Compound2632

Beautiful!

I've read David L Smith and had been intrigued by these engines but not before seen what one looked like - no photos in any of my books - is the 1906 photo published? Even more toy-like in its simplicity of outline than a Stirling 0-4-2! Thanks for the enlightenment! Edit: looking through that gallery again, there is a photo of a model of R40 which I must have seen before...

Hope you kept it on a lead and tided up any deposits of waste ash etc....

Diamonds are a LNWR enthusiast's best friend...

My SER wagon-spotting skills have benefitted from looking at the SERKITS range - beautiful looking stuff but unfortunately for me all 7mm not 4mm. All the wagons in the line on the right of the photo are SER vehicles, I think - vans (SR Diagram 1553) and round-ended wagons (SR Diagram 1327). The wagon with SER sheet No. 3938 draped over the side might be a coal wagon (SR Diagram 1328). They all have Mansell wooden-centred wheels. Also, I now suspect the horse-drawn wagon is another example of the SER coal wagon - note the extra vertical strapping on the sides. [Edit: and the lamp-irons on the end - very unusual on a goods wagon.] The South Eastern was of course the leading railway serving Reading...

This afternoon followed the "Huntley and Palmers Peckett trail" from Decathlon to Tesco and back!

90rob points out the excellent Huntley & Palmers site - I'm linking to a couple of photos: The point I was making about coal related to Huntley & Palmers' private owner wagons, which would be used for bringing coal from whatever colliery the firm had a contract with to the Reading site. This photo shows one of H&P's wagons (right) and a Stephenson Clarke wagon (left) delivering coal. I'm pretty confident all other traffic - both ingredients (and raw materials for tins) in and finished product out would have been in railway company-owned wagons - sheeted opens and covered vans, with the proportion of the latter increasing over time. This photo, taken deeper into the factory complex, shows GWR opens with sheets, a SER/SECR round-ended open - a sort of poor man's covered van! - several GWR iron minks, in the far background a LSWR van and end on on the right, I'm fairly sure, a Midland van. Although horse shunting features in this photo, no doubt the Pecketts were kept busy moving these wagons to and from the exchange sidings with the GWR and SER to wherever they were needed within the site. Incidentally, the H&P wagon in the coal stack photo is of a different design to the wagons in this photo (which I've linked to before) which as, thanks to wagonman, have been identified as dumb-buffered wagons from the 1873 batch numbered 1-5 and iron framed 4-plank wagons from the 1889 batch numbered 6-10, all built by the Birmingham Wagon Co. (The date of the photo is certainly not 1920 as suggested in the caption - 1890s seems more likely to me.) It's also not one of the 1907 Gloucester Carriage & Wagon Co. batch of wood-framed 6-plank wagons numbered 21-25 (presumed); I suspect it's from the 1903 Birmingham Wagon Co. batch of ten steel-framed 10T wagons numbered 11-20 (presumed?), despite wagonman's note from the Birmingham records that these were 'as before'. The arrangement of the lettering is different, with 'Reading' at the right hand end and there's a notice just blocking where the number would be... The wagon behind seems to be another of the same type. Edit, re. Fat Controller's post: my focus is the pre-Great War period. The Bagnall fireless locos arrived in 1932. Perhaps they took over from horses in the parts of the factory live engines weren't allowed to go, or maybe somebody did a risk assessment - or there was an accident... Edit: I really like this photo too, showing one of the Black, Hawthorn engines (A or B) and an interesting variety of railway company-owned wagons - the antiquated looking vans are beyond my knowledge - SER? LCDR?

Can we not simply suppose that the folk of west Norfolk were pioneers of historical battle re-enactments? In the spirit of the historical pageants that were all the rage: http://www.historicalpageants.ac.uk/.

I realised I had this picture in mind - ex Midland coaches of c. 1880 sold to the Shopshire & Montgomeryshire when about 30 years old and probably photographed some years later. Is it supposed that the WNR coaches were bought new? For the opening of the line? (i.e. before financial reality hit?) I'm sure you've given us the dates some way back... I agree that painting the waist panels in the upper body colour goes a long way to distracting attention from the GW origin of the Ratio sides! And I do like the green and cream livery.

