Andy Vincent

I must admit that thought crossed my mind when @JSpencer commented that the Bachmann SECR wagon had perhaps had its day. I haven't had time to go and check - and it could just about be correct I suppose - but a SECR body on an RCH 1923 underframe (and an end door one at that) struck me as just a little odd!

It seems to be a tradition in some quarters to celebrate birthdays and other events by socialising pictures taken when the subject was somewhat younger. In that vein, I offer a picture of a 'juvenile' D299 replete with end straps. Apologies for the shortcomings of the print cleaning evident in cruel closeup - this was a test print and so just gets a quick dunk! It is one of a number that will be available very shortly (and with samples off to @Compound2632 even sooner - they would have gone by now had I not decided to 'improve' my production process . . . . ). There should perhaps be a prize for the first person to successfully use the rope anchor points in prototypical fashion (although prototype practice seems to have been to ignore them and use buffers, brake hangers or anything else convenient!

Very true - which I suppose suggests that the swivel version was the safest of them all since it generally only had a safety latch at one end. That said, I am not sure whether it really would allow operation from one end in practice, especially when closing, once the end door had moved away from being perfectly flat.

As an alternative to squinting, Hudson volume 3, plate 100 clearly shows this arrangement on another (presumed) Hurst Nelson wagon for Nash & Co. of Royston, Herts. No safety catches are visible.

Having stared (squinted?) further at it enlarged to level beyond reasonable for the resolution, I think the horizontal bar is likely to wrap around the side sheeting (a bit like a staple) to contain a vaguely triangular hooped catch which slides up to clear the end bar. As you note, this bar seems to be bolted to the end door. On that basis the horizontal piece on the side is likely to be thicker than a washer plate given the forces at play. You can just about make out the joggle in the end knee washer plate which suggests it had some strength. As you note, with separate catches each side, it would take two people to free the door (or one with some faith that the other catch was fully engaged as they ducked under the buffers to change sides). Presumably the sliding part had some locking mechanism although maybe the weight of coal pressing on the door plus gravity was enough at that time (it worked for side doors but they would not be subjected to the same forces when braking). An interesting prototype feature for Rapido and @Skinnylinny to pick anyway . . .

Unusually, the catches for the swivel bar end door closure are on the outside of the wagon rather than being rebated on the inside. This would also mean that the bar must have extended significantly beyond the sides and been quite a hazard to shunters. Definitely not in conformance to RCH standards of any era!

Whilst this thread is not the most active(!), it is worth noting that the LMS Society has now posted their set of 1907 RCH drawings here: https://www.lmssociety.co.uk/rchDrawings.php

I did these a while back for a fellow modeller at South Hants MRC. After a parallel discussion with the LNWRS, I am now a membership fee poorer but do have some additional drawings to add 3 hole buffers to this and complete a detailing pack. This is one of a number of such packs (axleboxes with springs plus buffer guides for your choice of fixed or sprung heads) that will be available by ExpoEM (and probably a bit before) with several others to follow - and, yes, there will be a MR pack (10A) for ExpoEM!

A little before the time span of the work being undertaken at Portsmouth University to document all railway worker accidents in Britain and Ireland from the late 1880s to 1939. This is a collaboration between very many groups including the NRM and HMRS. Details at https://www.railwayaccidents.port.ac.uk/ for anyone not familiar with the project.

Time to reach for the MRS back numbers service then as someone quite late to the cause!

At the risk of pre-empting @Compound2632's next instalment in MRS Journal, is there any pattern to whether a D299 (or D351 and perhaps others) had a long brake lever (with lever guard outside of right-hand axle) or a short brake lever (with guard inside right-hand axle) - and did they keep whichever they were allocated until they were scrapped?

Is this for 4mm or something larger?

Crecy told me that there are ten volumes in total (all are written so just need production work) but they didn't elaborate on what volumes 7 to 10 will cover.

Maybe the period is a little late for @Compound2632 but overall good news for many of us coming next month https://www.crecy.co.uk/the-acquired-wagons-of-british-railways-volume-6

As an aside, at least for HMRS members, the internal LMS document that seems to have been the source for these drawings has surfaced from Bob's material. Whilst the drawings are still line drawings, the original drawings are much larger and the document also includes other related material of interest from the constituent companies. It is currently being scanned.

