Rapido OO Gauge LMS Dia1666 5-plank open

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, SteamingWales said:

I'll second that question

 

How relevant is SKU 014. Doesn't it have a departmental number DM29719 or am I getting that completely wrong?

 

Also what does the CCE stand for on the side of one of the BR wagons. The only CCE I know is the Cambrian Coast Express!

 

Sorry, I was too brisk. I'll amend my response: SKU 937010/12/13 are good for wagons on ordinary traffic in the 1950s; no doubt @rapidoandy can give chapter and verse for the dates of the photos on which they are based. (I think each wagon offered is based on a photo - note the odd ones with three-hole disk wheels.)

 

But as you say, SKU 937014 with its DM number is in departmental service - maybe based on a photo from the 1960s? - while SKU 937011 is on loan to the Chief Civil Engineer, I suppose. As far as I can see, one could get a perfectly realistic revenue service wagon by removing that marking. I would imagine that even in the mid-50s one would get some wagons still in LMS bauxite, but with lettering updated?

 

Paul Bartlett's site will be worth a trawl but I have a correspondent who has been looking at ex-LMS wagons in the 1950s, in the margins of photos, on whose findings I will report in due course.

[Fat Controller]

39 minutes ago, SteamingWales said:

 

I'll second that question

 

 

How relevant is SKU 014. Doesn't it have a departmental number DM29719 or am I getting that completely wrong?

 

Also what does the CCE stand for on the side of one of the BR wagons. The only CCE I know is the Cambrian Coast Express!

 

CCE ; Chief Civil Engineer ( you might see a Regional suffix)

You might see other wagons branded for 'DCE' (Divisional Civil Engineer), again with further descriptors, or ACE (Area Civil Engineers)

But what does SKU stand for? All the searches I tried threw up 'Stock Keeping Unit', in a retail environment (bar codes and similar), which wouldn't need a wagon.

[Flying Pig]

5 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

CCE ; Chief Civil Engineer ( you might see a Regional suffix)

You might see other wagons branded for 'DCE' (Divisional Civil Engineer), again with further descriptors, or ACE (Area Civil Engineers)

But what does SKU stand for? All the searches I tried threw up 'Stock Keeping Unit', in a retail environment (bar codes and similar), which wouldn't need a wagon.

 

Exactly that - the codes of the different versions of the model.

[Aire Head]

25 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

But what does SKU stand for? All the searches I tried threw up 'Stock Keeping Unit', in a retail environment (bar codes and similar), which wouldn't need a wagon.

In this instance SKU is referring to Rapidos one use to identify the product.

 

Similar to how Hornby use Rxxxx numbers

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, gwrrob said:

With five different versions offered in BR grey here can anyone enlighten me which one would be suitable for a mid 50s goods train.

 

https://derails.co.uk/937010-Rapido-BR-Grey-Open?search=rapido 93701

 

These are the product codes for vehicles in BR revenue service livery

 

937010

937012

937013

 

The other two BR examples are 

937011 - CCE means "Chief Civil Engineer"

 

937014 - This has a DM prefix indicating it is in departmental service

 

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I would imagine that even in the mid-50s one would get some wagons still in LMS bauxite, but with lettering updated?

 

In very faded LMS Grey or Bauxite with BR lettering with replaced and patched planks and paintwork by mid 1950s

[Compound2632]

46 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

In very faded LMS Grey or Bauxite with BR lettering with replaced and patched planks and paintwork by mid 1950s

 

Thanks - the bauxite is what I'm aiming for with a Cambrian D1667 for our club layout, with a 1955 date.

[TheSignalEngineer]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I would imagine that even in the mid-50s one would get some wagons still in LMS bauxite, but with lettering updated?

John Turner has a picture on Flickr showing vacuum fitted D1892 open  M401033 still in its as built (c1934) but very faded large LMS livery at Harborne in the mid 1950s. The description says c1957. The condition of the station building then being used by Chad Valley Toys was better than it was in 1950 photos. The loco shunting the wagon appeared regulary on the branch from 1952 to 1960/1.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

John Turner has a picture on Flickr showing vacuum fitted D1892 open  M401033 still in its as built (c1934) but very faded large LMS livery at Harborne in the mid 1950s. The description says c1957. The condition of the station building then being used by Chad Valley Toys was better than it was in 1950 photos. The loco shunting the wagon appeared regulary on the branch from 1952 to 1960/1.

 

 

[Embedded link]

[Zunnan]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

[Embedded link]

 

Perfect subject for Rapido to tackle...and I don't mean the 5 plank!

