Mystery wagon

[Ian_M]

I got this wagon as part of a mixed lot. It has a mainline logo on it's base, but I can't find anything similar in my copy of 'Ramsey's model trains'. Is it a hybrid where someone has put a new top on a mainline chassis? What do we think the prototype was? 

[Adam]

I think that's a cut and shut. The body is Dublo/Wrenn, and it's not to scale height. The chassis is Mainline, obviously.

 

Adam

[Ian_M]

Yep - almost immediately after posting I found the right body shape - Hornby Dublo or possibly Dapol 'BR Open Steel Wagon' based on an LNER design.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

And to fully close the circle: that body in its pre-cut form isn't accurate for an LNER/BR steel high either, way too tall. It can be cut and shut vertically to assume the right body side height...

[Mark Saunders]

As far as I can tell both the Mainline & Hornby Dublo/Wrenn/Dapol all used a 17' 6" over headstocks chassis so the bodies would be interchangeable.

[The Johnster]

I've got an idea Dapol are still making this.

[tomparryharry]

Those 'dimples' are representations of sheeting cleats, and the square portion  on the end is purported to be a destination board. If it was vacuum brake fitted, then it would have a stiffener, running between the W irons. AS others have said, it's likely to be a chassis & a body cobbled together.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I've got an idea Dapol are still making this.

They certainly have been in the very recent past. Compare to a drawing,  kit or Bachmann high steel and the error is very pronounced. This body is not quite useless however. One of BR's last versions was the ugliest general merchandise open ever, the side sheeting having a bulb section stiffener at the bottom edge, with the floorboard ends visible below. Slice through the body horizontally twice, with the bottom cut where the bulb section goes - thus obscuring much of the site of attack - and reassemble, detail as much as you wish, and this dire specimen can be on your layout. The bodies are dirt cheap s/h.

[Adam]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

They certainly have been in the very recent past. Compare to a drawing,  kit or Bachmann high steel and the error is very pronounced. This body is not quite useless however. One of BR's last versions was the ugliest general merchandise open ever, the side sheeting having a bulb section stiffener at the bottom edge, with the floorboard ends visible below. Slice through the body horizontally twice, with the bottom cut where the bulb section goes - thus obscuring much of the site of attack - and reassemble, detail as much as you wish, and this dire specimen can be on your layout. The bodies are dirt cheap s/h.

 

Or do as dad did with his; replace the chassis, add some sort of packing case inside and sheet it.

 

Adam

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 minutes ago, Adam said:

Or do as dad did with his; replace the chassis, add some sort of packing case inside and sheet it.

Definitely, as the side thickness is grossly overscale; mine is permanently sheeted over to conceal that.

 

I went and looked it up and this 'ugly version' was the last of the diagram 1/047 build in the mid fifties. No change in the diagram number when the variant 'ugly' construction was introduced apparently.

[The Johnster]

I am fascinated by the philosophy, presumably Hornby Dublo's originally, that includes plank detail on a floor marred by 2 massive screw heads.  I sort of understand, without condoning, the lack of interior detail on the sides, but this...

 

I had one and tarped it to hide the offence, but it never looked right.  Dapol, at least at one stage, marketed it as a mineral with a plastic coal load, something I am unaware of a prototype for but if I say it's incorrect HMRS Paul or someone else who knows what they are about will correct me, with photos, chapter, and verse.  I never liked it and when it came to replacing the chassis with something with a separate moulded brake handle (my minimum spec for RTR), I gave up and gave it the chance of an exciting new career in the landfill industry.

 

I did not know that the dimples were sheeting cleats, and should have; thanks Ian.  

[cctransuk]

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I am fascinated by the philosophy, presumably Hornby Dublo's originally, that includes plank detail on a floor marred by 2 massive screw heads.  I sort of understand, without condoning, the lack of interior detail on the sides, but this...

 

The "philosophy" was, basically, the 1950s; and these plastic-bodied wagons were considered cutting edge and super-detailed by the standards of the time.

