watfordtmc

This is getting a little bit more involved than I anticipated. Terminology is a difficulty, but I have reread Mark Forrest’s posts and reconsidered my own and I’m comfortable that when Mark and I write about “Double brakes”, we mean two independent sets of brake gear – which are NOT connected to each other. I’m not personally aware of any sprung underframe kit that covers 9’ (or 10’) wheelbase / 17’ 6” over headstocks, with ‘Double brakes’, to close off that aspect of your original post. This also means that I differ from Compound 2632’s opinion about the brakes of MR D644, which I believe to be ‘Double brakes’ that are not connected to each other. I do so with some trepidation as Compound 2632 is a far greater student of the Midland Railway than I. Nevertheless, a quick look through Midland Wagons Vol. 1 (see Ref below) suggests, to me, that the Midland did not use Morton pattern brakes – with brake levers at the right hand end on each side - on its unfitted open and covered wagons. I now wait to be re-educated! Once brake levers (and any other brake gear parts) are connected to each other it becomes necessary to have a means of allowing the brake levers to operate independently and also, where the brake levers are at the right hand end of a wagon,to reverse the movement of one of the brake levers, and a common way of doing so is to use the ‘Morton’ cam and clutch arrangement. Mark has drawn attention to the most common arrangement of Morton brakes in the 20th century but it is possible, as Compound 2632 notes, utilising the Morton cam and clutch to have sets of brake gear, not just brake levers, connected to each other via a cross-shaft so that you can have 4 brake block Morton brakes. However, this is going off topic, and thankfully none of the kits you have bought require this added complication. Ref: An Illustrated History of Midland Wagons, Volume One; Essery RJ, Oxford Publishing Co, Oxford, 1980. Regards TMc

MR D644 was the last design of Covered Goods Wagon (to use the MR terminology) built by the MR. Steel underframe, 17' 6" over headstocks and 10' wheelbase as Mark says, unfitted with double brake - i.e. a brake lever and 2 brake blocks on each side of the vehicle. Paul Barlett's Zenfolio site includes a shot of one in industral use: https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/lmsvan/e348f97a9 Ref: An Illustrated History of Midland Wagons, Volume One; Essery RJ, Oxford Publishing Co, Oxford, 1980, pp 143-145. Regards, TMc

To throw my pennyworth in the ring: Branch Lines to Chard contains a facsimile of the front cover of the: Programme shewing the Working of Passenger Coaches Rail Motors and Auto Cars Parcels and Stores Vans (etc) Exeter & Plymouth Divisions September 23rd, 1929 (ufn) Under ‘Formation of Trains’ this notes that: “2. (a) Brake Thirds with Van-ends are described as Van Thirds: (b) Brake Thirds with Brake Compartment in the centre are described as Brake Thirds.” (Irrelevant thought: Does this mean that when BR Mk1’s were allocated to the GW region, BTK’s, where the Guard’s compartment, and hand brake were towards the centre of the coach were described as ‘Brake Thirds’, but BCK’s, where the Guard’s compartment and hand brake were towards one end of the coach were ‘Van Composites’?) I have wondered if this distinction harks back to the days when some brake coaches were built with a central(ish) brake compartment, enclosed on both sides by passenger compartments. Ref: Branch Lines to Chard, Harrison I, Lightmoor Press 2019 (pp 307). Regards TMc 25/11/2020

