GWR outside framed covered wagons (vans) - info wanted

[kitpw]

On 27/05/2023 at 07:50, magmouse said:

There is a picture in Great Western Way of one from the first lot, number 16556, which were the only ones with wooden underframes

...late to the party, I only just caught up with your post about the pre-Mink vans.  Tavender illustrates 16215 in 'Railway Equipment Drawings', wood underframe, ends that look very similar to the early 4 wheel and 6 wheel siphons and diagonals on the sides running up to the end/corner studs.  The illustration on the next page (Tavender) is 35236, with metal underframe, it has the side diagonals in the opposite directon, running up to the corner studs but the end diagonals are the same as 16215, again looking very like the early siphon ends. The diagonal arrangement of 16556 is not consistent with 16215 - from @Chrisbr's list, they were different lots and, presumably, different drawings.

 

As an aside - speculation - The Hereford examples have all the diagonal framing members meeting at the base of the corner stud.  That's 4 tenons and holes for the reinforcement plates taken out of the corner stud which itself is (probably) housed into the base plate and all the rainwater runs into this lot, so not ideal.  The most one can do to mitigate the weakness is to reverse the end or side diagonals so fewer framing members meet at any one junction - which is what 16215 and 35236 show - making  a slight improvement.  I don't think this helps your original question Nick but raises some interesting things about design development of rolling stock (in my mind anyway!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[magmouse]

Thanks Kit, this is very helpful, though I feel a bit daft. I have Tavender, but hadn't looked in it, so the answer was 'hiding in plain sight' as they say. Tavender's drawing of 16215 show the same type of hinge as the photo of 16556.

 

However, I am not sure why you say 

 

3 hours ago, kitpw said:

The diagonal arrangement of 16556 is not consistent with 16215

 

The photo of 16556 I posted earlier in this thread and the Tavender drawing of 16215 seem the same to me? What am I missing?

 

Your thoughts on the framing design are interesting - however, the design with both side diagonals meeting at the bottom of the corner posts seems to be the most common; I have only seen the reverse diagonals in the one picture of 16556 and now the Tavender drawing. These are both wooden underframe types. All the iron underframe examples I have seen have diagonals going the other way - meeting the bottom of the corner posts. This suggests a development (if it was a deliberate development) in the opposite direction to the one your logic indicates.

 

Nick.

 

[kitpw]

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

The photo of 16556 I posted earlier in this thread and the Tavender drawing of 16215 seem the same to me? What am I missing?

...nothing!  I meant to reference 35236 - not only late but half asleep as well - apologies for that!

 

I think what I was getting at is a comparison between the two wooden underframe (ex-broadgauge?) examples from the Hereford photo, both of which have side and end diagonals meeting at the foot of the corner stud and 16215 which is a narrow gauge van (I assume from new) on a wood underframe which does not. It has the reversed diagonals so not all meeting at the base of the corner stud - thus my thought that this might have been a deliberate development to improve longevity in the wood underframe examples.  But I agree that the 'development', if such it was, isn't present in the metal underframe vans and other outside framed vehicles of the same period are a mixed bag - the siphons show a variety of arrangements: diagram 04 is built in a similar way to 16556 and 16215 but there are others which are not.  The outside framed goods brake vans aren't really similar enough to make any useful contribution.  I don't think there is any structural difference between the two alternatives* so I took to wondering what drove the choice of one arrangement rather than the other?

 

As an afterthought, it's possible that stability of the side door top hinge point is better if the diagonal lands at the top of the framing member to which the hinge is attached since this part of the framing does not have the benfit of the underframe to control the stresses induced in the frame by swinging the door on the hinge. But, as I said, speculation.

Kit PW

Edited July 4, 2023 by kitpw

[drduncan]

On 01/07/2023 at 23:42, magmouse said:

Thanks, Russ. The only picture I have seen of a wooden framed one is the photo I referred to in Great Western Way, taken quite close up at a rather oblique angle. 
 

However, having raised this query elsewhere, I was pointed towards the photo here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/DidcotRailwayCentre/photos/a.210517012308528/6860709467289216/?type=3
 

Where the wagon has ‘X’ framing on the ends. I’ve not seen a drawing showing this style. It’s all a bit bemusing…

 

Nick.

The BG society does a Mink kit, both SG and BG, with x frames on sides and ends - this might be a candidate. However, I haven’t found any information about build dates, numbers, running nos etc yet.

Duncan

[drduncan]

Here you go…. 

 

See https://www.broadgauge.org.uk/modelling/bgs_parts_prices_4mm.html

For details.

 

If anyone gets a standard gauge kit do get me know what prototype info comes with it.

 

DrDuncan

[magmouse]

Thanks, Duncan. I have seen the 7mm version of the BGS kit on their website - the x-framing on the doors indicates it is a different type to the one with reversed diagonals in Great Western Way.

 

Since starting this discussion, I have realised that there are two drawings of these covered wagons in L. Tavender's Railway Equipment Drawings, which show wagons with side diagonals in opposite directions, while the end diagonals are the same (diagonals meeting at top centre). My tentative conclusion is that the end diagonals stay the same, irrespective of side diagonals.

 

Nick.