Compound2632

2 minutes ago, Chrisbr said:

Careful, you may get a visit in the middle of the night from the Midland boys..... 🤣

That'd be - me?

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

I'm beginning to think that the CR livery is my favourite wagon livery, it seems to suit them all so well!

Well, it's Great Western red, isn't it?

I'll second that. More please on the pigs!

Superb. The brakes on each wheel work in the same way as bicycle brakes. Early Clayton Midland carriages have a similar arrangement - perhaps this is something Clayton brought with him from Swindon in 1873? I think he'd changed over to the more conventional arrangement of yokes with central pull-rods and suspended tumblers by 1880.

20 minutes ago, Dave John said:

In theory I should swap them round when the engine goes back or for different trains, but I don't know how I'd do that in practice. Caley coaches do a brass casting for the lamps but they are far too small to do in a magnetic material. 

One can get RGB LEDs but whether small enough to fit in a 4 mm scale lamp I don't know (they are really three LEDs in a single package) and unless one could do something very clever one would need two, forward and rear facing. Alternatively, I suppose one could arrange fibre optic leads to the lamps from LEDs mounted inside the body of the engine. I'm not sure how one would set them, though - presumably something bespoke could be done in DCC?

For once, one that isn't a bash of a Hornby pug!

The comparison of new and old does emphasis the step-change in modelling technology. My feeling about 3D printing remains that it is not a universal panacea but in many cases is best used as part of a multi-media approach - which is not to criticise what you are doing here for a static model but rather results from my own experiences of working with kits that are wholly or partly 3D printed. With that in mind, and recognising that making the brass splasher valances is a challenge in any medium, I am intrigued to know how thin you have been able to make them and whether there has had to be any compromise on overall width or on width over driving wheel faces?

To be fair, the Triang clerestory on its original bogies as you have there sits 2 mm high, plus whatever one allows for the difference in flange depth.

The 1837 second has the open frames characteristic of the first Worsdell carriages of the L&M but by 1839, the open second has solid solebars. I'm not quite sure when this transition was made on the standard gauge lines but a little later I think - early 1840s.

There is a copy of the 1868 book currently on Ebay at £450. The photos include one of the page with this photo. So that does confirm the date, with the loco, as being 1865-8

3 minutes ago, drduncan said:

Here are the correct entries.

Very interesting to see an example of the wagon register entries - the second use of the number is every bit as interesting as the first! There's a very consistent hand here, comparing the entries for first use with the entries for second use - much more so than I've seen in the MR minutes. (Later amendments are not so consistent.) From my reading of Tony Wood's Saltney book, I gather that the register was first compiled around the time the Swindon C&W Works opened, so that details of wagons built before then must have been copied from other records. (Which is not to suggest that I doubt their accuracy.)

1 hour ago, drduncan said:

5478: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, Ok oil ab fitted Apr? 1908, 10ft w/b, built Glos Wgn Co Dec 31 1862, cond 18/5/1896

Um... (Double-check your notes?)

That's fascinating, especially the range of condemnation dates. Interesting that the GW was buying new wagons from the trade at this date. Presumably 5,480 is roughly the total GW wagon stock at the end of 1862 - but is that all wagons, or just standard gauge? 

8 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

arguments around details of the original wagons abound....

Discussions. I was hoping for your further comments on register dimensions in the light of my comment on Part 1...

3 minutes ago, magmouse said:

So there's a question: how much overhang before brackets get used? When there is a packing piece between the curb rail and the solebar? When there is no packing piece but the curb rail is greater than a certain amount? No packing piece, but also no notch in the curb rail for the corner of the solebar to fit into?

When the overweight foreman sits on the curb rail and the deflection is greater than ³⁄₁₆".

That brake push-rod is a thing of delicate wonder.

On width: you've forced me to look again at the two photos in GWR Goods Wagons (3rd edition) p. 270 and see the brackets supporting the curb rail...

1 hour ago, ICH said:

My feeling is that 15"6" wagons that had wooden underframes  match the photo on page 53 of Saltney book. 

Yes, both 2-plank and 1-plank. The photo p. 49 has the same solebar ironwork.

Just now, magmouse said:

I believe certain philosophies would take that to mean you are nearing Enlightenment.

Yes. The point of enlightenment at which I realise I'd do better to stick to Midland wagons!

