Dungrange

They models seem far more 'chunky' than the rather delicate deck on the frame in the picture above.

So is the gross laden weight of a 10 ton open = 10 tons plus the tare weight?

@RapidoCorbsI'm assuming that these not-quite-mink have arrived now? The website still indicates that they are 'In Production' with an expected delivery date of Q4 2023 - https://rapidotrains.co.uk/delivery-schedule/.

The Revolution Trains website says 'Shipping to UK Container due 20 November 2023' https://revolutiontrains.com/projects/

One of the other videos by the same woman gives links to Ali Express, which indicate that they are 1:64 scale. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32855130842.html?srcSns=sns_Copy&spreadType=socialShare&bizType=ProductDetail&social_params=40113822483&aff_fcid=eb4c2eba5404462ab575ce087a5132f1-1699203541762-03684-_AeqGff&tt=MG&aff_fsk=_AeqGff&aff_platform=default&sk=_AeqGff&aff_trace_key=eb4c2eba5404462ab575ce087a5132f1-1699203541762-03684-_AeqGff&shareId=40113822483&businessType=ProductDetail&platform=AE&terminal_id=91a0f8f588db4b8a8273ecd6b596a570&afSmartRedirect=y

Thanks for all the suggestions so far, even if details of the tanning industry is perhaps a little off topic. Perhaps I should say that my reason for asking the initial question was two fold. Firstly, it appears that there was probably a significant imbalance between inbound and outbound traffic, particularly during the main harvest time - ie the summer months. That would therefore require a lot of empty wagons heading towards Upwell to be loaded. For produce to be conveyed in covered goods vans, an empty and a loaded van look the same, but for outbound produce conveyed in open wagons, I'd like to understand how many inbound open wagons would likely be empty and how many would likely be conveying inbound goods. Secondly, for those that are loaded, I'd like to know what sort of loads I should be thinking about modelling (a lot will have to be different between the inbound and outbound directions). In response to a few specific points: I've not read of any rural factories and processing plants in the area and there didn't appear to be any specific handling facilities for oil at any of the tramway depots. There certainly were dozens of pumping stations, which I think were mainly coal fired in the pre-grouping era. I believe that the coal was originally delivered by water but on the opening of the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway, the conveyance of coal transferred to the tram as far as Outwell and then transferred to the canal system for final delivery. These pumping stations were subsequently converted to diesel, but I think that was mainly post second world war (and no doubt the oil mainly went by road by that time). I'm assuming that Paraffin would have arrived in a 14T tank wagon, so if I can find a suitable 4mm model, I can add a tank wagon to a desired stock list, although I doubt that there would have been huge quantities of oil traffics on the W&U Tramway, so it's probably not a high priority purchase. According to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolite, the industry declined in the 1880s, so I agree that was possibly an early traffic on the W&U, although perhaps less relevant to the later pre-grouping (WW1) period that I'm more interested in. I think these are both bowel outputs but of different ages. 😀 Coprolite is fossilised and possibly did find it's way to London, with Cambridgeshire being the source. However, it appears the export from London would have been manure and also sludge from the cities sewers (ie fresh rather than fossilised). I'm hoping that if these 'fresh bowel movements' were inbound loads that the same wagons weren't then used to convey fruit and vegetables. No doubt someone is going to say yes, they just gave them a quick hose down. I've always understood the area to be very fertile and good for growing (so probably not needing soil improvers), but if it's able to produce three crops per year, then I'd assume that there must be some requirement to replace phosphates, nitrates etc. There would have been some manure produced locally, but since the area is not known for it's dairy herds, I'm assuming inbound manure and/or sludge are potential inbound loads if the soils require to have their nutrients topped up after each harvest. I'm assuming it probably did. Another thread on RMweb referred to a rake of NER fruit vans at Wisbech pre-WW1 and I wouldn't expect to see that many NER wagons in the area pre-WW1 if there wasn't some sort of call for extra vans. It looks like that has the same traffic imbalance that I suspect existed on the W&U Tramway: outbound tonnages are more than ten times what's input. Is there a primary source of this sort of information (ie tonnages per annum of various commodities)? There are some figures in Peter Paye's book, but not enough to get a full understanding of the relative importance of different types of traffic in particular year.

