Towards pre-Grouping carriages in 4mm – the D508 appreciation thread

[billbedford]

5 hours ago, jwealleans said:

One diagram (the 20', D402 if I remember correctly) was available in the Micromodels range and then from David Geen.

 

I can do the D.403 as an etching, though I'm not sure if it is on the website. 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Buhar said:

Taking advantage of this threads revival I have a question or two.  At the HR Society AGM a photo of a Midland & North Eastern Joint Stock postal van popped up (at Inverness IIRC) in the livery of that concern.  I thought the Joint stock was for working between Newcastle and Bristol.  If that is correct, what's it doing in Inverness?  Was the stock postal vehicles only or were there passenger carriages too?

 

On an LNER thread @jwealleans noted that all the photos of M&NEJS postal vehicles he'd seen were in Scotland, although in which period wasn't clear.  From the mileages involved, I would guess the Midland was the senior partner.

 

The M&NEJPS was for the Bristol-Newcastle Postal, as you say, and also for the St Pancras-Newcastle Postal, in Midland days at least. It consisted purely of postal vehicles; there were no M&NE Joint stock passenger carriages. In post-Grouping days the M&NEJPS "brand" was retained. David Jenkinson's Midland Carriages has a photos of a pair of the 1907 vehicles standing condemned in 1952, by then numbered 30283 and 30285, still lettered M&NEJPS, in the LMS stretched serif style of lettering. 

 

To confuse an already confusing story, the M&NEJPS vehicles, which were all of Midland design and except one of Midland construction, were numbered in a single series with the purely Midland vehicles. 

 

There were more-or-less four rounds of construction:

1. The Kirtley period, by the end of which there seem to have been 16 or 17 Post Office vehicles
2. Clayton's 30 ft clerestory 6-wheelers of 1879, Sorting Carriages (with two delivery arms) Nos. 1-3 and Tenders (with net and four delivery arms) Nos. 4-6 and 14-15. These replaced the majority of Kirtley vehicles, two of which had been sold off to the G&SW. 
3. Clayton arc-roof carriages, three 32 ft Parcels Sorting Vans Nos. 73-75 and two 43 ft bogie Parcels Sorting Vans Nos. 79 and 80, built 1885, plus a NER-built bogie van No. 267, followed by a pair of 43 ft bogie Letter Sorting Vans (with two delivery arms, and clerestory) Nos. 7 and 8 in 1888 (initially numbered 1 and 2), rounded off by another of the same sort, No. 9, in 1894.

The M&NEJPS was formed in late 1889, the vehicles assigned to it being 30 ft tenders Nos. 4-6 and 14-15, 43 ft letter sorting vans Nos. 7 and 8 (with No. 9 in due course), and 43 ft parcels sorting vans Nos. 79, 80, and 267. In 1894, the working was:

 

43 ft letter sorting van Bristol-Newcastle

43 ft parcel sorting van Bristol-Newcastle

30 ft tender Bristol-Derby

30 ft tender St Pancras-Newcastle (combined with the two 43 ft vans north of Derby

 

With three sets of carriages on the usual principle of one up, one down, one spare.

 

The purely Midland vehicles worked the Lincoln-Tamworth TPO connecting with the West Coast Postal (as the Bristol-Newcastle did) or were spare.

 

Glossing over a couple of other vehicles, the fourth stage of construction came in 1907 with the building of 54 ft clerestory carriages, 3 sorting vans (with four delivery arms) and 6 tenders (net and four delivery arms). The sorting vans were M&NEJPS Nos. 7-9 and the tenders were M&NEJPS Nos. 4-6 and Midland Nos. 14-16. These replaced the 43 ft sorting vans of 1888/94 and the 30 ft tenders of 1879, but whereas all these had been Joint Stock, not all the new vehicles were. Lacy & Dow, Midland Railway Carriages (from which all this is taken) doesn't have anything to say on the workings, though my guess is a M&NEJPS sorting van and tender worked Bristol-Newcastle, meeting a Midland tender from St Pancras at Derby.