Firstly, I cannot point you in the direction of a confirmed source of LMS diagrams, but below are some thoughts that may enable you to progress your researches. As was pointed out in the earlier post, the Railway Modeller for January 1980 had an article about the original Silver Princess, accompanied by a drawing (Ref: “Silver Princess" Wells R & Maruda R, Railway Modeller, January 1980, Vol 31, No. 351, pp16-17). The article concluded with the author writing that they intended to follow up with details of the buffet car rebuild (D2190) but, if they ever did, it never did get published unfortunately. There are ‘diagrams’ in the relevant Hugh Longworth tome (Ref: British Railways Pre-nationalisation Coaching Stock Volume 2 SR & LMS, Longworth H, Crecy Publishing Ltd 2019). However, at 1.5mm to the foot scale these will not progress any modelling. That said Hugh Longworth clearly had access to diagram books in order to be able to produce his ‘diagrams’. In this context it should be noted that not all historic railway documentation is held by the National Railway Museum (NRM) at York. Most matters pertinent to Scotland seem to be held by the National Records of Scotland, and there is a tranche of materials held in The National Archive (TNA) in London. Indeed, in his acknowledgements, Mr. Longworth specifically refers to: “Sources of information in archives: … National Archives, Kew (e.g. the TNA) … Diagram Books for … and LMS.” So the TNA may be the place to go. Of course at the moment, both the NRM and TNA archives (and much else) are closed due to England’s Lockdown 2 which will hinder your enquiries, but the TNA’s website is: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and is probably worth investigating. I did take a look at the Historical Model Railway Society (HMRS) website to see if there might be anything of use to you in the HMRS’s archive. Unlike the NRM/TNA, the HMRS do not have a ‘free-form’ search box; you can only search by specified criteria selected from menus. There did not seem to be anything relevant in Drawings searching under coaching stock & LMS/BR London Midland Region. A search selected by coaching stock & BR returned nearly a thousand items, almost all of which do NOT have a thumbnail of the drawing, just the 30-character description. However, two of the few items with a thumbnail (that I noted before I gave up) were actually Hawksworth GW coaches, so it’s just possible there may be something concerning the rebuild of the Silver Princess. I’ll let you entertain yourself searching through that lot to see if there’s anything relevant… The HMRS operate a ‘steward’ system of individuals who specialise is particular aspects of British railways history, and there is a specific steward for BR coaching stock. I strongly suspect that this post will only cover BR Standard types and not pre-nationalisation stock, but there may be no harm in making an enquiry. Much of the HMRS archive has yet to be digitised of course, so there may be relevant items that are not yet listed. An enquiry to the HMRS Secretary may (or may not) help in this respect. The HMRS website is: https://hmrs.org.uk. Stewards contact details and an e-enquiry form can be found under “Services”, the drawings under “Drawings” and the “Secretary” under Contact. The HMRS once had an LMS steward but this no longer seems to be the case. There is though an LMS Society. I appreciate that the Silver Princess was essentially a private venture, but it first ran on the LMS and the later rebuild was deployed by the London Midland Region of BR, the successor to the LMS in England, so they could be a potential source of information. All enquiries are through the Society’s Secretary; the website is: http://www.lmssociety.org.uk. Hope there’s something in the above that may be of use: Good Luck! Regards TMc 24/11/2020

R, An Illustated History of Southern Wagons Vol 4 does contain drawings for both the 15T and 25T brake vans, and states that the 15T "... vans had an identical body to that of the 25-ton vans ...". However, getting hold of the Cambrian kit would seem to be the best way to go. Regards TMc

J, Ahhh! So that's how.... I learnt something new today. Thank you. TMc

Paul’s post reminds of what I should have included in mine; a link to his website: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/lmsvan If you then click on page 10 (in the default view option) you can then select M523245 as a view of a hand brake only van, converted to vacuum brake by BR, or M524642 as an example of the fully fitted vans. Regards TMc

This van is, as noted by other posters, an LMS D2103 van, one of those originally built with hand brake only and subsequently fitted with vacuum brakes by BR as part of the modernisation plan. It would originally have been fitted with 4 No. roof vents as well. The Railway Modeller article can be found in RM February 1967, Vol. 18, No. 196, pp 50-51. It was a constructional article with brief prototype notes, a good drawing (by Arthur Whitehead) and two LMS official photos, one each of hand brake and vacuum fitted vehicles, as well as the constructional notes, which did use the then new medium of ‘styrene sheet’, although the rooves (two models were built) were made out of ordinary card. British Rail LMR, Smokey Bourne, Bob Essery, Tony Nixon and Arthur Whitehead all get credited in the article, although I think that they were all members of the LMS Society, other than BR! As well as the LMS Wagon book referred to, there is also page on these vans in: An Illustrated History of LMS Wagons Volume 1, Essery RJ, Oxford Publishing Company 1981, pp 58. This includes the same two LMS photos, as well as a photo of one of the fitted vans lettered ‘FISH’ in BR days, and a copy of the diagram book page. There’s a later reprint of this volume (by Ian Allan?) as well. Regards TMc