 

The ability to injection-mould both interior and exterior detail requires technology that simply didn't exist in the 1950s.

 

The " floor marred by 2 massive screw heads" was, in the original, 'marred' by two small holes through which the ends of a brass rivets were peened over, in order to pivot the couplings and fix the body to the chassis; a sensible and practical design solution.

 

I am fascinated by the thinking of posters who acquire a sixty-five year old product, and then apply current day standards in order to criticise it.

 

If you want 2020 standards; buy new, and pay 2020 prices.

 

John Isherwood.

Edited March 22, 2020 by cctransuk

[Mark Saunders]

36 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

The "philosophy" was, basically, the 1950s; and these plastic-bodied wagons were considered cutting edge and super-detailed by the standards of the time.

 

The ability to injection-mould both interior and exterior detail requires technology that simply didn't exist in the 1950s.

 

I am fascinated by the thinking of posters who acquire a sixty-five year old product, and then apply current day standards in order to criticise it.

 

If you want 2020 standards; buy new, and pay 2020 prices.

 

John Isherwood.

 

I am constantly amused by people who deride Lima models from thirty years ago when they were claiming these were the best ever and buying them by the bucketful !

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

The "philosophy" was, basically, the 1950s; and these plastic-bodied wagons were considered cutting edge and super-detailed by the standards of the time.

 

The ability to injection-mould both interior and exterior detail requires technology that simply didn't exist in the 1950s.

 

The " floor marred by 2 massive screw heads" was, in the original, 'marred' by two small holes through which the ends of a brass rivets were peened over, in order to pivot the couplings and fix the body to the chassis; a sensible and practical design solution.

 

I am fascinated by the thinking of posters who acquire a sixty-five year old product, and then apply current day standards in order to criticise it.

 

If you want 2020 standards; buy new, and pay 2020 prices.

 

John Isherwood.

Fair comment.  But Triang’s contemporary open wagons were not disfigured in this way (I’m not saying that these were scale paragons either).  I have a great deal of respect for RTR of that time (incidentally this wagon was one of HD’s ‘super detailed’ 1960s range, still with us courtesy of Dapol).  I binned mine and happily replaced it with a modern product to modern standards at a modern price. 
 

I don’t agree that it was a sensible and practical design solution, even a time when plastic tabs held coach roofs in place.  Buying it was a mistake, not my greatest regret in a lifetime of dodgy ill informed decisions, but I’m not buying another one...

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Fair comment.  But Triang’s contemporary open wagons were not disfigured in this way (I’m not saying that these were scale paragons either).  I have a great deal of respect for RTR of that time (incidentally this wagon was one of HD’s ‘super detailed’ 1960s range, still with us courtesy of Dapol).  I binned mine and happily replaced it with a modern product to modern standards at a modern price. 
 

I don’t agree that it was a sensible and practical design solution, even a time when plastic tabs held coach roofs in place.  Buying it was a mistake, not my greatest regret in a lifetime of dodgy ill informed decisions, but I’m not buying another one...

 

Hornby Dublo needed to have a pivot for their couplings - Tri-ang didn't.

 

Hornby Dublo had pre-existing cast mazak chassis which, financially they needed to reuse; Tri-ang came later on the scene and were able to design from scratch.

 

Did Tri-ang open wagons have interior detail? Look critically at Hornby Dublo Super Detail wagons and the contemporary Tri-ang equivalents and tell me honestly - which are the more accurate?

 

So - "it was a sensible and practical design solution" on the part of HD - it's just that it is very easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight, if one fails to give proper consideration to the actual business realities of the time.

 

Old models are the product of their time - almost always for very good reasons. It helps no-one to try and poor scorn on what is now perceived as old hat! Next, we'll have armchair critics dismissing the Spitfire because it wasn't a jet! There really isn't any difference, you know.

 

John Isherwood.