 

30 ft sorting carriage of 1879:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64161.]

 

30 ft tender of 1879:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64162.]

 

And from the offside:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64182.]

 

And with Bristol crew:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64197.]

 

Note that this shows the original configuration with gangway at the leading end only. As if the history of the vehicles themselves wasn't complicated enough, I'm still trying to get my head round the changes in widths and disposition of gangways!

 

32 ft parcel sorting van of 1885:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64160.]

 

43 ft parcel sorting van of 1885:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64180.]

 

43 ft letter sorting van of 1888:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64179.]

 

And from the off-side:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64178.]

 

54 ft tender of 1907:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64177.]

 

And the offside:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64176.]

 

So I have two questions:

1. What was the date of the photo?
2. What was the vehicle?

Edited September 17, 2023 by Compound2632

[Mikkel]

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Soon to appear RTR!

 

https://uk.Hornby.com/products/lmr-coach-pack-wellington-globe-queen-adelaides-coach-era-1-r40357

 

Sorry, must have missed this post at the time.

 

 

Jason

 

Thanks Jason. I was about to say it's not the same coach until the penny dropped. Hornby' web design team should learn from Hemingway: Never overestimate your readers 🙂

 

[Compound2632]

On 17/09/2023 at 23:22, Compound2632 said:

Lacy & Dow, Midland Railway Carriages (from which all this is taken) doesn't have anything to say on the workings, though my guess is a M&NEJPS sorting van and tender worked Bristol-Newcastle, meeting a Midland tender from St Pancras at Derby.

 

But the information is in the Carriage Marshalling documents. The Study Centre has the North & West of England book for July, August, and September 1911 [MRSC 00615]. This gives (with some decoding by me):

 

7.0 p.m from Bristol:

• D508 48 ft bogie lavatory composite (whoa! - topic relevance) to Leeds
• NER van (6-wheeled)
• D508 48 ft bogie lavatory composite
• D486 48 ft bogie lavatory third
• 2 x bogie parcels post vans (1 x only, Sats) - 43 ft vans Nos. 79/80 and/or 48 ft van No. 111, built 1899
• 54 ft bogie post office - i.e. one of M&NEJPS Nos. 7-9 - from the NER van to this, to Newcastle
• 54 ft bogie post office tender - i.e. one of MR Nos. 14-16 - to Derby
• D531 45 ft bogie passenger brake van, to Derby

This train went forward from Birmingham at 11.25 pm, having attached on the front vans (D530 passenger brake vans) from Swansea and Worcester for Derby and a parcels van (probably D420) originating at Birmingham, for Bradford, and on the rear, a parcels van (probably D420) for Nottingham, a parcels van (probably one of the ones converted from 31 ft thirds) and van (D530) for London and parcels van (as previous) for Leicester, all originating at Birmingham.

 

At Derby, everything added at Birmingham came off. Also, the post office tender and bogie van came off, being replaced by a post office tender (presumably one of M&NEJPS Nos. 4-6) and 6-wheel passenger brake van (D530) for Newcastle and two more D530 vans, for Bradford and Sheffield, all of which had come down from St Pancras.

 

At Sheffield, the rear van was detached and a 4-wheel milk van for Hull, with perishables traffic from Derby, was put on the front. Presumably the van for Bradford was detached at Normanton, where the train was handed over to the North Eastern.

 

In the up direction, the same Newcastle portion (which had been turned) was attached at Normanton to the 10.0pm from Leeds, with a different selection of vans and parcels vans being top and tailed along the way; but the remarshalling of the core train at Derby was the reverse of the above, with the M&NEJPS tender going up to St Pancras and a Midland one attached for the remainder of the run to Bristol - in other words, the working of the tenders was unchanged from 1894.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Compound2632
Added comparison with 1894 working.

[Buhar]

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

In post-Grouping days the M&NEJPS "brand" was retained.

