magmouse

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

come over as a bit of a lecture

You say that as if we might not want a lecture on the arcana of 19th century wagon construction?

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm not convinced that coupling is hanging straight; not to worry:

 

I feel I need to keep this photo as the wallpaper on my phone, ready to repel any and all wandering armchair critics!

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

the close observation of the packing block between the buffer guide and headstock seen in the photo of 4373.

Yes, getting that right was fun. The real credit goes to the esteemed @drduncan who kindly upscaled his 3D printed 4mm scale GWR ribbed buffers for me. More on that in part 2...

Nick.

43 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

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

Atkins gives a date range of 1868-1871, though we know the information in Atkins on early wagons isn't always complete. Tony Wood in the Saltney Carriage and Wagon Works book indicates some 1-plank wagons built from 1866, with the last lot listed completed in 1872. Others were presumably built at Swindon, and there were Shrewsbury and Chester Railway 1-plank wagons built at Saltney from 1847 which would have become GWR. Atkins also indicates they would have been built at Worcester, but gives no details. NB that doesn't answer the question about 18ft OH wagons specifically, just 1-plank wagons in general.

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.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

From the dimensions given, the ends are 3" thick and the sides 2½"

This seems fairly common on GWR wagons around this time and later - which can catch one out if working from internal measurements.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

A.J. Watts' Ince book (available from the HMRS for just £7 plus postage)

I bought it the last time you plugged it! It was the drawing of the 1903 RCH specification in there that clued me into possible packing pieces between solebar and curb rail, on wider wagons.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

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. 

Indeed - when I post part two, there will be a photo showing the interior, where you will see that modelled. That is a benefit of doing the solebars, curb rail and side sheeting as separate pieces, as on the prototype - you automatically get the top of the curb rail visible inside the wagon.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

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.

I estimated the curb rails as 4.5" wide, some close to your 4" estimate. You may be right about 4373 being narrower, and might explain why I was struggling to get the overhang to look right when comparing drawings, photos and my own calculations. The Saltney wagons listed above are shown as 7'3" internal, the same as the Atkins drawing, and that is what I have built.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm also convinced that its wheelbase is 11' 0" rather than 10' 0", if it is actually 18' 0" OH...

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.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I do wonder whether the dimensions given in the Registers tally with that sketch.

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

Nick.

Thanks, Mike.

5 minutes ago, airnimal said:

The wheels certainly look so much more impressive than the finescale equivalent would have done in my opinion.

I agree - I think it especially matters on a vehicle like this where there is very little below the solebars. I suspect it would matter less on a model of a BR-period vac-fitted wagon with clasp brakes and heavy-duty axle guards.

7 minutes ago, airnimal said:

I hope the decision to go S7 proves to be the right one for you.

Me too! I'm happy so far, though I haven't yet got a plan for converting the existing stock. Some ideas are brewing, and there is no immediate hurry.

9 minutes ago, airnimal said:

I hope this will be the start of more of the same and I will look forward to see what comes 

from your workbench. 

I will probably do some more scratch-building, though unlike you I am also quite happy building kits. I'm going to need some early (pre-1887 RCH spec) PO coal wagons, and some other things there aren't kits for.

Nick.

Thanks, Kit. Scratch-building, as you say, means you really need to understand how the real thing was made. It also gives you new respect for the pattern makers behind the kits we perhaps take for granted! It's easy to criticise kist when they haven't got things quite right, but the experience of scratch-building underscores how small changes in the dimensions of details really changes the effect.

Nick.

Thanks, Mike. My application for the ScaleSeven group has been sent in, and I am looking forward to getting involved with that. I am sure a large Slaters order will be submitted soon too, so the 10% will be handy.

I am not too worried about the space issue, because I am more a maker than an operator, so I will be content with simple track layouts. Also, modelling the Edwardian period helps with smaller wagons, coaching stock and locos that can negotiate tighter curves. I’m not envisaging any loco with outside cylinders or more than 3 axles.

Nick.