The Railway Modeller item is a photograph, taken end-on, from the overbridge. No drawing I’m afraid. Ref: Railway Modeller, October 1964, Vol. 15, No. 168. Page 277. The Model Railways article was titled: Goods Traffic at Norton-in-Hales, by Bernard Holland – as mentioned above. It describes his analysis of the Wagon and Sheet Book for the station, which was in use between August 1929 and March 1943, so post-dates the period of the Keay locomotive. The Wagon and Sheet Book recorded the arrival (and departure) of wagons at Norton-in Hales, and the article cites a selection of years during the 1930’s. No local coal merchant is noted but coal came largely from Potteries collieries, either in colliery wagons or – if I’m reading the article correctly – wagons operated by a J. Potts, described at a coal agent and factor based at Macclesfield. Ref: Model Railways, August 1974, Vol. 3, No. 8. Pages 389-391. Regards TMc

P, Have now found what seem to be the same images you refer to in the monumental “GWR Wagons” (3rd Edition) although I doubt that are as satisfactorily reproduced as in "Freight Wagons and Loads in service on the Great Western Railway and British Rail, Western Region". However, careful study of the images leads me to the view that the sheet bar arrangements are as I described for the BR wagons, i.e. at the fixed end the bar is fitted to a bracket secured to the outside of the wagon. At the tip end, the close up image shows that a length of tube was welded to the capping clips, across the body, just inside the end door’s hinge bar and the tip end of the sheet bar was fixed (probably welded) to the tube. I am not an engineer, but I would think the mechanical strength of the simple weld butt joint between the sheet bar and its support tube, and presumably a similar weld at the fixed end, must be rather suspect. The text on china clay wagons which accompanies these images discusses the brakes in detail – but has nothing to say about the sheet bar. It does note however that by 1950 BR were refurbishing these wagons to “… keep them in service for just a few years more…” and that the GW wagons were mostly withdrawn in 1959/60, by which time they would have been over 40 years old. My personal opinion is that W94071 was a one-off. As Hal Nail notes, pictures of china clay workings are hard to come by, but a quick Google search based on ‘china clay trains at Fowey’ returned a small number of relevant images, none of which showed sheet bars being used on clay trains until the 1970’s. However, it’s your railway, so your call. Reference GWR Goods Wagons (3rd Edition), Atkins A, Beard W, Tourret R, Oxford Publishing Co (Ian Allan) 2013, pp 303-306. Regards, TMc

P, The three sources available to me (listed below, but all are secondary sources) all indicate that the BR Clay wagons were not fitted with sheet bars until 1973. Until then, clay wagons were sheeted in the same way as ordinary open wagons without sheet bars. The first two references both state that the bar was fixed rather than pivoting. W94071 would seem to have been an experimental conversion, and I’m not aware of any use of clay hoods until BR began to fit sheet bars as noted above. Although I suspect this will be academic, given your interest seems to be the early 60s, peering at images in the go to resource for BR era wagons: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brclayhood suggests that at the fixed end of a wagon, the bar was fitted to a bracket on the top plank, outside, the end. At the opening end, there seems to have been a cross bar bracketed from the sides, and just inside the hinge bar of the opening door, to which the bar was fixed. Paul’s images of B743647 and B743093 are the best I could find showing the arrangements, although I have to say that for B743647 seems to me to show the bar could pivot…! References 1. “The Clay Hood.” Totman P, Railway Modeller June 1988, vol 39, No. 452, pp256-261. 2. “Ratio Clays.” Chambers J, Modelling Railways Illustrated November-December 1993, vol 1, No. 2, pp70-73. 3. “Photofile – Special Wagons.” Kemp E, Model Railways June 1990, vol 7, No.6, pp310-312. Also: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brclayhood Copied from your other post to see it elicits any better responses from GW experts. Regards TMc