I note Digby shows black below the solebar - point to Mikkel...

... and general wear and tear taking the shine off the paint.

It's only at the second time of looking that I've realised that the station is not in fact called "Llandyssul-on-Egg".

It’s high time I posted some more of my efforts rather than pontificating on other peoples’ threads… There’s some progress in my dining-room version of Viaduct Works, Earlestown: mostly in the paint shop – I’m bracing myself for an evening of going completely squint-eyed applying diamonds, running numbers and tare weights. The three Mousa wagons are stopped in the shops as my pot of Roket Max cyanoacrylate has gone solid – replacement on order. The London Road Models brake van has been on hold too as my soldering corner has been too cold – though that’s no longer an excuse. I also picked up another Ratio ‘Permanent Way’ wagon set from a local second-hand model railway dealer for just £8 – that’s £2 per wagon (before fixtures and fittings) – so the dumb-buffered D13 timber wagon pair is on. It’s an early version of the kit – the number is 755 rather than 575 and it comes with lengths of rail rather than the plastic girder load. Meanwhile, I’ve been distracted by some ebay purchases – a slippery slope… These include another Slaters/POWSides Morris & Shaw Birch Coppice wagon – a find as the transfers aren’t currently available in 4mm from POWSides – and Slaters’ Chas. Roberts tar wagon – a kit which I’ve never tried before: I’ve also turned my thoughts about Huntly & Palmers wagons into action – having made some rather superior and disdainful remarks about bogus biscuit vans on the Peckett thread, I’m feeling obliged to rise to brian777999’s challenge . My inspiration comes from this photo from the Reading Museum Huntley & Palmers Collection website but I’ve also been greatly helped by wagonman's posts #1633 #1640 & #1641 in the Peckett thread. From his information, Huntley & Palmers’ wagon stock can be summarised: Nos. 1 – 5: Birmingham Wagon Co., April 1873 – 10 ton, dumb buffers. Nos. 6 – 10: Birmingham Wagon Co., 1889 – 10 ton, iron underframes and sprung buffers. Nos. 11 – 20: ditto, April 1903 – as before but with steel frames. Nos. 21 – 25 (presumed): Gloucester C&W Co., October 1908 – 10 ton. The Gloucester wagons are their standard 10 ton, 6-plank design; the former Slaters kit 4035 is spot on though I’ve yet to track one down. The forthcoming Hornby wagon isn’t so very far off either – though wrongly numbered! As can be just about made out from the photo, the Birmingham Wagon Co. wagons are all 4-plank wagons with, at least for the iron framed ones, rounded ends. Wagonman pointed me to a recent article in Pannier (the Great Western Study Group Journal) No. 39, pp. 6 – 16. This has a photo of a dumb-buffered Birmingham Wagon Co. wagon on hire to the Great Western c. 1903 – 1911, which looks similar to the H&P wagons apart from having an end door. The side door looks to me to be the same three-plank high design as the H&P wagons. I hope it is acceptable use for research purposes to post this crop from the Pannier photo: The Pannier article also has a line drawing of a similar wagon after conversion to sprung buffers. This has a 3-plank high door but with catches on the top plank. The drawing also gives dimensions including length over body, 15’, and 9’ wheelbase – though Wagonman suggests 8’6” or 8’3” for the dumb-buffered wagons as built. One further point of reference is this 8 ton wagon though it has a full-height side door. Note the rather chunky buffer housing – also on the Pannier drawing – are these self-contained buffers (with an individual internal spring) used for converting dumb-buffered wagons? Looking around for a suitable starting point, the easiest seemed to be the Cambrian Models Wheeler & Gregory kits C53 and C74, so one of each was bought, along with their RCH 9’ steel underframe kit, C35. These are the right length and height. Detail differences aren’t too