RCH 1907 Private Owner Wagons - with added 2024 range.

[Dunsignalling]

26 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Me too - but first we've got to try to establish which ( traces of ) liveries might have survived until - let alone - through WW2 !

There'll be quite a lot of "bare wood" replacement planks to add, I suspect....

[No Decorum]

Excellent news! Can I plead with Rapido to produce PO wagons in the same livery but with different running numbers? PO wagons often ran in multiples and their numbers are usually prominent and very distinctive. The Lunt wagons in particular have already been produced by both Hornby and Bachmann as 724. May we have a different number please?

[Wickham Green too]

2 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

Excellent news! Can I plead with Rapido to produce PO wagons in the same livery but with different running numbers? PO wagons often ran in multiples and their numbers are usually prominent and very distinctive. The Lunt wagons in particular have already been produced by both Hornby and Bachmann as 724. May we have a different number please?

WAS there another number ? ......... lots of smaller owners only had one wagon and 724 could have been ordered in July 1924 for instance - though in that case it should have been to 1923 standards. ( I wonder which of the many Turton volumes contains the answer ? )

[No Decorum]

Just now, Wickham Green too said:

WAS there another number ? ......... lots of smaller owners only had one wagon and 724 could have been ordered in July 1924 for instance - though in that case it should have been to 1923 standards. ( I wonder which of the many Turton volumes contains the answer ? )

You have a point. We are always being told to model from a photograph. Manufacturers obviously pick a photograph (usually a sample of a new wagon) and base the livery on that. Consequently, different manufacturers produce their versions of wagons with the same livery and number. If memory serves me correctly, a Nathaniel Atrill wagon was produced by three manufacturers, all numbered 6. Nice to see that the Bullcroft Main Colliery wagon has a different number from the Hornby one. The question is, will the two jar from 3' away?

[locoholic]

I appreciate these wagons are a step up compared to the generic offerings from Hornby and Bachmann, but I do wonder whether the market is nearly saturated, and even more wonder why liveries have been chosen that Hornby and Bachmann have already done.

Having said that, there are a couple that I'll buy - hope that's enough!

I would also echo an earlier comment - one thing I'd love is a rake of colliery wagons with different numbers, as seen in so many photos of old colliery sidings.

[Dunsignalling]

12 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

You have a point. We are always being told to model from a photograph. obviouslyManufacturers pick a photograph (usuallyManufacturers a sample of a new wagon) and base the livery on that. Consequently, different manufacturers produce their versions of wagons with the same livery and number. If memory serves me correctly, a Nathaniel Atrill wagon was produced by three manufacturers, all numbered 6. Nice to see that the Bullcroft Main Colliery wagon has a different number from the Hornby one. The question is, will the two jar from 3' away?

If you take that to it's logical conclusion, you need a photo of each side of every wagon you want to model.

 

Not a recipe for sales volume or prototypical variety!

 

John

[BVMR21]

Would be good if we could have some differing numbers between examples, considering most companies produce the same wagon exactly each time, so maybe we could have say some differently number NCB wagons. Though considering the price point this is coming to market at, one does think it will take commission work away from other manufacturers regarding the more generic wagons, which is by no means a bad thing, considering the price point from other higher end brands this trumps pretty much all of them.

[melmerby]

Lunt SKU: 967202

Spelling Mistake: It's Colmore Row Birmingham not Colemore Row

 

 

[No Decorum]

20 minutes ago, BVMR21 said:

Would be good if we could have some differing numbers between examples, considering most companies produce the same wagon exactly each time, so maybe we could have say some differently number NCB wagons. Though considering the price point this is coming to market at, one does think it will take commission work away from other manufacturers regarding the more generic wagons, which is by no means a bad thing, considering the price point from other higher end brands this trumps pretty much all of them.

It helps a bit that Derails is offering not only the usual retailers’ discount but an additional 6½% if you buy two or more from the same range.

[BVMR21]

1 minute ago, No Decorum said:

It helps a bit that Derails is offering not only the usual retailers’ discount but an additional 6½% if you buy two or more from the same range.

That's good to know, always good to find "bargains".

 

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

WAS there another number ? ......... lots of smaller owners only had one wagon and 724 could have been ordered in July 1924 for instance - though in that case it should have been to 1923 standards. ( I wonder which of the many Turton volumes contains the answer ? )

 

Turton's Seventh: 

https://lightmoor.co.uk/BDLpdf_files/Private_Owner_Wagons_Index.pdf

 

Wherein it is recorded that Lunt's Nos. 700-724 were built by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Waggon Co., being delivered in 1924. The photo of No. 724 is reproduced; it does appear to be a 16 ft long wagon to the 1907 specification. There is also a photo taken at Hooton in LMS days (part of a Crab visible) with a similar wagons, the number of which is unfortunately obscured by a post, and No. 100, a 6-plank wagon with raised end, i.e. of an earlier generation.