1 hour ago, 1ngram said:

Obviously Gibson   And I write as someone who has in the past had an inordinate amount of trouble prizing ordered wheels out of them

  Still worth it in the end though

 

Are you able to post a close up picture or two, so we can compare with the others?

Thanks - 

Nick.

1 hour ago, kitpw said:

loco frames compromised by the reduced wheelset back to back would be closer to the top of my list.

And probably mine, if I had got as far as building or even starting a loco! I do have a kit for a 517 class in the cupboard, awaiting its moment...

I can also appreciate why for you it wouldn't make sense - too much already committed. And working in FS doesn't stop Swan Hill from being completely gorgeous and full of atmosphere.

Nick

So, a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

10T open wagon, tare around 5T, total = 15T, or 7.5T per axle.

20T ballast wagon, tare - what, 8T? So something like 14T per axle - nearly double, and of the order of a loco.

Hmmm....

Nick.

55 minutes ago, Western Star said:

GWR 1908 wagonary down by the sea-side might require a 3'1", solid spoke, 10 spoke wagon wheel...  and that appears solely in the Slater's range.  For example, the ballast hoppers to diagram P7.

Thanks, Graham - and I hadn't considered the need for a 10 spoke wheel. Was the higher spoke count on the same size wheel to do with weight capacity?

Nick.

2 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

And I had no idea the discussion was limited to 1908, and I still don't understand if we are discussing FS or S7 wheels!

Well, the discussion started with my post, which was specific to the requirements of my circa 1908, mostly-GWR modelling, and what the options are (both FS and S7) that would result in improved wheel appearance on wagons. So we are discussing both FS and S7, which I appreciate is not relevant to everyone, since most 7mm scale modellers will be committed to one or the other. It was relevant to me, because I was at the crossroads. Hopefully the consideration of FS wheels, ignoring the S7 option, is of wider interest and value.

And like all such discussions, it has wandered a little...

Nick.

47 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I see that Slaters offer both solid and split-spoke types; what about Peco and Wizard?

Peco do plain spoke and 3-hole disc - no split spoke. Wizard do all three, plus disk and Mansell in 3’7.5” size. I think they are a good option if you are happy with them being blackened, and with the quite heavy chamfer on the front edge of the tyre, which is not very prototypical but does give them a lighter look well suited to 19th century wagons, I feel.

50 minutes ago, ianmaccormac said:

You don't seem to have considered Alan Gibson, Peartree or Roxey suppliers??

Entirely selfishly, I only looked at manufacturers that make wheels I would use - Roxey and Peartree were ruled out because they don’t include spoked wheels, only solid discs. I could have included Alan Gibson, but I didn’t have any in stock, and the lack of web-based ordering put just a bit too much friction into the process for my inherent laziness…

Nick.

35 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

The late Adrian Swain (ABS Models) was so precise in his opinions that he got banned on here! A few years ago he explained to me that he wouldn't use anything other than Peco wheels when suitable. 

 

Although I can understand standardising on one manufacturer's product from a consistency of running point of view I'm not convinced all plain spoke wheels are the same and a bit of variety wouldn't harm. Also, perhaps not so common as a wheel in comparison with split spoke wheels (which had lots of differences) or disc wheels https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/axleboxes

Admittedly the GWR did seem to use plain spoke wheels more than other companies. 

 

Paul Bartlett

That's interesting about Adrian's views. Before making the Big Decision to go S7, I was thinking of standardising on the Peco wheels for anything needing 3'1.5" plain spoke. Peco do a 3-hole disc, which is not much use for my 1908 period, but nothing else, so it would still be Slaters for anything larger, Maunsell, etc. The Peco wheels still have a rather over-large tyre thickness, though, which of course compounds with the over-scale flange in SF standards to make the wheel look too heavy, even though the spokes are nice.

Nick.

8 minutes ago, kitpw said:

I will read tomorrow properly - I think I've got the gist of Netherport, though, "it's the wheels".

You may find your powers of prognostication are confirmed...

Nick.