P, The three sources available to me (listed below, but all are secondary sources) all indicate that the BR Clay wagons were not fitted with sheet bars until 1973. Until then, clay wagons were sheeted in the same way as ordinary open wagons without sheet bars. The first two references both state that the bar was fixed rather than pivoting. W94071 would seem to have been an experimental conversion, and I’m not aware of any use of clay hoods until BR began to fit sheet bars as noted above. Although I suspect this will be academic, given your interest seems to be the early 60s, peering at images in the go to resource for BR era wagons: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brclayhood suggests that at the fixed end of a wagon, the bar was fitted to a bracket on the top plank, outside, the end. At the opening end, there seems to have been a cross bar bracketed from the sides, and just inside the hinge bar of the opening door, to which the bar was fixed. Paul’s images of B743647 and B743093 are the best I could find showing the arrangements, although I have to say that for B743647 seems to me to show the bar could pivot…! References 1. “The Clay Hood.” Totman P, Railway Modeller June 1988, vol 39, No. 452, pp256-261. 2. “Ratio Clays.” Chambers J, Modelling Railways Illustrated November-December 1993, vol 1, No. 2, pp70-73. 3. “Photofile – Special Wagons.” Kemp E, Model Railways June 1990, vol 7, No.6, pp310-312. Also: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brclayhood I'll copy this reply into your other post to see it elicits any better responses from GW experts. Regards TMc

P, If you looked inside an empty one, for most containers you’d see a lot of unpainted wood, with some painted metal strapping. Some early containers, and a few later ones were produced in metal, which I think would have been painted (or galvanised), and in the early 1960’s there were a small number of fiberglass containers, but I do not know if these were finished internally in any way other than the fibreglass colour. The meat carrying types – BM & FM principally - would have been varnished internally to protect the wood from moisture, some of which would have been a blood red colour… I personally suspect that sawdust would have been strewn over the floors of these when loaded as well but I have no evidence for this. The highly insulated types – AF, AFP and AFU for instance seem to have been finished internally with galvanised metal facings, so would have looked a metal colour! Most of the BM/FM and AF types seem to have had a metallic floor covering as well by BR days. If you peered into an AX containers when the roof hatch was taken off I would think that all you would see is a chilly mist as the warm outside air reacted with the extremely cold contents. Other internal fittings would depend on the type in question. BC containers were fitted with racks to load bicycles in two tiers, one on top of the other; BK containers had horizontal laths to which items’ of furniture could be secured. The BM and FM types were fitted with roof bars and hooks for sides of meat to hang from. AFU containers were fitted with ‘eutectic plates’ about which I can say nothing other than it was a system of cooling, whilst AFP’s had dry ice bunkers at roof level. Containers codes are an extremely complicated subject. Brief samples of some of the better known ones are: A – Small Covered (General Merchandise) AF – Highly Insulated (Frozen Goods) AFP – Highly Insulated, Frozen Palletised Goods (The ‘Birds Eye’ containers) AX – Dry Ice. Resemble a large wooden crate with a roof door (Or lid really) B – Large Covered; End Doors only (General Merchandise) BC – Large Covered; End Doors only, Bicycle Racks BD – Large Covered; End and Side Doors (General Merchandise) BK – Large Covered; End Doors only, Furniture BM – Fresh Meat, fitted with bars and hooks D – Large Open; End Door (General Merchandise) DX – Large Open; End Door and Drop or Demountable Sides (General Merchandise) F – Large Insulated (Meat and Perishable Goods) FM – Large Insulated, fitted with bars and hooks (Meat mostly) H – ‘Hod’; a very small container for conveying building materials to work sites (Bricks/Tiles etc.) L – Bulk Powders (Cement for example) LD – Large Hopper, Dolomite I would suggest that you try and get hold of a copy of LNER Wagons, Volume 4B (Tatlow, P, Wild Swan Books [Bath] 2015) as this includes a small number of interior views of containers. The book also notes containers being used to carry the following goods: Covered General Merchandise Baths, Biscuits, Boots, Carpets, Castings, Cocoa, Chocolate, Confectionery, Cookers, Earthenware, Enamelware, Furniture, Hardware, Joinery, Paper, Pianos, Record Players, Shrubs, Silk yarn, Stoves, Sugar and Tin-ware. The GWR certainly allocated some of their containers to carry tobacco, and I’ve seen a photograph of tins of paint being unloaded from a GWR container. I’ve been told one of the last traffics carried in these containers was glass bottles. Meat and Frozen Goods Chilled, Fresh or Frozen Meat in BM/F/FM containers; sides of meat would be hung from hooks but I suspect smaller joints would have been laid on the floor. Also butter and paper and I believe the SR used FM containers to carry bananas. There’s an image on RM Web somewhere of an “FMF” container, which seems to have been specifically allocated to fish traffic. Frozen Goods seems to have been packed in cardboard cartons largely, no doubt branded with the producer’s business name. Such photographs as I’ve seen of AX containers are all of the LNER type, branded for return to ICI, Haverton Hill. These were used to carry ‘Drikold’ a propriety brand of dry ice. Open General Merchandise Tatlow quotes: Baths, Bottles, Box Boards, Bricks, Castings, Concrete & Plaster Blocks, Cookers, Earthenware, Hardware, Iron and Steelwork, Machinery, Radiators, Ranges, Registers (?), Scrap Tin, Tiles, and Trees (imported from the Netherlands). Your question only referred to the covered types of containers, and you don’t state your period of interest. However, you may care to note that open containers seem to fall out of favour quite rapidly in BR days. Dr. Beeching’s famous report noted that on average, open containers made less than three loaded journeys a year. So I wouldn’t bother with too many of them. Regards TMc