 

Lunt was a large Birmingham-based coal factor, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they had a reasonable-sized fleet but there's only chapter and verse on this batch of 25.

 

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Spelling Mistake: It's Colmore Row Birmingham not Colemore Row

 

Quite - that's what it says on the wagon in the photo! A spelling mistake has been noted on the Caledonian gunpowder van; maybe there's deliberately one on every wagon...

 

On the other hand they do say these are pre-production images with artwork subject to change.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Compound2632
Incorrect observation withdrawn.

[Corbs]

Maybe if you take all the letters in the spelling mistakes and put them together it spells out a secret message…..*

 

 

 

 

 

*(it doesn’t)

[Zunnan]

Good grief, the permeations for one branchline around the Griff example alone...Stockingford, Haunchwoods, Stanleys...I wouldn't say no to Hartshill, Ansley Hall, Arley for more Nuneaton based goodies. Or Birch Coppice, Baddesley, Piccadilly and Kingsbury for that matter.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Zunnan said:

Good grief, the permeations for one branchline around the Griff example alone...Stockingford, Haunchwoods, Stanleys...I wouldn't say no to Hartshill, Ansley Hall, Arley for more Nuneaton based goodies. Or Birch Coppice, Baddesley, Piccadilly and Kingsbury for that matter.

 

With you there!

[Zunnan]

And very much on topic thanks to Griff Colliery, 'Good Luck' and 'Success' with these!

 

(yes that also doubles as a wish list! 😄 )

[Wickham Green too]

36 minutes ago, Corbs said:

Maybe if you take all the letters in the spelling mistakes and put them together it spells out a secret message…..* ..... *(it doesn’t)

How do you know it doesn't ?  -  it's a secret ! 🙄

[RapidoLinny]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I do, though, find it perverse that having taken care to produce a model that is not of a Gloucester wagon, at least two of the liveries are taken from photos of Gloucester wagons! Knuckle-rapping time. 

Ah, but I trust you'll have noticed that the Gloucester wagons represented are ones with outside diagonal washer plates, rather than those with inside diagonal washer plates that have historically been so popular with modellers...

Unfortunately with the number of small variations between different builders' body designs (and, indeed, within the same builder!) we haven't been able to tool an exact bodyshell for each version, but we've done our best to pick wagons that are as close to the tooling we have as possible while still giving a good range of liveries and locations. You'll not find our wagons wearing liveries only seen on post '23-spec wagons, for example!

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, RapidoLinny said:

Ah, but I trust you'll have noticed that the Gloucester wagons represented are ones with outside diagonal washer plates, rather than those with inside diagonal washer plates that have historically been so popular with modellers...

 

They're right you know. (Retires with tail between legs.)

 

I've deleted that sentence from my post lest it mislead,

Edited March 16, 2023 by Compound2632

[Jammy2305]

One pre-order made for a Bessey and Palmer wagon. I look forward to seeing what else gets announced in the future!

 

- James

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Zunnan said:

Good grief, the permeations for one branchline around the Griff example alone...Stockingford, Haunchwoods, Stanleys...I wouldn't say no to Hartshill, Ansley Hall, Arley for more Nuneaton based goodies. Or Birch Coppice, Baddesley, Piccadilly and Kingsbury for that matter.

All we need now is the Garratt.🙂

[Invicta]

8 hours ago, jafcreasey said:

 

Seconded!

 

Albeit just over the county border, The Hobby Shop commision is Tilmanstone Colliery, Kent.

 

IIRC, Tilmanstone was a bit of an odd one- I've read suggestions (think it's in the John Arkell South-East PO Wagons book?) that they were almost certainly internal user wagons, or at best used on the EKLR.

 

3 hours ago, RapidoLinny said:

 You'll not find our wagons wearing liveries only seen on post '23-spec wagons, for example!

 

The one that immediately caught my eye was  South Leicester - pretty much every release I've seen in the past took the livery from a late 30's RCH 1923 7-plank, so it's good to see an earlier version.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Invicta

[Andy Vincent]

12 hours ago, RapidoLinny said:

The two bodies we're offering are modelled on a Charles Roberts 7-plank (16' over headstocks, with end doors and lift-bar end catch), and a Thomas Burnett 5-plank (also 16' over headstocks, with side doors only).

