Ian Kirk 4mm Scale GWR Wagon Kits.

[Siberian Snooper]

Which one as they were a real mixed bag for u/f details.

 

Preferably X4 and X5

[buffalo]

At least the plank alignment is better than on the Didcot TEVAN

 

Nick

[Siberian Snooper]

Thanks every little helps.

 

Cheers SS

[Garethp8873]

At least the plank alignment is better than on the Didcot TEVAN

 

Nick

 

Saw the Tevan only a few weeks ago and it looked terrible. This side wasn't bad but the other side was worse from what I can remember. Very interesting wagon though. The font GWR uses for their GWR wagons though dosen't seem right to me though.

 

Garethp8873.

 

[wagonman]

 

Saw the Tevan only a few weeks ago and it looked terrible. This side wasn't bad but the other side was worse from what I can remember. Very interesting wagon though. The font GWR uses for their GWR wagons though dosen't seem right to me though.

 

Garethp8873.

 

 

 

The 'G' is definitely wrong. There's not really enough of the 'W' to comment on.

[Garethp8873]

Hello Mark,

 

I was down at Bewdley today and I got a few more photos of GWR 41277 for you.

 

Garethp8873.

 

 

[46444]

Hi Gareth,

 

Thanks once again for that excellent photograph of the O21 Diagram wagon. As Industrial says-that V hanger looks short.

 

Soon to order the parts for these wagons, so watch my blog.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[buffalo]

Is the V shorter than normal as the right hand push rod for the brake blocks is very steep.

The V also doesn't look symmetrical. It rather looks like it was cobbled together from something lying around in the workshop. There are, however, quite a few pictures showing GWR lever brakes in which the lower pushrod is almost horizontal and the upper is steeply angled. For example a drawing of an O4 and photo of an O7 linoleum wagon in Atkins et al. On the whole, though I have the impression these asymmetric pushrods are more often seen on fitted stock with off-centre V-hangers.

Even the left hand one seems to be going up hill as well.

I haven't found a prototype for anything that severe, though.

Nick

[Garethp8873]

Hi Gareth,

 

Thanks once again for that excellent photograph of the O21 Diagram wagon. As Industrial says-that V hanger looks short.

 

Soon to order the parts for these wagons, so watch my blog.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

 

Having just checked the latest Severn Valley Stockbook, 41277 was sold out by the GWR in 1935. Could it be possible the V hanger is from when it was built in 1890?

 

Garethp8873.

[46444]

 

Having just checked the latest Severn Valley Stockbook, 41277 was sold out by the GWR in 1935. Could it be possible the V hanger is from when it was built in 1890?

 

Garethp8873.

 

That's now put the proverbial mockers on using 41277 as a post war example then!

 

Kind of makes sense re: the V hanger though.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Il Grifone]

The V hanger could well be original as it has the single bar internal support (rather than the later double V) and the brake block suspension is the original type. If still in service after 1939, it would have either side brakes. (It's not an O21 if it doesn't - these wagons were undiagrammed.)

 

To be pedantic/controversial, shouldn't the wagon be red, if built in 1890 and in pre cast plate livery?

 

And doesn't the wagon's 'modern' appearance show how far ahead the GWR was?

 

The two V16 vans in the previous photos have the brake push rods like the 4 plank open - near horizontal and steeply inclined.

 

EDIT. Rereading this topic, I see that 41277 has the GWR 'economy' brake on the other side, with only a RH push rod and brake block. It is also the later type, with hinged joints supporting the block.

 

Again being pedantic, it should only have one set of brakes in this early livery.

[wagonman]

To be pedantic/controversial, shouldn't the wagon be red, if built in 1890 and in pre cast plate livery? And doesn't the wagon's 'modern' appearance show how far ahead the GWR was?

 

If in 1890 condition then it wouldn't have oil 'boxes. As for the second point, absolutely!

[Garethp8873]

From my view, the SVR have probably only done this just to present what a GWR Open from the 1890s would have looked like. Not every tourist or trainspotter who views 41277 is going to know about the pinpoint details of this wagon. It is just to give the tourists an idea of what earlier liveries would have looked like. 41277 is the only working version of an O21 wagon. The others are just chassis at a private site and are owned by the 813 Fund along with 41277.

 

Not trying to jump onto another subject, can someone tell me what the GWR Ale Wagons were numbered as. Please send me a PM if you know.

 

Garethp8873.

