Rapido OO Gauge LMS Dia1666 5-plank open

[magmouse]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

By the grouping period and no doubt earlier, sheets were marked with two dates: an issue date and a date by which the sheet was due to be returned for maintenance; these seem to have typically given a time in traffic of around 15 to 18 months.

 

According to Slinn in Great Western Way, before May 1924, GWR sheets showed one date, with the month (1 or 2 digit) over the year (2 digit). After 1924, the issue date is shown in white on the right, and the return for repair date in red on the left of the sheet.

 

The practice of other companies may have varied, and the timing of the GWR change may have nothing to do with the grouping, but I wonder if the grouping prompted some standardisation via the RCH. Were sheets common user? If so, from when?

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, RapidoCorbs said:

I'm sure one of the clever CAD people can confirm or correct me, but this is because protruding faces on the inside of a box (in this case the wagon body) are difficult to do without a collapsible mould (which would add a significant tooling cost).

 

I imagined this would be the problem.

 

19 minutes ago, Sitham Yard said:

That gives something for the modeller to do. Those that want to can add a representation of the corner plates and then paint all the interior metalwork.

 

Quite so. I think that all the interior ironwork would be black - all the ironwork having been "Japanned" before assembly - but I'm not too sure exactly how long such practices continued in the grouping period. 

 

But since a goodly proportion of wagons would be sheeted in traffic, it's perhaps moot. On the other hand, for an unsheeted loaded wagon it's those top corner plates that would be the most prominent interior feature.

 

Perhaps etched corner plates could be supplied as an add-on detail pack?

[Wickham Green too]

4 minutes ago, magmouse said:

... Were sheets common user? If so, from when?

From 14th February 1917 .... and ropes from 1st August 1917 to 1st August 1921.

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Perhaps etched corner plates could be supplied as an add-on detail pack?

They'd still be proud of the surface - printing or after-market transfers would be better. 😊

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, magmouse said:

 

According to Slinn in Great Western Way, before May 1924, GWR sheets showed one date, with the month (1 or 2 digit) over the year (2 digit). After 1924, the issue date is shown in white on the right, and the return for repair date in red on the left of the sheet.

 

The practice of other companies may have varied, and the timing of the GWR change may have nothing to do with the grouping, but I wonder if the grouping prompted some standardisation via the RCH. Were sheets common user? If so, from when?

 

I was being cagey as I hadn't looked up to remind myself which way round the red and white dates were! I think some companies were using this system before the grouping and I believe it was standard after - it was certainly LMS practice as described in Essery's article.

 

According to the tables of Common User Agreements in Atkins etal., GWR Goods Wagons, and Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 4A, sheets were common user from 14 Feb 1917 and ropes from 1 Aug 1917 but ropes were withdrawn from the common user scheme on 1 Aug 1921. I wonder why?

[Sitham Yard]

3 minutes ago, magmouse said:

 

According to Slinn in Great Western Way, before May 1924, GWR sheets showed one date, with the month (1 or 2 digit) over the year (2 digit). After 1924, the issue date is shown in white on the right, and the return for repair date in red on the left of the sheet.

 

The practice of other companies may have varied, and the timing of the GWR change may have nothing to do with the grouping, but I wonder if the grouping prompted some standardisation via the RCH. Were sheets common user? If so, from when?

 

Nick.

GWR Goods Wagons by Atkins, Beard & Tourret 1998 edition Appendix 2 "Common user of sheets began 14 February 1917". This brings me on to another question. I believe that the Geoscenics and Peco wagon sheets have wording on about the sheet being returned with the wagon. Is this prototypical? I am thinking it might only apply to china clay wagons.

Andrew   

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Wickham Green too said:

From 14th February 1917 .... and ropes from 1st August 1917 to 1st August 1921.

 

Snap!

 

1 minute ago, Wickham Green too said:

They'd still be proud of the surface - printing or after-market transfers would be better. 😊

 

They were I think 3/8 in thick - 5 thou at 4 mm scale. Also, countersunk bolts so no surface detail, so I've changed my mind about etching. Squares of suitably thin black plasticard will do it, if the material can be found. Or 10 thou.

[57xx]

5 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

They'd still be proud of the surface - printing or after-market transfers would be better. 😊

 

That's the intent though, to represent something that is proud of the surface on the prototype? Stephen's suggestion is for something that will represent a raised feature that you can't reproduce in the mould without increasing costs significantly but could be added on afterwards.

