magmouse

46 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

From a broader perspective it is perhaps worth saying that small painted GWR was still commonly seen on wagons until at least 1905 and should in my view feature on layouts set at that time.

Yes, I think that’s an important point and one I have been trying to verify by looking at photos - in the years shortly before and after the 1904 livery change, there are older wagons without plates, newer ones with, and after 1904 a mix of with and without that have received the new livery.

That is what makes these years so interesting, but sometimes so frustrating, to model!

Nick.

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I ran a topic on that:

Sorry, I wasn’t clear - I asked the question about number plate location on the wagon end specifically in relation to 4-plank opens with sheet rails. 5-plank wagons and sheet rails are fine, there is a picture that shows the plate moves down to the bottom plank. But with the 4-plank wagons, there really isn’t room for the plate - the sheet rail pivot is either on the bottom plank, or one up, and in the later case the blocks that hold the semicircular rail still overlap the bottom plank slightly.

I suspect the answer is that this combination (cast plates, sheet rail) didn’t occur with 4-plank wagons, as sheet rails were only retro-fitted to the 4-plankers, not fitted as new. Retro-fitting the sheet rail was probably combined with a repaint and (where necessary) upgrading to oil axle boxes.

If I’m right about this, then my model is an impossible combination - red livery and sheet rail on a 4-plank wagon. It’s just possible that some 4-plank wagons were upgraded with sheet rails before the 1904 livery change and so have come out like mine, if it was an older 4-plank that didn’t have cast plates, and had the axle boxes upgraded at the same time as the sheet rail was fitted. I think that is going to have to be my story, anyway…

thanks as always for your input on this.

Nick.

For those who might be interested in the questions I had about GWR 4-plank opens a few posts back, I have some new information and more questions on the matter. I have started a new thread on it, to make it a bit easier to find for those who are interested, and to not clutter up this thread for those who aren't...

Nick.

I am currently finishing off a PECO GWR 4-plank open. This is a very nice kit, to which I have added a sheet rail - see the photo below.

When I came to apply the lettering for my chosen pre-1904 red livery, I started looking at photos of these 4-plank wagons, and realised that I couldn't find a picture of a 4-plank open with oil axle boxes, small lettering "G.W.R" and a sheet rail. All the photos I could find (32 wagons) showed either later liveries with large "GW" lettering, or wagons with oil boxes and cast number and "GWR" plates, or grease boxes and small "G.W.R" lettering on the bottom plank.

This got me thinking (rather too late for my model) about the chronology of these wagons. Digging through my notes and this forum, I think I know the following:

1. No photos I have found show oil boxes and RH “G.W.R” lettering - if in pre 1904 livery, oil boxes and cast plates always go together.
2. Sheet rails only appear in photos of wagons with either cast plates or post-1904 livery.
3. According to @Miss Prism , “My understanding concerning cast number plates is that they were applied to some wagons (in the era 1894-1904), and I think it is a mistake to assume anything built within that era was considered eligible for plates. Wagons with plates were I think a small minority. (Otherwise the photographic evidence would be contrary to what we actually have.)” - from the following post: This statement seems to be somewhat contradicted by (1.) above, though. 

The chronology seems to be:

1. 4-plank wagons are built from 1886, later referred to as diagram O5. Large numbers are built, starting with grease and later oil boxes.
2. Oil boxes come in as early as 1890, though possibly not for all new wagons.
3. Cast plates start from 1894 for some wagons.
4. Diagram O5 wagons appear from 1902, according to Atkins, et al - this diagram possibly only applies to wagons with DC brakes? Lot 374, 200 built. The O5 diagram seems to then be applied retrospectively to older 4-plank wagons.
5. Sheet rails get introduced in 1902 according to Atkins et al, p.151 of 2nd edition.
6. Diagram O4 wagons (5-plank) are built from 1902, with cast plates, oil boxes and sheet bars (at least some - see http://www.gwr.org.uk/liverieswagplate.html). Lot 365 and higher. 2706 built. Lot 410 and higher have DC brakes, according to this post:GWR Wagons Appendix, p14, shows wagon 12325 (of lot L410, according to this post: ) with a very new looking sheet dated November 1900, so presumably taken soon after that (possibly early 1901).