That's very interesting and quite inexplicable.  Presumably there had to be some sorting of the ownership in 1923, but even so, to persist with a tiny partnership with just a few assets and a mail contract seems most strange, let alone the vehicles then wandering.

 

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

So I have two questions:

1. What was the date of the photo?
2. What was the vehicle?

I can't answer either, except that I think it was a square panelled clerestory vehicle.  The slideshow images were Highland-related photos from the Cumbrian Railway Association's collection with commentary from Jim Summers of the Caley Association!  I've had a search of the Cumbrian Zenfolio but drawn a blank, Phil @SteamAle might be able to assist although we may have a wait as he only pops in here now and then.

 

Alan

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Buhar said:

That's very interesting and quite inexplicable.  Presumably there had to be some sorting of the ownership in 1923, but even so, to persist with a tiny partnership with just a few assets and a mail contract seems most strange, let alone the vehicles then wandering.

 

The only other joint stock fleet to continue after the grouping* was also one the Midland was party to: the M&NB fleet of carriages for the services between St Pancras, Bristol, Lancashire, and Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness and in even Mallaig - in the very first summer of the WHER only. But in both cases, the service pattern was the same immediately after grouping as before, and hence the rationale for the joint stock remained. It was simply that the partners were subsumed into the larger groups. The M&NB joint stock was divided between the LMS and LNER in 1930 (from memory). The point of these joint stock arrangements was to relieve the parties from the burden of having to balance carriage mileage hire charges from each other's vehicles running over the other's line, so was generally in the favour of the weaker party, though from a financial point of view I think one would regard the Midland and the North Eastern as being on an equal footing.

 

*The Caledonian was a sleeping partner in the ECJS, as successor to the Scottish North Eastern which provided the line to Aberdeen. Presumably at grouping the LMS inherited that stake?

 

8 hours ago, Buhar said:

I can't answer either, except that I think it was a square panelled clerestory vehicle. 

 

In which case, it is a vehicle I glossed over. Towards the end of 1898, the Post Office requested an additional parcels sorting van for the Bristol-Newcastle train and the following year a 48 ft square-panelled clerestory vehicle was built, M&NEJPS No. 111. (This brought the number of M&NEJPS parcels sorting vans to four, with the 43 ft vehicles Nos, 79, 80, and 267 - per the 1911 carriage marshalling instructions above.) A second van of the same type was also built, MR No. 112, and put on the Lincoln-Tamworth postal. The drawing, Derby C&W Drg. 1328, survives [MRSC 88-D0016] but Ralph Lacy states in Midland Railway Carriages that no photo was known to him. I did spot No. 112 in a photo of an accident to the Tamworth Mail at Swinderby in 1928, in Midland Record No. 32. It had been renumbered 1905 in 1923 and is so listed in Col. Pringle's report. No. 111 was renumbered 1986 and indeed the MRSC copy of the drawing has a pencil note "Nos. 111 & 112" and then, much larger, in red pencil, "Vehicle No. 1986". So now we have known photographs of both these carriages. I'd be very interested in seeing the CRA photo, to confirm this.

[Steamport Southport]

Anyone good at identifying prototypes of ancient wooden kits? Rhetorical question as I know you all are!

 

It's the short Clerestory that's of interest. 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Annie]

They look like CCW kits as was advertised in Model Railway News during the 1950s.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

They look like CCW kits as was advertised in Model Railway News during the 1950s.

 

I agree.

 

Sorry, but I meant the actual carriage rather than the kit maker.

 

Too early for me personally. Thought it might be Midland, but the ends suggest GWR Dean era.

 

 

Jason

[Annie]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I agree.

 

Sorry, but I meant the actual carriage rather than the kit maker.

 

Too early for me personally. Thought it might be Midland, but the ends suggest GWR Dean era.

 

 

Jason

Sorry Jason, - while I've had odd bits of CCW carriage kits given to me over the years I don't recognize that clerestory coach you've got at all.