[Sitham Yard]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Snap!

 

 

They were I think 3/8 in thick - 5 thou at 4 mm scale. Also, countersunk bolts so no surface detail, so I've changed my mind about etching. Squares of suitably thin black plasticard will do it, if the material can be found. Or 10 thou.

We all three posted at about the same time. I would suggest corner plates in about the same thickness as the metalwork already moulded in the wagon.

Andrew

[57xx]

46 minutes ago, RapidoCorbs said:

 

I'm sure one of the clever CAD people can confirm or correct me, but this is because protruding faces on the inside of a box (in this case the wagon body) are difficult to do without a collapsible mould (which would add a significant tooling cost).

 

Faces which stick out and then go straight 'down' are fine, as long as the space inside the wagon gets smaller and not bigger. Look closely at the planks - they are an illusion as they are in fact tiny 'steps'.

The mould wouldn't be able to be extracted once the plastic had been injected otherwise.

 

Kits which inject a single wagon side at a time can replicate this kind of detail with a two-face mould.

 

Obvious when you remind us about the mould restriction, Corbs! I recall a similar "issue" with a recent loco where it was pointed out you could have rivets on the top of the front footplate or the vertical face of it, but not both without getting stuck in the mould.

 

[Pteremy]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

They were I think 3/8 in thick - 5 thou at 4 mm scale. Also, countersunk bolts so no surface detail, so I've changed my mind about etching. Squares of suitably thin black plasticard will do it, if the material can be found. Or 10 thou.

 

Would it be helpful to have a diagonal line (indent) where the plates are meant to go rather than nothing at all?

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Sitham Yard said:

GWR Goods Wagons by Atkins, Beard & Tourret 1998 edition Appendix 2 "Common user of sheets began 14 February 1917". This brings me on to another question. I believe that the Geoscenics and Peco wagon sheets have wording on about the sheet being returned with the wagon. Is this prototypical? I am thinking it might only apply to china clay wagons.

 

Generally the case in pre-common user days but the BR period instructions would suggest not so later. See section 145 onwards here: 

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Booklet_BR20424_Issue.pdf

[With thanks to the Barrowmore Model Railway Group for making such a useful set of documents freely available on their website.]

 

Incidentally I see from that that by the 1960s the "not to be used after" date was in yellow not red.  

[65179]

It can become addictive this D1666 spotting.

 

Here's one in 1950 with traces of pre-1936 LMS lettering still showing:

 

British Railways Wagon/Van at Three Bridges in 1950 - S56302 Bogie goods brake van - Lens of Sutton Dennis Cullum Collection (thetransportlibrary.co.uk)

 

and a bonus fitted D1892 still very obviously declaring its former owner, said to be 1954:

 

 

British Railways Scene at Whitemoor Marshalling Yard,LNER in 1954 - View of wagons on down hump. SR Lecture & Dabating Socy visit. - Lens of Sutton Dennis Cullum Collection (thetransportlibrary.co.uk)

 

Simon

Edited January 22, 2023 by 65179
Diagram corrected. See below

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, 65179 said:

It can become addictive this D1666 spotting.

 

Everytime I find myself researching something now I find about as many D1666 pictures as I do for the actual piece of rolling stock I'm researching!

 

2 hours ago, 65179 said:

and a bonus fitted D1896 still very obviously declaring its former owner, said to be 1954:

 

That's actually a D1892. D1896 had wooden underframes and were unfitted. The wagons pictured has never been repainted since it was built in 1934 however it was been given 13T branding from when they were uprated during the Second World War.

[65179]

2 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

Everytime I find myself researching something now I find about as many D1666 pictures as I do for the actual piece of rolling stock I'm researching!

 

 

That's actually a D1892. D1896 had wooden underframes and were unfitted. The wagons pictured has never been repainted since it was built in 1934 however it was been given 13T branding from when they were uprated during the Second World War.

 

So it is.  Quite correct. I was in a wooden underframe frame of mind and just saw the lack of curb rail.  Yes, steel chassis and fitted means it's one of the fitted batch of D1892.

 

That's the second in this condition we've had in this thread then given Compound2632's post earlier: 

 

 

Both have survived pretty well if that original livery (13T and M prefix aside) is still clearly visible. 20 or so years in the case of the photo above.