This leaves me with the following questions:

1. For wagons built with sheet bars and cast plates, where did the end plates go? Most 4-plank wagons had the sheet bar pivot on the bottom plank - there is one photo with it on the second plank (GW Wagons Appendix fig 3). there isn’t really room for a longer number (5 digit) in the LH panel - when painted here, the numbers are really squashed up.
2. Were any 4-plank wagons originally built with sheet bars?
3. Did construction of 4 and 5 plank designs overlap? This seems very likely.
4. Is there any direct evidence for new wagons with painted “G.W.R” in the 1900-1904 period, or were all new wagons at this time fitted with plates?

As always, any answers or contributary evidence would be gratefully received.

And the wagon in question:

@Mikkel - thank you. For some reason I had missed the Thomas-braked wagon in Atkins. I am continuing to rummage through books and  my notes (“research”) and will try and pull it together in a slightly more orderly fashion.

Regarding previous discussion, more rummaging shows you are right - there is a thread here that relates: 

And a discussion further up this thread: 

I feel I need to go away and try and digest this lot….

Nick.

Update 20-02-2022:

This has all got rather complicated, so I have started a separate thread on the matter, for those who are interested: 

Thanks - I hadn’t thought of approaching this by looking at the number series to see if there might be number ranges post the introduction of oil boxes and pre cast plates. If an actual photo can’t be found of oil+painted letters, this might at least be suggestive. I’ll go back to the photos I have available with this in mind.

Nick.

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

And something for the Great Western enthusiast.

The GWR 4-plank open in this photo adds further evidence to the conclusion I am drawing - too late - that 4-plank opens in pre 1904 livery fall into two categories:

• grease axle boxes and small “G.W.R” lettering
• oil boxes and cast number and GWR plates

I say “too late” because I have an almost finished PECO (ex Webster) 7mm scale kit for the 4-plank open, which I have done with the supplied oil boxes, and painted red. It was only just now when I came to find a suitable photo to follow for the lettering that I realised I couldn’t find an example with oil boxes and painted lettering.

I’d be delighted if someone could point me in the direction of such an example, if only to make me feel better about it! 
 

Nick.

If the buildings have survived and have had a change of use, as @stevel says, it’s worth checking the local authority planning website. Sometimes there are useful architect’s drawings with the planning application for the change of use to a visitor centre, etc. if that happened relatively recently, the documents will be online.

Nick.

Perhaps switch to the wooden underframe type, and use the steel frame for another project, as you suggest?

Nick.

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

OK makes sense. Having no experience of the 7 mm scale kit I was going by the 4 mm one which has magical brakes - no connection between the brake lever and the brake shaft. I've bodged up a representation of the lever and quadrant from plasticard.

The 7mm version has its own issues - the brake shoe / hanger/ push rod moulding is correct for conventional lever brakes, but has the push rods acting in the wrong direction for DC brakes. That was one reason why I replaced that assembly with the brass version from WEP - the CC moulding is quite nice, so rather than hack it about I thought I’d keep it for another use sometime. Have said that, I still ended up having to cut up and reassemble the WEP etch, because the brake shoes were too far from the wheels, and the shoe hangers were at too much of an angle, so it was just as much work as modifying the CC plastic version would have been. Ho, hum…

Nick.

@Craigw - those are looking good. Thanks for sharing. Mixing and matching can be a good way to get to the standard you want, though it can get expensive, especially in O gauge.

We have a couple of rescue cats, but I’m not sure we could cope with 14 kittens!

Nick.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Nicely done. Where's the swan-necked lever?

Thanks. I’ve left the swan-neck lever off until after I finish the main painting. I’m using the plastic one that comes with the kit - it’s decent enough, and the WEP etch doesn’t include it, as it is for DC3 brake gear. I’ve cut a notch out of each end so it will clip onto the shafts - a little bit of filler and a touch of paint, and you won’t know the difference. That’s the plan, anyway.

