LMS 3 plank

[The Johnster]

I have an LMS 3 plank (Bachmann) running on Cwmdimbath which I am a little unsure of some points of.  Firstly, and please bear with as I am by no means expert on matters LMS and certainly not the finer points of their wagonry, what do the 'N' markings on each corner post denote?  It will probably make no difference to the way I use the wagon but it would be nice to know! 

 

Secondly, and this will have an influence on how the wagon is used, is this wagon XP rated?  It has a vacuum cylinder and the star marking for the isolating cord on the solebars, so is definitely vacuum fitted as opposed to piped through, but to the best of my knowledge, which is not as I say anything to write home about in this respect, the LMS marked such wagons with a big X (for express) on the main door in the centre.  It is in a dark maroon, I wouldn't call it bauxite, livery which I am assuming from the size of the lettering is a late austerity type, but there is no indication that my GW/WR orientated mind recognises that the wagon can run in a passenger train.

 

I am fitting lamp irons today, and this wagon will need a set if it is to run as tail traffic.  Thank you in advance for your input, chaps!

 

Edit to add wagon number is 473449 , 12 ton 3 plank 'medfit'.

Edited October 20, 2018 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The N is to indicate that it isn't a common user vehicle. In traffic this means that having arrived on another railway's patch it can only be loaded for a trip which takes it back toward the LMS, otherwise having to be returned empty.

 

This style of wagon appears to have been a LMS speciaility. The LNER didn't even appear to have a 'Med' classification for opens, going directly from 'Low' to 'High' with nothing in between... Could it be that with little to nothing to be 'commoned' with it was thus outside the common user scheme applicable to general merchandise vehicles during the big four period?

 

As for XP branding, if there were any so  marked they would probably be reserved for specific freight flows within the LMS?

[Fat Controller]

Has it got 4 brakeshoes or 8 (with secondary suspension via J-hangers)? If the former, then it was a BR conversion to vac-brakes. https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/lms3plankopen shows both types. The 3-plank wagon was very much an LMS thing in 'Big 4' days. The GWR possessed three 'mediums', but with a centre door, rather than drop sides. Not sure if the SR had any, though Ashford built a hundred, basically to the LMS design, at the start of BR.

[ejstubbs]

This is the wagon the OP is referring to:

 

https://www.track-shack.com/acatalog/Bachmann-37-932-3-Plank-Wagon-LMS-Bauxite681.jpg

 

It says "LMS" on the side so I would assume it's supposed to represent something still in the ownership of the LMS, rather than something that BR has had its hands on.

 

I suspect that the presence of the vacuum cylinder and star is just sloppiness/"artistic licence" on Bachmann's part. There are no vacuum pipes, after all.

 

I don't know how long this wagon has been in Bachmann's catalogue - I suspect it could days back to Mainline days or even earlier, when perhaps less attention was paid to such details. (A bit like the Bachmann LMS vent van which I've read is also "a bit tired").

[The Johnster]

Yer tis. 

 

It has 4 brake shoes as can be seen, so if this is the result of a BR upgrade under the auspices of the Ideal Wagon Committee, the LMS livery is wrong.  Put another way, if the LMS livery is correct, the chassis is wrong and I need to be hacking the brakes and vacuum cylinders off it and probably replacing the wheels with spoked ones to represent the wagon before the Ideal Wagoneers got hold of it.  This would be perhaps the way to go for me as I want to keep the livery.

 

I was sort of vaguely aware that the medium 3 plank wagon was an LMS speciality, if only because I was unaware of them from the other big 3.  It's an old fashioned looking thing for the middle of the century and would look more at home in Midland livery on a pre-grouping or early big 4 layout.  They must have been of some use, though, if BR built more of them post nationalisation.   As the largest drop side/end wagons on this wheelbase, I am not surprised if they were in demand for some specific purpose on the LMS that the other railways did not have, or did not know they had, and which resulted in them wanting the wagons back if they strayed to parts forrin.