 

I think 16' wagons are an interesting choice since the 1907 spec primarily related to 15' wagons. Perhaps because of the extra foot, the side washer plates on these examples do not match the 1907 spec which shows these as completely straight without the lower curve. Rather more curious is that the end stanchion washer plates are also higher than shown in the 1907 spec. As @Compound2632 noted, there was significant variation possible. The RCH specifications were provided to wagon builders to give them a 'model design' that would be likely to lead to faster approval rather than being a mandate

 

As examples of early wagons from major builders they are obviously welcome even if describing them as 'to the Railway Clearing House's 1907 standards' might be a bit misleading for the unwary. They certainly include components from this specification but are not examples of the reference specification. Admittedly, it is possible that nobody built wagons that slavishly copied all elements from the specification!

[JaymzHatstand]

Oooooo! Now these do look lovely, a nice array of liveries too. One thing that I've always wondered, and never thought to ask is about the use and/or appearance of p/o wagons in mixed trains. I'm in the slow process of assembling a number of pre-grouping (c1917) wagons to push around an NER goods

 yard and was wondering how likely it would be for one (or two) to turn up in such a place? Would they be confined to more bulky flows between owning company and end merchant, or would the odd coal wagon find its way down a branch line?

 

I suppose that during WWI they would have been absorbed into the common pool, and could reasonably be assumed to be seen anywhere, if not a little care-worn?

 

The 'Griff' one is of particular interest to me, if only for the name, and I'm sure I could pick another couple to add a splash of colour to the (mostly) shades of grey that early wagons found themselves in!

 

Cheers

 

J

[Nick Holliday]

2 hours ago, JaymzHatstand said:

Oooooo! Now these do look lovely, a nice array of liveries too. One thing that I've always wondered, and never thought to ask is about the use and/or appearance of p/o wagons in mixed trains. I'm in the slow process of assembling a number of pre-grouping (c1917) wagons to push around an NER goods

 yard and was wondering how likely it would be for one (or two) to turn up in such a place? Would they be confined to more bulky flows between owning company and end merchant, or would the odd coal wagon find its way down a branch line?

PO wagons, at least native ones, were relatively rare on the NER, as the railway company had control of most coal traffic, with their own hopper wagons, suitable for their coal drops, being popular. However, it might be possible for local merchants to have ordered coal from “foreign “ mines or coal factors, to meet special requirements, such as Welsh anthracite, but it would probably be only one or two wagons at a time. Bulk flows were generally confined to pit to dock traffic, apart from supplies to major power stations like Birmingham.

2 hours ago, JaymzHatstand said:

 

I suppose that during WWI they would have been absorbed into the common pool, and could reasonably be assumed to be seen anywhere, if not a little care-worn?

 

The 'Griff' one is of particular interest to me, if only for the name, and I'm sure I could pick another couple to add a splash of colour to the (mostly) shades of grey that early wagons found themselves in!

 

Cheers

 

J

During WW1 the private traders wagons were not pooled, so they usually remained in their peace time habitats. Most of them were actually on hire and, as part of the agreements, they were required to be repainted at regular intervals, and, as a result, would probably looked in better condition than some of the railway company owned stock.

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

 

I think 16' wagons are an interesting choice since the 1907 spec primarily related to 15' wagons. Perhaps because of the extra foot, the side washer plates on these examples do not match the 1907 spec which shows these as completely straight without the lower curve. Rather more curious is that the end stanchion washer plates are also higher than shown in the 1907 spec. As @Compound2632 noted, there was significant variation possible. The RCH specifications were provided to wagon builders to give them a 'model design' that would be likely to lead to faster approval rather than being a mandate

 

As examples of early wagons from major builders they are obviously welcome even if describing them as 'to the Railway Clearing House's 1907 standards' might be a bit misleading for the unwary. They certainly include components from this specification but are not examples of the reference specification. Admittedly, it is possible that nobody built wagons that slavishly copied all elements from the specification!

 

But as @RapidoLinny stated above, they are based on specific prototypes, hence are possible, even if not necessarily spot on for all the liveries they've chosen. As has been said previously whenever the subject of RTR pre-1923 PO wagons has come up, it's a minefield, and not one that I'm knowledgeable enough to navigate. Like the Hattons Genesis carriages, it's a case of something being very much better than nothing; unlike the Hattons carriages, there's pretty much no need for a freelance approach. As with the Hattons carriages, they don't trespass on the territory of those who want to get their vehicles just right, who will continue to kit and scratch build. What would be good would be to see more diversity in the wagon kit field, with examples from some of the other major builders beyond Gloucester and Charles Roberts. 

 

This is all rather academic as far as I'm concerned since my modelling is c. 1902. I would have liked to see a RTR pre-1887 dumb buffer wagon!