In order to operate your 'freight area' an arriving train needs to arrive in the lower of your two 'storage sidings'. The inbound locomotive will automatically be at the correct end for shunting the freight area. It's when you come to create your departing freight train that the locomotive is at the wrong end, so creating a run round means that you lose your 'storage sidings'. One of these becomes the freight arrival / departure road and the other for the freight locomotive to run round. If you were hoping to have these to stable empty coaching stock, then you have a use conflict. You refer to liking the idea of having a station pilot. Where will it be stabled when it is not shunting coaches? I'm not sure that there is a need for a special DMU storage road. Since you have three platforms, I think they'd just be left there awaiting their next turn. If it's a refuelling point, how is the fuel delivered? By your timescale, I suspect that road was the most likely option, but I think there were still a few instances of fuel being delivered by rail. It appears that you do have enough space between this siding and the entry to your fiddle yard to run round a short rake of TTA tank wagons and then propel them into the siding. The alternative, would be that you use this area for say parcels traffic. Since at least some of your trains are DMUs, I'd add a point into your shortest fiddle yard road (making it even shorter), but giving you an additional road. The shortest siding only needs to be long enough to stable your shortest trains, so two or three shorter roads would probably be more useful to you than having just four of the length shown. It certainly looks a lot more interesting visually than the plan in your first post.

Well, it's partly true. With a traverser, you don't need any points between the modelled station throat and the traverser (but you do if not using a traverser). It also reduces the cost of these points and their associated control system, whether that be motors, servos or whatever. However, something that hasn't been asked is how comfortable is @Benatkinsonuk is with carpentry, as there is much greater skill involved in building a traverser than there is in just building a baseboard. As to how much longer the fiddle yard sidings may be, it depends on where the fan of turnouts is located. Taking the initial image in this thread as a starting point, which uses straight turnouts after the curve, yes, a traverser will always allow for longer trains. However, if switching to curved turnouts, then the length difference between the two approaches becomes less clear as it could be possible to create some fiddle yard sidings using points that are longer than could be achieved with a traverser, and this could be critical if there is a need to have a very long train (whether that be an HST or a more significant length freight service).

How easy is the kit to build? The follow up question is how good does it looks alongside these tramcars from Rapido (which I'm assuming no-one can answer just yet). I'm aware that there is also a 3D printed body for No 16 on Shapeways website, but no idea how it compares to the one from Eveleigh Creations. I'm assuming that Rapido have no interest in producing this coach given its lack of use after the withdrawal of W&U passenger services, but it would be good to have a model of No 16 to a comparable standard. Looking at running mileages for each coach in 1914 indicates that No 16 was used far more than any of the other coaches and it appears that it ran in almost all scheduled services in GER days. There were only a small proportion of services that year that didn't contain No 16, where it appears that an ordinary goods brake was used instead (although I've never seen a photograph that shows this). Presumably that was a substitution due to maintenance requirements. That means that it's very difficult to operate a correct W&U tram without it. My tramcars will come with the GER train packs, which means waiting a bit longer to see these 'in the flesh'.