31 minutes ago, kitpw said:

On the other hand, wagon building has a long history, tradesmen knew what they were about and the wagons sides/ends don't seem to show evidence of more than a bit of shrinkage, leaving some gapping between boards. So, surprised or not, that's how it is.

Which makes me wonder about the regime at the time for preparing and seasoning wood. Also, photos of new wagons do sometimes show a little cupping.

And, yes, I agree with your interpretation of the specification in terms of knots.

Nick.

2 hours ago, Western Star said:

Is there a way to "quote" from a blog post?

How curious - seemingly not. I'll aim to write anodyne blog posts in future, that require no comment 😉.

2 hours ago, Western Star said:

I have problems withe idea of wagon sheeting circa 1900 - being made from wood with knots.

Discussed in other comments, but from the point of view of the model I think I was rather indiscriminately lumping together the various marks that are seen in photos, whatever the source. My point really is that the inside of wagons, once they had been in service for a while, were not an even colour and tone.

2 hours ago, Western Star said:

1900 a good number of Gloster wagons have the door bar passing through the top plank of the sheeting

OK - you've probably looked at more of these than I have. I took a small sample and went from that.

2 hours ago, Western Star said:

and the plates that stop the bar from coming out of the eyes?

As you can see, no I didn't. Err, I claim wabi-wabi? No, not convincing? I'll do better next time, along with @Schooner's coupling link.

2 hours ago, Western Star said:

as yet I have not seen any contemporary wagon models with the nuts under the curb rail to prevent the capping strip bolts from coming loose.

Nor me, now you mention it. Another detail for the list!

Regards - 

Nick.

8 minutes ago, Western Star said:

I recollect that Webster's may have manufactured their own 7mm wheels before their range of 7mm kits was taken over by Peco.

I suspect the ex Webster kits are still supplied with those, and ex Parkside with Slaters. They are quite different once you start looking.

I was pleased to see how much thinner the tyres are on the S7 Slaters wheels compared to their FS wheels. Together with the finer flange of S7, it gets us reasonably close to the look of the prototype when seen in silhouette. I want to be able to have that slightly 'up on tip-toes' look of GWR 4-plank wagons!

Nick.

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Mike @airnimal does some improvement work on the spokes of the Slaters wheels which I confess I've never paid a great deal of attention too but is said to improve the appearance.

Yes, I've noticed he makes reference to that occasionally. I think it involves scrapping the corners of the spokes to reduce their depth and round them off a little. I'll have to try it.

Nick.

6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Nick, have you done a tutorial type post on your interiors? Wagon interiors that is, before this comments section goes even further afield.

 

About to settle down with my sarnie to review your previous blog entries to see if I've missed it, but if not is it something you'd consider? I've seen several very good bare wood effects, but very few excellent ones. Tutor us in the ways of righteousness!

 

Please :)

 

Ever since being told that there are no models of varnished wagons is because they're bloody difficult I've rather set my heart on one. Finally I've seen something which makes me hope it might be possible...

You are right that I haven’t covered this in detail - mainly because I don’t feel I have a process that has any real method to it. It’s a stage I dislike, because I never believe it will come out as I want it. The process is therefore one of messing about until the rapidly descending line of impatience meets the slowly rising line of satisfaction, and I decide to stop.

However, committing to write it up is a good way to make me focus and try to bring some order to what I do, and of course if that helps you and others then that would be a good thing also. So, yes, I’ll do a post on painting bare wood, though I will wait until I do the next open wagon, so I can document it properly. It might be a little while yet.

And yes, a varnished wagon would be rather splendid! I wonder if the techniques people use to do teak carriages would be the best approach for that?

Nick.

39 minutes ago, kitpw said:

S7?

Tempting.

38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

He'll have gone full Midland.

Also tempting.

Package due 12.30 - 14.30 (as if that means anything...)

Plus evaluation time. And decision making time - anything from 5 minutes to several weeks...

