Mikkel

Very interesting, Nick, a really useful little photo survey. I will try and have a look through some other books to complement it, and report back. I don't know enough about photographic emulsions to know whether it is possible to tell the difference or not, but it is definetely worth the try. Clearly I really do need to get my hands on Russell's Appendix, and the appendix to the rule book.

Well Mike, I have to reach for the clich

Excellent, I've been waiting for this! For this to work the movements would have to be smooth and natural, and you've clearly made that work very effectively. In fact it looks more smooth than on the original layout! The buildings look very good too. PS: I have to ask about the filming! Is the camera on a tram/train moving alongside?

They do look very good. As you say the seam is especially effective. Thanks for the tip, this could come in handy for wagon loads.

Thanks Dave. That sounds like a very nice weekend! Maybe you could ask one of the name and number plate manufacturers to do some etches of cast plates? As for the loads I've been looking with admiration on the ones in your superb 4-plankers. Discrete and just right. I find that loads are actually not that easy to get right. Just plonking something in there doesn't work. On the other hand, making loads too uniform and neat doesn't always look right either. As usual, it's about studying photos of the real thing. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of those illustrated "correct loading" guides for GWR staff!

Ok, so we can assume that the 15'6 dimension for the 950 is over headstocks. But I think I'll see what can be done about building one of the 18 ft (o.h.) types instead, it seems safer for me as there is a drawing and two pictures. As you say Richard it does seem a fairly simple scratchbuilding job. Maybe a good one for me to practice on.

:-) I agree, not to mention paint. I seem to get it all over and it would be more rational to spray it on (the primer is), but I like the interaction with the brush and paint. "Getting stuck in" is a lot of the fun in modelling, isn't it?

Hi Ian, I think it's great that modellers can explore different historical hypotheses like this. Railway modelling is quite unique in that way, we can physically illustrate how this or that scenario might have looked. Personally I rather like the cast plates on a red background. It makes them stand out more. Although we don't know the colour of the plates either! BTW, I plan to use some of your excellent early GWR tarpaulins - thanks very much for putting them up in the gallery!

Thanks Pete, I hope that's why. In fact, I hereby decide that's why! :-)

That's a very interesting theory. It would presumably mean that Iron Minks were also grey... The obvious question is why this distinction would have been necessary, but maybe as you inidcate it had to do with the paint - ie red oxide for wood, and was there something in grey that was good for iron, perhaps...

Thanks very much Nick and Richard. I have the 98 combined volume of Atkins et al, which as Nick says has a photo of one-plank 5141 but also another of 4373 (both with single wooden brake block). But I am confused by the text which first states that: "the standard one-plank wagon was 15ft 6in long, 7ft 5in wide and 11in high..." It then says that around 1917 there were 2300 one-plankers in service with 11 in planks, namely: "180 of 15ft 0in length by 7ft 5in width internal dimensions, 950 of 15ft 6in by 7ft 5in, 985 of 17ft 6in by 7ft 3in (as per drawing) and 185 varying from 18ft 0 in to 18ft 6in length and 7ft 3 in width." From the way the text is written, we must assume that all the dimensions in the last quote are internal dimensions (which also fits the drawing referred to). But then which one is the standard 15ft 6 in long one referred to first - and which is also what Richard has modelled? I think the authors must be mixing up internal and external dimensions here...?

This is wonderful stuff Richard! Not least the one- and two-plankers. Going a bit off-topic here, but is the one-planker that you built 15' 6 over headstocks and 9ft wheelbase? I don't have a drawing of these (other than this sketch) so want to be sure I've got the basics right.

Could it have anything to do with Flora's estranged twin sister, Agnes? Many years ago there used to be three of them, you see, sitting on benches all over the GWR system and having a wonderful time. Then there was that terrible affair involving a Sunday picnic, a handsome fireman and a cattle wagon. Their relationship soured, and now they frequent different benches and different stations...