[Compound2632]

On 17/09/2023 at 17:22, Compound2632 said:

The CCT provided by the S&DJR for the use of S. & A. Fuller, S&DJR No. 11, is well-known:

 

 

[Embedded link to DY 9127 at the Derby Registers pages of the MRS website.]

 

The photo has the date August 1908; the lettering, with its reference to Motor Bodies "fitted to any type of chassis", fits this date - certainly not the same wording as would have appeared on the firm's Midland CCT of 1886. But was this S&DJR vehicle built as a replacement for the Midland one, or did the firm have two running concurrently? It is generally assumed that the base colour of No. 11 is S&DJR blue; equally, it is assumed that the Midland vehicles simply had company lettering applied over the standard red livery. The idea of matching S. & A. Fuller CCTs in red and blue rather appeals!

 

Little seems to be known of No. 11's history. It is recorded as 27 ft long - confirmed by there being two more vertical boards each side of the doorway than on a Midland 25 ft CCT. I wonder if it was built on the underframe of an old S&DJR four-wheel carriage?

 

Following my recent delving in the S&DJR Reports and Accounts at Kew:

I can report that S&DJR carriage truck No. 11 was recorded as an addition to stock at a cost of £224 during the six months 1 November 1908 - 3- April 1909. There was obviously a lag of a few months between the vehicle emerging from the Highbridge paint shop and being delivered to Bath, and the accountant putting it on the books!

[SteamAle]

Stephen asked about the image from the Cumbrian RA collection which show: -

Ref: PET085. 1951-08-19 Inverness. MR/NER Jt Royal Mail TPO. Postal sorting car M30284 lettered M&NEJPS

PET099. 1951-08-20 Inverness. HR Royal Mail Postal sorting van. TPO M30322 built 1916.

Hope this heps.

[Compound2632]

48 minutes ago, SteamAle said:

Stephen asked about the image from the Cumbrian RA collection which show: -

Ref: PET085. 1951-08-19 Inverness. MR/NER Jt Royal Mail TPO. Postal sorting car M30284 lettered M&NEJPS

PET099. 1951-08-20 Inverness. HR Royal Mail Postal sorting van. TPO M30322 built 1916.

 

M30284 was one of the 54 ft Post Office Tenders of lot 667 of 1907, originally M&NEJPS No. 5 - round-panelled rather than square-panelled.

 

So still only one known photo of (part of) one of the two square-panelled parcels sorting vans of 1899!

[Compound2632]

On 17/09/2023 at 17:22, Compound2632 said:

Of these CCTs lettered for the use of particular firms, those recorded in the minutes, from 1891 onwards, were additions to stock. This leads me to speculate that there may have been others built as renewals that were also so branded - perhaps like No. 206, renewals of CCTs where there had been a long-standing arrangement, going back to Kirtley's time. This speculation is motivated by this photo, which has been discussed on here at one time, but frustratingly I can't find the discussion:

 

 

[Embedded link to Picture Nottingham.]

 

The CCT behind the engine is a full height (13' 3") one, by comparison with clerestory carriage on the right; to the left of the CCT is a horsebox, partly visible through the engine's cab.

 

I would like to be reminded what, if any, was the conclusion about the firm's name: 

S____EY'S & WO_______S  Ltd.

 

Stareys & Woolleys:

 

 

I've come across a photo of the McNaught CCT at Buxton; unfortunately 1070 Class 2-4-0 No. 128 (post-1907 number) is blocking the view. [S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 2 (Irwell Press, 2007) p. 8.] 

[Compound2632]

Now after three years of inactivity in the carriage department, I've started building a pair of Midland clerestory six-wheelers from Branchlines kits: a third, diagram D491, and a luggage composite, D515 (Branchlines refs. 4.55 and 4.56 respectively). Over the last few days I've assembled the brasswork of the underframes:

 

 

The underframe is arranged on the Cleminson system, with an approximation to three-point compensation: a piece of wire is soldered to the top-side of each end axle unit. longitudinal at one end and transverse at the other. The centre axle unit has a small proportion of the carriage's weight transferred to it by means of the long pivot beams, but as these are quite thin brass, it is more-or-less free-floating:

 

 

The kit design dates from 1990, well before springing became more popular than compensation. 