 

[Compound2632]

The 10 ft w/b D1892, built from 1934 to 1939, was also by the standards of lesser railways a very numerous type, running to 12,200 examples. It seems a little unusual in that fitted and unfitted wagons were included on the same diagram. Going by the official portrait of No. 400231 in Essery & Morgan, fitted examples were, as one would expect, marked with an N at each end indicating that they were not in the pool. No. 401033 in the Harbourne photo was, as mentioned, fitted; unfortunately one can't see if the X at the RH end has survived. It's not entirely clear from Essery & Morgan how many were built fitted but at least 2,300, chiefly the earliest lots.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Zunnan said:

Perfect subject for Rapido to tackle...and I don't mean the 5 plank!

 

I'm with you there, so long as the tooling allows for original condition too!

[Zunnan]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm with you there, so long as the tooling allows for original condition too!

 

Aah, but which class? 😅

 

Common chassis with less common wheels and boilers! I would be very in for the 1873 class (M class) though, being the most numerous as well as winding up with the M&GN and the S&DJ. Still think I'd be more in for a Kirtley 700 mind you.

[Wickham Green too]

42 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

... It seems a little unusual in that fitted and unfitted wagons were included on the same diagram. ...

Not particularly unusual for the LMS  -  though it's a difference that I, personally, would think merited a new diagram as it fundamentally changes the way in which the vehicle can be used ( more than, say, an extra half inch in width ).

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, Zunnan said:

Aah, but which class? 😅

 

Common chassis with less common wheels and boilers! I would be very in for the 1873 class (M class) though, being the most numerous as well as winding up with the M&GN and the S&DJ. Still think I'd be more in for a Kirtley 700 mind you.

 

Indeed. The engine in the photo is from the first class, the 1142 or B Class, 120 engines with 4' 10½" drivers; these were followed by the 1357 or H Class, which were the same engine pitched 2" higher all round on account of having 5' 2½" wheels. Then there was a reversion to 4' 10½" wheels for the 60 mineral engines of the 1698 Class. Only with the 10 engines 1798 Class of 1888 did the specification settle down to 5' 2½" wheels; the 100 engines of the Neilson Goods class have distinctive cab steps, but the final 465 engines, plus the 10 S&DJR and 16 M&GN engines were all pretty much identical, externally (barring tenders and vac brakes or not) - Classes J, J2, and M. 

 

So for variety of pretty liveries, it's that last, large, group that appeals, but pretty well all these engines were rebuilt as the familiar 3F whereas it's engines from the earlier classes that were the small-boiler survivors, either round-topped or Belpaire.

 

The Kirtley double-framed engines are just as bit as complicated...

Edited December 4, 2022 by Compound2632

[TheSignalEngineer]

In the last ten years of their life we had about 30 of the 2Fs at sheds in our area. I think they were all Belpaire rebuilds from memory but a mixture of cabs.

Bournville still had at least two 700 outside frame rebuilds at nationalisation but sadly they didn't last quite until my spotting days.

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The 10 ft w/b D1892, built from 1934 to 1939, was also by the standards of lesser railways a very numerous type, running to 12,200 examples.

 

LMS D1892s also built during the war for the LNER (D184) by the SR at Ashford. I do not yet know (but would like to find out) if they did get built for the SR or even GWR!

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

LMS D1892s also built during the war for the LNER (D184) by the SR at Ashford. I do not yet know (but would like to find out) if they did get built for the SR or even GWR!

As above - they were probably D2094 ..... whatever the difference was ! ............Ashford certainly didn't build any for the Southern and built no open wagons at all for the GWR.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

As above - they were probably D2094 ..... whatever the difference was ! ............Ashford certainly didn't build any for the Southern and built no open wagons at all for the GWR.

From page 34 of The LMS Wagon (Essery/Morgan, 1977)

 

"The second group covers the vehicles with all-wood bodies and all-steel underframes. Four diagrams were involved, D1892, 2072, 2094 and 2151. All were similar in appearance, the reason for the various diagrams being that internal dimensions varied according to the thickness of timber used in their construction, while the internal height of the sides also varied slightly".

 

Volume Four of the OPC Southern Wagons quintet (Bixley, et al, 2002) categorically states that Ashford constructed 400 wagons to SR Diagram 1375 for the LNER. Ordered in April 1943 (Order A2516) and delivered between March and July 1944. A works photograph of NE262463 is reproduced on P.40. Livery is unpainted timber with painted ironwork, officially black, but the authors comment that the photograph suggests it is more probably grey. 

