Dia. AA20 'Toad' Brake Van

[Corbs]

14 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

Photos of both sides of DW17247 from begining of the 80s 

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e361af2fe

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e2861149a

 

Paul

I love you

 

[Miss Prism]

2 hours ago, Corbs said:

Likewise DW17247 (Slough Engineers) has the number and weight on the 2nd panel from the non-verandah end both sides (I have not seen anything to contradict this yet).

 

https://rapidotrains.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/slider34/YeovilToad.jpeg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUYovAuWoAIs3hA.jpg

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Miss Prism

[Corbs]

I know this is a huge picture dump but here are (nearly) all the Toad liveries (both sides) - the exception is DW17247 which is having one side reworked (thanks to Paul for the pic).

 

Hopefully this shows what I mean about the WSR van's (Worcester) number/weight being mirrored whereas the Yeovil one has placement number left, weight right consistent with the others.

 

 

 

[hmrspaul]

40 minutes ago, Corbs said:

I know this is a huge picture dump but here are (nearly) all the Toad liveries (both sides) - the exception is DW17247 which is having one side reworked (thanks to Paul for the pic).

 

Hopefully this shows what I mean about the WSR van's (Worcester) number/weight being mirrored whereas the Yeovil one has placement number left, weight right consistent with the others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both of these are just so wrong. Is there proof the yellow one had the number panel at the extreme right? I know BR were very inconsistent but honestly

And layouts are going to have that awful Worcester job. Its like going back to Dapol before Richard took them in hand. 

 

Paul

[Corbs]

9 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

Both of these are just so wrong. Is there proof the yellow one had the number panel at the extreme right? I know BR were very inconsistent but honestly

And layouts are going to have that awful Worcester job. Its like going back to Dapol before Richard took them in hand. 

 

Paul

 

Mornin' Paul.

Yes you are certainly right about the inconsistency of BR, not been able to turn up any photos of the other side of DW17244. Both your photo at York and another one of it marshalled with a crane show the same side 🙄

Your photos of DW35302 and DW35266 show the numbers on the panel next to the verandah door so perhaps that is a more suitable location?

 

 

 

The Worcester one is the example at the WSR which has the mirrored placement of the black panels so it should be correct for its preserved condition (accepting that the works plate has been moved).

 

 

From:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GWR_AA20_Toad_114751_at_Minehead.JPG

From:

https://www.deviantart.com/basedcube95/art/Toad-Brake-Van-873627868

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Corbs

[Miss Prism]

Preserved brake vans are generally not a good replica of the pre-preserved state.

[The Stationmaster]

I hope that you aren't using those two photographs for the different sides of DW 17247 as one was taken in in 1979 and the other in 1981 and the vehicle has obviously been repainted and had various data information added/changed between the two dates.  The most obvious example are that the later photo shows the ZTO TOPS code and an overhead warning sign while neither are present in the earlier photo.

 

Obviously - without a mirror  - no one can see both sides of the van at once but I doubt the various changes, including the other items I haven't mentioned, only happened on one side of it.

[Corbs]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I hope that you aren't using those two photographs for the different sides of DW 17247 as one was taken in in 1979 and the other in 1981 and the vehicle has obviously been repainted and had various data information added/changed between the two dates.  The most obvious example are that the later photo shows the ZTO TOPS code and an overhead warning sign while neither are present in the earlier photo.

 

Obviously - without a mirror  - no one can see both sides of the van at once but I doubt the various changes, including the other items I haven't mentioned, only happened on one side of it.

 

Yes although I don't think it's been wholly repainted as the grey is peeling off in some places and the handrails are rather rusty, so hopefully this can give us some indication as to the 1979 condition, such as the position of the SLOUGH FOR ENGINEERS USE ONLY lettering (note how faded and streaked this is). The TOPS panel and the DW17247 placement is consistent with the other side of the vehicle so I suspect the ZTO and the black panel below it may have been painted over the earlier 20T lettering. I am not so sure about the infobox on the 2nd panel from the right as this doesn't appear in the 1979 photo and as such may be a 1980-81 addition?