 

Thanks,

Simon

[Grahams]

On 20/01/2023 at 18:22, Compound2632 said:

To be finicky, there ought to be inside corner plates for the top planks

Yes, I spotted this too and had a discussion with Rapido elsewhere. My suggestion that they could not make the mould with the corner plate undercuts was confirmed. Also, the missing barrow ramps were said to be because the sides were already on the minimum thickness for the production process. 

Other than those points, the wagon looks very good indeed (I do not want to ask if the side knees are tapered - they may well be, and the proverbial blind man would do well to see it). 

[Compound2632]

Everyone who loves a Q1 should have one:

 

 

[Embedded link to Rail-Online https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p293481487/e515d0b5e.]

 

Feltham, 1 Sep 1958; D1666 in BR grey.

 

With thanks to a correspondent who has been turning up a great many useful wagon photos.

[Dunsignalling]

I'll be adding the internal corner plates using the same thin black paper I make coach corridors from.

 

Ordinary good quality writing paper blackened using a marker pen should do just as well.

 

John

 

    

[Wickham Green too]

17 hours ago, 65179 said:

... just saw the lack of curb rail.  ...

Don't get caught out by that curb rail nonsense that confused Jenkinson & Essery - it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with Diagrams ! ....... the wagons with angle-iron uprights rather than forged steel knees ( whether steel or timber framed ) have a slightly wider door which IS relevant to the Diagram.

[65179]

19 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Don't get caught out by that curb rail nonsense that confused Jenkinson & Essery - it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with Diagrams ! ....... the wagons with angle-iron uprights rather than forged steel knees ( whether steel or timber framed ) have a slightly wider door which IS relevant to the Diagram.

 

Interesting, I don't profess to understand some of the theories about what wagon lots belong on what diagram in the Essery books. However as modellers we primarily want to model what we can see/discern and practically distinguish things on the same basis, don't we?  I can't easily discern the wider door (I sometimes struggle to see the different wheelbases!), but I can see the lack of curb rail because the floor plank ends are obvious.

 

Conscious of the target audience for this thread, perhaps we need a Grouping open merchandise wagon thread like Compound2632's D299 appreciation one for Midland etc wagons for the technical detail?

 

Simon

Edited January 23, 2023 by 65179

[Wickham Green too]

The door width / angle upright only comes from comparison of the Diagrams and only the latter feature is of interest to modellers ..... it would have been relevant to anyone loading the wagon with a packing case that fitted one doorway but not the other - which is who the Diagrams were intended for !

 

Anyway, here's a wide-doored, angle-uprighted, curb-railed timber-framed LMS five-plank ( yes, count the bolt holes ) open goods wagon you'll not find a picture of in any LMS Wagons book : Dia.2073.

[65179]

For anyone who is interested, I've started a new topic on open merchandise wagons to avoid this thread drifting too far from the Rapido model!

 

Simon

 

 

[Aire Head]

23 hours ago, 65179 said:

Interesting, I don't profess to understand some of the theories about what wagon lots belong on what diagram in the Essery books.

 

While we must undoubtedly praise Essery for his work there are some areas which becomes apparent as a bit of blind spots.

 

D1808/1812/1830 vans being an example of this. He makes passing mention of differences in door dimensions but other than that seems.to freely admit he cannot tell them apart. 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

While we must undoubtedly praise Essery for his work there are some areas which becomes apparent as a bit of blind spots.

 

Indeed, with out Bob Essery's books we wouldn't begin to know enough to discover their limitations! He was willing to publish the information he had, rather than as some do sit on it until he was certain he had dotted every tee and crossed every eye and so never actually get round to publishing. Which approach would one rather have?

 

I have been told that he had trouble reading GA-type drawings, with their mix of elevations and sections, so although these survive in quantity for the Midland and LMS, he made little use of them. I think one can deduce that where he does refer to them (other than just listing them) he had been dependent on other people's interpretation of them. But one cannot emphasis enough that this does not detract from the magnitude of his achievement.

[Aire Head]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

But one cannot emphasis enough that this does not detract from the magnitude of his achievement.

 

Absolutely. In my case his books and articles most certainly acting as a gateway drug towards doing my own research!

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

 

seems.to freely admit he cannot tell them apart. 

Was this not (in part at least) because some diagrams differed only in the thickness of the planking ? That would affect tare weight but nothing else. I must confess it's been a long time since I had "LMS Wagons" open on the desk whilst building a batch of vans.