 

Mine carries unidentified lumps wrapped in tarps (this is a major industry in Cwmdimbath), and the odd container, though I don't know that they were allowed containers.  They look as if they should be, though, the drop sides enabling easy loading/unloading or even the use of the container as a van with end doors, which might have come in handy sometimes, and the sides are high enough to restrain the load safely in transit with a bit of packing.

 

Unless somebody tells me otherwise, I will modify my wagon to lose the disc wheels and vacuum cylinder, and use it as an unfitted wagon.  As such, it doesn't need lamp irons which suits me at the moment; I've had enough of those for today, having done 30 of them...

 

Thanks for this, everybody, I know a bit more about them now!

[The Johnster]

This is the wagon the OP is referring to:

 

https://www.track-shack.com/acatalog/Bachmann-37-932-3-Plank-Wagon-LMS-Bauxite681.jpg

 

It says "LMS" on the side so I would assume it's supposed to represent something still in the ownership of the LMS, rather than something that BR has had its hands on.

 

I suspect that the presence of the vacuum cylinder and star is just sloppiness/"artistic licence" on Bachmann's part. There are no vacuum pipes, after all.

 

I don't know how long this wagon has been in Bachmann's catalogue - I suspect it could days back to Mainline days or even earlier, when perhaps less attention was paid to such details. (A bit like the Bachmann LMS vent van which I've read is also "a bit tired").

 

Makes sense, ej.  The cylinder and star could be the result of using a generic chassis.  Baccy don't seem to put vac bags on their wagons unless they are high level, presumably because they get in the way of the tension lock couplings.  Bit of cutting and painted out stars called for, or I could just use the chassis on something else and buy something more suitable as a donor for this.

[65179]

This wagon is shown fresh from works in that livery in Essery's LMS Wagons Vol 1. It is fitted, but unfortunately should have the 8 shoe fitted underframe with J hangers etc. I chose to stick a new chassis under my Farish model of the same wagon:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65499-whats-on-your-2mm-work-bench/?p=3010568

 

Renumbering to an unfitted wagon and chopping off the vac cylinder would be quicker.

 

Simon

Edited October 20, 2018 by 65179

[Invicta]

 

 

 

I suspect that the presence of the vacuum cylinder and star is just sloppiness/"artistic licence" on Bachmann's part. There are no vacuum pipes, after all.

 

I don't know how long this wagon has been in Bachmann's catalogue - I suspect it could days back to Mainline days or even earlier, when perhaps less attention was paid to such details. (A bit like the Bachmann LMS vent van which I've read is also "a bit tired").

 

It's definitely part of Bachmann's Mainline inheritance, possibly via Dapol,- I've got an LMS bauxite one stashed away in the loft which I think came in Dapol boxing- and IIRC it has holes moulded in the underside of the buffer beam for vac pipes, and a set of pipes included in the packaging

 

 

I was sort of vaguely aware that the medium 3 plank wagon was an LMS speciality, if only because I was unaware of them from the other big 3.  It's an old fashioned looking thing for the middle of the century and would look more at home in Midland livery on a pre-grouping or early big 4 layout.  They must have been of some use, though, if BR built more of them post nationalisation.   As the largest drop side/end wagons on this wheelbase, I am not surprised if they were in demand for some specific purpose on the LMS that the other railways did not have, or did not know they had, and which resulted in them wanting the wagons back if they strayed to parts forrin.

 

Mine carries unidentified lumps wrapped in tarps (this is a major industry in Cwmdimbath)IMG_1047.jpg, and the odd container, though I don't know that they were allowed containers.  They look as if they should be, though, the drop sides enabling easy loading/unloading or even the use of the container as a van with end doors, which might have come in handy sometimes, and the sides are high enough to restrain the load safely in transit with a bit of packing.

 

Unless somebody tells me otherwise, I will modify my wagon to lose the disc wheels and vacuum cylinder, and use it as an unfitted wagon.  As such, it doesn't need lamp irons which suits me at the moment; I've had enough of those for today, having done 30 of them...

 

Thanks for this, everybody, I know a bit more about them now!