Nick.

Just to prove all this fretting over micro-details from the distant past has some practical outcome, here's the wagon again, now with short door springs, banger plates and non-reversible brake shoes. I have also added the hooks for tying the sheet to under the solebars and on the ends, so it's ready for the printshop.

Nick

I don’t have dimensions of the ‘bulb’ style solebars, unfortunately. Looking at the photo @wagonman posted, the bottom part doesn’t stick out much, and also has a curved connection to the vertical part, not a sharp corner.

The bump stops are I think wooden - they seem to be the same design as used on earlier wooden framed wagons. Later they are replaced by metal stops, shaped like an upside down top hat.

Regarding the ‘rod’ thing - I am not sure what you are referring to? The tall rod just to the right of the centre line on the door is the latch mechanism. Or did you mean something else?
 

Here are a couple of links to more info about these vans, which may also be of use, if you haven’t seen them already:

Lot numbers, wagon number and related info here:

And here:

Nick.

Thanks @wagonman for that photo - very helpful. I am building up a collection of info on these vans for when I build my own model. I have found that of the earlier wooden underframe type, some have diagonals one way, and some the other, so it seems that change didn’t simply coincide with the change in underframe construction.
 

It’s also worth noting that wagonman’s photo shows, I think, the ‘bulb’ section underframe, with the lower flange of the solebar smaller than the upper flange. This is different to the later design I gave the dimensions for earlier in the thread.

Trying to follow all these design changes, with limited information, is a bit of a nightmare…

Nick.

Update 24 Feb 2022: there is a discussion here about GWR 2- and 3-plank wagons, including reference to the source of a drawing showing the bulb solebar in cross-section. The drawing is in The Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1884, available online (plate 68, which is right at the back of the document): https://archive.org/details/proceedings1884inst/page/n727/mode/2up

7 hours ago, airnimal said:

Nick, thank you for that information which is very useful because I do not have the Atkins book.

Glad to have helped. I've checked the book and updated my post to confirm I had remembered the dimensions correctly.

As others have said, this thread is a real inspiration. I'm currently building from kits - a Slaters, ex-Coopercraft, 7mm scale GWR 5-plank is currently on the workbench, hence having the underframe dimensions in my head! I have plans for scratchbuilt 1- and 3-plank GWR opens, and an outside framed van, very much motivated by your work here. So thank you!

Also - as you note, the flange on the solebar of the Slaters/Coopercraft kits is too wide, making the solebars look rather heavy. This is a shame given the general quality of the mouldings in these kits, and there seems to be no good reason for it. It's also not an easy fix, I think.

There's a drawing in Atkins, et al, showing the design of the first version of the Dean/Churchward brake gear. This gives dimension of the frame channels (sole bars and headstocks) as 9" deep, 3" wide. I seem to remember the material is 3/8" thick, but I am at work and don't have the book with me.

NB though this drawing is likely for the later steel frames, since DC brake gear came in around 1902. The dimensions for iron frames might be a bit different.

I hope that's useful -

Nick.

Update: the drawing is on page 71 of the 1986 combined edition of 'A History of GWR Wagons' by A. G. Atkins, W. Beard, D. J. Hyde and R. Tourret. I remembered the details correctly - the solebars are shown as 9" x 3" x 3/8". The drawing doesn't specify the headstock dimensions, but it seems most likely they would be the same.

Thanks, everyone, of your input and expertise on this.

At this point, my feeling is the photo of 76267 (the diagram O4 shown in Russell, GWR Wagons Appendix, p.20) dates from 1911, not 1907 as Russell states. My reasoning goes:

• in the photo, the wagon's paintwork looks very new, quite possibly brand-new.
• the two dates on the solebar are 1907 and 1911. If the 1911 date was in the future when the photo was taken, it seems likely it would be an exact length of time in months/years after the earlier date (perhaps a 'next overhaul due', or some such, after a fixed period). Otherwise, why write a future date on the wagon?
• It seems to me most likely the 1911 date records the recent overhaul, including repaint, and the 1907 date is from an earlier overhaul, maintenance or modification. The seemingly chalked copy of the 1907 date on the plank work would be a reminder to the painter of the date to be painted, since this would have been lost during the repaint, but presumably recorded in the wagon's documentation. No need for a reminder for the second date, since it would be the current date at the time of painting.
• A 1911 date for the photo fits better with what we think we know about long door springs and reversible brake shoes. It also seems a reasonable time for a major overhaul, repaint and update for a wagon built 1902-04 (7 to 9 years).