I've been following this thread only out of interest because one day I hope to automate the fiddle yard on my own attic layout (if I ever make progress) and we may need to adopt something similar for a future club layout, but the comment below caught my attention. With automation, you (personally) don't use any of the feedbacks: they are the 'eyes' of the computer. You can see everything that is happening on the layout by simply looking at the layout. You can see what is where, what is stopped and what is moving. However, the computer only knows what is happening on the layout via the information from the feedbacks you install (and the information that you provide it with regarding stock, a track plan etc). You therefore need to let the computer 'see' the trains that you want it to drive, 'see' the track that you want it to drive those trains on, but also 'see' anything that you might want to manually drive onto these tracks and which will therefore conflict with what the software thought was happening. That's where it gets to the point of needing to install feedbacks across most of the layout. On a pure cost benefit analysis, I agree that spending maybe £1,000 on automation is perhaps a lot of money to simply drive six trains in rotation. You'd be much cheaper just inviting a friend round to run those trains for you (and benefit from a conversation at the same time). However that is effectively what the automation software is: it's taking on the role of another human operator (or operators). It appears that you want to limit what the software is allowed to do, because you're trying to limit it to only drive those six trains (hence why you can't identify other benefits). You don't want the software to 'see' the areas of the layout that you want to control. Imagine if you invited a friend round to run those six trains on the continuous run and told them not to pay any attention to what you're doing. How do you think that would turn out? What happens when you and he/she don't communicate what you're doing? Over time, might you decide to allow that friend to run some other trains as well as the six that he/she was originally limited to? Your benefit no 2 should be the flexibility of allowing your software 'friend' to help run more of the layout. When you're driving, are you also acting as signalman? Do you want those dual roles? If the software is informed about everything that is going on on the layout, then it could change signals while you drive. Ultimately, there is a continuous spectrum between manual control and full automation, and you can leave as little or as much running of trains to the software as you want, but the software needs to be able to 'see' what is going on, which is what the feedbacks are for. As for whether you need feedbacks everywhere, I'd assume that you could limit the number in your goods yard, which it appears will be manual only. The software needs to be able to understand that you've driven a train in, but since it doesn't need to follow your shunting, I can see a case for not installing feedbacks on all goods sidings. However, you'd effectively have to tell the software that that part of your layout doesn't exist: it's just a single siding that you drive into. You 'delete' the train from that siding while you're shunting and then add the details of your departing train back into the automation software before you can drive back onto the mainline. I can see a cost saving, but obviously extra faff when you want to drive your train out onto the mainline. If you've decided automation is not for you, then fair enough, but if you're getting your layouts professionally built, I don't see the benefit of you having a test track built to test out how and where to put feedbacks.

Mousa models do a Midland Railway Manure Wagon - https://mousa-models.co.uk/scales/bwk1705-4-mr-d-344-manure-wagon-2/, which I'm assuming would be suitable for importing the output from animals. Was human waste transported in the same way? I must admit that I never knew they used human waste as a fertiliser at that time. Would these have been hired in under a short term (ie several weeks) contract from one or more railway companies, or simply brought in from the intended destination (eg the LNWR may have provided the GER with a number of vans for fruit destined for Birmingham, and the NER may have provided vans for fruit destined for Newcastle? I understand that at that period traffic would normally be conveyed in the originating companies wagon, with the return journey being empty, but I suppose there was no reason not to have an empty inbound wagon to be loaded outbound (ie being returned to the originating company). I also note your distinction between covered vans and covered ventilated vans.

A company called Keith Mount Liming (https://www.mountliming.co.uk/about-us/history/) are based in Bury St Edmonds and their website states that they are a family business with the Mount family being the earliest known company to have applied lime to Norfolk fields as early as 1868. The company offers a wide range of liming products throughout Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Lincolnshire & Hertfordshire, so my assumption is that it is a potential inbound load. They claim to be the largest privately owned lime company in the country, so there must be a market and presumably there was a market for liming even in pre-grouping days.

I understand that the processing of sugar beet was undertaken at British Sugar Corporation factories at Ely, South Lynn, Wissington and Peterborough, so I'm assuming that the limestone would have gone to these locations rather than 'to the fields'. Is / was agricultural lime used as a fertiliser for sugar beet? I think the export from the tramway was the raw beet from the fields rather than a processed sugar. I'll look for more details of fertiliser and seed potatoes as inbound loads.