clear from the website photos. Neither kit has the right profile of rounded end but those in C74 were more amenable to shaping to the smooth arc seen in the photos of the Birmingham Wagon Co. wagons – though possibly still a little bit low at the centre. C53 has a full-height side door, so has been rejected – I’ll be on the look-out for a suitable prototype. C74 has a 3-plank door but with catches on the top plank (like the drawing in Pannier). Both the Cambrian kits have external diagonal strapping: my impression from the H&P photo is that the dumb-buffered wagons have the diagonal strapping but the metal-framed ones don’t. My first attempt is a wagon with an iron or steel frame: The photo is definitely a ‘cruel enlargement’ showing there’s some cleaning up needed… The solebars and headstocks are from the RCH steel underframe kit, trimmed to length – in the case of the headstocks, trimmed square to match the width of the wagon (29 mm – 7’3” per the Pannier drawing). I scraped off the ribs of the RCH buffer housings to make a more 19th-century looking shape, ignoring the evidence for fat buffer housings – I’m assuming that wagons built new with sprung buffers would have a more conventional design of housing… Conveniently, Cambrian make their solebars as separate pieces, with a W-iron/axlebox/spring moulding that is attached to the rear – so it’s easy to mix’n’match, fixing the ‘Gloucester’ moulding from the Wheeler & Gregory kit to the RCH steel solebar. Peering at the H&P photo, I thought the axleboxes looked round at the bottom, so I carved and scraped the square-bottomed Gloucester boxes to shape. The Warwickshire Railways photo shows square axleboxes – clarification required! On wooden-framed wagons, it’s usual for the side-rails to overlap the solebars, with notches at the ends to fit round the headstocks. Studying photos of 19th-century iron/steel framed wagons (in the Keith Montague/OPC Gloucester book), the side rails look less deep (same thickness as the floor planks, presumably) and don’t overlap the solebars – it’s not quite clear how they are supported. Anyhow, I sliced about 0.75 mm off the bottom of the sides, using the headstock cut-outs as a guide. I scraped and skrawked the away at the diagonal strapping and bodged to make something that vaguely resembles the side door arrangement in the photos. One point of doubt is the wooden end pillars – photos in the Gloucester book show metal T-section pillars on metal-framed wagons. I’ve tried to represent the bits of metalwork around the base of the pillars, visible in the Pannier photo and drawing. Brake gear (one side only) is from the Slater’s tar wagon kit, as the moulding is crisper than Cambrian’s. The brake lever is a bit too angled at the outer end – I didn’t notice that until too late. The remaining question is whether the POWsides transfers – designed for the diagonal lettering of No. 21 – can be re-arranged to fit. I did also get Cambrian’s RCH wooden underframe kit, thinking that the longer solebars might be a good starting point for a dumb-buffered wagon but it won’t do, so I’m re-thinking that. While we’re here, a comparison of the Cambrian (upper) and Slater’s (lower) versions of the Gloucester C&W Co. solebar and running gear: The Slater’s moulding is sharper all round and I think the bit of diagonal strapping is more correctly positioned. The Cambrian version has the square-bottomed axlebox which I think is the later pattern – from c. 1900 onwards? One place where the Cambrian version scores is the V-hanger; because the solebar is a separate moulding from the W-iron/axlebox/spring unit, the rear hanger is part of that and the front hanger part of the solebar moulding. On the Slater’s version, the front V-hanger is moulded together with the brake lever and is rather thick and lacking in bolt head detail. On the other hand, for brake-one-side-only wagons, the V-hanger has to be scraped off the Cambrian solebar but just cut off the Slater’s version.