The short answer here is: I can’t help you. However, some rather more lengthy thoughts are below. I believe I’ve read something about this in a past issue of Backtrack, but I can’t find the reference now I‘m afraid It is my impression that the RA concept was first developed by the LNER’s Civil Engineer’s department to provide a more refined means of assessing loading stresses on bridges and that the calculation tried to take account of both the static and dynamic loads. Static loads would the axle weights of, say, an engine in working condition, whilst the dynamic loads would be a mix of both the reciprocating loads – balance weights and connecting rods for instance, and lateral loads – piston thrusts. Consequently, I do not believe there is actually a direct relationship between ‘RA’ and axle loads, although this is how ‘RA’ is commonly perceived. On the specific matter of the Southern Region, @TheStationmaster has drawn attention to the document: Engine Route Availability Book, which listed the various lines of route and which classes were either Prohibited from or Restricted when working over those routes. Since most things in steam days derived from pre-nationalisation practice, it would seem a safe bet that there was a similar document (or documents) in Southern Railway days as well. I have set eyes (a long time ago) on a Southern Region copy but it did not seem to contain any information on how the restrictions were calculated. I wouldn’t care to say to what extent the Southern Chief/Regional Civil Engineer took account of the (LNER=not invented here) RA concept – quite possibly not at all in the steam era. There may be a copy of one of these documents in either the National Railway Museum, or The National Archive, but this isn’t a good time for researching! There doesn’t seem to be a copy in the HMRS archive although you could try an enquiry to one of the Stewards (https://hmrs.org.uk/contacts). Otherwise, you will need either monumental patience watching eBay, or to go through one of the specialist railway book/ephemera dealers to acquire a copy of one of these documents now though. And expect to pay a hefty price of the privilege. Slightly more accessible would be the book “A Pictorial Record of Southern Locomotives” by the late JH Russell, published by Haynes Publishing when they owned the OPC brand, now, I think, part of Crecy. This contained weight diagrams for Southern locomotives which would give you the axle load information at least – as long, that is, as you don’t want to know about ex-SECR locomotives. Very irritatingly, from my perspective at least, the reprographic process has cut-off all the axle loading information for the Ashford series of diagrams, although it’s included for all the other series of diagrams. The book seems to be reasonably available through the second hand book trade. RA does seem to be a rather quirky concept though. The reprint of the 1959 ‘Combined’ abc lists, for RA3, engines as diverse as ex GC J10 0-6-0, ex GE J68 0-6-0T, LMS Class 3 2-6-2T and BR Class 2 2-6-2T, although the LMS equivalent of the latter is listed under RA1... If we take engine weight as a very rough proxy for RA, a J10 weighs in at 41 tons 6 cwt (engine only), say 14 tons axle load for practical purposes. An equivalent Southern engine would be the ex SECR O1 at 41 tons 1 cwt, again around 14 tons axle load. Yet the O1 was acceptable for work on both the East Kent Railway, and the Rolvenden – Headcorn section of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (KESR). By BR days, engines suitable for an RA1 route would be ex LBSCR A1x, ex SECR P and what we now think of as a 04 diesel. It was in fact the A1x’s and latterly 04’s that provided services on the Rolvenden – Robertsbridge section of the KESR. So you are talking of very light railways indeed. (The abc lists for RA1 the ex GE J15, and the diesel classes DJ12 [04] and DJ 15 (03). Using the engine weight proxy these equate to axle loads of about 12½ tons and just under/just over 10 tons respectively). Regards TMc