The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway was a rural and largely agricultural or farmer’s line and I’m wondering what would have been imported by the local farmers (and conveyed by rail). I understand that the main import traffic on the W&U (ie from Wisbech towards Upwell) was always coal, with merchants based at all tramway depots. However, in the Great Eastern Railway period the Working Timetables indicate that coal wagons were not conveyed in the scheduled goods trams, instead being conveyed by special services arranged at night on an as required basis. As such, I’m wondering what was conveyed by the scheduled inbound services during the day (ie towards Upwell) apart from empty wagons and vans. In his book on The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway, Peter Paye states that “In the 1920s and 1930s coke was conveyed for horticultural purposes” and he also highlights that granite was conveyed as part of a rolling programme of road improvements. However, these are the only inbound cargos that are specifically mentioned in his book. In contrast Peter Paye’s book gives a long list of exported produce, which included: · Root vegetables such as potatoes, carrots, swedes, parsnips, turnips, mangold wurzels and from the early 1920s sugar beet. I believe that these would generally have been conveyed in open wagons. · Flowers. I understand these were conveyed in fully fitted covered vans. · Milk. Dispatched in 17-gallon churns, but not sure about the wagons that conveyed these churns. · Hay, Straw, Corn. Presumably these were conveyed in sheeted open wagons. · Fruit traffic, especially apples. These were loaded into crates, but not sure about the wagons that conveyed these crates. · Summer fruits including raspberries, gooseberries, redcurrants, blackcurrants, and strawberries. These were all conveyed in covered vans. Livestock, both horses and cattle, are highlighted as being two-way traffic, with animals being both bought and sold at markets, so horseboxes and cattle wagons could have been loaded in both directions. So, looking at the exported produce, what would the farmers have imported? Fertiliser? Seeds? Anything else, apart from the odd new tractor or other equipment that would have required a Lowfit or Lowmac wagon? I’m also interested in knowing about the seasonality of these imports as well and if anyone has any details of tonnages of various produce conveyed, I’d be interested in that as well.

Welcome to the forum. Your fiddle yard roads look quite short. If I'm reading your plan correctly, the maximum length train that you can accommodate would be just short of 2'. Whilst that's adequate for your proposed DMU services, it seems a bit cramped for loco hauled services. The maximum length you could probably accommodate would be a Class 37 and three Mk1 or Mk 2 coaches. Definitely not big enough for a convincing HST (unless you think two coaches would be convincing). I'd also think a three platform station needs more than four fiddle yard roads to feed it. You probably need to try and incorporate curved points to lengthen the fiddle yard. You also need a couple of crossovers on your curve to allow all fiddle yard roads to deliver trains to the station throat and to allow all trains departing from your station to access any fiddle yard road. At the moment, you seem to have a lot of wrong line running required. The alternative is of course to ask whether the line you are modelling needs to be double track, or could you perhaps model just a single track entry/exit from your fiddle yard? Maybe it was once double track but was rationalised to a single track line in the 1970s? As for interest, I agree that a multiple unit shuttling back and forward between the fiddle yard and a station platform isn't that interesting. Similarly, I don't find TMD facilities that interesting either, so my own preference would be for some form of freight facility. What would interest you? I also note that there is no run round loop. This means that any loco hauled passenger service arriving in the station will need to be released by another locomotive (or a station pilot) and the same will be true for any inbound freight train. Try to think through each operating step. Locomotive hauled train in Fiddle Yard Road 1. How does it get to Platform 1 (easy). Then what? The locomotive is at the wrong end for the departing service, so where is the locomotive that will release it going to come from? How does it get there? Will that locomotive take the train back to the fiddle yard, or just shunt the coaches to another platform for a later departure? What about the freight train in Fiddle Yard Road 2? Not sure if that's any help. I can't advise on Code 55 / Code 80 as I don't model in N gauge.

That's why I will get one of these. However, my best estimate at the moment is that perhaps 0.17% of my wagon fleet should be LB&SCR covered goods wagons. As I don't intend buying anything like 600 wagons, I don't really need any LB&SCR covered vans. As such, if this model wasn't being produced, I wouldn't care. However, I reckon that somewhere closer to 8.28% of my fleet should be Midland Railway general merchandise open wagons. Therefore, if no-one announces any ready-to-run versions in the next 12-months, I'll have to build kits, as these are something that I can't realistically do without and even if someone does announce a ready-to-run model, I probably still need to build a few kits to allow me to represent more than one diagram of Midland Railway open wagon (probably starting with the ones that I think a ready-to-run manufacturer is less likely to go for).

