Jump to content
 

RTR 4mm Iron Ore train help


Recommended Posts

Hello gents,

 

I am not one of those very fussy modelers but I do like to keep things as real as possible when making up my trains so I wanted a little help from those of you who have knowledge vastly superior to my own. I am assembling an Iron Ore train, representative of the trains that used to operate in the Chesterfield area in the 1960s, I have already selected a suitable 8F & the wagons that I am using are the RTR Bachmann 27t tipplers (code 37-275E).

 

My questions are

 

(i) Where can I source decals to renumber the wagons?

 

(ii) Would a rake of 20 – 25 loaded wagons be plausible for a single 8F? I have seen images but it is hard to see how far back the train goes & exactly how many wagons are being pulled.

 

(iii) Which break van would be most suited to this train, again in photos I can never see the end of the train to make an informed choice.

 

(iv) What couplings would be used on the 27t Iron Ore wagons, it seems that they are the standard 3 link? And has anybody had any practical use of the Smiths 3 link offerings in day to day use to give me any do’s and don’ts?

 

Any insight would be most welcome & greatly appreciated; my own searches have come up dry.

 

Kind regards, Stef

 

PS: Image source - Wikipedia

post-10265-0-12251200-1354974291.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Model Master Sheet 4610 will have some numbers on it. 20 wagons would weigh in at about 680 tons gross, so probably within the scope of an 8F. Brake vans would be either the Stanier 20 tonner or the LNER/BR standard type. If you're running the wagons as a block train, then the Smith couplings are fine, and allow the train to make a very satisfying noise when stopping and starting; you might find them a bit fiddly for shunting, however.

You might want to have a go at kitbuilding some wagons for variety, using the Parkside fitted tippler kit, and either building it as suppplied, or putting 4-shoe brakegear on it.

That view's curious, in that the third and fifth wagons look as though they might be 16-tonners, as there seems to be some door detail on their centre panels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modelmaster will likely have some suitable transfers, maybe sheet 4610

 

http://www.modelmast...eightDecals.php

 

(no connection etc. etc.)

 

Couplings will probably depend on whether the wagons are vacuum fitted or not, 3 link if they are and maybe instanters if the are fitted.

 

I use quite a lot of smiths couplings, I'd suggest the type that you assemble yourself, its not that difficult and will save you a fair bit, especially for a whole train.

 

Hope this helps

 

(Edit, crossed posts!)

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

...That view's curious, in that the third and fifth wagons look as though they might be 16-tonners, as there seems to be some door detail on their centre panels.

A good number of what are outwardly 'sixteen tonners' with doors were built 'heavy' (thicker plating, larger bearing brasses and axle journals) during the war and immediately after to MoT orders to be dual purpose; able to be laden with ore instead of coal. There's some detail in one of the books I have accumulated, but no time to browse my way to it at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

 

See Sheet BL3 at http://www.cctrans.freeserve.co.uk/products.htm .

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I was just about to put the same post up too.

 

John's transfers for the iron ore tipplers are very good. I renumbered 6 of my fleet with them. For a bit of variety Fox do a sheet with the Iron Ore script on a black panel too.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may find the Bachmann tippler somewhat deficient in the underframe area e.g. springs and brake gear.

.

As an 'rtr' alternative, you could consider the Hornby version, currently being sold in packs of three (!!!!) for £20 by a well known Merseyside 'box shifter'.

.

As mentioned above, throw in the odd Parkside version and you have some variety.

.

As for sixteen tonners, they weren't that unusual carrying iron ore, they just weren't filled as much as the ore wagons - see Volume 1 of Geoff kent's three part opuson 4mm wagons, thoroughly recommended .

.

Brian R

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

For a bit of variety Fox do a sheet with the Iron Ore script on a black panel too.

 

Do be aware that the lettering on all grey (unfitted) wagons should be on a black background; (with a very few exceptions identifiable from photos).

 

I produce most of my transfers without the black background for two reasons :-

 

the white printing is sharper without the surrounding black;

 

some sheets are also applicable to bauxite-coloured (fitted) wagons which didn't have the black panels.

 

The easy way to apply the black panels with straight edges is to use my Sheet BL7, which is simply a sheet of black waterslide transfer that can be cut to size and applied before the main lettering.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may find the Bachmann tippler somewhat deficient in the underframe area e.g. springs and brake gear.

.

As an 'rtr' alternative, you could consider the Hornby version, currently being sold in packs of three (!!!!) for £20 by a well known Merseyside 'box shifter'.

.

As mentioned above, throw in the odd Parkside version and you have some variety.

.

As for sixteen tonners, they weren't that unusual carrying iron ore, they just weren't filled as much as the ore wagons - see Volume 1 of Geoff kent's three part opuson 4mm wagons, thoroughly recommended .

.

