Evertrainz

Had another look, HMRS does also hold drawings for the individual parts. Listed under “Sleeping Cars - Commonwealth bogie with equalised and compensated brake - ” On that topic, what exactly was the “equalized and compensated brake” rigging? Seems like it was the triangle connected frame set atop the bogies vs. below, with the asymmetric Vee hanger. I’m not quite sure what the benefit of this was compared to the under-pull brake rigging?

Looking on HMRS, there are drawings for individual components of the BR1 such as spring plates and frame members, I would assume if the Commonwealth also had similar drawings they might also be at the NRM.

Thanks guys. This being a design from some American company I wasn't expecting there to be a drawing available, in our reach at least. Looking on HMRS, the Commonwealth elevation is listed as SC/DE35774.

Does there exist an (accurate) bogie drawing or elevation diagram for the Commonwealth bogies?

Thanks for that, I assume the patch is in roughly the same spot as the "TO WORK BETWEEN EDINBURGH AND KINGS CROSS" on the Blue Spot vans. Oddly the BR diagram book shows the diagram 1/256 van layout featuring the door handles and strapping of the diagram 801 van, which is confusing yet. Slightly on another tangent, I've been working on a 3D representation of the 801 (aswell as 800) and don't know if the 801s originally had a through steam heat pipe?

Hi all Since some of the diag 214/800 long wheelbase non-roller bearing fitted fish vans were returned to general traffic around the early 60s, would these have been used for insulated cargo? Or would they have been completely ‘generalized’ and been painted bauxite/freight red for normal traffic? I can’t find any pictures around 1960 through 1965 although I do see a Flickr shot of a diagram 801 in preservation painted bauxite lettered ‘NOT TO BE LOADED WITH FISH’ and the description mentions that it was a diagram 800 van built in 1951, whereas the wagon number is incorrect...... Going off that I assume the lettering would be made up as well. The most realistic outcome I assume would be that the non-bearing fitted fish vans losing the “INSULFISH” and gaining an “INSULATED” marking, although I was wondering of there is anything the way of pictures or books to prove/disprove this. Ron

That video is a real treat considering there doesn’t seem to be much true audio from the time period. I wonder if the audio in the film is the audio as-recorded or if it was added later on. It doesn’t sound like anything else so I’m assuming either way it was real audio of the Mirrlees engines.

I've decided to re-do the pantographs to properly suit the 1960s as-built variant, and improve the detailing on them. I've made my way from the base frame to the lower arm and the thrust rod, now the upper arms and pan head will need to be re-done... Seems like an odd arrangement using a series of rods in a parallelogram connected by a small spring to adjust for any bumps or jerks in the OHLE, shown in good detail in the beginning seconds here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33pbe-qGkY4 .

I do agree, if they are able to get the Crossley HSTV8 running in preservation after all its been through, a capable Mirrlees prime mover will have no issue with the very light requirements of a preserved railway. WSR excluded, a great number of preserved lines rarely demand much from the engine. FWIW I still think it would be interesting if the original Mirrlees unit could be sourced from somewhere, but I am not a preservation group, nor do I know if it is economic at all. But it still would be great to see a disc-fitted skinhead with the original prime mover, in restored condition. Duck egg blue body stripes as well I have searched Youtube but wasn’t able to find the video you mention, do you have a link? I did however find this with a brief clip 4:00 minutes in: Also the Brush video “Class 31 Construction” has, as you say, deep throaty engine sound in many clips at the end.

Maybe a timeshare Of course that is a big factor I didn’t particularly consider. Hopefully the railway preservationists get something going of a working restoration on the M1.

I’d read that in the early 50s Brush exported some locomotives for Ceylon Railways fitted with those engines, having already been “proved as a successful marine engine” .. we see how that went on the rails. Regards to backdating I think the only known JVS12T is in the preserved Ceylon diesel loco M1 at a museum, overseas. The loco is static and has likely not been started up since withdrawal. It would be interesting to see if an offer could be made for the engine. A preserved (de-rated ) Class 30 would bring back a part of history that seems to be overlooked.

With the re-engine of what was to be the Class 30, some 260 Mirrlees 12-cylinder engines were displaced in favor of EE power. Of course given that each engine probably cost a heap the most logical thing to do would be to sell them off.. but where exactly did they end up? It's likely a very tedious and difficult process of locating one of these but what could be some likely fates for the JVS12T engines originally in the Class 30s? Has there ever been an example found in a shed in the middle of field absolute nowhere out of use for 20 years?