Thanks Mike, but the plates etc are all provided in the original kit. Painting them isn't too hard. The letters are raised as they come, so a small flat brush (with slightly stiff bristles) dragged horisontally and repeatedly across the letters does the trick. The underframes are rough representations, as is my modelling of them. Fortunately Coopercraft are upgrading their GWR underframes, which is a good move I think. Miss P, yes I do wonder about that. There is the possibility that the photos give the wrong impression. Because the plates were fairly small, you have to look hard to spot them in photos from goods yards. Alternatively, of course, the plates may not have been as standardized as we think.

Glad you agree with that Miss P. I've sometimes wondered whether the whole debate about when red changed to grey is missing an important point - ie that both liveries may have coexisted at the same time, and that grey and red were used to show *differences* between wagon types, functions, materials, technical details or whatever. We know that some wagons carried special liveries (black, white etc) and it seems clear that brake wagons carried grey long before other goods stock. So the idea isn't that crazy, I think - but who knows?

What an excellent post, Nick! The difference really is quite visible. I'll certainly be trimming my next 4-planker as you describe. Yes, that's the thing. Many of the 1-plankers were also of that length, so I'm looking for kits with similar dimensions (and 9ft wb) to convert into a 1-planker. There is also a drawing in Atkins etc al of an 18 ft 10ft wb one-planker, btw.

Hi Job, glad you like them. Yes they will have loads. I look forward to that, but it's a whole little project in itself so am saving that for a rainy day :-)

PS: I know this isn't finescale modelling, but larger-than-life photos like these certainly are ruthless. Why do some of the ends appear to lean outwards? I've just been studying the real things up close and the angles seem just right. Bah!

Nick, good idea about the Thomas brakes (and DC1 brakes of course). In fact, maybe I could put those on the unbuilt 4-planker I still have left: If I remember correctly there are photos in Atkins et al of experiments with Thomas brakes on 4 plankers. The black underframes is guesswork. I appreciate the logic that since the GWR grey livery included the underframe, then the earlier red livery may have done the same (Ian's lovely 2mm vans illustrate it here). But to me it doesn't seem practical to have bright red underframes - would they not quickly look quite dirty? Paul, thanks for that, I didn't realize that curved ends lasted into grouping on some raliways. The odd thing is actually why the GWR rebuilt most of theirs in the first place - why make the effort? As for the shade of red, it's again basically guesswork what the exact shade was of course. I suppose the danger is always that we subconsciouly copy from other people's interpretations of the GWR red. But it does seem intuitive to me that a bright red would tone down to something like this. Our garden shed certainly has (!), but then again modern paints are very different.