M, There's a rather small (70mm x 50mm) photo of E205223 in Model Railway News for August 1968 (vol. 44, No. 524). The photo is by Don Rowland though, in one of a series of articles about wagons he wrote for MRN during 1967/68. I take it by your reference to '... Don Rowland's book ...' you mean "Twilight of the Goods"? There's no illustration in Tatlow 4B, but the text indicates that these were post-WW2 conversions of LNER single bolsters as noted by John above. Regards TMc

Some thoughts on the matters you’ve raised in this post. Drawings There is a diagram of the D801 Insulfish in the Barrowmore archive – sort of. In the Diagram Book “British Railways - Diagrams of Freight Stock (1) {Yellow Cover}“ http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/BRFreight1Issue.pdf, diagrams can be found for Goods Vans 1/255 and 1/256, formerly Insulfish Vans to diagrams 800 and 801. Unfortunately, whoever drafted these diagrams didn’t have the interests of 21st century modellers in mind, and used the same drawing for both diagrams! The 1/256 diagram is marked with the differing measurements etc. of a D801 van, but the drawing is for a D800 van. As I was on the Barrowmore site I had a further browse for my own interest and discovered one of the other scanned books had a very comprehensive index of diagrams, post TOPS, which included a number of versions of Fish Vans. So I clicked my way through the four books in the set only to discover that all the V series diagrams had gone AWOL. Really annoying (In fact I used a rather stronger phrase at the time, but on a family website…). I have a copy of the British Railway Modelling (December 2000) issue referred to in Mark54’s post. It does include drawings for both D800 and D801 vans “… reproduced to 4mm scale”. Both drawings are further annotated, that for the D801 van reading “Details taken from British Railways drawing No. SW/DN/22206 dated September 3 1957 © Gainsborough Model Railway Society”. Gainsborough MRS (http://www.gainsboroughmodelrailway.co.uk/) is best known for their Gauge 0 rendition of the ECML between Kings Cross and Leeds during the British Railways era and they would certainly need fish vans. The BRM drawing includes dimensions of the body bracing and the pitches of the roof ribs that can only have come from a detailed drawing, or measurement off a wagon. So I suppose you could enquire with them and see if they were amenable to sharing their data. I do rather suspect though that if you’re looking to retail your output, Gainsborough will want to discuss their share of the money as well. The Historical Model Railway Society (https://hmrs.org.uk/) have an archive of documents, drawings etc., collected over the last 70 years for the purpose of modelling. Sadly, being a voluntary organisation, only part of the archive is either listed or digitised for personal searches, but you could enquire if they had any drawings of use. There’s a contact arrangement on the website. Finally, and a long shot, there’s the National Railway Museum. Paul Bartlett, of rolling stock photographs fame, and ‘HMRSPaul’ on RM Web, seems to have sussed out how to make the NRM search engine work for him and it might be worth contacting him to see if he’s got any useful tips on how to make it work for you. Even so, you’ll almost certainly have to make a personal visit to York to get anything from them. Painting Bodies All the fish vans the LNER actually built were considered goods stock and would have received the company’s Red Oxide livery as vacuum braked wagons. They would have carried this, along with a good helping of grime, into the early years of nationalization. BR however, seems to have considered fish vans to be passenger rated stock. An article in Railway Modeller (August 1991) quotes; “Ventilated and unventilated fish and meat vans were crimson with yellow lettering, changed to maroon with yellow lettering in 1957, and to bauxite in 1963”. The article doesn’t cite any sources however, although it does reflect the painting of other coaching stock at the time. However, we can say that the original LNER D134 vans never carried the ice blue livery, which was reserved for insulted stock. For insulated vans, the RM article states; “White with black lettering, changed in 1963 to ice blue with white lettering”. Again the article doesn’t cite any sources, but this reflects what can be seen in some contemporary photographs. I’m fascinated by the Scottishrsl link you