Returning to this thread with some pics and some questions to boot... What was the standard width of the headcode blind? I am approximating 8 inches, but if anyone else has an actual set they've measured I'll gladly use the proper dimensions for it, also the height of the alphanumerics? Were all the pantographs fitted to the early ACs the same design of Stone-Faiveley pantograph? Or did they have slightly differing parts/wires on the panto arm or assembly to suit the individual electric equipment of each? Since the only thing directly carried over would be power, I assume that BR had the builders use the exact same pantograph on each locomotive, to keep things in line with its "identical electric" policy. And now for some WIP renders. Ron

Some off Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tcs-pics/6154657725/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/tcs-pics/5921289346/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/tcs-pics/7674992216/

What? A whistler? Of course, I don't only do wagons, now . The Carflats are based on the LMS chassis variant to diagram 1/088, and feature the most common of the wood-planked end designs. Neither are finished yet, obviously, and the Anglias are a crude representation. That's all from me tonight. Ron

Title says it all. BR-built variants with the reinforced strapping and LMS clasp brake. Missing lots of things as usual, and the spring dampers are only a rough sketch thus far. Ron

https://flic.kr/p/XncC2V https://flic.kr/p/YkYEV3 Some WCML shots of 80095 on what looks like a fitted freight. Ron

I couldn't resist throwing a welded mineral body atop a shrunken 9ft. version of my chassis, so here it is. Nothing unusual or special to see; just a variant of the most mundane and common of the BR-built wagons. If anybody even reads these? As usual missing some things, such as the hinge mounts for the side doors. Should be six leafs to a spring instead of five. Hopefully one day I will share what they look like when textured and er.. proper. Ron

Tonight's quick render is a LNER clasp-braked Lowfit with four support pillars on the steel sides. The LNER clasp brake seen is not 100% complete in its modeling so it doesn't look its best. Note however, the new 1ft 8.5in Oleo buffers with OLEO nicely modeled on the sides ;). I don't know if the OLEO was found on both sides of the buffer's largest casing but for the current render it is only present on the sides of the buffers nearest the camera. I will also add that this wagon is simply a placeholder for the new LNER brakes and Oleo buffers - the Lowfit was the only wagon mesh I had at hand, the four-support versions which could be found with either.Therefore I am not sure if the model as-seen is accurate to its original build lot - it is not difficult for me to swap around the underframe components among the wagons. The mesh for the Lowfit body was completed many years ago when this thread was still relevant, so it does look a bit dated. If and when I revisit the body mesh, I would add the appropriate door locking pin and ring/chains to go along. The age-old incorrect LMS 7-leaf suspension on the back wheels exist, and probably will not change for a while! I still need to eventually get around to modeling the spring dampers to match. I have also needed to change up the vacuum cylinder actuating lever relative to the LNER brake shaft, and for this of course Paul Bartlett's site and Flickr were my good friends. I was originally going to model a Howard Rotospreader to load onto the Lowfit complete with ropes, as seen on Mr. Bartlett's site. Time, of course, was a big handicap so the Rotospreader will have to wait. I'm not versed in construction or farm equipment of the era (or any era, for that fact), so if anyone has suggestions for common Lowfit machinery loads I would be quite open to taking them on as a 3D modeling project at some point. Anyone have any ideas for other steam-era wagons that they would like to see? Some feedback or comments would be nice, you know . Thanks, Ron

Today's render is just a simple 12T ventilated van, with Morton brake configuration. This is a model which I have gone back to revise time after time, this time finally settling with the corrugated end profile. Since the last render of the Conflat and container, I have gone back and worked on the solebars and their channel profiles and thickness. I am still unsure about these, as it seems that different wagons had unique solebar widths (expectedly), and very few actually conformed to the 7'6" headstock with sloping end pillars as specified 1944 by RCH. These drawings have become paramount to this underframe and chassis project. Back to the question, though, does anyone know if there was a common headstock width for standardized stock such as Conflats or Vanfits? Mineral and tank wagons are relatively easier to gauge as their headstocks don't run wider than the longitudinal solebar channel width. It doesn't help that the official BR drawings book doesn't give headstock widths, presumably because most were a set standard width? And I return to the van. I still am yet to give proper rivets and bolts on the metal strapping and corrugated ends, but otherwise I'm happy with this. As mentioned, notice the slight gap between van body ends and the headstock caused by the anomaly mentioned. With the solebar modifications, I have properly increased the space between longitudinal solebar channels by 1.44 inches on each side, so 2.88 inches overall. With that, I've repositioned laterally the brake hangars, axleguards, and all other attached components. I'll have to look into the solebars of the Big 4's standard vent vans, as I have a 1940s LMS vac-fitted van body nearly completed, which I have fixed to the same headstock width as the BR van seen below. That's where the half-completed auxiliary spring seen in the background will come into use. That's all for tonight, the underframe library of chassis components is slowly coming together. Regards Ron

You could 3D print this, but it would take a good amount of modifications to the mesh. Nothing close to impossible, but just a different workflow is all. Also add that 3D printing is quite expensive for a product that requires much work to smooth down and paint, and is somewhat brittle. Maybe once 3D printing becomes higher-resolution for cheaper prices.

