EFE Rail - Autumn 2023 announcements inc LSWR 4-coach sets, LSWR vent van and N gauge J94

[Edwardian]

22 hours ago, barrymx5 said:

I run both my old PC kit built and the delightful EFE releases on my layout, with the PC on tracks further from the front of the layout. 

 

 

I remain fond of those PC kits. I idly wondered whether EFE would have a crack at the corridor set. PC also did the splendid clerestory diner, which is a nice extra to add to the corridor set. 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Edwardian
Spelling!

[fulton]

On 18/12/2023 at 16:40, Wickham Green too said:

Sorry we didn't get round to discussing this on Thursday ........ yes, the vents do make a big difference - but take a fair bit of scraping & filing of the uprights and vent edges to get right. Start by running a knife across the upright below the vent so you know where to stop carving (!) - then ping the vent off with the twist of a screwdriver.

Have  now redone the vents, does look better.

[Wickham Green too]

We can compare notes at the next meeting ......

[Garethp8873]

On 27/10/2023 at 12:18, barrymx5 said:

Come on Gareth it's got to be the LSWR 10T van! Iron mink OK but not really in same class. 

 

I voted for both LSWR Vans and Iron Mink in the end. This is the first time since I have been voting in the various end of year polling's that I couldn't choose one over the other. Both are superb models.

 

On a plus note, damn @tmc but I couldn't resist snapping up their last set of the E86012 set of the LSWR Cross Country 4-Coach Pack in SR Maunsell Green today!!

[Dungrange]

On 14/11/2023 at 14:30, Compound2632 said:

The model has Morton brake levers, with the brake blocks on one side of the wagon only, that being the side with the reversing cam. This arrangement appears on No. 1408 (Southern Wagons Vol. 3 plate 48), a timber-framed wagon built in 1911. However, the list on p. 37 ascribes double block and lever one side to this wagon, and also to two other examples of steel-underframed D1410s. (One of which is given a build date of 1895, which is anomalous as on p. 30 the steel framed version is listed as having been built from 1899.) Two other examples, Nos. 12312 and 12367, both built 1900, are listed as having Panter's cross-lever brake.

On 16/11/2023 at 17:45, semley1912 said:

The Morton brake gear of the EFE van is associated with later vans built with Timber underframes. I suspect the brake gear error is due to the manufacturer relying on preserved wagons for their research. Preserved wagons with steel underframes wagons were originally built with Panter's brake gear which the Southern Railway later replaced with the Morton Brake.

 

Can I clarify, are you saying that in LSWR days none of the Diagram 1410 covered goods wagons had Morton brake gear, or just that it's not correct for a model with the number 11111?  When the the programme of replacing Panter's brake gear with Morton Brake occurred - was this definitely post-grouping?  It just it seems strange that EFE Rail chose 11111 as a running number unless there is a photograph of this particular wagon in one of the Southern books.

 

[Dungrange]

On 08/12/2023 at 15:07, Wickham Green too said:

My van has finally emerged from the paintshop after its rebuild and defurbishment ...

 

 

I like the improvements that you've made to the vents.  I assume that you've just removed the model vents, filed away the uprights, so that these slope at the top, thinned down the top of the vent moulding and then refitted it.  Looks like I need a prototype photograph to copy as this looks better than the of the box model, although I don't know much about the prototype.  I only bought one because it was made.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Dungrange said:

Can I clarify, are you saying that in LSWR days none of the Diagram 1410 covered goods wagons had Morton brake gear, or just that it's not correct for a model with the number 11111?  When the the programme of replacing Panter's brake gear with Morton Brake occurred - was this definitely post-grouping?  It just it seems strange that EFE Rail chose 11111 as a running number unless there is a photograph of this particular wagon in one of the Southern books.

 

As I understood Martin, and from what I glean from Southern Wagons Vol. 1, the Panter brake is appropriate for at least some wagons as built, and hence for my 1902 date. I am renumbering mine to an example listed in Southern Wagons as having the Panter brake, not least because 11111 was not built until 1903! 11111 is stated to have had ordinary double brake blocks and one side lever.

 

Southern Wagons has two photos of D1410 wagons in LSWR livery with the Morton brake lever arrangement per the model: plate 48, No. 1408 photographed when new in 1911 and No.14411 on the rear of the dust jacket, also built in 1911 according to the listing on p. 37, but both these have timber underframes.

 

I can understand why EFE might not want to attempt the Panter brake. It's only possible on my work-in-progress because I have removed the tension lock couplings and their mounting pillars.

 

I can't comment on date of replacement of the Panter brake.

 

I was interested that @Graham_Muz did not respond to my original post, as one gathers he was involved in research for the model. One has to repeat that within the constraints of producing a reasonably-priced RTR 00 model, what EFE have done is excellent. It wouldn't be worth going the extra distance to improve the end pillars and vent cover, or tinker with the brakes, if it wasn't.

[Dungrange]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

11111 is stated to have had ordinary double brake blocks and one side lever.