I like your little picture - it reminds me of something that is curious about many of the late 19th and early 20th century photos that we spend a lot of time looking at here on the forum: the backgrounds are often lighter and reduced in contrast. Possibly this is purely an atmospheric effect from a more air-polluted age, or sometimes due to deliberate processing methods by photographers, but - whether by chance or choice - it provides a focus on the foreground subject. I'm used to doing that with lighting in the theatre, but usually by making the background darker, not lighter. I'd love a layout with an auto-background-mistifier (mystifier?) dial.

I am not sure how productive comparing models with paintings or drawings is - I always find models based on 2D artworks unconvincing (think of the model railways based on the Emett cartoons, for instance). Models are too solid to be 'painterly', except, possibly, when photographed. Paintings can be inspiration, though - composition, use of colour, and so on.

Happy soldering!

Nick.

PS I am expecting a Slaters parcel tomorrow, which may lead to a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT. Or a small announcement. Or no announcement at all...

Thanks, Kit.

21 minutes ago, kitpw said:

Netherport extends 'cross the water, perhaps in Dartmouth like fashion?

That isn't the topography I was imagining, but it is an interesting thought. I need to sketch some maps....

I am perpetually torn between the pleasure I get from researching the finer details and realising them in a model, such as the correct method to rope a particular load, and a desire for something lighter, more whimsical, in the vein of the Madder Valley (the name Netherport is of course a nod in that direction). The wagons I have been posting about so far are of course more towards the former, but my mental image of Netherport definitely leans the other way. Can these things co-exist satisfactorily? We will see, but that will be the central tension that defines Netherport as and when it takes physical form, and it will either make it collapse inwards, conceptually, or it will energise it!

Perhaps Netherport's actual function is to remain essentially mythical, a kind of Brigadoon, emerging from and disappearing into the mist. 

Anyway - stop daydreaming - it's time for lunch!

Nick.

4 minutes ago, Schooner said:

In fact, in LSWR guise the new layout might well be on the opposite river bank to Netherport!

I like that idea!

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Do both; as the bringer of bad news (courtesy of Turton's Fourth Collection, p. 141) I am weeping.

 

United Anthracite Collieries Ltd. went into liquidation in 1893, its assets being purchased by the neighbouring Gwaun-cae-Gurwen Colliery Co. (There was no connection with the 1920s firm of the same name.)

 

Wagon No. 1409 was one of a batch of 50 hired from Gloucester in December 1891 - the Gloucester official photo has the date March 1892. As a hired wagon, it will undoubtedly have gone back to Gloucester when united failed; the firm had also bought 50 wagons from Gloucester and was defaulting on payment for those as well as on the hire fees; the Gloucester Co. had unwisely accepted United shares in lieu of cash.

 

The number 1409 is typically spurious. United had 18 wagons of 1870s vintage from its previous incarnation as the Hendreforgan Colliery Co.; Turton records 129 wagons hired from Gloucester over the period 1888 - 1891, excluding the ones mentioned above, but some of the hire periods were as short as three months. It's possible that 1,100-odd wagons were hired from other firms but from the story of the company's precarious finances, and the size of the wagon fleets of other Swansea Vale collieries, that seems unlikely.

 

As a final twist of the knife, the dimension board in the Gloucester official photo of No. 1409 records that the internal length was 16' 0", i.e. 16' 6" over headstocks - unusually long for the period - and it looks it from the distance between spring shoes and headstocks. At least it didn't have bottom doors.

 

Sorry about all this. You have to remember that at the time Slater's first produced these kits, a lot of this information wasn't available. How easy is it to remove the lettering?

Ouch! I'd rather build a new wagon than re-letter an existing one. Anyone modelling 1892 in 7mm scale?

Nick.

Afterthought - or I follow the same logic that allows Netherport to exist. If there can be a fold in the map on the Dorset coast, there is perhaps a counterfactual in which United scrapped along as a business, supported by sales of coal to a prosperous south coast port... 

36 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Totally unacceptable, standards slipping, subscription cancelled.

I am sorry to hear you are dissatisfied with our service. A full refund will be remitted to you within 21 days.

Nick.