 

At 33 ft 6 in (134 mm) over end panels and 23 ft 6 in (94 mm) wheelbase, these are long six-wheelers, the longest I am likely to want to attempt. So they provide a limiting test for coupling systems to cope with end over-throw on curves. First, some photographs illustrating the size of the problem:

 

Transition between straight (right) and a radius of 852 mm (Hornby R628, left):

 

 

Transition between 852 mm radius (right) and 438 mm (Hornby R607, aka second radius, left):

 

 

Continuous second radius:

 

 

And just for fun, a second radius reverse curve:

 

 

Although the buffers have not yet been fitted, it is clear that there is the possibility of buffer-locking in the first two cases, transition between markedly different radii. This would argue against a coupling method using sprung draw-hooks, at least for such tight radii. What I would like to be able to avoid is a coupling that allows fore-and-back movement between vehicles: a screw-coupled passenger train should move as a single unit. With my RTR bogie stock with NEM sockets, this can be easily achieved using the Roco type coupler - and very nice such a train looks in motion. 

 

The Cleminson system works very nicely down to second radius - the underframes are free-running. The centre axle has the greatest lateral displacement. The next step is to fit the cast whitemetal axlebox / spring units and to see by how much these will foul the lower step-boards.

[Chas Levin]

Very nice work Stephen; also just leafing through my newly arrived first MRS publications last night, including your excellent 'Modelling the Midland', very enjoyable and informative read!

[Portchullin Tatty]

Stephen,

 

If these have footboards, (which I presume they will), then the swing will be a lot less as they get constricted.

 

Having said this, buffer lock can still be a problem.

 

An alternative approach for six wheelers is to use sliding axles.  Details here:

 

https://highlandmiscellany.com/2018/02/20/sliding-axles/

 

and in action here

 

https://highlandmiscellany.com/2018/03/01/sliding-axles-a-reprise/

 

 

Mark

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 18/01/2024 at 13:17, Portchullin Tatty said:

If these have footboards, (which I presume they will), then the swing will be a lot less as they get constricted.

 

This is rather less of an issue than one might expect - than I expected!

 

For one thing, the lower stepboard fits just below the axleboxes. The snag I hit when making a trial fitting of the stepboards was that the middle axleguard is flush behind the solebar:

 

 

This means that the middle axlebox / spring casting is too far forward from the solebar. This stops the stepboard unit from sitting correctly, not because of the axlebox but because one of the stepboard supports passes in front of the spring:

 

 

One would suppose that the axleguard is deliberately too far forward to give enough width for the centre axle unit to swing but experiment shows it's not the limiting constraint and can be moved inwards about 1 mm - the underframe still glides round that second radius curve:

 

 

(I've not modified the first underframe yet - I need to uncyano the whitemetal castings first!)

 

The stepboards are soldered up using my bending bars, packed out to the appropriate width, as a jig the keep them parallel.

 

 

More photos when I do the next set! The idea is to keep them as a separate units until the underframes are painted and the solebars lined out.

 

Extract from a compressed scan of Derby C&W Drg. 1179, Underframe for 33 ft 6 in Carriages [MRSC 88-D0177]:

 

Edited January 22 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

The drawing you show, suggests that the footboard support is angled out to clear the spring. The photo on page 139 of Midland carriages suggests the same, at least on the centre support. 

[Compound2632]

56 minutes ago, billbedford said:

The drawing you show, suggests that the footboard support is angled out to clear the spring. The photo on page 139 of Midland carriages suggests the same, at least on the centre support. 

 

Studying the full drawing and the photograph, it appears to be the case that all the stepboard supports are the same, and curved so as to project forward of the front face of the solebar:

 

 

[A further crop from compressed scan of MRSC 88-D0177.]