included. It’s the first time I’ve seen converted D134 vans in the ice blue livery – from which you’ll note that I too think the vans you identify are indeed to this diagram. Underframes The LNER did, and BR seems to have, painted wooden underframes of non-insulated stock in body colour. Insulated stock sole bars appear to have been painted black regardless of the framing material, but headstocks could be painted in body colour. Roofs Model Railway News (May 1950), quoting information from the then Railway Executive, noted that (Freight Stock) Van Roofs were to be painted “Grey”. This note didn’t discuss Insulated Vans at all, but it did note that the roofs of Insulated Containers were also to be painted “Grey”, and I think it reasonable to assume that what applied to Insulated Containers also applied to Insulated Vans. However, contemprorary photographs show that some vans at least were running with very light coloured roofs. It’s difficult to make a fully formed judgement from black and white photographs, reproduced in 1950’s/1960’s technology, but I’m satisfied that there is sufficient tonal difference between the roof and the body of these vans, for the roof to be a pale shade of grey and an earlier note from Model Railway News (August 1949) which covered coaching stock described coaching stock roofs as being painted “Light Grey”. None of which tells us what colour the ‘Grey’ was of course. Lettering etc. Black lettering on white bodies seems to have been fairly consistent, but I’m less convinced that white lettering on ice blue bodies was adhered to. A photograph of E75474 (LNER D214) shows it to have been branded “Not to work between/Tonbridge and Battle/via Robertsbridge/Southern Region”. As the bodies of Dias 214 and 800 were to the same dimensions, you might expect the D800’s to be similarly branded, but this is the only photograph I know that shows this brand (British Railway Vans, Gamble G, Cheona Publications 1997). Some white vans also had the tare weight reversed out, i.e. white numbers on an oval black background. The Aberdeen – Kings Cross route branding wasn’t consistently placed either. The photo at Brough from the Blue-diesels Flickr site is intriguing, and not just for the ex-LMS container chassis carrying an FM container at the front of the train. At first I wondered if the black patch was the ‘chalk board’ but that can be clearly seen to the right of the number. So I think it must be a branding of some sort but possibly not for Aberdeen – Kings Cross. Deployment An article in Modern Railways (December 1963) discussed the Aberdeen fish traffic (this article seems to be the source of the quote about Type 4 diesels on the Blood and Custard site you refer to). Services from Aberdeen were stated to be: · 12.30 pm and 1.43 pm to Kings Cross, detaching at Finsbury Park. · 2.15 pm to Carstairs, where it split to form two services, see below. · 6 pm to Edinburgh Waverley. · 6.38 pm to Manchester Victoria, and · 7.33 pm to Perth. The Carstairs service subsequently formed the: · 8 pm to Birmingham Curzon Street, detaching at Warrington, Crewe, Stafford and Wolverhampton. · 8.10 pm to Manchester Oldham Road, detaching at Preston (for Liverpool) and Wigan. There was only one return working mentioned, 11.40 am from Kings Cross, apparently conveying up to 40 vans. A further article in Modern Railways (October 1964) discussing the concerns of the Fleetwood fishing trade, mentions 25 main services in the country, without listing them (!), and also noted the average load per van as being 2½ tons. The article refers to ‘… the ice-blue “Insul-fish” vehicles …’ which must mean the 214/800/801 family as they were practically the only Insulfish vans in service. For Fleetwood itself, the following were mentioned (24hr clock now in use…): · 14:50 to Crewe. Described as a ‘star’ turn loading between 25 and 30 vans and said to have been hauled by Jubilee or Britannia classes. · 16:00 and 19:05 to London Broad Street. Other than Aberdeen and Fleetwood, loading ports that come to mind are Grimsby, Hull, Lowestoft, and Milford Haven. Brixham remains a significant fishing port, but evidence of any Insulfish vans on the Western Region is hard to come by. Despite the existence of Dover Sole, the Southern Region seems to have moved any originating fish traffic by scheduled passenger or van trains. Rather a jumble of thoughts above, but I hope you might be able to find something of use amongst them. TMc