[Il Grifone]

Probably true re grease boxes*, though it is not inconceivable that the wagon could have been fitted with oil boxes and kept its original livery. To be honest there is some doubt as to the exact date of the introduction of grey livery. 1888 has been quoted for brake vans and sometime in trhe nineties for other stock seems likely, possibly coincident with the introduction of cast plates There is certainly evidence of red wagons up to WW I.

 

* The first oil boxes were fitted in1888, but were not generally in use until later.

 

V30 ALE (conversion from W1) 38601-700 plus123/56/85

[kevinlms]

They are not the same kits. I always under stood the other railways were too mean to fit their wagons with the sheet rail supports so didn't let them go back to the GWR, so the GWR took them off the common user wagons.

 

Is this actually true, the fact that others wouldn't fit them, or was it because the GWR had specific traffic that warranted them - i.e. the china clay traffic? Perhaps the others only needed them occasionally & so 'borrowed & were slow in giving back' the GWR ones?

 

Kevin Martin

[Il Grifone]

The rail (or curved ends)served to provide a tent like support fot sheets. This was so that rain would run off rather than forming pools on the top, with the risk of leaking through small holes and spoiling the load. (The GWR did not provide rails for china clay wagons incidently - these were a BR fitting.)
With the setting up of the common user pool, the GWR found itself at a disadvantage. Its wagons were generally superior in construction and maintence (two companies were still building vehicles with wooden underframes (of defective design in one case which caused the frame to droop at the headstocks leading to early withdrawal)) and provided with extras like sheet rails. The other companies did not see the necessity for such luxuries and so the GWR gave them up too. They (GWR) ended up with an agreement to return broken down vehicles to the other companies.

It wouldn't have been a case of 'borrowing' GWR wagons. The whole point of the pool was that 'foreign' wagons could be used as though they were the property of whatever railway they were running on at the time

[kevinlms]

The rail (or curved ends)served to provide a tent like support fot sheets. This was so that rain would run off rather than forming pools on the top, with the risk of leaking through small holes and spoiling the load. (The GWR did not provide rails for china clay wagons incidently - these were a BR fitting.)

With the setting up of the common user pool, the GWR found itself at a disadvantage. Its wagons were generally superior in construction and maintence (two companies were still building vehicles with wooden underframes (of defective design in one case which caused the frame to droop at the headstocks leading to early withdrawal)) and provided with extras like sheet rails. The other companies did not see the necessity for such luxuries and so the GWR gave them up too. They (GWR) ended up with an agreement to return broken down vehicles to the other companies.

 

It wouldn't have been a case of 'borrowing' GWR wagons. The whole point of the pool was that 'foreign' wagons could be used as though they were the property of whatever railway thet were running on at the time

 

Thanks for that input.

 

The pool system AIUI also provided for the proportions of types of wagons to remain the same, so if there was a higher than expected percentage of GWR wagons on the other 3, then the GWR would be compensated. So I guess it was a trade off as to whether this compensation was worth having 'inferior' wagons in lieu of their own? Obviously the GWR didn't think so, in getting exemptions to the pool.

 

I believe that in earlier times the L&Y were also disadvantaged, because they had a higher than average percentage of fitted vehicles.

 

Kevin Martin

[Il Grifone]

Fitted wagons weren't in the pool until WW II. (I believe this is the reason the GWR cattle wagons weren't pooled (apart from a period in 1927) as most were fitted - either that or they didn't think much of the other railways' products).

 

Originally, all foreign wagons had to be returned empty to their owners ASAP (otherwise there was a charge). Then it was agreed that they could be back loaded (ie a load to the owners territory)*. The pooling started at the end of WW I with low sided open wagons between a few companies. This then spread to all companies and some other types of wagon. Some wagons were never pooled (the clay wagons for example). The R.C.H. was responsible for handling the mountain of paperwork involved in keeping track (no pun intended) of over a million wagons.

 

*I believe this is still the practice in the U. S. (apart from the unsuccessful 'Railbox' idea in the eighties). It's sometimes more convenient to pay the charges and use the foreign wagon (car) however. I gather this has led to short lines hanging on to the big companies stock, as cheaper than having their own! (Bit like the GWR?)

 

Apologies to the OP, we seem to have wandered somewhat off topic.

 

If anyone is interested (and if I can find them - I still haven't located some of my rolling stock following our now not-so-recent move), I'll post some pictures of my Kirk wagons.