Often referred to as the 'dust shield'. You can see the way it slots in at the rear on this RCH 1907 drawing: [embedded link to LMS Society web site - RCH drawing 9]

I have a recollection (possibly faulty!) that canvas and the bedding compound underneath also provide a degree of protection from cinders. Having cinders landing directly on bare wood sounds like a recipe for disaster!

Looking through* those listed under 'diagram book' suggests that this term is used to cover many types of books of diagrams rather than specifically 'diagram books' as we use the term here. There are 19 entries listed for MR but the descriptions are very brief but you can submit a request to the archivist for more information. The most enigmatic is a reference to a CD. * Go to the the HMRS web site, click on Collections then Archive from the sub-meu. Next pick 'Diagram Books' under the 'Archive Section' filter, then Midland Railway under the 'Railway Company' filter.

At the last count, the HMRS holds 493 diagram books and part of the work we plan to undertake is to try and work out which have been scanned elsewhere, which exist elsewhere but have yet to be scanned and then initiate scanning of the balance. This is likely to be a medium term exercise at the very least . . .

In the vein of cross-checking notes, what is the story with Diagram 302/663A? @Compound2632's Autumn 2023 article has a single lot (506 - ordered 1901) for D302 (drawing 1490) covering just 12 wagons, of which three had raised ends. However, in MR Wagons Bob E lists 12 lots for D302 / drawing 3843 covering the period 1913 to 1920. These are part of those listed as D663A (although the first table seems to list them as D673A) in the MRS Journal article, i.e. those to drawing 3843. In Bob's book, diagram 663A is reserved for wagons to drawing 5279 - i.e. those that form the second part of the D663A group in the journal article. What further confuses me is that drawings 1490 and 3843 are 16' overall with side strapping whilst Bob's reproduction of the diagram book entry for D302 shows it as being 15' 11" and no side strapping. That said, the photos Bob includes to illustrate D302 do have side strapping. My tentative conclusion is that, with the knowledge available, Bob has assigned D302 to the 10 ton subset of D663A. However, even that interpretation has shortcomings as the diagram book entry Bob includes for D663A also shows 10 tons. Bob also uses the end stanchion design as a key differentiator. However, that is unlikely to be correct since drawing 5279 shows both wood and metal stanchion variants. Finally, and to destroy any remaining sense that I have of this, the photograph of 93166 is used in both @Compound2632's article and in Bob's book. Stephen lists it as an example of D663A from lot 825, whereas Bob describes it as an example of D302 (although it has strapping unlike the diagram book entry) from lot 823.. I am pretty sure that Stephen's article is correct (unfortunate typo excepted) but it would be interesting to understand why Bob classified part of D663A the way he did.

Wearing my HMRS Trustee hat for a moment, I think your follow-on comments and lines of inquiry would form the basis for an admirable sequel in the HMRS Journal . . . .

Interestingly, whilst it has curved ends and a sheet rail, Plate 53 in volume 2 of Bill Hudson's Private Owner Wagons has a Charles Roberts full height side door only wagon with the same plank configuration and (external) dimensions. It also has Attocks axleboxes. Built in 1907 for John F Scott lime works

I can but it will be later as I am now back on my work laptop. That said, if you click on the image (so it opens in a zoomed window), then right click on it, there is then a 'Save As' that allows you to save the image to your machine. I didn't downsize them before uploading them so the copy should be full resolution.

I will likely start the assembly of these in a couple of weeks or so, and that is the point where I re-check sources (including your articles) and any information that has come to light since I drafted the outline plan, so I will add this to the mix! My approach, which might provide some insight into the way in which bodies appear, is to decide on the area for the next six months or so, next draw the collection of common components that are needed for the target set of wagons, then finally assemble the wagon from the collection of parts (plus draw anything that is unique to that wagon). Some wagons do get test printed along the way, usually to test some component: getting a balance between fidelity and reliability for some of the tiny end detail on swivel/pivot type end door gear is a current pre-occupation! If the only difference between two wagons is the presence of an end strap, for example, then that can be a single assembly with the extra part(s) either selectively hidden in the assembly file or, more usually, fork the assembly ('derive' in Fusion 360 parlance) after the version without the end strap and add the extra component(s) to the child instance. That way, any corrections or improvements made to the base design (or to components) get automatically applied to both versions.