It's ditto because I'm looking at the same prototype for inspiration. Whilst I understand that the majority of fruit (particularly the soft fruit) was exported in vans, I believe that the root vegetables were exported in open wagons. I agree that van traffic probably dominated (it certainly did in BR days), but there is a photograph from 1913, which has has a tram with just one van, eight open wagons and a brake van. However, there is another photograph from 1910 in which most of the wagons are vans, so it's clear that a mix of opens and vans are required to model the W&U, particularly in pre-grouping days. My own estimate of a wagon fleet for my proposed pre-grouping layout is as below, with LNWR vans appearing fifth on that list of required stock. The two Diagram 88s that I've now pre-ordered satisfies my immediate demand for LNWR vans, but there are plenty of other wagons that I'd like to buy. Some seem to be available as kits, but there are some for which there doesn't appear to be a suitable kit available. 12 GER Covered Vans 4 GER Open Wagons 3 MR Open Wagons 3 GNR Open Wagons 2 LNWR Covered Vans 2 LNWR Open Wagons 2 MR Covered Vans 2 GWR Open Wagons 1 GER Cattle Van 1 GWR Covered Van 1 GNR Covered Van 1 GCR Open Wagon 1 NER Open Wagon 1 NER Covered Van 1 L&YR Open Wagon 1 L&YR Covered Van 1 GER Bolster Wagon 1 GCR Covered Van

Yes, it varies by company as well as over time and is a function of the makeup of the entire wagon fleet of each company - for the Great Eastern Railway just over 19% of stock was covered vans in 1920. However, the GER had very few mineral wagons (just 175 as at 31 December 1921). That was significantly less than most of the other large pre-grouping railway companies (both proportionately and as an absolute number). In trying to consider the proportion of various foreign company wagons that I want for my layout, I've found that it's necessary not just to look at the total wagon stock of each company but also the breakdown of their fleet. For example, the NER had more wagons than the GWR (123,494 versus 88,910), but the GWR had more of the types of wagons that would have been found in East Anglia (57,266 open wagons versus 37,785 on the NER and 13,942 covered vans versus 9,864 on the NER). Therefore the impact of the Common User arrangements would probably have resulted in more GWR wagons in East Anglia than NER wagons in my period of interest. LB&SCR comes 16th on my list of railway companies stock that I want.

At least one of Rapido's designers is a pre-grouping era modeller, and their boxes do state "Rapido is owned and operated by railway modellers who just want all this neat stuff for their layouts". As such, I understand that pre-grouping era wagons are suggested at ideas workshops. However, the commercial reality is that there are significantly more BR era modellers than there are modellers who are interested in the pre-grouping period. For that reason, most manufacturers are unlikely to choose a prototype from 1860, where all wagons were gone by the 1920s. That seems to be the market for limited run kits and perhaps 3D printed models. However, if you can identify pre-grouping era prototypes that survived into BR (even in limited numbers), then suddenly you have something that is potentially commercially viable. Perhaps even more so if there is a preserved example. Just look at this thread and see how many people have indicated that they're interested in the Isle of Wight versions. Obviously Train Times wouldn't be giving us a breakdown of sales of this wagon, but I suspect that they will sell more of the later period wagons than the early period wagons.

True, but post-1917 they would only have been empty in one direction, so there is still a need for a load in one direction and it will need to be removable if you want the same wagon to operate in both directions, which I suspect is an off-putting factor when it comes to wagon purchases. True, but I was primarily thinking about railway owned open merchandise wagons that convey a variety of goods. Private Owner coal wagons were not part of the 1917 Railway Clearing House (RHC) Common User scheme, so throughout the pre-WW2 period, these would have had to be returned promptly to the collieries and would have been empty for their return trip. Post WW2, when BR 16T mineral wagons had replaced the RHC wooden-bodied PO wagons on coal traffic, I would expect operation to be the same as in earlier times, which is what you are suggesting. If there is no return load (such as for cold), then the wagons will have to return empty. However, the impact of any imbalance in traffic that could have been conveyed in general railway owned open wagons would have greatly reduced post-1917. My own research interest at the moment is the Wisbech and Upwell (W&U) Tramway, where I understand that there was more outbound than inbound traffic, particularly during the summer months. Pre-WW1, there would have been empty GER open wagons travelling between Wisbech and Upwell (to be loaded with agricultural produce) and empty foreign wagons between Upwell and Wisbech (returning empty to their home territory having delivered imported products). However, post-1917, I think all of the wagons from foreign company territory would have been loaded in both directions and the number of unloaded open GER wagons would have reduced substantially. Yes, there would still have been some empty wagons, but the numbers would have been dramatically reduced compared to pre-WW1. What that means for me (and my interest in the post-war pre-grouping period) is a requirement for open wagons with two different loads. Thankfully the W&U Tramway exported a lot of produce in covered vans and therefore I can make use of vans from a variety of companies, including the LB&SCR, albeit there were far fewer LB&SCR vans than many of the other companies, so I only need one of these Diagram 1433 wagons. The benefit is that no-one will know whether it is representing an empty or loaded consignment.