Brian R

 

The LMS had 400 mineral wagons suitable for Iron ore with 27ton payload, diag book page 70. The diagram shows they had side, top flap and bottom doors, so they could be in the rake, as the wagons all look like they are similarly loaded.

 

Paul Bartlett

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The LMS had 400 mineral wagons suitable for Iron ore with 27ton payload, diag book page 70. The diagram shows they had side, top flap and bottom doors, so they could be in the rake, as the wagons all look like they are similarly loaded.

 

Paul Bartlett

 

.... and my transfer Sheet BL3 has lettering for one of these!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

http://www.cctrans.freeserve.co.uk/products.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

The LMS had 400 mineral wagons suitable for Iron ore with 27ton payload, diag book page 70. The diagram shows they had side, top flap and bottom doors, so they could be in the rake, as the wagons all look like they are similarly loaded.

Supporting which, the earlier suggestion that they might have been regular sixteen tonners in that photo, gets the answer 'not for many round trips they wouldn't have been' on that sort of overload. This in view of the fact that BR's development from the sixteen tonner 9' w/b template of the purpose built 27T iron ore tipplers without doors came in three versions: 1/180 and 1/181 with a side about six inches taller than the later 1/183. The side height reduction on the later 1/183 tippler believed to be to prevent a tendency to overloading of the 27 tonners...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supporting which, the earlier suggestion that they might have been regular sixteen tonners in that photo, gets the answer 'not for many round trips they wouldn't have been' on that sort of overload. This in view of the fact that BR's development from the sixteen tonner 9' w/b template of the purpose built 27T iron ore tipplers without doors came in three versions: 1/180 and 1/181 with a side about six inches taller than the later 1/183. The side height reduction on the later 1/183 tippler believed to be to prevent a tendency to overloading of the 27 tonners...

From wading through weighbills for the scrap into BSC, Landore, I can say that 16 tonners with baled scrap would usually load to 22t without the bales sticking up above the sides; I hesitate to think how much fine iron ore you could get into them..

There were also two types of slope-sided tippler which I saw at Toton some 40 years ago, lettered for Stewart and Lloyd/British Steel; I think one type carried coal, the other ore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian W, 34theletterbetweenB&D, John, Paul, Brian R, Mark, Mali & Mike. I thank you for your input into this project of mine! I will digest these points & then take action.

 

Did these wagons ever run on the Southern region, I have a Q1 (late emblem British Rail) and wonder if it is possible to make up a realistic train using these 27ton Iron Ore Tipplers (I have not found many photos of Q1s in service in the BR period!).

 

Thanks again, Stef


Link to post
Share on other sites

In truth, probably not that often. There was iron mining and working in what would become the Southern Railway's territory in the Sussex Weald from the Iron age up to the Middle ages. But large scale iron ore quarrying and smelting all took place North of SR territory in the railway age. However in your model world create a fictional steelworks at say Winchester (for the armaments factory) or Canterbury (for iron in the soul) and there you are...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some proposals for a large integrated steelworks, with its own deep water wharf, on Southampton Water in the 1950s/60s, with the aim of supplying the car building plants in the south midlands. Something along the lines of Llanwern. Any works in the south east would have to have been coastal as neither of the two main raw materials, iron ore and coking coal, were available locally. Only shipping offered bulk transport cheap enough to make such a works viable. None of the existing steel companies had any interest in such a venture and the idea was dropped.

 

Had it happened, it is just possible that some domestic ores from the Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire ore fields might have been delivered by rail. Many works used a mix of domestic and imported ores.

 

The only real iron making plant in the south east was at Fords Dagenham works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some proposals for a large integrated steelworks, with its own deep water wharf, on Southampton Water in the 1950s/60s, with the aim of supplying the car building plants in the south midlands. Something along the lines of Llanwern. Any works in the south east would have to have been coastal as neither of the two main raw materials, iron ore and coking coal, were available locally. Only shipping offered bulk transport cheap enough to make such a works viable. None of the existing steel companies had any interest in such a venture and the idea was dropped.

 

Had it happened, it is just possible that some domestic ores from the Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire ore fields might have been delivered by rail. Many works used a mix of domestic and imported ores.

 

The only real iron making plant in the south east was at Fords Dagenham works.

 

Arthur

 

What about Sheerness Steel? Was this always reliant on being fed by scrap steel? I assume it was, as the works opened in 1972 but??

 

http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/queenboroughsheerness

 

Regards

 

Paul Bartlett

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheerness was always based on scrap, and was only ever a steel-making plant, rather than an integrated iron and steel plant with blast furnaces. I suppose one might have seen the Chalk Tipplers, identical to the higher-sided version of the iron-ore tippler, taking chalk to one of the cement works throughout the region; I know they were mainly associated with the Warwickshire works, but they could have been used in similar fashion elsewhere.