 

On the model, the stepboard supports are staple-shaped pieces of 0.45 mm diameter wire, soldered to the underside of both stepboards. This means the shape is not right at solebar height (but not so visible from normal viewing angle, one hopes) but below the solebar they are in about the right position, but do need to slope inwards towards the bottom, as the etched bottom stepboard is a whisker too wide.

 

Here's a not entirely satisfactory version of the photo to which Bill refers:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 61773.]

 

The version in the book is better, as is this one, though only a thumbnail - yet another print from or photograph of the same negative:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64444.]

 

While we're at it, here's the lavatory composite version, built to the same drawing as the luggage composite:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64445.]

 

And a photograph of a damaged negative of the other side:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 61777.]

 

Official photos of the 33 ft 6 in third and brake third seem not to have survived.

[Compound2632]

Faffing around yesterday low-temp soldering the axlebox / spring castings to the centre axleguards. Hoping for better progress today!

[Compound2632]

Stepboards. 

 

Step 1 - solder L-shaped pieces of bent wire to the underside of the upper stepboard. The short side of the L represents that part of the bracket supporting the upper stepboard - see drawing in earlier post:

 

 

Step 2 - the bending bars are packed out to the right thickness to put the upper surfaces of the two stepboards a scale 2' 3" apart. The lower stepboard, after turning up the backboard (ha!) held up against one side and the upper stepboard against the other. The wires are tack soldered to the back of the backboard:

 

 

Step 3 - the wires are cut to the appropriate length and folded over onto the underside of the lower stepboard, and soldered on. Just the first one done here:

 

 

Step 4 - the completed stepboard units are cleaned up. Top - rear side; bottom - front or outward-facing side:

 

 

All the underframe components have now been assembled and cleaned up, ready for clearance testing and, all being well, painting.

Edited January 24 by Compound2632

[Nick Holliday]

On 17/09/2023 at 17:22, Compound2632 said:

Another of Lot 121 of 1884 was for Fuller & Co. of Bristol, while one of the two of Lot 148 of 1886 was for S. & A. Fuller of Bath. The latter firm has only a brief listing in Grace's Guide as coachbuilders and harness makers but a longer entry for Frederick Augustus Smith, the firm's General Manager from 1920, who had been in the Midland's locomotive Department. There appears to be no connection between S. & A. Fuller and Fuller & Co. of Bristol.

 

The CCT provided by the S&DJR for the use of S. & A. Fuller, S&DJR No. 11, is well-known:

 

 

[Embedded link to DY 9127 at the Derby Registers pages of the MRS website.]

 

The photo has the date August 1908; the lettering, with its reference to Motor Bodies "fitted to any type of chassis", fits this date - certainly not the same wording as would have appeared on the firm's Midland CCT of 1886. But was this S&DJR vehicle built as a replacement for the Midland one, or did the firm have two running concurrently? It is generally assumed that the base colour of No. 11 is S&DJR blue; equally, it is assumed that the Midland vehicles simply had company lettering applied over the standard red livery. The idea of matching S. & A. Fuller CCTs in red and blue rather appeals!

 

Little seems to be known of No. 11's history. It is recorded as 27 ft long - confirmed by there being two more vertical boards each side of the doorway than on a Midland 25 ft CCT. I wonder if it was built on the underframe of an old S&DJR four-wheel carriage?

 

Going off-topic, and it probably has been noted before, but I was intrigued to see that the track in the foreground retains inside chairs, which I thought had been out of fashion for many years before the 1908 date pf the photo.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

Going off-topic, and it probably has been noted before, but I was intrigued to see that the track in the foreground retains inside chairs, which I thought had been out of fashion for many years before the 1908 date pf the photo.

 

Out of fashion for new work from 1884, but with plenty of life in it - I'm sure track over a quarter-of-a-century old could be found in many places, at any period after the 1860s. See the article by Adrian Tester in Modelling the Midland No. 1 (Winter 2023). 

[Compound2632]

Now the frustrating bit - trying to roll the tumblehome or turnunder.

 

Currently trying rolling pin and towel.