 

LMS D1927, several thousand of them built in both fitted (8-shoe) and unfitted flavours from 1935 to nationalisation - and looking at photos in the Essery books, then it looks like disc wheels are OK.

 

Unidentified lumps under tarps sound like a pretty logical load for these, but the Essery LMS wagon books also mention their use for crated loads, as improvised container wagons and as runners for overhanging loads on bolster wagons

Edited October 20, 2018 by Invicta

[Il Grifone]

I understand the GWR 3 plank wagons were actually intended for containers and these LMS ones could be used thus. AFAIK lamp irons were not usually a fitting on open wagons. I can remember seeing an open wagon on the end of a passenger train and the tail lamp hanging from its coupling hook. Also I recall a container in a a five plank wagon.

[The Johnster]

Containers in 5 plankers or steel hyfits are fine, so long as you can crane them out at the destination.  AFAIK it is only lowfits, 1 plankers, that are not allowed to carry them as they can be neither properly secured nor restrained.  Lamp irons are, again AFAIK, required on XP rated stock, but the standard BR tail lamp's handle is that shape so that it can be used on the rear drawhook without swinging about and, literally, knocking itself out.  

 

So, sitrep,, choice between re-chassis-ing with and 8-shoe J hanger chassis, or renumbering, which means investigating suitable numbers for this livery.  I suspect that, while more physical work and the cost of the donor is required for the first choice, the second may just take too much time and fuss.  So, the plan is, for the moment, to source an 8-shoe J hanger vacuum fitted chassis and keep the body as it is, while the existing chassis gets used under a different body suitable for a 4-shoe vacuum fitted chassis. 

 

We'll get there in the end...

[Fat Controller]

Containers in 5 plankers or steel hyfits are fine, so long as you can crane them out at the destination.  AFAIK it is only lowfits, 1 plankers, that are not allowed to carry them as they can be neither properly secured nor restrained.  Lamp irons are, again AFAIK, required on XP rated stock, but the standard BR tail lamp's handle is that shape so that it can be used on the rear drawhook without swinging about and, literally, knocking itself out.  

 

So, sitrep,, choice between re-chassis-ing with and 8-shoe J hanger chassis, or renumbering, which means investigating suitable numbers for this livery.  I suspect that, while more physical work and the cost of the donor is required for the first choice, the second may just take too much time and fuss.  So, the plan is, for the moment, to source an 8-shoe J hanger vacuum fitted chassis and keep the body as it is, while the existing chassis gets used under a different body suitable for a 4-shoe vacuum fitted chassis. 

 

We'll get there in the end...

Parkside-Peco PA16 seems to be the one you want; it actually includes solebars for both an LMS J-hanger and a 'plain' type.

[kevinlms]

Containers in 5 plankers or steel hyfits are fine, so long as you can crane them out at the destination.  AFAIK it is only lowfits, 1 plankers, that are not allowed to carry them as they can be neither properly secured nor restrained.  

 

We'll get there in the end...

The LMS had specific instructions that containers were NOT to be carried in 5 plank wagons, because of the difficulties in unloading at the other end, due to the height required to lift them out. I wonder how many had to be sent back, due to this problem, BEFORE this instruction was written?

 

The LMS actually converted lots of ex-LNWR single plank wagons, to enable containers to be carried. All they needed was some restraining rings. A cheap conversion.

 

Not sure that the 3 plankers were recommended either, although obviously the height was not the issue, as the sides were hinged.

[Compound2632]

If you don't want to rebuild the underframe, a much simpler solution would be to remove the Ns (which I'm sure are there because No. 473449 was fitted, rather because it was a 3-planker - the NE for instance inherited a good number of 3-plank dropside wagons too), renumber, and reduce the tare weight by a few cwt. (Along with removing the vac cylinder.) The majority of these D1927 wagons were unfitted - at least that's my reading of Essery and Morgan. 

 

Given its antiquity, it's actually not a bad representation of D1927 - for once the RTR 10ft wheelbase is right! Though the even more ancient Ratio kit might be better.