Some thoughts on this – delayed by Christmas I’m afraid. Firstly, was there any information about an official specification? Whilst I’m sure there are more up to date sources, I was able to find a small amount of detail in an old copy of Model Railway News (May 1950) which, quoting information from the then Railway Executive, noted that (Freight Stock) Van Roofs were to be painted “Grey”. This note didn’t discuss Insulated Vans at all, but it did note that the roofs of Insulated Containers were also to be painted “Grey”, and I think it reasonable to assume that what applied to Insulated Containers also applied to Insulated Vans. Many years ago I acquired a selection of Trains Illustrated/Modern Railways magazines covering the period 1959 to 1964. So I had a look through these to see if there was any contemporary evidence of the colour of Insulated Van roofs, other than grime of course… I found about six references from around 60 odd magazines. However, these highlighted that some vans at least were running with very light coloured roofs at the time. It’s difficult to make a fully formed judgement from black and white photographs, reproduced in 1950’s/1960’s technology, but I’m satisfied that there is sufficient tonal difference between the roof and the body of these vans, for the roof to be a pale shade of grey. In the 1950’s Fish Vans, other than the Insulated types, seemed to have been painted in coaching stock colours. An earlier note from Model Railway News (August 1949) covered coaching stock and described coaching stock roofs as being painted “Light Grey”. So the choices seem to be: Grey – Yes, officially. Light Grey – Yes, on some Insulated Vans. White – No, preservationist’s license. What I can’t say however, is what colour the ’Grey’ was! For what it’s worth, Modern Railways for January 1962 carries an advert for Hornby-Dublo (the original Hornby) freight wagons, which included their version of the Insulfish, and the roof of that was finished in Grey. Hornby would have been able to copy contemporary practice at the time. TMc

Now revisited the references and photographed the relevant pages, which hopefully are attached herewith: Hope these are of interest. Not too sure if there's a copyright issue though! Regards Watfordtmc

This is some thoughts on both this query and the one you posed in the linked thread. All references I can find you already seem to have! It would appear however, that the design was based on the standard RCH 20 ton steel mineral wagon as updated in 1923, and adapted to reflect the greater density of ‘rock’ compared to coal – or cut down if you prefer. All the references are essentially to wagons built by the Gloucester Carriage & Wagon Co. (I have a feeling that Cambrian were either a subsidiary of GC&W or closely associated). The other common factors seem to be that all operators were served by the Great Western, and located west of a line drawn North/South through Gloucester. Road stone seems to have been a very local industry in the 1920’s, so I wouldn’t expect the wagons to be seen too far away from their operator’s base in this period. There was a move towards consolidation before World War 2; Scatter Rock was bought out by Roads Reconstruction Ltd. who eventually became part of the Foster Yeoman combine I believe. So for a mid/late 1930’s or later model, these wagons (under a different livery) could well be found further away from their original base, but probably still within the orbit of mid-Wales (Lant) or the West Country (Hoare/Scatter Rock/Wickwar). Detail shots – I doubt there will be any specific to these wagons, but anything that applied to the standard mineral 20 tonners would apply to these, other than the height. Squinting at the information board in the photo suggests that height of the wagon from rail level to top of body was 6 feet 9 inches. There’s a depth inside of body figure too, but my eyesight can’t make that number out I’m afraid. Clearly you’ve got access to all of Keith Turton’s books. The diagram for Thomas Lant was actually published in the one-time Model Railway News (Jan 1965, page 36, vol 41, no 481) in an article by the late Peter Matthews. Peter was a sort of proto Bill Hudson/Keith Turton; the first person to publish articles on PO wagons illustrated by photographs or sketches that were recognisably of differing wagon types. He ran two series on PO wagons in MRN – from July 1963 to September 1966, and October 1968 to August 1971. He also had another series of articles, published rather intermittently in the one-time Model Railway Constructor – January 1967 – June 1967, August & September 1967, and November 1967 (all tank wagons) and January 1968 – May 1968, and August 1968 (mostly coal wagons). I’ve looked through my back numbers of these, except for the Jul 1963 MRN which I don’t have a copy of, but other than the Lant diagram, the only other reference I found was a rather poor quality copy of the Scatter Rock wagon you’ve already accessed. Not really the response you were looking for I’m afraid, but good luck with the modelling.