[The Johnster]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, John, much as I respect your view.  Airfix kit wagons of the day, not to mention the previous generation of HD and Trix tinplate, needed pivots for the couplings as well, and did without massive screw heads in the bottom of the wagon.  I was aware of and unhappy with this at the time, as I was with the underscale length of HD and Triang pacifics and mk1 coaches prior to Triang's introduction of scale length ones, and the open axleboxes on Triang rolling stock and tenders.  I didn't like the couplings either, and was, even a 4 year old, aware that the curves were too sharp and that the wheels were far too coarse, especially the Triang and Trix ones.  But I lacked the skill to do anything much about it, and arguably still do, but to a slightly lesser degree...

 

Needless to say I am delighted with the standard of modern RTR, and although I don't think it's perfect and still find things to moan about, reckon it's by and large about as good as one can reasonably expect from volume produced items.  I try to improve and adapt it and am much helped by your excellent transfers in this!  I still complain about lack of detail inside open wagons, and because my hand/eye co-ordination and steadiness of hand are deteriorating as age increases my general feebleness (a GP who'd obviously been on a course told me I was 'advancing from youth a few years back), have had to abandon scale couplings and revert to tension locks, which I think are horrible but so are all the alternatives.  

 

I have no problem with throwing away an older item that does not meet the standards of current RTR, which is able to meet my own specifications in general.  But I think there are still some Dapol items inherited from HD via Wrenn that are still to those standards; problems like the visible screw heads, pin head buffers, brake blocks nowhere near the wheels (yes, I know this is a 00 anomaly, so are splashers), and moulded handbrake levers.

 

I'll hold my hand up to being inconsistent in my application of my own standards, mind.  It is perhaps a bit of a double standard to chuck a wagon that offended me while running anomalies like a 'LImbach' 94xx with incorrect alignments between the wheels and the splashers, a fairly basic and obvious error, and a Hornby 2721 derived from a very poor, crude, and toy-like Triang Hornby original.  I plead in mitigation that I've worked them both up a bit, and the 2721 now has a decent chimney and safety valve cover, glazing in the spectacles, decent buffers, a crew, real coal, and a planked cab floor, but it's basic shortcomings have to be lived with.  I can live with them but not screw heads in the bottom of a wagon; my wagons are loaded and unloaded, and have to appear correct when they are empty!

[57xx]

14 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Those 'dimples' are representations of sheeting cleats,

 

Sort of... The "dimples" aren't really representations of anything from the outside, that's how they actually looked. They were recessed on the inside for cleats/lashing rings, they can just about be seen on the real thing here and here and in model form here.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I'll hold my hand up to being inconsistent in my application of my own standards, mind.  It is perhaps a bit of a double standard to chuck a wagon that offended me while running anomalies like a 'LImbach' 94xx with incorrect alignments between the wheels and the splashers, a fairly basic and obvious error, and a Hornby 2721 derived from a very poor, crude, and toy-like Triang Hornby original.  I plead in mitigation that I've worked them both up a bit, and the 2721 now has a decent chimney and safety valve cover, glazing in the spectacles, decent buffers, a crew, real coal, and a planked cab floor, but it's basic shortcomings have to be lived with.  I can live with them but not screw heads in the bottom of a wagon; my wagons are loaded and unloaded, and have to appear correct when they are empty!

 

Triang had well gone when the 2721 appeared. It was a 1980s model and fitted to the 1978 Jinty chassis.

 

I doubt there is anything from the Triang era in the model apart from the type of motor.

 

 

 

Jason

[cctransuk]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 Airfix kit wagons of the day, not to mention the previous generation of HD and Trix tinplate, needed pivots for the couplings as well, and did without massive screw heads in the bottom of the wagon.

 

 

You're missing my point - the wagon in question, and all HD wagons, did NOT have "massive screw heads in the bottom of the wagon"; please point me to an illustration of such a wagon with such screws.