 

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

Preserved brake vans are generally not a good replica of the pre-preserved state.

 

Yep. In this instance it was on the job list to represent the preserved example, so in effect reproducing the inaccuracies accurately?

 

The SECR brake van on the KESR and the 8-plank on the Bluebell are also examples of preservation-era livery errors.

[Michael Hodgson]

45 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I hope that you aren't using those two photographs for the different sides of DW 17247 as one was taken in in 1979 and the other in 1981 and the vehicle has obviously been repainted and had various data information added/changed between the two dates.  The most obvious example are that the later photo shows the ZTO TOPS code and an overhead warning sign while neither are present in the earlier photo.

 

Obviously - without a mirror  - no one can see both sides of the van at once but I doubt the various changes, including the other items I haven't mentioned, only happened on one side of it.

Yeah, but it might just be correct at lunch time on the day they were half-way through repainting it.

How loosely should we define the period modelled? 

[Miss Prism]

24 minutes ago, Corbs said:

Yep. In this instance it was on the job list to represent the preserved example

 

It would have been helpful if you had pointed this out earlier.

 

[Corbs]

5 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

It would have been helpful if you had pointed this out earlier.

 

 

Yep I should have been clearer - when I said 'the WSR example' I should have phrased it 'the example as preserved on the WSR'.

[Corbs]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Yeah, but it might just be correct at lunch time on the day they were half-way through repainting it.

How loosely should we define the period modelled? 

 

It's a question I've been wondering about, if you take this example we have photos approx. 2 years apart but they are hard evidence of the vehicle in a certain condition. In the absence of any other photographs, should an estimation of the 1979 condition be made so that both sides match a certain time period, or should both sides differ from each other but be loyal to the photos, accepting that each side of the vehicle represents two different years?

In this instance the 'most likely 1979 condition based on the evidence we have' version has been chosen.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

 

or should both sides differ from each other but be loyal to the photos, accepting that each side of the vehicle represents two different years?

 

Well that's another approach.  It's not just the prototype that you can only see one side at a time.  Some of my stock has different running numbers on each side, so I ostensibly have more stock than I really have - and in a few cases, different liveries on each side! 

[tomparryharry]

I've been away for a while, and what's this? Brake vans? 

 

I'm not going to be pedantic, but some things to note:-

 

Vans went through a 'major' overhaul at roughly 7 year intervals.  Things like buffers were changed, depending on whatever was needed. Preservation has mixed up the various 'styles', where bits were chopped & changed, as required..  Through piping is, by & large,  a latter-day post '65 addition. 

 

If you want an accurate model, then obtain  a photo of your desired vehicle, and copy that. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by tomparryharry

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Corbs said:

 

Yes although I don't think it's been wholly repainted as the grey is peeling off in some places and the handrails are rather rusty, so hopefully this can give us some indication as to the 1979 condition, such as the position of the SLOUGH FOR ENGINEERS USE ONLY lettering (note how faded and streaked this is). The TOPS panel and the DW17247 placement is consistent with the other side of the vehicle so I suspect the ZTO and the black panel below it may have been painted over the earlier 20T lettering. I am not so sure about the infobox on the 2nd panel from the right as this doesn't appear in the 1979 photo and as such may be a 1980-81 addition?

 

I had already tried doing a sectional enlargement of that panel but couldn't get anything clear enough.  It looks a bit like an HMLE data panel but painted on instead of using a yellow label.   If my surmise is correct its addition would be consistent with the appearance of the ZTO code branding on the vehicle - albeit a good long time after TOPS cutover on the WR had been completed.  However the slow pace of change of painted detail could be consistent with a fairly long interval between shopping.

 

incidentally by then I I wonder if the tare weight would have been different and been expressed in metric tonnes instead of tons & cwt?