On this basis, and unless anyone wants to offer a compelling counter-narrative, I will complete my model with non-reversible brake shoes (out with the file) and short springs. In this case, short springs on both sides, as per the photo of 12325 on p.14 of the Appendix, and unlike the earlier 4-plank wagons which seem to have had springs only on the non-brake side, with the vee-hanger acting as a stop for the door on the braked side.

Nick.

@K14 - well spotted! I agree the second date looks like 5.7.11, but what would that signify?

The date on the plank above the tare looks like it is in chalk - perhaps written there by the foreman as a reference for the painter.

In this picture the wagon looks newly painted - no sign of dirt anywhere, and the white lettering is pristine. Could the 1911 date be the date of this paint job, and the 07 date is a previous overhaul - hence the painter needing it chalked on as a reminder?

Nick.

@Miss Prism - thanks, that makes sense and is helpful. Presumably once long springs become a design feature, they may get retro-fitted to earlier wagons when they get major overhauls. This seems to be the case with 76267, the diagram O4 shown in Russell, GWR Wagons Appendix, p.20, where there seems to be marks on the door planks where the banger plates were previously in a lower position, corresponding to short springs. The 1907 date for this picture given by Russell is compatible with your chronology, but only just, and I am still a bit skeptical.

Regarding the introduction of short springs, the pictures of Swindon with all the withdrawn broad gauge stock shows fish opens with door stops (not really springs), so I suspect this was seen as something necessary for bigger, heavier doors of 4-plank and above, and so not fitted to two and three plank wagons.

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Door spring fitting didn't happen overnight. Thousands of wagons were involved. We don't know whether the O4s were the first to be fitted.

Looking again through various books, I have found most 4-plank wagons (retrospectively diagram O5) photographed from 1901 onwards to have short springs on the non-brake side, with just a banger plate to strike against the vee hanger on the braked side. There are some 1902 photos showing quite grubby wagons, suggesting they are at least a few years into service since being built or refurbished, so it seems likely short springs came in in the late 1890s at the latest. Certainly other types of wagon have springs at this time and earlier - for example the diagram O7 linoleum wagon of 1890 shown in Russell’s “freight wagons and loads” book, fig. 13.

Two and three plank wagons seem never to have springs, that I can find anyway. The mystery still is when long springs come in, and the pictures I have access to don’t give much of a clue to that.

tomorrow it will go on a further hunt for evidence of reversible brake shoes…

Nick.

Thanks @Craigw and @Miss Prism.

So people can cross references with @Craigw's comments, the wagon numbers are as follows:

Atkins et al, A History of GWR Goods Wagons, p46 - 75707

Russell, GWR Wagons Appendix, p.14 - 12325

Russell, GWR Wagons Appendix, p.20 - 76267.

Mapping the wagons in the photos to lot numbers is helpful - do you have dates for those lots?

It's curious that early O4's were built without door springs, since earlier 4-plank wagons had these - unless all door strings were retro-fitted after the 5-plank O4 design was introduced? None of this quite gets us to a date for the shift from short to long springs...

Similarly, thanks @Miss Prism for the response re the introduction of reversible brake shoes. Again, possibly a wild goose chase, but it would be useful to track down their earliest appearance in photos we can confidently date.

For my narrow purposes, it would also be very helpful to either confirm or deny the stated date for the picture of 76267 in the Appendix.

Nick.

I currently have a Slaters (ex. CooperCraft) GWR 5-plank wagon, diagram O4, on my workbench. I am trying to decide what I am going to do about livery and door stops.