 

Also described is a further batch of the type, Ordered a month later, of 465 wagons for the LMS (Ashford order A2533, LMS Lot 1371, wagon Nos. 417610 - 418074.

 

Returning to The LMS Wagon, that lot is listed as D.2094, with construction attributed to Derby and Wolverton.

 

All that said, the visual differences between SR Diagram 1375 and LMS D.2094 appear very minor. The corner plates on the LMS ones look slightly more substantial (by maybe an inch) but that's about it.

 

John

Edited December 4, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Aire Head]

29 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

All that said, the visual differences between SR Diagram 1375 and LMS D.2094 appear very minor. The corner plates on the LMS ones look slightly more substantial (by maybe an inch) but that's about it.

 

 

The D1375 has different positioning of the bolts on the corner plates and also had independent brakes rather than Morton to my Knowledge. Diagram 1375 more closely represent LMS diagram D2151 which were the exMoS wagons.

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

whatever the difference was !

 

Largely the thickness of the sides and the end stanchions were of a uniform shape on the D2094 rather than tapered as they were on the D1892.

 

I sometimes wonder if I spend too much time looking at wagons 😅

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Aire Head
Shoddy spelling/grammar

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

I sometimes wonder if I spend too much time looking at wagons 😅

 

No, you can never spend too much time looking at wagons. Keeps you off the carriages...

[Dunsignalling]

8 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

The D1375 has different positioning of the bolts on the corner plates and also had independent brakes rather than Morton to my Knowledge. Diagram 1375 more closely represent LMS diagram D2151 which were the exMoS wagons.

 

Largely the thickness of the sides and the end stanchions were of a uniform shape on the D2094 rather than tapered as they were on the D1892.

 

I sometimes wonder if I spend too much time looking at wagons 😅

 

 

Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a photograph of a wagon from LMS Lot 1371. Were they true representatives of D.2094 or SR Dia.1375, perhaps given Morton brakes at the behest of the customer?

 

John

[Aire Head]

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a photograph of a wagon from LMS Lot 1371. Were they true representatives of D.2094 or SR Dia.1375, perhaps given Morton brakes at the behest of the customer?

 

John

 

A good point and one which I cannot say as I cannot recall having seen an image either! We do however know that LNER D184 was built aslt Ashford and these match LMS D1892/D2094 from the images I have seen. It's something which could go either way however as a gut feeling I'd lean towards the SR built opens for the LMS being to the LMS design.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Aire Head

[Dunsignalling]

53 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

A good point and one which I cannot say as I cannot recall having seen an image either! We do however know that LNER D184 was built aslt Ashford and these match LMS D1892/D2094 from the images I have seen. It's something which could go either way however as a gut feeling I'd lean towards the SR built opens for the LMS being to the LMS design.

The corner plates on the LNER example illustrated in Southern Wagons Volume 4 are definitely of the slightly narrower pattern and with the SR layout of bolt heads. It also has the typical short SR headstocks and independent brakes. End stanchions of SR Dia.1375/LMS Di892 were to all intents and purposes identical anyway! 

 

The giveaway ought to be short SR headstocks vs full-width LMS ones, but that is another feature that Ashford could have varied without materially diverging from the SR diagram.

 

The thought occurs that, if Ashford had built some Diagram 1375 wagons with Morton brakes for the LNER (and possibly in the case of the LMS batch, longer headstocks and heavier corner plates) would they actually be distinguishable from true LMS D1892 vehicles?  

 

We don't get to see the undersides in either case, but whatever the final wagons looked like, I'd bet that they would have been built on the same jigs as all the 10' wb, 17'6" wagons Ashford built for the SR. Whilst all three companies followed RCH specifications, I doubt the end products tallied exactly one with the other.

 

John

 

PS. I've just looked at the title of this topic and, much as a handful of us will find this fascinating, we've strayed quite a way from it! 🙃

Edited December 4, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

... All that said, the visual differences between SR Diagram 1375 and LMS D.2094 appear very minor. The corner plates on the LMS ones look slightly more substantial (by maybe an inch) but that's about it. ...

But look at the corner plate bolt pattern - only the LMS used two staggered rows of bolts whereas the other three Companies used a single row ( whether that be one or two bolts per plank ) ........ and probably the most telling characteristic of the LMS opens is the much shorter door springs - so the protector plates are centred on the middle plank rather than second down.