 

I think the comment about this diagram's Midland heritage is right. The 3-plank dropside wagon seems to have been the Midland's standard merchandise wagon from deepest antiquity - in 1894 there were around 15,000 such wagons built pre-1877 on the books, with nearly all other wagons being post 1877. The Midland went over to building the 60,000 5-plank D299 wagons for merchandise and mineral traffic in the 1880s-90s; the LMS built 66,000 D1666 5-plank wagons in the 1920s, which could be seen as replacements of 30 to 40-year-old wagons. The Midland returned to building 3-plank wagons in the first decade of the 20th century; these could be seen as renewing the pre-1880 built wagons; it would then make sense that the LMS built D1927 3-plank wagons in the 1930s/40s as renewals of these. All a bit speculative, I admit.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

Parkside-Peco PA16 seems to be the one you want; it actually includes solebars for both an LMS J-hanger and a 'plain' type.

 

And, we have a winner, apparently.  Thank you, Brian.  I may even be able to pick one up at the Cardiff show later.

[The Johnster]

If you don't want to rebuild the underframe, a much simpler solution would be to remove the Ns (which I'm sure are there because No. 473449 was fitted, rather because it was a 3-planker - the NE for instance inherited a good number of 3-plank dropside wagons too), renumber, and reduce the tare weight by a few cwt. (Along with removing the vac cylinder.) The majority of these D1927 wagons were unfitted - at least that's my reading of Essery and Morgan. 

 

Given its antiquity, it's actually not a bad representation of D1927 - for once the RTR 10ft wheelbase is right! Though the even more ancient Ratio kit might be better.

 

I think the comment about this diagram's Midland heritage is right. The 3-plank dropside wagon seems to have been the Midland's standard merchandise wagon from deepest antiquity - in 1894 there were around 15,000 such wagons built pre-1877 on the books, with nearly all other wagons being post 1877. The Midland went over to building the 60,000 5-plank D299 wagons for merchandise and mineral traffic in the 1880s-90s; the LMS built 66,000 D1666 5-plank wagons in the 1920s, which could be seen as replacements of 30 to 40-year-old wagons. The Midland returned to building 3-plank wagons in the first decade of the 20th century; these could be seen as renewing the pre-1880 built wagons; it would then make sense that the LMS built D1927 3-plank wagons in the 1930s/40s as renewals of these. All a bit speculative, I admit.

One of the few things LMS I am aware of is that, in line with the original loco policy, it inherited it's passenger and freight rolling stock concepts from the Midland, and your potted history bears this out.  Speculative maybe, but I reckon you're dead on the money here!

[Invicta]

The LMS had specific instructions that containers were NOT to be carried in 5 plank wagons, because of the difficulties in unloading at the other end, due to the height required to lift them out. I wonder how many had to be sent back, due to this problem, BEFORE this instruction was written?

 

The LMS actually converted lots of ex-LNWR single plank wagons, to enable containers to be carried. All they needed was some restraining rings. A cheap conversion.

 

Not sure that the 3 plankers were recommended either, although obviously the height was not the issue, as the sides were hinged.

 

The use of 3-plank wagons for containers may not have been recommended, but certainly happened- Some of the earlier ex-Midland 3-plankers (D305) were converted for use as container wagons in about 1930, becoming D1823, although as the Essery book comments, it's unclear exactly what alterations were made for them to become 'official' container wagons

 

 

 

Given its antiquity, it's actually not a bad representation of D1927 - for once the RTR 10ft wheelbase is right! Though the even more ancient Ratio kit might be better.

 

 

 

Parkside Dundas also offered a kit for D1927, although I believe it was discontinued and hasn't reappeared since the range shifted under the Peco wing, logically enough with the Ratio version already in-house

[Il Grifone]

The Ns indicating 'not common user' - the GWR had a plate for this and didn't use them - would have been applied to this wagon as fitted vehicles were not in the pool. As has been already stated, they could be back loaded, but otherwise had to be returned to their owning comapany ASAP. There were charges for undue delay.