Regarding door stops, Atkins et al, in A History of GWR Goods Wagons, claim the O4 diagram was the first merchandise open with low hanging door stops (as opposed to the short ones that barely go below the solebar). They say this on p.46 of the first combined edition, in a caption to a photograph which illustrates their point.

However, in Russell's GWR Wagons Appendix on p.14 there is a five plank with short door stops, contradicting Atkins et al. or at least indicating the long doorstops were not used universally after they were initially introduced. The wagon in this photo looks pretty new, but there is confusion over the dates in the caption, which claims the wagon is an O5 from 1888 (but that would be a four plank, and this is five). It also says the photo is 1909, but the date on the sheet on the wagon is November 1900, and the sheet looks brand new.

The plot thickens, as on page 20, fig 30 shows a diagram O4, with long door stops, but there appear to be marks on the plank work of the door suggesting it previously had short stops with associated banger plates.

Between them, these two photos indicate that perhaps at least some O4s had short door stops to begin with, but these were later changed to long ones. The photo on page 20 is dated 1907, but given the flakiness over dating in the caption on p14, I am not too confident about this. A further bit of evidence is the wagon on page 20 has reversible brake shoes, which according to Jim Champ (http://www.gwr.org.uk/nowagonbrakes.html) don't come in until 1911. If Jim is correct, this photo must be after 1911.

In terms of livery, I subscribe to the 1904 theory for the introduction of grey livery. Assuming this is correct, most or all diagram O4 wagons would have been initially in red livery (built 1902-04). The page 20 picture, then, if the caption date of 1907 is correct, shows a wagon repainted no more than 5 years after being built, with modified door stops and preternaturally early reversible brake shoes.

I am modelling c.1908, so the questions for me are - when do long door stops come in? Is it feasible a wagon was repainted so soon after being built - perhaps at the same time other work was undertaken (repairs?)? More generally, should I stop believing in the 1904 date for the change from red to grey?? Should I stop believing Jim Russell's caption dates????

Penetrating insights gratefully received...

Nick.

PS  - and here is a picture of it on the workbench, awaiting decisions on the above questions. I am modelling it with the sheet bar up and a sheet over it - hence the reinforcing of the sheet bar, and not worrying about interior detail or the top half of the body. The kit brakegear has been replaced with more accurate and refined WEP etched brass components.

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I think given the date, it's likely to be iron rather than steel - agreeing with your latest post, a forging rather than a casting, for greater strength.

Yes, a forging makes sense.

And agreed re your stricter application of the term J-hanger - but then you need a term for the other thing that does a similar job but isn't a J-shape.

The true J-hanger also adds secondary suspension through the compressible rubber discs - helping to compensate for the way the vertical connection means vertical movement of the spring ends is transmitted directly to the vehicle chassis. An advantage of the link system is it can take up some of the vertical movement without passing it on to the chassis.

Can't help you with a name for the wooden block the wrought iron strip is attached to in your post that started this discussion. And we now have the not-a-j-hanger to find a name for, too, so terminologically we seem to be going backwards...

Nick.

This discussion has made me curious about the design of underframe mechanics in relation to available materials and manufacturing techniques. Most of the metal parts of a wooden wagon underframe can be made from flat material - axleguards, washer plates, and so on. Cast components such as axle boxes and buffer housings have either low forces acting on them or are in compression - suitable for cast iron.

The J-hanger shown above has significant tension and bending forces, which are not good for cast iron, hence my suggestion it would need to be steel. Steel become cheap and readily available following the invention of the Bessemer process in the mid 1850s, with production ramping up (and so prices coming down) over - what? - the following couple of decades?

Just trying to think this through in relation to the shift of manufacturing away from the individual, hand-made, production of metal components by blacksmithing techniques towards more mechanised and standardised manufacture. As we know, railway companies stuck with some manufacturing methods long after arguable better ones came along (think wooden underframes still being made well into the 20th century, long after steel construction was possible). Presumably this is driven by cost, and by being able to be maintained in the field with relatively simple and available skills.

Does this narrative fit with the timing of the adoption of materials and techniques for wagon construction, or am I barking up an attractive but entirely incorrect tree?

Nick.