.

[Compound2632]

The next thing is you must be prepared to pay the price for more accurate models

 

The evidence is that that is exactly what folk are (moderately) happy to do when it comes to engines and coaches - so why not wagons?

 

I'll go back to my pile of kits...

[Il Grifone]

There are so many variations in the 'standard' R.C.H. wagon that it would be impossible for  R-T-R manufacturer to keep up. The specification gave only a general guide to dimensions and, as long as compatible parts were used, individual wagon builders could vary the detail design considerably. Even the LMS and LNER designs are not 100% identical. The 1923 specification brought more standardisation, but prior to this the scope was far greater. Repairs would cause even greater variation - odd wheels and buffers were not unknown for example.

 

Even the excellent Slater's kits only cover 'Gloucester' and 'Roberts' types.

[BG John]

There are so many variations in the 'standard' R.C.H. wagon that it would be impossible for  R-T-R manufacturer to keep up. The specification gave only a general guide to dimensions and, as long as compatible parts were used, individual wagon builders could vary the detail design considerably. Even the LMS and LNER designs are not 100% identical. The 1923 specification brought more standardisation, but prior to this the scope was far greater. Repairs would cause even greater variation - odd wheels and buffers were not unknown for example.

 

Even the excellent Slater's kits only cover 'Gloucester' and 'Roberts' types.

That's true, but using the livery on a wagon of the right period would be a big improvement. Those who aren't fussy wouldn't be bothered, while those who are would benefit, even if it's not perfect.

[The Johnster]

My point is that for at least the last decade we have had the expectation that RTR manufacturers will get things right where locomotives are concerned; we now have the same expectations for carriages and, judging by some threads on here, brake vans and some 'modern image' wagons; why do so many continue to turn a blind eye to the dreadful things passed off for wooden-bodied mineral wagons? - by far the most common item of rolling stock up to at least the late 50s.

 

I absolutely agree.  Not only were they the most common type of vehicle by far in the period I model, but I model a South Wales branch whose raison d'etre was the carrying of coal in mineral wagons, so they are important to me.  Two of our major rtr providers get the basic dimensions of even generic versions of these wagons wrong, with the wrong wheelbase in order to use the incorrect but already available chassis from their other freight wagons.  This is a huge error, obvious from normal viewing distance and in a different league from the minor discrepancies that nowadays condemn a model in the view of 'serious' modellers, yet they are still churned out and still bought by people who know no better; it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that these things are scale models of anything, even to the compromised standards that rtr implies.

 

I do not accept the excuse that manufacturers knew no better in the 'old days'; they were just trying to cut costs and shouldn't have, or at least not followed by passing the dud wagons of as models of anything real.  By the way, one of the manufacturers who gets it right sells at considerably lower prices than either of the ones that don't...

 

Whatever issues these unpainted Dapols have, they are at least more or less dimensionally on the ball!

[Il Grifone]

I absolutely agree.  Not only were they the most common type of vehicle by far in the period I model, but I model a South Wales branch whose raison d'etre was the carrying of coal in mineral wagons, so they are important to me.  Two of our major rtr providers get the basic dimensions of even generic versions of these wagons wrong, with the wrong wheelbase in order to use the incorrect but already available chassis from their other freight wagons.  This is a huge error, obvious from normal viewing distance and in a different league from the minor discrepancies that nowadays condemn a model in the view of 'serious' modellers, yet they are still churned out and still bought by people who know no better; it is fundamentally dishonest to claim that these things are scale models of anything, even to the compromised standards that rtr implies.

 

I do not accept the excuse that manufacturers knew no better in the 'old days'; they were just trying to cut costs and shouldn't have, or at least not followed by passing the dud wagons of as models of anything real.  By the way, one of the manufacturers who gets it right sells at considerably lower prices than either of the ones that don't...

 

Whatever issues these unpainted Dapols have, they are at least more or less dimensionally on the ball!

 

 

The excuse used to be, "We make toys not models." (Tri-ang). It didn't wash then and even less today. Hornby's wagon underframe has it's origins in the Trackmaster wagons from around 1950. A van (possibly L&Y) and a side door mineral wagon. The underframe was diecast and represented a version with a wooden frame and  grease axleboxes 16 foot over headstocks and 9' 6" wheelbase. This was quite good by the standards of the day. Over the years it has gained steel solebars, 2mm in buffer height!, pin-point axles and manufacture in plastic. A variety of incorrect bodies have been mounted on it. (There aren't many prototypes with these dimensions - ignoring the buffer height which is completely wrong for anything. Other makes standardised on a 17'6" over headstocks 10' wheelbase underframe. Generally of more use, but not for mineral wagons. Both should have been consigned to history (IMHO). I will pass over the solid infill which curses brake levers. (if they can provide detail packs for locomotives and coaches, why not wagons? Peco had plug in brake levers in their wagon kits in 1954.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Il Grifone

[The Johnster]

Trackmaster, now there's a name I'd forgotten!

