D299 wagons on other companies' lines? I've claimed that there's one in every Edwardian goods yard photo - at the very least, they do keep cropping up. Here's one, next to a Great Western wood-framed covered goods wagon, in the LNWR's Birmingham Windsor Street yard - nearly all the other wagons are LNWR. OK, Birmingham is in the heart of Midland and Great Western, as well as LNWR territory... Supposing half of the D299 fleet were in mineral traffic, that still leaves the D299s in goods traffic as the most common type of company-owned wagon - about one in 23 of all company-owned wagons. Given the Midland's national reach - only the LNWR had the same all-pervasiveness - serving the great majority of the major manufacturing centres, I think it's reasonable to assume that whatever pre-Grouping line in the pre-Great War era you are modelling - main line or country branch; mighty Great Western or fictional West Norfolk - your most probable "foreign" wagon is a D299, laden with the manufactured goods of Brummagem... It's also possible to postulate one on a regular circuit, if your layout features some specialised industry. Here's one being loaded up for the biscuit run from Reading.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Lecorbusier]

That's a very cunning use for a propelling pencil - must try that!

 

Whose couplings did you use? I've got to the end of my PC Models stash, which I liked, and found the Smiths ones I tried since somewhat oversized.

The coupling hooks were from Alan Austin's Ambis range. The three links I made up myself from nickel 0.4mm wire. I coiled it round a former which I made up from suitable rod. I cut the wire across the coil along the width on one side using a piercing saw. I then threaded the three links together,  twisted the links flat and pinched them closed and then completed the joint with a sliver of solder. John Hayes describes something Similar in his '4mm coal wagon' book. The result is pretty good and very cost effective if you need a lot.

[Compound2632]

That's a very cunning use for a propelling pencil - must try that!

 

Whose couplings did you use? I've got to the end of my PC Models stash, which I liked, and found the Smiths ones I tried since somewhat oversized.

 

The coupling hooks were from Alan Austin's Ambis range. The three links I made up myself from nickel 0.4mm wire. I coiled it round a former which I made up from suitable rod. I cut the wire across the coil along the width on one side using a piercing saw. I then threaded the three links together,  twisted the links flat and pinched them closed and then completed the joint with a sliver of solder. John Hayes describes something Similar in his '4mm coal wagon' book. The result is pretty good and very cost effective if you need a lot.

 

Hummm.. I find those Ambis ones look rather too chunky, like the Smiths ones. I use Slater's, which I think are the PC ones and to my eye are closer to scale - though, I suspect, with the consequence that they're fiddlier to hook up.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Compound2632

[Lecorbusier]

I think you are right Stephen,

 

 

I hope that with some careful fettling it will be possible to finesse the ambis hooks a little.

 

Do you have a photo of the slaters coupling hooks?

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       Is this resize any use?

 

[Compound2632]

Do you have a photo of the slaters coupling hooks?

 

Not of the etch itself but any of my wagons will give you an idea of the size. 

 

Question: you are building for P4. Are you incorporating any compensation or springing, also weighting?

 

 

To bring further joy to Compound 2632's life  

Those Blaady M.R. Wagons get everywhere : Dowlais Iron Works - New Blast Furnaces circa 1881 - 1888.

Why wasn't there a majority of LNWR wagons there?

 

CyfarthfaBlastFurnaces1888.jpg

 

Lovely, as such things go. To rub further salt into the LNWR enthusiast's wounds, the wagons to the right are Great Western, in the earlier form of livery with G.W.R at the left hand end and number on the right.

[Lecorbusier]

Hello,

       Is this resize any use?

That is just a wonderful piece of modelling .... thanks

[Lecorbusier]

Not of the etch itself but any of my wagons will give you an idea of the size. 

 

Question: you are building for P4. Are you incorporating any compensation or springing, also weighting?

 

From what I can make out the Slaters etch looks pretty good ... do you know if they happen to be available separately?