[hmrspaul]

7 hours ago, Corbs said:

 

Yes although I don't think it's been wholly repainted as the grey is peeling off in some places and the handrails are rather rusty, so hopefully this can give us some indication as to the 1979 condition, such as the position of the SLOUGH FOR ENGINEERS USE ONLY lettering (note how faded and streaked this is). The TOPS panel and the DW17247 placement is consistent with the other side of the vehicle so I suspect the ZTO and the black panel below it may have been painted over the earlier 20T lettering. I am not so sure about the infobox on the 2nd panel from the right as this doesn't appear in the 1979 photo and as such may be a 1980-81 addition?

 

 

Yep. In this instance it was on the job list to represent the preserved example, so in effect reproducing the inaccuracies accurately?

 

 

But why? How many are modelling the WSR abomination whereas the majority will use it as a BR era van, and be horribly wrong. Just alter it, please. 

 

Paul

[Dunsignalling]

46 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

But why? How many are modelling the WSR abomination whereas the majority will use it as a BR era van, and be horribly wrong. Just alter it, please. 

 

Paul

From a geographical angle, the best BR version for most people would be that depicted in the final pair of images in the sequence above with no localised markings. 

 

Then they can add appropriate (or fictitious) RU branding of their own choosing or leave it as supplied.

 

I take it that's the Titfield van, though, as I can't find it in among the rest on the Hatton's website.

 

John

Edited July 16, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[hmrspaul]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I had already tried doing a sectional enlargement of that panel but couldn't get anything clear enough.  It looks a bit like an HMLE data panel but painted on instead of using a yellow label.   If my surmise is correct its addition would be consistent with the appearance of the ZTO code branding on the vehicle - albeit a good long time after TOPS cutover on the WR had been completed.  However the slow pace of change of painted detail could be consistent with a fairly long interval between shopping.

 

incidentally by then I I wonder if the tare weight would have been different and been expressed in metric tonnes instead of tons & cwt?

If you paid your 50p you might have a better chance of reading. I've no clear idea what it is you are trying to do, but the crossed through writing on the Swindon photo it is one of those date maintenance panels. 

Revolution have access to the high resolution scans, as do you. 

 

Paul

[Corbs]

 

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I had already tried doing a sectional enlargement of that panel but couldn't get anything clear enough.  It looks a bit like an HMLE data panel but painted on instead of using a yellow label.   If my surmise is correct its addition would be consistent with the appearance of the ZTO code branding on the vehicle - albeit a good long time after TOPS cutover on the WR had been completed.  However the slow pace of change of painted detail could be consistent with a fairly long interval between shopping.

 

incidentally by then I I wonder if the tare weight would have been different and been expressed in metric tonnes instead of tons & cwt?

 

It's ok, I have the hi-res scan now (thanks to Paul).
Below is revised version of verandah-left side based on the 1981 photo but using the markings from the 1979 photo as a reference. The layout and spacing of the SLOUGH.... is completely different to the other side as is the number styling (e.g. the shape of the number '2').
On the 1981 photo I can see the dates on the right hand panel but they are 1980 so would post-date the 1979 condition, so I have re-used the writing from the other side.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

But why? How many are modelling the WSR abomination whereas the majority will use it as a BR era van, and be horribly wrong. Just alter it, please. 

 

Paul

 

I'm not sure, I presume there must be a market as most of the projects I have worked on have had a preserved example available (even where the preservation livery has mistakes/differences to the in-service version). I need to caveat that I am a freelance contractor and do not decide the models that go on sale. However it is always my intention to make them as accurate to the specified condition as possible, so I am very grateful for the assistance provided in this thread and elsewhere.

 

 

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

From a geographical angle, the best BR version for most people would be that depicted in the final pair of images in the sequence above with no localised markings. 

 

Then they can add appropriate (or fictitious) RU branding of their own choosing or leave it as supplied.

 

I take it that's the Titfield van, though, as I can't find it in among the rest on the Hatton's website.

 

John

 

Hi John, yes you are correct it is the Titfield van. I believe this will only be available in the Titfield pack(s) with Lion and the Loriot 'coach'.

 

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

If you paid your 50p you might have a better chance of reading. I've no clear idea what it is you are trying to do, but the crossed through writing on the Swindon photo it is one of those date maintenance panels. 