[Fat Controller]

The LMS had specific instructions that containers were NOT to be carried in 5 plank wagons, because of the difficulties in unloading at the other end, due to the height required to lift them out. I wonder how many had to be sent back, due to this problem, BEFORE this instruction was written?

 

The LMS actually converted lots of ex-LNWR single plank wagons, to enable containers to be carried. All they needed was some restraining rings. A cheap conversion.

 

Not sure that the 3 plankers were recommended either, although obviously the height was not the issue, as the sides were hinged.

The constraint for using single-plank Lows for containers was at least partially due to them being wider inside in comparison to Medfits and Highfits.

[Compound2632]

The constraint for using single-plank Lows for containers was at least partially due to them being wider inside in comparison to Medfits and Highfits.

 

That depends on the wagon. The LNWR D103 1-plank wagons that were modified for container traffic, with drop sides and AVB, were 7'4" wide internally.

 

EDIT: What I'm getting at here, as someone who doesn't know much about BR-designed wagons, is that these terms "Medfit" and "Highfit" may not be relevant to the late LMS period (which I think is where the Johnster sits? - or at least is the period of the livery of the model in question). These sound to me to be generic terms, denoting, I infer, a 3-plank and a 5-plank wagon with AVB - the LMS had a multitude of different diagrams of these; its own designs and those inherited from its constituents. They by no means had common internal dimensions. But I await correction!

Edited October 21, 2018 by Compound2632

[PenrithBeacon]

I think they’re very much BR era terminology.

[melmerby]

I understand the GWR 3 plank wagons were actually intended for containers and these LMS ones could be used thus. AFAIK lamp irons were not usually a fitting on open wagons. I can remember seeing an open wagon on the end of a passenger train and the tail lamp hanging from its coupling hook. Also I recall a container in a a five plank wagon.

The GWR had just 2 three plankers (O35) for DX containers, built 1939 and fitted with appropriate shackles.

There were hundreds of earlier (1870s-1880s) built basic 3 plankers which were used for anything & everything that could be fitted in them. (Not sure how long they lasted)

 

(Info from GWR Goods Wagons OPC)

 

Keith

Edited October 21, 2018 by melmerby

[Compound2632]

There were hundreds of earlier (1870s-1880s) built basic 3 plankers which were used for anything & everything that could be fitted in them. (Not sure how long they lasted)

 

(Info from GWR Goods Wagons OPC)

 

Keith

 

Hundreds? Thousands: 6,960 built 1879-1887.

[Steamport Southport]

The GWR used four planks instead for their medium goods wagons. Built in their thousands.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73776-gwr-four-plank-wagon-from-coopercraft-kit-gwr-one-plank-wagons/

 

 

 

 

Jason

[melmerby]

Hundreds? Thousands: 6,960 built 1879-1887.

You must have plenty of spare time, I couldn't be bothered counting up all the lots!

 

Keith

[Compound2632]

The GWR used four planks instead for their medium goods wagons. Built in their thousands.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73776-gwr-four-plank-wagon-from-coopercraft-kit-gwr-one-plank-wagons/

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

The 4-plank wagons were the successor design to the 3-plank wagons, with 24,208 built 1887-1902; these had conventional brakes. These were followed by the 200 4-plank wagons with DC brakes, diagram O5 (the subject of the Coopercraft kit) before the advent of the first 5-plank design, diagram O4 (also Coopercraft), of which a mere 2,706 were built 1901-1904.

 

Prior to the 3-plank design, Atkins lists 4,904 2-plank wagons (of the same depth I believe), built 1871-1878 and even deeper into antiquity, 1,790 1-plank wagons built 1868-1871, so there's a steady progression towards higher-sided merchandise wagons through the last third of the nineteenth century.

 

These are all standard gauge wagons (though including some conversions from broad gauge); some at least of the 1-plank wagons were built at Saltney.

 

I did have time on my hands about a year ago - I even made my abstract of Atkins available as a pdf.

 

Apologies, we've wandered well off topic...

Edited October 21, 2018 by Compound2632