There was talk of iron mining, and an ironworks, only two miles from where I'm writing this, between Ottinge and Elham, during the late19th century, mentioned by the promoters of the Elham Valley Railway. This wouldn't have used the relatively small and scattered deposits to be found amongst the chalk and marl of the Cretaceous elsewhere in the South-East, but deep-mined deposits from the underlying Carboniferous, similar to the haematite deposits of Cumbria and Llanharan. These had been discovered during trial bores for the Channel Tunnel, I believe, which ultimately resulted in the Kent Coalfield; the local coal was good-quality coking coal, and in later years would be transported north on trains which would otherwise have returned empty from either Ridham Dock or Northfleet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

,

As Brian has stated, Sheerness was a scrap melting, Electric Arc furnace plant. It was a manifestation of the mini-mill concept. By the 1950s, the relative cost of electric steel making had dropped sufficiently to make it a viable option for general steelmaking and, combined with continuous casting, it made new works of less than 500,000 ingot tons per year, economic. Like the proposed works on Southampton Water would have, it took in scrap from the South East and also, when the price was right, imported scrap from the Continent. It's use of iron ore was probably zero, though EAFs could use small amounts as an oxidising agent, it was an inefficient method.

 

Fords Dagenham works had it's own wharf on the Thames and received both its coking coal and ores by sea. Ford commissioned a series of paintings by Terence Cuneo, this one shows the ore wharf, the ore unloaders, a 50t transfer car linking wharf to highline, and the sinter plant (the building with the Robertson vents on the roof).

 

http://www.allartnews.com/bonhams-to-sell-paintings-by-coronation-artist-of-ford-cars-made-in-dagenham/.

 

The proposed works I mentioned would have had an initial capacity of at least 1 million ingot tons/year, and had it been built, would have seen that rise to the 3 miilion mark by the 1980s. One of the major difficulties the works would have faced was the lack of a local, experienced, workforce. In the 1930s both Stewarts & Lloyds at Corby, and Ford at Dagenham, encouraged large numbers of Scots steel men to move south to commission their works.

 

To this day, both Corby and Dagenham have large, active, Scots populations as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur, interest being well and truly piqued, do you happen to know whether this proposal got as far as identifying a potential site? Southampton is justly famed for its fine skyline (sarcasm is very hard to invoke in text), and I was partly wondering where this would have fitted in?

 

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other use is for STONE, but I am not sure when this started. It certainly pre-dated the conversion of many to VB and painted with the Stone symbol. http://PaulBartlett....unfit/e1815b39c

 

Paul Bartlett

I'd guess about 1968-69 when 'Earth and Stones' traffic started to take off from Mendip and Peak District quarries; prior to that, traffic from Foster-Yeoman's site at Wells (prior to the opening of Merehead) was covered by a (small) handful of 24.5t hoppers. Before the mass vac-fitting programme of redundant tipplers and 21t hoppers, the rakes of unfitted tipplers were given fitted heads of 16t minerals, often with '3/4' crudely painted on the side panels as a warning to loaders.

The one in your photo appears to have 'Empty to Cambridge' branding; sand from Fen Drayton, rather than stone, perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam,

 

The background to the proposal was that it was believed by the Board of Trade, and the Iron & Steel Federation, that a fourth hot strip mill (Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Port Talbot being the first three) would be needed by the mid 1960s to meet the growing UK domestic demand. Not all of the industry shared this view, but Richard Thomas & Baldwins did, and announced plans for a new Greenfield works east of Newport. The Board of Trade were supportive but keen to explore alternative locations. Several proposals, some bordering on insane, were put forwards to RTB. The more rational ones were Immingham, Thamesside and Southampton Water.

 

The advantages for Southampton Water were;

  1. Major customers for hot rolled strip were car manufacturing and panel pressing plants, of which there several operating, and others proposed, in the southern half of England; Birmingham, Oxford, Swindon etc. Many were around a 75 mile rail haul from Southampton Water. The West Midlands plants, it was suggested, could have been supplied by RTBs existing Ebbw Vale works.

  1. The major integrated works were becoming reliant on imported ores. To be viable, this needed to be delivered in bulk carriers so requiring a deepwater wharf which Southampton Water could readily provide. It was ideally located for the import of African, Venezuelan (and later, Australian) ores, and coking coal by rail or sea from South Wales and by sea from the North East.

 

No particular site was examined, they never got that far, but I believe that an area north of Fawley was in mind. Would that make sense?

 

The drawbacks to Southampton Water were, lack of metal working experience in the area, recruitment in general (there was already high employment ) and a lack of local interest.

 

However, essentially, RTB just weren’t interested in any of these locations, they considered them to show willing, but had already decided to build where they knew, Wales, and so Llanwern was developed. Political interference with the plan resulted in the building of two semi continuous strip mills, Llanwern and Ravenscraig. It was a classic political compromise but, technically and economically, a poor decision.

In the event, the rise in demand for hot strip was never fully realised and the plants often ran under capacity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...