Revolution have access to the high resolution scans, as do you. 

 

Paul

On the 1981 photo, not the 1979 photo, 

 

PS where do I pay the 50p - ah, now found it, thanks.  (BTW did you have my local supervisor's permission for access in order to take the photo at Yeovil Jcn in 1976?   Ken was usually pretty helpful but his colleague on the opposite turn wasn't quite so friendly at times especially when re-planning the train service crossing points 😇 )

[tomparryharry]

On 25/02/2022 at 17:37, rapidoandy said:

If you can find a definitive answer I’d be grateful.

the Western went over to small logo in 1942, but you will need to check. That said, there will be a time delay as front-line stock had prior treatment. 

 

The goods wagon books 1&2 are a pretty good reference point. 

[The Johnster]

It’s best to work from clear photographs, properly dated and established provenance, but these will not provide as complete a record for toads as for A4s or Deltics.  Even books written by knowledgeable and reliable authors can be wobbly, and cross-referenced confirming evidence is a) absolutely necessary, and b) seldom forthcoming.   
 

My take on this is that I want to do my best within the limits of my ability and budget, and I am surprised at and grateful for such information about a fairly obscure shed with an allocation of about 50 tank engines 80-odd years ago that I have been able to track down.  Where I do not have it, I go with a best guess and the codicil that I will correct mistakes if better info comes to light, but after 8 decades I’m not holding my breath…

[57xx]

On 16/07/2022 at 21:45, hmrspaul said:

If you paid your 50p you might have a better chance of reading. I've no clear idea what it is you are trying to do, but the crossed through writing on the Swindon photo it is one of those date maintenance panels. 

Revolution have access to the high resolution scans, as do you. 

 

Not going to squint to try and read the quoted text in your post, but having had some of your scans  I can say for the meagre pennies they cost, they are worth every... penny.

[MidlandRed]

On 16/07/2022 at 20:29, hmrspaul said:

But why? How many are modelling the WSR abomination whereas the majority will use it as a BR era van, and be horribly wrong. Just alter it, please. 

 

Paul

For those of us unfortunates who liked the look of and have ordered the Worcester brake van, I’m presuming the number/ weight panels and/or the RU etc panels are incorrect in some way - are you able to explain the problems to those of us who are less knowledgeable on 60s WR brake vans, please, Paul? I’m certainly keen to have one as I well remember them on ex WR lines around and just south of the Birmingham Division. 
 

I would echo the request to correct it as well (even before hearing what the errors are!!). My layout is certainly not based on the WSR (fabulous as that railway is!!). 

Edited July 25, 2022 by MidlandRed

[hmrspaul]

26 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

For those of us unfortunates who liked the look of and have ordered the Worcester brake van, I’m presuming the number/ weight panels and/or the RU etc panels are incorrect in some way - are you able to explain the problems to those of us who are less knowledgeable on 60s WR brake vans, please, Paul? I’m certainly keen to have one as I well remember them on ex WR lines around and just south of the Birmingham Division. 
 

I would echo the request to correct it as well (even before hearing what the errors are!!). My layout is certainly not based on the WSR (fabulous as that railway is!!). 

They have sort of mirror imaged the writing. Basically The number should be on the extreme left (for reasons unfathomable to me BR don't seen to have put it beneath the verandah), reasonably low down, with the weight centred above it, the right should have WB, XP (if that is appropriate) and the tare 20-0T. If unfit then grey (lets not go there) if piped or vac braked then red (bauxite to modellers). From 1964ish then all of that info might be put in boxes on the left hand side. Plenty of examples 

So this is reasonable.

 

This is wrong

 

 

As can be seen it is piped (at least) so should be in red. 

 

There are several of the paint instructions which show it correctly earlier in the post. 

 

Paul (with his head in his hands that anyone uses heritage stock as a guide to modellers; I know plenty will say it's their railway and they can do what they like. Personally I thought that was fine when totally fictitious liveries were used)

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan

Edited July 25, 2022 by hmrspaul