I agree that open wagons outnumbered vans by a considerable margin on most pre-grouping railways but certainly by the late pre-grouping period vans made up a larger portion of the wagon fleet than 10%. The Railway Yearbook for 1921 gives the following breakdown of stock for the LB&SCR as at 31 December 1920: Open wagons - 779 Covered vans - 612 Mineral wagons - 422 Special wagons - 11 Cattle wagons - 441 Rail and timber wagons - 591 Brake vans - 336 Miscellaneous - 112 Service vehicles - 650 All goods stock and service vehicles - 3,954 Therefore, for the LB&SCR around 1920/21, covered goods vans accounted for more than 15% of the fleet. Even adding open and mineral wagons together, they only accounted for a further 30% of the LB&SCR fleet, so a ratio of about one van for every two open wagons would be about right for that period. The other half of the fleet needs to be a real mixed bag of cattle vans, bolster wagons and all manner of departmental vehicles. I recall reading somewhere that generally modellers tend to buy vans in greater numbers than open wagons, even if it should be the other way round and therefore the manufacturers will respond to what consumers purchase. The ability to hide a weight in the van to improve track adhesion may be one reason, but I think there is also the fact that a loaded and empty covered van look the same. You don't need to worry about what it is carrying: it can simply be placed on the layout. With open wagons, they would probably be laden in one direction and empty in the other (for foreign wagons pre-1917) or carrying different loads in each direction (all open wagons post-1917). Perhaps modelling loads puts people off buying enough open wagons? I think the final point is probably that to make ready-to-run pre-grouping wagons viable, there is a need for the prototype to have existed in the BR period (even if they were all scrapped by the mid-1950s). Looking at the early 1950s, I think the number of open wagons of pre-grouping origin was significantly less than the number of covered vans of pre-grouping origin and I suspect that is a significant driver in the choice of prototype. A lot of pre-grouping vans can be sold to pre-grouping, grouping and BR modellers, whereas many pre-grouping open wagons are of little interest to the BR market (which remains more significant than earlier periods). I'd also like to see more ready-to-run pre-grouping open wagons, so fingers crossed they appear in due course. Rapido have after all produced SECR and GWR opens, so hopefully more will follow if they were a success.

It's a pity the two LNWR vans that I've pre-ordered both appear to have the same iron roof - in fact from the description they appear to be identical apart from the number. The only LNWR period wagon being done with the wooden roof seems to be the through-piped version, which from your earlier response is perhaps too early for my post-war period. I'm not sure if the reason for Rapido's choice of roof on the later liveried LNWR wagons is that none of the unfitted vans had the wooden roof. The first D88 wagons were introduced in 1908 and according to Rapido's description, the iron roofs were introduced in 1910, so I would assume that these were much more common. Yes, I'd like a few Midland wagons too - I recon they need to make up at least 10% of my East Anglian wagon fleet.

I'd certainly be up for a few Midland wagons (more so than any other company bar the Great Eastern). Not so much the mineral wagons, but certainly a few general merchandise wagons and vans. However Mousa Models seem to do resin prints of both the D607 and D663A and Slaters have a kit for the D362 / D363 vans, so that may be why Rapido chose this LNWR prototype over a Midland wagon. I don't think there is a kit of the LNWR Diagram 88 wagon available.

Definitely GER. Please, Please Please (just not the Diagram 72 van that Oxford did). You can also add a LB&SCR van to that list as well - https://www.traintimesmodelshop.co.uk/blogs/news/train-times-announces-new-rtr-wagon-lb-scr-d-1433

.... and hopefully you will follow it up with an open wagon as well. 🙂 I'm intrigued by the livery on the through piped LNWR wagon. Apart from the works plate on the solebar, there doesn't appear to be any other markings that indicate company ownership. Did this livery specifically indicate that it was a through piped vehicle and was it common? I'm not sure I can justify a through-piped version in East Anglia (as the Great Eastern Railway principally used the Westinghouse air brake), but I'll certainly order the other two LNWR liveried vans.