 

... and this website https://southern-railway.com/2023/08/02/Bachmann-announce-lswr-sr-diagram-1410-1406-and-1408-covered-vans-and-swr-sr-56ft-non-corridor-cross-country-four-coach-sets-as-part-of-their-efe-rail-range/ says that the tooling suite "allows for four body types across the three diagrams, four brake types (single double block, Morton Clutch, Freighter and Lift Link), two steel chassis types (D1410/06 and D1408), two axle box types (Panter and Warner) and three buffer types (tapered, ribbed and fabricated)".

 

It therefore sounds a though EFE Rail have tooled the correct brakes for the 'as built' condition of this wagon, but haven't fitted them to the model of 11111.  That could be an error, or it could be that the original brakes were replaced in late LSWR days, which would make the model correct, but only for the end of the pre-grouping period.

 

As a Midland modeller, I don't expect you to know, but did the LSWR use the same Diagram number (1410) for both the steel and timber framed examples?  The website linked to above, indicates that for the later build variants, there seemed to be different diagram numbers for timber and steel framed examples (1407 / 1406 and 1409 / 1408).

[Wickham Green too]

38 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

...  I assume that you've just removed the model vents, filed away the uprights, so that these slope at the top, thinned down the top of the vent moulding and then refitted it.  ...

More or less .... the vents pinged off with a little persuasion from a screwdriver then the uprights have been angled and they, the roof edge and sides/top of the vent chamfered with needle files to achieve desired fit. ( I don't see how the option of vents/no vents could have been moulded other than the way it was - unless, perhaps, with an etched vent cover.)

 

Dia.1410 is the Southern Railway classification rather than LSWR - it did, indeed, include both timber- and steel-framed vehicles.

[Graham_Muz]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As I understood Martin, and from what I glean from Southern Wagons Vol. 1, the Panter brake is appropriate for at least some wagons as built, and hence for my 1902 date. I am renumbering mine to an example listed in Southern Wagons as having the Panter brake, not least because 11111 was not built until 1903! 11111 is stated to have had ordinary double brake blocks and one side lever.

 

Southern Wagons has two photos of D1410 wagons in LSWR livery with the Morton brake lever arrangement per the model: plate 48, No. 1408 photographed when new in 1911 and No.14411 on the rear of the dust jacket, also built in 1911 according to the listing on p. 37, but both these have timber underframes.

 

I can understand why EFE might not want to attempt the Panter brake. It's only possible on my work-in-progress because I have removed the tension lock couplings and their mounting pillars.

 

I can't comment on date of replacement of the Panter brake.

 

I was interested that @Graham_Muz did not respond to my original post, as one gathers he was involved in research for the model. One has to repeat that within the constraints of producing a reasonably-priced RTR 00 model, what EFE have done is excellent. It wouldn't be worth going the extra distance to improve the end pillars and vent cover, or tinker with the brakes, if it wasn't.

 

Stephen,

 

Looking back through the thread I have now seen your post, with me tagged 'commanding' a response, I was away from the forum at that time overseas on vacation for a couple of weeks and so sorry I missed it. 

 

Archive information on a wagon by basis of build dates and brake type fitted when new and or later amended is not readily  available.

 

The tooling suite does not include the Panter brake, as you say it is not very compatible with tension lock couplings and also its limited timescale of use. 

 

When the version matrix was created for the earlier 0 Gauge model one of the reference images of 11111 with a steel underframe that we had and following discussions with a renown 3rd party was interpreted as being with Morton brakes fitted and this followed on to the 00 version.

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

with me tagged 'commanding' a response

 

To tag is, I hope, widely understood as to offer the opportunity for, rather than to command, a response! 

 

10 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

Archive information on a wagon by basis of build dates and brake type fitted when new and or later amended is not readily  available.

 

Indeed, the source of the information on build dates and brake types given in Southern Wagons is not immediately apparent but one takes it on trust. For the examples listed as having the Panter brake, the later brake type fitted is noted but without an indication of when the change was made - one therefore supposes this to be from photographs rather than written records. Martin says this was done in Southern days.

 

17 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

The tooling suite does not include the Panter brake, as you say it is not very compatible with tension lock couplings and also its limited timescale of use.

 

Yes, no shame in not attempting the Panter brake, though if not replaced until Southern days, it would appear to have been in use for a quarter-century or more. 

 

23 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

When the version matrix was created for the earlier 0 Gauge model one of the reference images of 11111 with a steel underframe that we had and following discussions with a renown 3rd party was interpreted as being with Morton brakes fitted and this followed on to the 00 version.

 

It would hardly be surprising to learn that you were working from a wider selection of photographs than just those reproduced in Southern Wagons. I wonder what the date of your photo of 11111 was.

 

As i said, really no criticism of the model, merely that my curiosity was piqued; I seem to have turned into a wagon brake nerd.  

[Graham_Muz]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

To tag is, I hope, widely understood as to offer the opportunity for, rather than to command, a response! 

 

 

 

Except when you go on to say "I was interested that @Graham_Muz did not respond to my original post,"

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

Except when you go on to say "I was interested that @Graham_Muz did not respond to my original post,"

 

Fair enough. I was curious that you had not commented but the explanation you give is a very reasonable one - everyone's entitled to a holiday.