 

Some modern releases of wagons are very good indeed, and of course the manufacturers will complain that it takes time for the old tooling to be replaced by better modern stuff, so we are heading in the right direction, but at a speed which is too slow even by the standards of an unfitted freight train...  Some of the older toolings of Hornby and Dapol stuff was not good enough for the standards that prevailed when they were originally released, but they continue to knock the things out because newbies and present buying relatives will part with cash for them; it is, as I say, dishonest and mendacious to claim that these are precision scale models.

 

Now, before anyone takes issue with me, I am aware that it is virtually impossible to mass produce a precision scale model of anything at a price that the market will accept, and all rtr is compromised in some way (we will ignore the 2 point whatever it is millimetre discrepancy in the track gauge for the sake of this discussion), but there is a massive difference between a Hornby 21ton hopper wagon, an excellent model which is as precision scale as you're gonna get for the money and volume of production, and a Hornby 16ton mineral, which is not really a precision or scale model of anything.  It is my view that these substandard offerings should be withdrawn from the market, or at least consigned to 'railroad' or the like with an admission that they are not scale models.  Kudos to Ox and Baccy for at least getting the wheelbases right. 

 

Rant over.

 

For now...

[Mark Saunders]

 

but there is a massive difference between a Hornby 21ton hopper wagon, an excellent model which is as precision scale as you're gonna get for the money and volume of production, and a Hornby 16ton mineral, which is not really a precision or scale model of anything. 

 

There are currently two different mouldings for the 21t hopper being produced currently by Hornby; there is the recent LNER model which is new tooling and the version originally produced by Airfix with errors, omissions and compromise on the chassis used!

 

I am confused by the reference to a Hornby 16 ton mineral as the only one I know is the former Triang one and has been out of the catalogue for many years (probably the late 1980's) but it did have a reasonable body, shame about the chassis!

 

Mark Saunders

[Graham456]

The thing is or to remember when complaining of the faults with model wagons,is that if a highly detailed 100% accurate model was put on the shelfs for us to buy.......what would we modellers DO ! ...Both in the Modeling and moaning departments and how boring forums would be

[Il Grifone]

The thing is or to remember when complaining of the faults with model wagons,is that if a highly detailed 100% accurate model was put on the shelfs for us to buy.......what would we modellers DO ! ...Both in the Modeling and moaning departments and how boring forums would be

 

Carry on as before, as it would probably be far too expensive.....  

 

Tri-ang's 16T mineral is not too bad (it can hide in a train of Airfix ones (from the kit) without standing out too much*), but is too short (to fit the 16 foot underframe) and the end stanchions are too far apart and undernourished. Their iron ore tippler (MSV) suffers from the same faults. (Tri-ang to include Hornby here).  

 

* Provided it is painted - the grey plastic is the wrong shade and the lettering should be on black patches.

 

Probably the best least bad of a poor bunch is the Trix model. They used a 17' 6" underframe for everything but being to 3.8mm scale it comes out at about the right length. The same applies to their R.C.H. mineral. The underframe itself runs beautifully (plastic version - the diecast one is awful), but is not suited to a mineral wagon and requires replacement. Really one is forced to assemble kits or use the Bachmann R-T-R wagons.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Compound2632]

The Bachmann RCH 1923 specification 12 Ton wagons are, I think, the best RTR attempt at a wooden-bodied mineral wagon and pass muster alongside the Parkside kits - which IMHO are among their best, which is setting a high standard. For me, there are two issues:

 

1. The application of inappropriate liveries to the Bachmann wagons - i.e. liveries which are quite obviously lifted from photos of pre-RCH 1923 specification wagons and contain howlers such as "Load 10 Tons" or beautifully-printed "return to" instructions that refer to a pre-grouping company.

 

2. The lack of RTR RCH 1907 wagons which could legitimately carry some of these appealing liveries! Somewhere on here I've read that the RCH 1907 wagons outnumbered the RCH 1923 wagons at nationalisation, so they certainly did so in the pre-WW2 grouping era when PO wagons were still to be seen in all their variegated glory.

 

To my mind, the next best RTR offering is actually Hornby's 6, 4, and 3 plank wagons, notwithstanding the gross couplings and deep-moulded brake lever. Otherwise these are passable representations of RCH 1887 specification wagons. I'm currently exploring ways to improve these and will report on my pre-grouping wagon building thread in due course.