2 hours ago, ICH said:

I produced this 3D model of a 1plank using the various of the sources listed. As it was my first go I made a couple of mistakes which you my notice for the lot number 33 I produced. Answers on a post card🤣

I will then! If this is intended to represent a Lot 33 wagon (as did my sketch posted earlier) then do have a good look at the solebar ironwork in the photo of 13521 of this lot, Plate 27 p. 49 of Tony Wood's book.

Ever onward ever upward!

27 minutes ago, magmouse said:

From a historical research perspective, we keep going, gradually refining our understanding but never fully confident we have a complete picture (c.f. Borges, On Exactitude in Science).

This discussion is leaving me at the stage where the more I find out, the less I know.

27 minutes ago, magmouse said:

From a modelling perspective, there comes a point where you have to build the darned thing 😬.

Exhibiting to public inspection the model over which one has toiled for hours is the only sure-fire way of obtaining the accurate information one could have done with before one started.

Thank you for sending me the extra scan from Atkins. The first page was the one I already had and wasn't looking hard enough at, at least, not in all the right places. The 1917 breakdown gives numbers which I cannot reconcile with other information unless one assumes that over 200 9 ft wheelbase 1-plankers built to letter or old series lots had been withdrawn by that date (highly plausible) but that very large numbers of pre-1868 longer 1-plankers had been retained (which seems implausible). As far as I could tell from either Atkins and Wood, there were no long 1-plank wagons built to letter or old series lots, concurrently with the standard 9 ft wheelbase 1-plank, 2-plank, or 3-plank wagons.

Also, being fixated on the photo of 4373, I had not thought about the photo of 5141 immediately above (plate 338). The headstock of this one too scales out to about 7' 6" if one assumes that the buffers are at the standard 5' 8½" centres. I note it has the same pattern of bolts on the corner plates as later wagons, unlike 4373, which is presumably, as its number suggests, an earlier beast.

26 minutes ago, magmouse said:

The drawing in Atkins is curious in this regard - clearly made retrospectively in 1917, but it is an official drawing, and it explicitly gives both inside and outside dimensions for length (17'6" / 18'0") and width (7'3" / 7'8"). Atkins also states that "around this time [1917] it was recorded" there were 2300 1-plank wagons in service of various sizes, and then gives a breakdown of quantities of the various sizes.

The drawing in Atkins, Fig. 244 in the 3rd edition, was made by TR or RT (Tourret I presume) and dated 18.8.95 (1995 I presume!) so it is at best a copy of an official diagram of March 1917 - can we assume that all the dimensions shown on this drawing were transcribed from the original, or have some been interpolated?

I don't have any edition of GWR Goods Wagons, being reliant on borrowing the 3rd edition from a fellow club member from time to time. From this I made a listing of ordinary open wagons up to c. 1905, which I have corrected using Tony Wood's book - Atkins has some 1-plank lots listed as 2-plank, or vice-versa, I forget which! My list gives 650 wagons to letter lots, the Saltney ones of which are given as 15' 6" x 7' 5" x 11", and 1,540 to old series lots. Assuming these were all still in service in 1917, that would imply around 110 wagons of other origin or greater antiquity, including all the long ones. If that breakdown of quantities by size is in the 3rd edition, I will look it up at the next opportunity!

It is true that the source referencing in GWR Goods Wagons falls far below academic standards, as in much railway enthusiast literature, as has been noted by @Adam. In this case, from what I have heard about the GWS archive at Didcot, this may be excused by poor or non-existent cataloguing of the material.

2 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

all body dimensions are internal for GW stock books. 

This is where I have a problem.

Tony Wood's Saltney book has a couple of good broadside photographs:

Plate 28 and cover, 2-plank wagon 19158 of Lot 75. The dimensions given in the text, which as I understand it, are from the register, are 15' 6" x 7' 6" x 1' 10". Measuring plate 28, I have length OH 132 mm and WB 77 mm. The caption to plate 28 states WB 9' 0". This gives length OH 15' 5" which is near enough 15' 6" and certainly too far from 16' 0" to be measurement error or photographic distortion.

Plate 27, 1-plank wagon 13521 of Lot 33. Dimensions in text, 15' 6" x 7' 6" x 11". I measure length OH 137 mm and WB 80 mm. The WB is not stated but assuming 9' 0" this gives length OH 15' 5" which again is near enough 15' 6".