[wagonman]

Fitted wagons weren't in the pool until WW II. (I believe this is the reason the GWR cattle wagons weren't pooled (apart from a period in 1927) as most were fitted - either that or they didn't think much of the other railways' products).

 

 

David, I think there is more than a germ of truth in the last part of that statement! :-)

 

 

Originally, all foreign wagons had to be returned empty to their owners ASAP (otherwise there was a charge). Then it was agreed that they could be back loaded (ie a load to the owners territory)*. The pooling started at the end of WW I with low sided open wagons between a few companies. This then spread to all companies and some other types of wagon. Some wagons were never pooled (the clay wagons for example). The R.C.H. was responsible for handling the mountain of paperwork involved in keeping track (no pun intended) of over a million wagons.

 

Not entirely true. The very first common user agreement was initiated by the GNR, GCR and GER who agreed in Nov 1915 to pool all their open goods wagons having sides three plank or more high. The deal included sheets. While the Railway Executive continued to drag its heels, other companies acted: from March 1916 the LNWR, MR, GWR, LYR and NER agreed to pool all their wagons (except for some specialised types such as coke wagons). The Ministry of Munitions pressed for the nationwide adoption of such a scheme and finally, on 2 January 1917 (from 4pm apparently) the scheme the RCH had worked out was brought into use and some 300,000 wagons belonging to the twelve largest companies were pooled. The scheme was, predictably, a great success - if you ignore the problems of repairs etc which in wartime they tended to do - and by May 1918 the scheme had been extended so that there were 445,761 wagons in the pool. After the war the scheme was refined - the GWR withdrew its cattle wagons for instance (as David mentioned). Whereas originally common user wagons were marked by 'x' at each end of the side sheets, after the war common user was the default and non-common user wagons had to be so marked.

 

There were several schemes at that time to pool PO wagons but none of them came to anything and it didn't happen until WW2.

 

 

 

If anyone is interested (and if I can find them - I still haven't located some of my rolling stock following our now not-so-recent move), I'll post some pictures of my Kirk wagons.

 

Just to return to the OP's topic, I confess that i binned my Kirk wagons years ago. They were just too crude and not particularly accurate. Even the much better Coopercraft kits need a lot of work, particularly in the brakegear department. There is a photo in the August Model Rail of a Coopercraft four-planker, 7mm scale, presumably built by their in-house modelling guru George Dent which has totally nonsensical brake gear. It also looks as if it has the wrong buffers, but we'll let that pass...

[Il Grifone]

To be fair, when they first appeared 30 odd years ago, the Kirk wagons were very cheap* and provided useful general service wagons**, whereas many of the white metal and plastic kits already available were obscure wagons of limited use (GE sand wagon, LTSR bullion van, NB cask wagon to name the first three which come to mind). Some weren't all that accurate either.

 

*The ABS kit of the 4 plank open is much superior. but was considerably dearer.

 

** The first were also GWR, which is always a plus factor!

 

(I will grant the superiority of the Coopercraft (and later Parkside) kits, of course.)

 

Brakegear and buffers are the weak points of many kits and R-T-R vehicles - the number of buffers I've had to consign to the bin... and we still get brake levers moulded onto axleguards, which are almost impossible to remove cleanly. It would be better if they were left off or a plug in extra like the Peco wagons.

[wagonman]

To be fair, when they first appeared 30 odd years ago, the Kirk wagons were very cheap* and provided useful general service wagons**, whereas many of the white metal and plastic kits already available were obscure wagons of limited use (GE sand wagon, LTSR bullion van, NB cask wagon to name the first three which come to mind). Some weren't all that accurate either.

 

*The ABS kit of the 4 plank open is much superior. but was considerably dearer.

 

** The first were also GWR, which is always a plus factor!

 

(I will grant the superiority of the Coopercraft (and later Parkside) kits, of course.)

 

Brakegear and buffers are the weak points of many kits and R-T-R vehicles - the number of buffers I've had to consign to the bin... and we still get brake levers moulded onto axleguards, which are almost impossible to remove cleanly. It would be better if they were left off or a plug in extra like the Peco wagons.

 

 

i quite agree David. That was why I bought several of them in the first place. But it is also why I disposed of them the moment something better (Coopercraft) came along. They were cheap too, indeed I still have a few waiting to be dealt with.

 

I have become inured to having to replace most of the under-gubbins on wagon kits - even good ones - but that is because I nowadays prefer to have sprung axleboxes and, if possible, buffers. Somewhere I've got a photo or two....