 

I acknowledge Il Grifone's point that kits represent wagons built by particular builders - with Gloucester being well-represented - but at least these provide a starting-point for the perfectionist. And indeed, there are detail differences in RCH 1923 wagons from different builders.

 

Please note that, in line with the OP, I'm confining my observations (gripes, if you will) to wooden-bodied PO wagons. The story with RTR models of railway company-built wagons is a bit different.

 

Sorry to keep harping on...

Edited June 4, 2017 by Compound2632

[Il Grifone]

My mention of LMS and LNER referred to their mineral wagons which were built to the 1923 R.C.H. specification*. A decent model of a 1907 specification wagon is long overdue, but which one? there were so many variations.

 

I doubt that those responsible for selecting liveries for R-T-R wagons are even aware that there are differences. That said, Hornby do try with their Gloucester wagon, but it isn't that brilliant a model. (I do have some....)

 

*The Southern built their own design with top doors that could serve both as a normal open wagon or as a mineral wagon if necessary. The Great Western was a great believer in steel 20 ton wagons (ahead of the times as usual!). Most mineral traffic on both was carried in P.O. wagons.

 

There are a few reviews here (the comment on white tyres is irrelevant - they would not have lasted long in service and are easy to add if really wanted).

I would question the cupboard doors on the 'Bull' wagon and the choice of a wartime wagon (note 13 tons loading) The white stripe on the wrong end is inexcusable, but not too difficult to correct. The underframe seems unlikely too - it's 1907 specification with crown plates.

 

http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/grcwPOwagonsHornby.htm

 

EDIT

 

I would have expected H.C. Bull no. 101 to look more like this (there is also a Dapol version). (Again it appears to be a 1907 spec. wagon though.)

 

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anticsonline.co.uk%2Fl.aspx%3Fk%3D1472287&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anticsonline.co.uk%2F1411_1_1472287.html&docid=ux-BB4hijVA-KM&tbnid=ALNl0pnocoOPCM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiElq-q9qPUAhVqBsAKHb_GCdwQMwgnKAEwAQ..i&w=500&h=340&itg=1&bih=745&biw=1447&q=h%20c%20bull%20po%20wagon&ved=0ahUKEwiElq-q9qPUAhVqBsAKHb_GCdwQMwgnKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

Edited June 4, 2017 by Il Grifone

[petethemole]

The cupboard door wagons (and others, particularly the steel-bodied types) are let down by the unusual underframe, with crown plates, 8 shoe brakes and a short brake lever. I believe it only occurred on a NER refrigerator van of about 1911, although ISTR the MR had something similar on some vans (I CBA to go upstairs and get books out). Its other peculiarity is that the underframe moulding includes a curb rail, so when the body also features a curb rail, the wagon appears to have two floors. I transplanted two of these bodies onto Cambrian underframes which improved them.

[Enterprisingwestern]

If manufacturers turned out wagons to the same standards of finesse as their loco's and coaches, then quite a few aftermarket improvement kit manufacturers would be out of a job.

It seems to me that the market is just about floating in the right waters, something for everyone, but as always with railway modellers, not everyone is happy.

 

Mike.

[Graham456]

[quote name="Enterprisingwestern" post="2743303" timestamp="1496576555"

It seems to me that the market is just about floating in the right waters, something for everyone, but as always with railway modellers, not everyone is happy.

 

Mike.

 

The truth of this lies in that Hornby can make and sell a toy like wagon with Hornby 2017 or what ever date gauldly printed on the wagon every year and it sells ! Or thay wouldn't keep doing it

[Compound2632]

There are a few reviews here (the comment on white tyres is irrelevant - they would not have lasted long in service and are easy to add if really wanted).

I would question the cupboard doors on the 'Bull' wagon and the choice of a wartime wagon (note 13 tons loading) The white stripe on the wrong end is inexcusable, but not too difficult to correct. The underframe seems unlikely too - it's 1907 specification with crown plates.

 

http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/grcwPOwagonsHornby.htm

 

 

The keeper plates to the axleguards on the Hornby Alder & Allen and Bull wagons are truly bizzare! What excellent reviews on that site though - I'd not come across it before.

 

I rest my case, m'lud.

[Il Grifone]

The keeper plates to the axleguards on the Hornby Alder & Allen and Bull wagons are truly bizzare! What excellent reviews on that site though - I'd not come across it before.

 

I rest my case, m'lud.

 

Swann-Morton make the perfect tool for such aberrations.