As to width, plate 23 gives a reasonable end view of 2-plank wagon 20159. This is not a Saltney-built wagon, so I don't have its dimensions; it is from Lot 97 built at Worcester and is thus virtually contemporary with Saltney's Lot 98. Insofar as I can make out, it is if not identical then at least very similar in appearance to 19158 of Lot; noting that Wood quotes the same dimensions for Lots 98 and 75, I think I am on safe ground in assuming the same dimensions for 20159. The distance of the headstock strap bolt is inset from the end of the headstock by noticeably less than its distance from top or bottom of the headstock. The headstock is slightly less tall than the plank above it, which must be 11", therefore the headstock is about 10" high. (The same is apparent in the broadside views of 19158 and 13521.) I estimate the strap bolt is 3" in from the end. Assuming 6' 6" centres of journals an 5" thick solebars, and allowing a ½" offset of the bolt part of the strap bolt from the outer face of the solebar, gives 7' 0" between strap bolt centres and hence 7' 6" width of the headstock. The headstock ends are flush with the curb rail, so this is the outside width over body - certainly nothing like 7' 11" or 8' 0". 

A further point is that, if one assumes 6' 11" over solebars, the curb rail on each side projects by 3½" on a 7' 6"-wide wagon but 6½" on an 8' 0" wide wagon; that is a very noticeable difference. The photographs support the smaller dimension, as far as I can see. When wood-framed 8' 0" wide wagons became standard in the 20th century, it was usual to have additional steel brackets supporting the curb rail. 

When building my Saltney wagons, I drew up sketches based on this:

The relationship between W-iron washer plates, end strap bolts, and spring shoes tallies with the photographs.

For these wagons at least, photographs indicate that the dimensions given by Tony Wood are external dimensions. So has Tony Wood converted internal dimensions given in the register to external dimensions? The only other possible explanation is that for these lots at least, the register is giving external dimensions. 

So, are we forced to the uncomfortable and inconvenient conclusion that the register is inconsistent, recording internal dimensions for some wagons and external dimensions for others? That might explain the apparently smaller wagons of part of Lot 40, Lot 52, and part of Lot 53, quoted as 15' 0" x 7' 0". I will propose that the only difference between these wagons and those recorded as 15' 6" x 7' 6" is which clerk entered the details in the register!

10 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

From the stock register - 4373 (the first wagon to carry the number) was 7' 6" long, 7' 3" wide and 0' 11" high for the body with wooden body and frame as expected. 3' wheels on a 10' wheelbase and single brake.

Looking at the photo of 4373 again, I think I can reconcile my eyeball measurements with 10' 0" wheelbase and 17' 6" over headstocks, giving 2' 3" from spring shoe to outer face of headstock. I still struggle with reconciling the width to anything other than 7' 6" on the basis of the strap bolt position - which is also the same in relation to the buffer guide as on 20159, so must also be at 7' 0" centres - i.e. it is not the case that the solebars are set closer together, as might be the case with a very old wagon running on wheelsets with non-standard journal centres.

8 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I think what might be throwing your eye out is looking at the end of the headstock, which is not in the same plane as the spring she's and stop blocks. You need to use the point where the strap bolt comes through the headstock as the reference point for the end of the wagon, as that is (roughly) in the plane of the solebar face, spring shoes and spring stops.

That is exactly what I did:

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Eyeballing the distance between the spring stop block above the axlebox and the outer spring shoe, 1' 6", with the distance from the outer spring shoe to the headstock (measuring to a point directly below the head of the strap bolt) I get a dimension not very much greater than the stop-block to spring-shoe distance, which leads me to believe 2' 0" rather than 2' 6".

7 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

From the stock register - 4373 (the first wagon to carry the number) was 7' 6" long, 7' 3" wide and 0' 11" high for the body with wooden body and frame as expected. 3' wheels on a 10' wheelbase and single brake.

Presumably that's 17' 6" long. But do you read these as internal or external dimensions? If they are internal, then I struggle with the dimensions of 15' 6" by 7' 6" by 11" given for the carriage or old series lots of 1-plank wagons.

16 minutes ago, magmouse said:

The wagons listed in Wood do tally, as noted above.

I should have checked Wood. I only had in mind the letter lots and old series lots, which were all 15' 6" OH by 7' 5" or 7' 6" over sides by 11" deep (apart from some smaller oddities); forgetting the pre-lot assortment.

16 minutes ago, magmouse said:

In his appendix listing wagons in running number order, Wood has 4813 at 17'6", 4835 at 17'8", 4860 at 17'0" - internal dimension - built in 1867. Also 6233 at 16'6" in 1866.