 

What the small holes in your HD wagon body were for was for the crimping-over of the brass rivets that pivotted the couplings and secured the body to the chassis. See https://www.ebay.co.uk/b/Hornby-dublo-couplings/bn_7024859400 ; the short ones are for tinplate bodied wagons, the long ones for plastic bodied wagons.

 

So - NO massive screws, just the small end of a brass rivet. Did you never handle a complete HD plastic bodied open wagon?

 

John Isherwood.

[HonestTom]

18 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

I am constantly amused by people who deride Lima models from thirty years ago when they were claiming these were the best ever and buying them by the bucketful !

 

I'm not complaining - I get a lot of enjoyment out of working Lima wagons up and I can get them absolutely dirt cheap. I've got several vans in service and I even managed to bash an Interfrigo out of one of their reliveried Italian wagons. The quality of the moulding is absolutely superb.

[Il Grifone]

23 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Hornby Dublo needed to have a pivot for their couplings - Tri-ang didn't.

 

Hornby Dublo had pre-existing cast mazak chassis which, financially they needed to reuse; Tri-ang came later on the scene and were able to design from scratch.

 

Did Tri-ang open wagons have interior detail? Look critically at Hornby Dublo Super Detail wagons and the contemporary Tri-ang equivalents and tell me honestly - which are the more accurate?

 

So - "it was a sensible and practical design solution" on the part of HD - it's just that it is very easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight, if one fails to give proper consideration to the actual business realities of the time.

 

Old models are the product of their time - almost always for very good reasons. It helps no-one to try and poor scorn on what is now perceived as old hat! Next, we'll have armchair critics dismissing the Spitfire because it wasn't a jet! There really isn't any difference, you know.

 

John Isherwood.

 

True and Tri-ang open wagons have 4 holes in the floor for rivets which hold the underframe in place. This was also a 'one size fits all' (bought in from Pyramid/Trackmaster and also 'one size fits all'. It started of as quite passable (apart from a 9' 6" wheelbase and 16' length - very unusual) and got worse as time went on. Far worse was their habit of moulding planking/doors in relief.

 

A false floor can always hide the rivets and at worst they can be drilled out and everything glued together. I consider it a small price for not having those awful tension lock couplings.

 

We should never forget these were 'toys' not 'scale models' and, as such, were/are excellent.

 

What is wrong with the profile of the Hornby 2721 safety valve casing? The model has far worse faults IMHO. (Apart from the motor, the incorrect wheelbase* and overscale coupling rods (with the knuckle in the wrong place) hang over from Tri-ang days.

 

*At 7' 9" + 8' 3", it's not even right for an LMS 3F.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Il Grifone

[The Johnster]

Little wrong with the profile, Grifone, as you say it’s not the biggest problem on this model, but there is no detail in the top of it. I had one on hand from a scrapped Westward 64xx, which was an improvement; the replacement for the odd reverse tapered chimney came from the same source, as did the dome. 
 

The generic Triang chassis is not (to my knowledge) correct for any prototype, but the model’s splashers match it.  It s possible to use a Bachmann 57xx/8750 chassis to improve the 2721 but my prototype, 2761, had parallel fluted coupling rods so I‘ve kept the original chassis.  After a good bit of fettling it runs quite smoothly and controllably slowly.  

[Il Grifone]

I can't recall anyone getting the top detail right! I think the weird chimney has two reasons:  mould taper and to get it to fit the Dean single chimney cap. Neither valid IMHO.

My original solution to the wheelbase was to make the model into a double framed 1661 tank. At 7' 9" + 8' 0", it's only a millimetre out. This was to be to EM gauge and is talled at the moment. The second (and third - I now have three of them!) was to just ignore it, along with the 15 spoke wheels* (they should be 16 spoke for a 2721 and 14 for almost everything else). I have several examples of this chassis and all run well apart from one that had quartering problems. It still limps occasionally.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nopanniers.html

 

* It took Tri-ang 20 odd years and a change of ownership to correct this error. Why they couldn't start with the correct wheelbase and 15 spoke wheels for their 3F tank I can't imagine.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Il Grifone