 

On the D305 wagon posted earlier I used Bill Bedford's W irons which have his standard springing using Guitar wire .... a great system if you are not familiar with it.

 

I have also used Bill's brake gear ... though with this you do need to remove the lug from the bottom of the break blocks.

 

I have bonded some sheet lead to the underside of the wagon floor setting the weight at 35 grams unloaded.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Compound2632]

On 30/12/2018 at 22:48, Lecorbusier said:

From what I can make out the Slaters etch looks pretty good ... do you know if they happen to be available separately?

 

On the D305 wagon posted earlier I used Bill Bedford's W irons which have his standard springing using Guitar wire .... a great system if you are not familiar with it.

 

image_billb_bwf001_1.jpg

I have also used Bill's brake gear ... though with this you do need to remove the lug from the bottom of the break blocks.

 

I have bonded some sheet lead to the underside of the wagon floor setting the weight a 35 grams unloaded.

 

I've used the Bill Bedford system on his Mousa kits.

 

The Slaters couplings come in sets of ten: the etch, plus springs and coupling links. Shown here w/o springs, after chemical blackening (Carrs):

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[billbedford]

These are scale couplings

[Rail-Online]

These are scale couplings

 I have just had one of those break on my GNR open - not under any weight just went brittle I guess

 

Tony

[Lecorbusier]

Here is a little more information on the Ambis range of hooks. Looking at the one fitted to my 3 plank wagon it looks to be the RCH option rather than the pre-grouping which may explain the profile. Come what may the etched offerings will need fettling to shape the hook as it starts at the maximum thickness and the point of the hook therefore needs rounding.

 

Couplings.pdfCouplingHooks.pdf

Edited December 31, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Compound2632]

Happy New Year!

 

I was going to post a list of my unfinished pre-Grouping wagon projects that I hope to make more progress on in 2019 but it's too long...

 

As was pointed out in an earlier post (my apologies that I forget by whom), very many D299 wagons were in mineral traffic

 

 

To illustrate this: on 8 December 1900, a mineral train from Shirland Colliery to Derby ran through trap points and down a bank at Peckwash Sidings. Tragically, the footplate crew were killed, crushed under the pile-up of mineral wagons. Major Pringle's report lists, as all BoT accident reports did, the damaged rolling stock. The leading ten wagons of this mineral train were all Midland wagons, not private owners; it's likely they were all D299.

 

Leafing through accident reports involving Midland goods trains, it's quite hard to find examples that do list damage to private owner wagons.

[Compound2632]

Not much modelling of late, unfortunately. But here are some D299s at a colliery in Kent - post-pooling though, given the number of GE, GN, GC, NE, and even NB wagons also in the picture. It could be quite early in the move to pooling though; is it not the case the the GC, GN, and GE had a pooling or at least traffic-sharing agreement from c. 1910?

[billbedford]

is it not the case the the GC, GN, and GE had a pooling or at least traffic-sharing agreement from c. 1910?

 

 

December 1915. There were plans to amalgamate the three companies a few years earlier, but it was shown out in Parliament. The three companies did continue to work together to the extent that they produced standardised dimensions for the commoner wagons.

[Regularity]

Not much modelling of late, unfortunately. But here are some D299s at a colliery in Kent - post-pooling though, given the number of GE, GN, GC, NE, and even NB wagons also in the picture. It could be quite early in the move to pooling though; is it not the case the the GC, GN, and GE had a pooling or at least traffic-sharing agreement from c. 1910?

Some of those look like they may be D351 (as discussed, a D299 derivative), but it takes some patience to with a magnifying glass to decide if there is evidence of an end door, or if it’s something else.

And then it’s still not clear!

[Spitfire2865]

Those two MR opens on the rear track definitely have diagonal bracing at one end.  And the closer of the two does Not have corner ironwork which means end door. 

The other two MR opens appear to be normal D299s