No, this is a not a post about my financial situation - though it could have been! This is about building and painting wagons for my goods depot layout , which is set in the period ca 1900-1908. For wagons this was a real transition period, with a diversity of styles, technical developments and liveries. So I’ve started a wagon building programme which tries to capture some of that variety. Here are some photos of developments so far. First off was this 3 planker, which I built some time ago from a David Geen kit. It has those nice “old world” round ends. Many were later rebuilt to straight ends, but photos suggest that a few still had those enticing curves in the 1900s. The livery is the pre-1894 version, ie with the small 5inch “GWR” on the left side. It seems this livery could still be seen here and there into the 1900s. In 1894 the “GWR” was moved to the right hand side of wagons. I wonder why – did someone at Swindon wake up one morning and exclaim “I’ve had a vision! Bring out the paint brushes!”. The non-standard tare numbers seen here are copied from a photo of the real no. 64493. Others had the numbers in the normal italics. The 4-plankers were the dominant type among GWR Opens in 1900. This model is a Coopercraft kit but with the oil axleboxes substituted for (David Geen) grease boxes, which still featured on the majority of wagons at the turn of the century. Nick, I forgot to add the vertical hanger, will see to it shortly! It's been fun experimenting with the shade of red. Contemporary sources indicate a fairly bright (some say light) red. In my opinion, pristine bright red doesn’t work well on layouts, so I’ve gone for a toned down look but with a bit of variety from wagon to wagon. The photo above shows an Iron Mink in the the base coat, which is a mix of bright red and orange. This was then later toned down with dry-brushing, mostly more orange and pale sand. Here is the finished Iron Mink in the post-1894 red livery. I couldn’t fit “To carry 9 tons” in the panel on the left. The GWR painters had the same problem and some photos show use of smaller letters to fit it all in. So I'll order some 2mm transfers and do the same. The iron minks were numerous in the 1900s. This old ABS kit was in fact a Barry Railway version that I had lying about, which I modified to GWR style. I only now see that the doors have issues in one corner. Mutter, groan, grumble! Then it was crunch time. There comes a time in every man’s life when he has to decide exactly when he thinks GWR wagon grey was introduced! For my part, I've been torn between 1898 and 1904.Until recently I was leaning towards 1898, which was the year when the GWR introduced cast number plates as standard on new wagon builds. If that was the case, then new wagons built between 1898 and 1904 would have looked something like the 4-planker above, which I built and painted quite some time ago. The cast number plates seem only to have been applied to new builds (see notes below). If GWR grey was introduced in 1898, then older wagons that were repainted between 1898 and 1904 would presumably have looked something like this 3-planker, which I initially painted in the grey livery. Then I changed my mind! I went through the sources and debates one more time (summarized here), and began to see the logic of 1904 as the year when the grey livery was introduced. So I decided to adopt this as the assumption on “The depot”. The implications are interesting. For one thing, it means that wagons with cast plates would generally have been red. This 4-planker is the same as the one shown in grey above, but now in red. Quite a different animal to look at! (but where's the V-hanger, must have broken off while taking the photo - back to the workbench!). Another implication of the 1904 cutting-off point is that older wagons repainted during 1898-1904 would have carried the 5inch right hand side red livery right up to 1904. This 3-planker is another David Geen kit, but built to represent a 1900s version with straight ends and retro-fitted with oil axleboxes. The tare numbers are again a deliberate deviation from the norm, reflecting that these numbers were often painted on after the main lettering job. Whether or not the underframes on these wagons were in fact also red is a separate discussion! And then, at last, came the good old "GW" livery, which was applied from 1904. Together with the Iron Minks, these pre-diagram outside-framed wooden wagons were the standard vans at the turn of the century, until the "new generation" of wooden V5 vans began appearing in 1902. Finally a few of my own notes on cast plates, based on the info and photos I could find in my books. Plates experimented with from 1894, standardized from around 1898 (sometimes 1897 is mentioned), and in principle applied until 1904 Photos suggest that number plates were only applied to new builds during this period, not retro-fitted to older wagons Photos also indicate that cast no. plates were always seen in combination with oil axle-boxes, which makes sense as wagons built during this time would have been fitted with oil axleboxes A small number of wagons seem to have carried a transition livery after 1904 which had the cast no. plate and the large “GW” letters (but not the cast “GWR”). There are examples of an Iron Mink and (oddly) a 7-plank 02 in this livery. Photos suggest that wagons with cast plates were greatly outnumbered by wagons with painted numbers. Regarding the latter point, see eg the very interesting photos from Reading Kings Meadow yard around 1905-06, in GWR Goods Services Part 2A, pages 16 and 18-19. These show many wagons with pre-1904 small GWR lettering, together with wagons carrying “GW”. Only 1 or 2 wagons with cast no. plates can be seen.

Thanks for the info on polished domes, Dave. Miss P, that first photo from Leamington Spa is superb, thanks for sharing it.

Off-topic PS: Been looking at options for kit-bashing to get some pre-diagram GWR 1- and 2-plankers (some nice kits available from WEP in 7mm, but nothing in 4mm). I thought I had a candidate in the Cambrian Models 1-plank stone wagon, but it is a little too short. Now looking into whether the new Cambrian Rwys 2-plank dropside from the same manufacturer is an option for modification.

Hi Nick, very nice illustration of the problem. I had seen this commented on over on the GWR e-list also, so was aware of it - but decided to solve it by loading the wagons. It won't be with barrels though, as they will be too high! I've got three of these underway, two have already been built and painted - but the last has not. It would be nice to have that last one in empty condition, so I would be very interested to see how you solve it. Thanks for bringing this up.

Can't wait! :-) I see that the dome is matt as supplied. So you will polish it yourself I suppose. It seems difficult to get them ready-polished these days, in 4mm at least.

Lovely neat work, Dave. Looks like a work of art already. I assume it will have roundtopped firebox?