That composite does have a world-weary third-hand shabbiness! It could almost stay in grey... though I suspect dull claret would be more the thing for well-past-their-prime carriages sold off to an impoverished minor line. I see you've arc-roof-ified the ends, disguising some of the Great Western-ishness. Was it on this thread we were discussing continuous brakes on cattle wagons, re troop trains? According to LNWR Wagons, 'by 1898' all new LNW cattle wagons were to be fitted with vacuum pipes (but not brakes) - for once more advanced than the Midland....

Miss Prism's being a bit cryptic - she means that there were variations in panelling styles, side heights, and roof profiles. For chapter & verse (Lewis taxonomy) see http://www.penrhos.me.uk/ShortCoachesIntro.shtml - the whole thing looks like a minefield and makes one glad to be a Midland modeller - panel style, roof profile and compartment spacing constant from 1878 to 1895! (And we know exactly what was built...) BUT the Ratio and Triang panelling dimensions are close enough to be mix'n'matched and I think you can safely assume a constant scale 3'4" - 3'5" for buffer height above rail level, with the bottom edge of the sides being 4'0" - 4'2" above rail level. Thus for THESE COACHES the eves should be a more-or-less constant height above rail level. However height to top of roof will vary: the Ratio three-arc roof profile is taller than the three-arc roof profile of the main roof of the Triang clerestories as I discovered when trying to fit a Ratio roof to a Triang cut-and-shut full brake... Serves me right for meddling in the chocolate and cream...

Nah - they'll be just right - so long as the Triang B4 bogies don't rub against the solebars?

The Triang/Triang-Hornby standard buffer height above rail was always 2mm too high - this gave room for bogies/pony trucks to swing on 1st/2nd radius curves. It also meant that on locos, splashers could be close to scale dimensions without fouling over-scale flanges - unlike the inflated splashers on supposedly more accurate RTR locos from the Airfix 4F onwards! On bogie coaches, it's usually feasible to lower the ride height by reducing the height of the bogie pivot. It looks like your 6-wheeler uses the milk/sausage van chassis: as you suggest, this could be interesting. Edit: as Miss Prism says.

Is it not BT/T/3 x 4-compartment first or ex 1/2 composite/T/BT?

From Midland Wagons (Bob Essery, OPC) it would appear that the Midland Railway built no cattle wagons with automatic brakes, though an unknown number were built or fitted with through pipes for either vacuum brake only or vacuum and Westinghouse. I would expect that this is representative of the pre-grouping companies.

Vacuum! Following an early flirtation with the Westinghouse brake along side the Pullman cars for the opening of the Settle and Carlisle. In 1875-79 the Midland ran extensive trials with Westinghouse and Smith's vacuum brakes. The Newark brake trials of 1875 had shown a distinct superiority in stopping distance for the air brake but improvements to the vacuum brake improved its performance but critically, it was simpler and hence cheaper to install and maintain and had fewer failures in service. I can't find the reference right now but I believe Clayton, or Johnson and Clayton together, designed the standard vacuum pipe connector that remained in use to the end of vacuum-fitted stock on British Railways.

In spite of my earlier 'thought', I don't think this is evidence of a BPV at the unfitted tail of a train - I suspect the two 'flats' are passenger-rated open carriage trucks.

So also this four-coach set photographed new in May/June 1911. Any photos of a crimson lake counter-example to illustrate Dana's statement? I find the Great Western's drift towards dark red carriages intriguing - anticipating by nearly half-a-century the final British steam railway colour scheme. It's almost as if 'claret' was the natural colour of carriages: real conscious effort was needed to keep them coloured otherwise and if attention wandered they'd revert...

I think... the cattle wagons could be piped only, not necessarily fitted. Alternatively, I think there's evidence of passenger brakes being used at the tail of unfitted trains? After all, they're not conveying passengers. The consist would be like an express goods with a fitted head, or a 'mixed' train. I'm not sure troops were considered as passengers in the normal sense?

Please Gary and All accept my apologies. Please believe me that it was not my intention to give offence or to give negative criticism or above all discouragement. I have great admiration for the modelling on this thread and I regret that airing my personal bugbear - as a confirmed carriagomane who is sensitive to the odd 0.5 mm in panel dimensions - has had these unfortunate consequences. I have to say when I first saw your carriages, Gary, I thought 'beautifully-painted Brighton carriages' and they do look the part. I'm afraid I took up the Ratio sides because of a recent discussion along the same lines on another thread re. making GER carriages. Also, I'm in a very weak position because I haven't posted any carriage modelling, only wagons.

Presumably nothing to do with this Episcopalian outfit: