Castle Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi All, Help! I am currently building models of the two LMS ventilated vans that are in preservation at Didcot and as a GWR guy both my knowledge and reference material on these vehicles is somewhat limited as you might imagine! First the facts: The vehicles in question are today numbered 4166 and 4167. They were built in 1942 to Diagram D2039, Lot 1329 by the LMS at Wolverton as Nos. 516673 and 517791 respectively. They were acquired from MoD at Bicester for use as a storage by the GWS locomotive department. Some handy pictures are here: http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/wagons/4166and7/4166and7.html http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=4685 http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=4686 Now to the questions: 1) They both have differing spring hanger arrangements. 4166 / 516673 has the same as is provided on the similar RCH / GWR designs of the same size and yet 4167 / 517791 has something totally different. Were they the same from new and 4167 modified later on (possibly in BR or MOD use) or was this something that differed within this lot of wagons? 2) 4167 also appears to have clasp brakes rather than the usual fitted van RCH Morton type arrangement - is this too a modification or from new? 3) There is a wide variation in the metal strapping and framework on the body of both vans. I assume that the ply panels in 4166 are later bodge type repairs as it is planked elsewhere. I know that there were plywood body versions of these but I don't think 4166 was one of these. There is a variation between the Ratio kit and the prototypes in that the real things have diagonal straps on the sides. As it is the same on both I presume ths was there from new, was it? Also, the door on 4167 has additional diagonal cross of bracing on it - is this a later modification too or was it there from new? 4) the lamp irons are in different places on each van - 4166 has them on the buffer beams where as 4167 has them further up on the corrugated panel on the ends - where should they be? Are they both right?! Thanking all you LMS / BR (M) chaps out there in advance for looking in and the knowledge I am about to receive! All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 The guff with the photos is at odds with the info in your first Question. It says that 4166 was 517791 to Lot 1329 but 4167 was 516673 to Lot 1317. Something or someone has got jumbled up somewhere along the line so clarification would be appreciated. I very much doubt that the suspensions would have been rebuilt at all so 4167 would have been fitted with eyebolt suspension, AVB and clasp brakes when built. 4166 could possibly have been retrofitted with AVB by BR. If I remember, I will see if my books at home say anything. Always happy to guide a lost soul away from the GWR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 From your description and the pictures, it's clear that 4166 was originally unfitted and probably received vacuum brakes under the 1955 BR Modernisation plan. The LMS used more sophisticated suspension under their fitted stock, as per 4167. This can also be found under other wagon types, including opens. The cross bracing on the door is not original but the other diagonal strapping on the sides probably is. You can think of this body as the intermediate stage between the Ratio kit and Airfix R-T-R (now Dapol) type vans; in the later ones the 'U' channel is replaced by a 'top hat' section, so appears as solid uprights (hollow behind, of course). The lamp irons are higher on the fitted as built van probably so the lamp is away from any vacuum pipes, etc. 4166 does appear to have some additional bracing added to the lower part of the door that may have been done while in BR service. Looking through photographic albums that feature goods trains often throws up these sort of anomalies. In model form they just add that extra interest, lifting it above the basic 'shake the box' model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trog Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I think the short brake lever and J hanger suspension are the mark of a wagon built by the LMS as vac fitted. The other wagon with the long brake lever was probably built unfitted. The tie bar between the W irons suggests that it was as stated above probably then fitted by BR at a later date. External straps are also something that was often added to these vans in later life, which would tend to generate variation. Depending on when and where the straps were added. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi Bruce and Bernard, Thanks a lot for all the gen guys! Bruce: Thanks again! The lot numbers seem to be mixed up on the DRC website as on the main list they are of different lots but on the link page the are the same. I will tell our webmaster about that one... I did figure that rebuilding suspension on something as humble as a 4 wheel goods van was a bit unlikely but it's not my railway so thought I had better ask! Wild horse wouldn't drag me from my lovely GWR, but thanks for the thought! Mr Stanier made the LMS slightly GWR anyway so any of his engines that turn up at 81E, they are thought of as spiritually 'at home'. That Duchess of Sutherland only just fits on a 70' turntable though and is very heavy to turn! Bernard: Thanks again! The info you have supplied puts 4166 right at the end of my time period and as I was planning on one in LMS and one in BR livery, you have just made my choice as to which is which for me! Is there any ready source for the spring units in 4mm scale that you know of please? Thanks for spotting the extra detail on the door of 4166. 4167 has some additional square reinforcing (?) patches on the bottom of the end angles on the sides too. I agree about making the models your own - kits in the main, are only a starting point for me too. All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi Trog, Thanks for the additional information there - very useful! All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 By 'spring-units', do you mean the spring/ axlebox/axleguard assembly with the 'j-hangers? If so, Parkside do one as a kit:- BR/LMS 10ft. Vacuum Braked, Clasp Brake Shoes, includes both LMS (J hanger) and BR type spring suspension (From Kit PC41) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi Fat Controller, That's the things I need - well done! Thanks very much, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi Fat Controller, That's the things I need - well done! Thanks very much, Castle Being a cheapskate, I usually buy the Vanwide kit, which has the same sprue- the 'j-hanger' underframe was also to be found under both ordinary, and 'shock', corrugated-end opens, along with Medfits and Lowfits; the 'Morton' underframes from these then being used on various Hornby-Dublo 'SD' ventilated vans and opens. The 'Modernisation Plan' retrofitted wagons, from all the Big 4, can usually be distinguished by collars on the buffer boy behind the head:- http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/lmsopen/h2676b8c2#h2676b8c2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi Brian. I have just ordered the chassis kit as the rest of it is of little use to me. The only LMS freight stock on the list at 81E are these two vans and I have no need of the other vehicles you mention. I had to get a few other bits from Parkside too so the penny pinching hasn't been ignored! It strikes me that a list on RMWEB of helpful money savers like this one here might be in order. A bit like the bargain hunters one. I have picked up a few as I go along so it is always great to pass these tips on. Something to think about if others are interested? Cheers, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 The Parkside route is the obvious one now. When I was looking at a new chassis for an Airfix LMR van back in the late 1970s I got a whitemetal Cambrian FM container flat to provide the right type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The books don't tell us any more really. 