I believe all the dimensions given by Wood, both in the text and in Appendix 1, are outside dimensions. Certainly they are for the wagons built to old series lots, as is evident from the photos.

17 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I disagree. If you measure the length OH in the Atkins photo of 4373 it is 71mm on the page. Divide by 18, gives a fraction under 4. Measure the distance between the axle boxes, and you get 40mm, as you would expect for a 10ft wheelbase. You can measure from the photo this way despite it being an oblique view because the measurements are symmetrical about the centre line, so the change of scale across the photo cancels out.

I concede your method, but...

Assuming 3' 0" between centres of spring shoes, for 18' 0" OH, 10' 0" WB gives 2' 6" between outer spring shoe and outside face of headstock whereas 11' 0" WB gives 2' 0". Eyeballing the distance between the spring stop block above the axlebox and the outer spring shoe, 1' 6", with the distance from the outer spring shoe to the headstock (measuring to a point directly below the head of the strap bolt) I get a dimension not very much greater than the stop-block to spring-shoe distance, which leads me to believe 2' 0" rather than 2' 6".

If the spring shoe centres were 3' 6", my spring-shoe to headstock distances would be 2' 3" for 10' 0" WB or 1' 9" for 11' 0" WB; this dimension being compared with 1' 9" from stop block to spring shoe.

6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Yes, much more like it. Very good, carry on.

I fear my post above may have come over as a bit of a lecture when it was intended as a piece of musing out loud. But in the spirit of Louis' comment, I'm not convinced that coupling is hanging straight; not to worry:

Louis's crop of your photo emphasises the close observation of the packing block between the buffer guide and headstock seen in the photo of 4373. 

I like those home-made axleboxes.

Is it known when and where these 18 ft OH wagons were built?

As it happens, I have a scan of the page in Atkins (3rd edition) with the sketch. I notice a couple of interesting things:

• From the dimensions given, the ends are 3" thick and the sides 2½". The same is true of Clayton's first lowside wagons of 1874-5 on the Midland - and of course I remember that Clayton came to Derby from Swindon. He soon changed to 2½" thick ends, keeping the same internal length, which is how tens of thousands of Midland wagons came to be 14' 11" OH.
• The wagon is unusually wide for the period: 7' 3" internal width. If one takes 6' 6" centre of journals (which may be an unwise assumption for these earlier wagons) and 5" thick solebars, the width across the outer faces of the solebars comes to 6' 11", which one finds is often the internal width of a PO coal wagon.

Now, as to curb rails. To avoid excessive Midland bias, I'm looking at the RCH 1887 Specification drawings reproduced in A.J. Watts' Ince book (available from the HMRS for just £7 plus postage), which are not Midland drawings at all, no, not at all, but just happened to be prepared under (ex-Great Western) Clayton's direction. Here we see that the curb rail is a piece of timber 4½" high by 4" wide, with a rebate to accommodate the top of the solebar. The RCH drawing shows a wagon with an internal width of 7'0" and 2½" sheeting, i.e. 7' 5" wide over sheeting. This means that the curb rail overlaps the solebar by 1" in the horizontal plane and 2" in the vertical plane (the floor being made of 2½" deals). That 1" overlap in the horizontal plane means that some of the weight of the side is transferred to the solebar directly, rather than being a perpendicular force on the bolts that hold the curb rail onto the solebar. This also means that 1½" of the curb rail is visible on the inside of the wagon - the floor boards do not extend right up to the sides. 

Now the question is how this applies to these early 18 ft 1-plank wagons. Looking at the photo of 4373 in my scanned page from Atkins, I note that the inside edge of the curb rail is above, and very slightly inboard of, the end of the strap-bolt that (is one of the things that) secures the headstock to the solebar. That strap-bolt is fixed to the outer face of the solebar; this indicates that the inside face of the curb rail is flush with the outside face of the solebar. If the floor boards are 2½" thick, I judge that the curb rail cannot be more than 4" wide. All other things being equal (and I think the position of the buffer guide indicates that they are), 4373 is 7' 5" wide outside, so 7' 0" wide inside (assuming 2½" thick sides). I think that tallies with the headstock projecting very slightly more - 7' 6" would be a standard dimension.

So, I don't think 4373 tallies with the sketch. I'm also convinced that its wheelbase is 11' 0" rather than 10' 0", if it is actually 18' 0" OH...

Of course this is rather academic since you're not building a model of 4373 but I do wonder whether the dimensions given in the Registers tally with that sketch. A question for @Chrisbr perhaps.