I've been working on a lot of content over many years, and had released my first set of wagons for a railway simulator in the past couple. These utilized a shared 3D file library, where very common components such as axle boxes, axleguards, wheels, 9 and 10 ft. brakegears could be shared among the many different wagons, solebar-up. Then the components could be attached to points on the solebar, as to avoid including the exact same component, suppose RCH standard W-iron or Timken hooded bearings, in the 3D data file for the individual wagon. I would like to extend a hearty thanks to Justin Newitt (Rumney Models) for helping me out with some of the details of the wagons' underframes, and providing me with drawings and advice. Now with the standard for computer graphics being raised high and fast, I have taken the opportunity to revisit my once-bland meshes* for the shared wagon components, and add much detailing to them. * A mesh is another term for the 3D data file or 3D object in computer space - I will be using this term alot. You can see my other "meshes" at my Flickr - https://www.flickr.com/photos/125881805@N02/ . Here's a quick render for the day, a clasp-braked Conflat with an Insulmeat container. Obviously, everything except the solebar and body of the Conflat are un-textured, and everything seen is still a WIP. Yes, I am aware the back leaf suspension doesn't match the RCH 5-leaf spring of the front. Yes, the axleboxes don't match, as was the case on the real things, sometimes! Point is, I can go on and on about what is incorrect in this render, right down to the securing chains. All these errors will be put right at some point or another, and will hopefully bear fruit for railway simulation sometime. Come to think of it, I am not aware of an FM nor BM container that has been preserved, or at least restored yet. I believe the Mid-Hants has an ex-SR Insulmeat container (?). Hopefully someone finds this interesting, my intentions are not to bore others to death! Another goal with these blogs would be to shed some light on wagons and their finicky yet fascinating details, as apart from a moderate (and tasteful) crowd on these forums, wagons don't get much of the limelight. I would appreciate some feedback as I am not well-versed with content creation blogs, and don't know who reads these, nor what they enjoy. Any critiques? Regards Ron

Containers can be just as fascinating as wagons sometimes... Any pictures of the BR-built 'F' container (3/375)? I think only difference was the lack of meat bars; therefore would it be branded 'INSUL-MEAT' or a more generic 'INSULATED'? It looks like the larger insulated containers were used (almost) exclusively for meat, and the smaller AF and similar were used for fish in the KX-Aberdeen trains. Is there a particular reason for this or is it just because fish are more compact than carcasses? John, it seems like those containers had to have been repainted/rebranded to their pictured liveries before the ice-blue/flying crate came around in 1964. Maybe BR decided to reserve the white livery for meat and fish only, and containers used for other traffics received the typical maroon. Or was it Crimson? There's the below shot of the Broad Street meat working, the last non-insulated container in the consist is a different shade to the rest, almost Bauxite in color. Since containers weren't wholly British Rail's responsibility maybe they were more lenient with the colors used. I have seen pictures of containers in all sorts of hues, including a shade that looked like GWR Brown with the yellow lettering.

So were containers to big four diagrams numbered with a B suffix or with the respective letter? It seems strange that a B was added to the number of an LNER build container that was completed a year before nationalisation. Also found this BDF container, the first of its kind that I am aware of. It started off as a normal Insulmeat container to diagram 3/201. Would it have been painted ice blue or bauxite? Or perhaps yellow?

Does anyone have suggestions for books that outline the various container diagrams of the big 4? Which railway had containers most similar to BR's BD, A, FM, etc. containers, was it the LMS? The SR had its own distict shape of container with a flatter roof (opposed to their vans!), and a little shorter in height. The GWR seems to have a conventional slightly more rounded roof profile, while the LNER's containers appear to be shorter in width, but taller (?). If known, what were the differences in build between FM container diagrams 3/200 to 3/205, apart from planked/tongue-groove/plywood sides and ends? Diagram 3/200 is around 3 inches shorter in height but that is the only noticeable difference I find. Did BR ever build containers to other railways' diagrams? The reason I ask is because the linked picture has a container that looks like an LNER insulmeat container, but carries a 'B' suffix to the number. It's a publicity shot so maybe they painted it up as a BR container for namesake. Also I find this bulk malt container interesting, not an everyday sight!