'The LMS Wagon' by Essery and Morgan confirms that 516673 was to Lot 1317 and 517791 was to Lot 1329, these were consecutive lots for this type of van. The listing notes that some wagons of some diagrams were built 'fitted' and others not, so that suspensions could be different within a diagram number although there is no such appendage to either of these particular lots. The LMS was obviously happy with that situation or it would have issued different diagram numbers as it appears to have done with some vans within the D2039 lots being built with wooden ends instead of steel (there was a war on so presumably there could have been a temporary shortage of steel ends). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 Hi Bruce, Thanks very much for the 'use by proxy' of your reference volumes - is suspect that the 'there is a war on' explanation explains a lot of the variation and oddities within this diagram. How is Swindon boy doing LMS fans? This is my attempt at No. 516673 prior to tidying up, primer and rivet transfers. Is anything obviously wrong with it please people?: I am still waiting for the payment request for my chassis so the model of the other one may have to wait a bit. Thanks again everyone! All the best, Castle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Well you still have planks on the left hand panel and the door rather than the plywood in the pics. and the roof vents would have long gone. But its looking good anyway, adding the diagonal strapping helps the Ratio kit a lot. Regards Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 Hi Keith, I was going for a mid 1950s BR service look rather than a representation of exactly as it is today but thanks anyway! When did the roof ventilators go? Was it early on or is that a much later thing? Cheers! Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 Hi All, Here is my efforts with regards to a model of No. 517791- all comments welcome! With regards to these vans in BR service, were they branded XP at all please? Many thanks for your help with the Swindonite! All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 With regards to these vans in BR service, were they branded XP at all please? With eyebolt suspension and 8-shoe vacuum brake the answer has to be YES. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Hi Bruce, Thanks for the info! Sorry that I wasnt clear No. 516673 was the other one was the one I was intending to do in BR livery. As it was converted to vacuum brake would it still be XP or just regular vacuum fitted please? As a converted one, it is an interesting vehicle in itself (and it could have been converted as early as 1955 according to the kindly provided by yourself and others) and wil provide a nice counterpoint to No. 517791. I would like to do No. 517791 in late LMS style as it will provide another part of the story of the railways between 1948 and 1955 in my collection. Thanks again! All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 With eyebolt suspension and 8-shoe vacuum brake the answer has to be YES. I believe they would also need screw couplings and appropriate long buffers, and a minimum tare weight of 6 tons (see the last discussion on XP rating). Not sure about the buffers or weight, but with instanters it would not qualify for XP branding. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Yes looks good to me for XP. Instanters are suitable, and the buffers look quite long on both models. Unlikely that the one with Morton vac brake would have been converted before 1957, whereas the other one appears to have LMS clasp brake rigging and would have been XP on BR from their beginning. Bewary of the discussions about XP, BR downgraded some of the concepts required by the pre-nat Companies, but 10ft wheelbase or greater was required. Paul Bartlett Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I believe they would also need screw couplings and appropriate long buffers, and a minimum tare weight of 6 tons (see the last discussion on XP rating). Not sure about the buffers or weight, but with instanters it would not qualify for XP branding. Fair comment Nick, presumably the instanter couplings currently fitted to the vans are not original, 4166, being built unfitted would have probably been fitted with 3-links and 4167 with screws. Photos suggest the tare weights were in the order of 6.5 to 7 tons unfitted and 7.5 to 8 tons fitted. Presumably 4166, when vacuum fitted, would have qualified for XP rating. I notice, Castle, that you have fitted spoked wheels to the models. These really should be 3-hole discs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Thanks everyone! I will just bend time a little if that is ok with you Paul - its only two years and what's that between fellow RMWebbers?! It is worth letting the Callender slip a bit to include a bit of interest like this and to tell a story. I won't tell if you don't... Thanks to all who helped here and I will post the full build in my Little Didcot thread when they are finished. All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Bruce, You got your post in before I finished writing mine - cheers! I know about the wheels and I am going with the kit ones until a get replacements shipped in but cheers for pointing it out! I should have mentioned it myself... What is the final word on the couplings? I have both in the bits box so it isn't an issue. I don't think that we would have bothered to change them to instanters for any reason so they are at least as per MOD service. I suppose the question should be what is the more likely? Thanks to Buffalo too! All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Bruce, You got your post in before I finished writing mine - cheers! I know about the wheels and I am going with the kit ones until a get replacements shipped in but cheers for pointing it out! I should have mentioned it myself... What is the final word on the couplings? I have both in the bits box so it isn't an issue. I don't think that we would have bothered to change them to instanters for any reason so they are at least as per MOD service. I suppose the question should be what is the more likely? Thanks to Buffalo too! All the best, Castle Instanters were a GWR idea which BR then picked up on - they appeared a little different. Screw couplings were standard for the LMS VB vans and most likely when BR converted a van to VB. In later years instanters and screws were always collected from scrapped wagons and put on anything and everything. I'll agree on the 3 hole wheels, the LMS does seem to be far more standardised on them than the other railways, and not pushed to using old stock as BR was. Paul Bartlett Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Thanks again Paul, That would seem to complete the picture - off to the workbench for me I think... All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.