Wickham Green too Posted June 12, 2021 Share Posted June 12, 2021 Looking good ............. but why on earth haven't they been shouting from the rooftops that they were going to put SHELL on t'other side as we all hoped !!?! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Nile Posted June 18, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 18, 2021 The proof is here . 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEngineShed Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 Does anyone produce suitable transfers for renumbering these BP / Shell tank wagons? Missed opportunity on Oxfords part, these could have been produced in three packs with different numbers.... 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 19, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2021 5 hours ago, TheEngineShed said: Does anyone produce suitable transfers for renumbering these BP / Shell tank wagons? Missed opportunity on Oxfords part, these could have been produced in three packs with different numbers.... Oxford have done re-runs of previous wagons with different numbers, so hopefully these will get the same treatment in due course. That said, the Shell/BP fleet contained such a mixture of types that having too many matching wagons in close proximity to one another wouldn't be typical! I'd like them to do the "Shell-BP" Class B black livery next..... John 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 9 hours ago, TheEngineShed said: ...... these could have been produced in three packs with different numbers.... It's unlikely 1061 would have EVER have run with identical tankers other than on delivery from the builders ....... these wagons were built in such small numbers that they'd have got mixed in with other shapes an' sizes VERY quickly. Mine's in the packing bay and should be here early next week. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 19, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2021 (edited) Mine arrived this morning. Big round of applause for Oxford Rail. This has to be the easiest wagon ever to fit Kadee couplers. This is what I did. 1. Remove pocket from mount. 2. Cut off portion of mount to which pocket formerly fitted, leaving a flat platform. 3. Remove the body fixing screw, drill and tap the hole to 2/56. 4. Glue Kadee draft box to platform. 5. Add #209 fibre washer and #146 coupler. 6. Clip lid in place 7. Secure with #256 screw. You can leave the washer out, but I use them to stop the coupler drooping. The pocket is made deep enough to hold the older type couplers with a separate centering spring. The washer just makes up for its absence when using a whisker coupler. Before and after photos attached. Almost as quick as using a Kadee NEM head. John Edited June 4, 2022 by Dunsignalling Photos reinstated 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hodgson Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 19 hours ago, Nile said: The proof is here . That's a dodge I sometimes use to create the impression of more rolling stock than I've got, usually with different running numbers, but did these tanks actually carry different names on each side, or is that a mistake? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 19, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said: That's a dodge I sometimes use to create the impression of more rolling stock than I've got, usually with different running numbers, but did these tanks actually carry different names on each side, or is that a mistake? It's correct for mid-1930s onward, when the two companies joined forces for marketing purposes. John 1 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 13 hours ago, TheEngineShed said: Does anyone produce suitable transfers for renumbering these BP / Shell tank wagons? Missed opportunity on Oxfords part, these could have been produced in three packs with different numbers.... John Isherwood probably has something on here:- https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 19, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 19, 2021 (edited) Made a cuppa, and dealt with swapping the couplers at the other end in the five minutes it took for the tea to cool to a drinkable temperature. The perfectly aligned #146 Kadees fitted, with so little effort, via the original screw-holes, are going to keep me smiling for the rest of the day! Anyone who didn't know might take them as being the factory fitting. For a sub-twenty-quid offering, and despite the small error with the end stanchions, I think Oxford are showing the others how it can and should be done, especially in respect of brake gear, which is the finest I've ever encountered on a r-t-r wagon. Lots more please, Oxford; and I don't just mean variants of this model. I'd love them to revisit the LNER cattle wagon, correct the body errors and change it to the 10' wb version appropriate to the BR livery. John Edited June 19, 2021 by Dunsignalling 4 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 9 hours ago, Dunsignalling said: ...... This has to be the easiest wagon ever to fit Kadee couplers. ....... I trust fitting three-links will be just as simple ! ........................................... find out soon enough ....... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredo Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Hi, is the Oxford Rail model of the Shell/BP tanker suitable for a 60’s layout? Thanks Fred 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 20, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Fredo said: Hi, is the Oxford Rail model of the Shell/BP tanker suitable for a 60’s layout? Thanks Fred Basic livery seems OK, but it will need some alteration to the markings, which appear to be correct for pre-1948. Also, I think the red buffer beams would probably have gone black in BR days. I'm aiming at late-50's/early 60s condition for mine, but I've not touched it yet, and won't be doing so until I've established what's what. No point in just changing it from one wrong to another! John Edited June 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 36 minutes ago, Fredo said: Hi, is the Oxford Rail model of the Shell/BP tanker suitable for a 60’s layout? Thanks Fred Our local steelworks (Duport, Llanelly) was receiving heavy fuel oil in 4-wheeled, unfitted, tanks almost into the 1970s. When their replacements arrived, the steel company bought the old wagons, cut the top halves of the barrels off, and used them as scap carriers. They lasted a further 8 or ten years in this role. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 20, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) I've just found a couple of photos from 1956 of Shell-BP Class A wagons (though not the same design) in the same basic livery as Oxford's model. Cheona Publications Railways in Profile No.14, British Railway Private Owner Tank Wagons. Top of Pages 51 and 54. The first shows the "BP" side, the second the "Shell" one. Visible differences to the model are: 1. Black buffer beams (as I suspected), 2. Removal of SM prefix to the running numbers, with those on the tank-ends and filler stack re-applied centrally. That'll do me. John Edited June 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said: Basic livery seems OK, but it will need some alteration to the markings, which appear to be correct for pre-1948. Also, I think the red buffer beams would probably have gone black in BR days. .... Painting the tank aluminium and rather than buff and moving the red stripe from mid-tank to solebar was agree by the RCH in 1939 ( a red band was retained across the end of the tank ). This livery soon gave way to matt dark grey above the solebars so the wagons were less conspicuous from the air. The aluminium colour returned after the war but with the red tank-end stripe omitted : so the model's colours should be correct ( apart from the - easily dealt with - redstock ) for the post-war period until the early 60's when light grey came into use. 1948 doesn't come into it. I've not tracked down any reference to the currency of the 'SM' prefix. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 20, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) In "Petroleum Railtank Wagons of Britain" there's a 1949 pic of three ex-works Electrical Oil tankers with the SM prefix present. It's gone by the 1956 photos referred to in my earlier post. Both of those show the wagons in service but clearly not long out of works. That's as close as I've been able to narrow down when its use was discontinued. John Edited June 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 SM = Shell Mex I assume they owned the wagons with that on. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Shell_Mex The partnership started in 1931 if that's of any interest. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Shell-Mex_and_B._P. Jason 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 20, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said: SM = Shell Mex I assume they owned the wagons with that on. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Shell_Mex The partnership started in 1931 if that's of any interest. https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Shell-Mex_and_B._P. Jason Yes. Though, according to printed sources, the wagon fleets didn't get amalgamated for another year. The bit that's harder to work out is when they stopped using the SM prefix on their wagons. Those built/painted in 1949 have it but those done in 1956 don't. However, there seems to be a dearth of photos dated between 1950 and 1955. John Edited June 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 There's a photo of an 'SM' prefixed tank in 'Oil on the Rails' - "... probably at Shell Haven during the Second World war." ................ my guess is that the prefix was a wartime introduction - when conspicuous markings were suppressed - but why was it retained for so long afterwards ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted June 20, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 20, 2021 On 19/06/2021 at 12:15, Dunsignalling said: 3. Remove the body fixing screw, drill and tap the hole to 2/56. John What on earth is 2/56 ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 12 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said: my guess is that the prefix was a wartime introduction - when conspicuous markings were suppressed ✔ PB number suffix was petroleum board, AM was air ministry. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 20, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, melmerby said: What on earth is 2/56 ? US thread size, 2mm, 56 tpi., as per Kadee nylon screws (#256) and the Kadee Tap & Drill set (#246) M2 is close enough, but I was quoting all Kadee part numbers for consistency. John Edited June 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted June 21, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 21, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said: There's a photo of an 'SM' prefixed tank in 'Oil on the Rails' - "... probably at Shell Haven during the Second World war." ................ my guess is that the prefix was a wartime introduction - when conspicuous markings were suppressed - but why was it retained for so long afterwards ? At a guess, just habit, or the government being tardy in revoking that part of the regulations. After all, keeping redundant prefixes wouldn't have inconvenienced anyone at the time. Either way, I suspect "SM" probably remained on individual wagons until next painted; but "sometime between 1949 and 1956" will have to suffice pending more info coming to light. In that spirit, I'll leave the numbers on mine alone for now and just repaint the buffer beams! John Edited June 21, 2021 by Dunsignalling 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markw Posted June 21, 2021 Share Posted June 21, 2021 6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said: At a guess, just habit, or the government being tardy in revoking that part of the regulations. After all, keeping redundant prefixes wouldn't have inconvenienced anyone at the time. Either way, I suspect "SM" probably remained on individual wagons until next painted; but "sometime between 1949 and 1956" will have to suffice pending more info coming to light. In that spirit, I'll leave the numbers on mine alone for now and just repaint the buffer beams! John 'Oil On The Rails' has a photo of the aftermath of the 1953 floods, only 2 of the 10 wagons where the number is visible have the SM prefix. 'Petroleum Railtank Wagons' has new build wagons without SM prefix 5706 Mclellan Jan 48 6397 Cambrian Jun 48 And 4886 a 1947 repaint with 'for repairs advise petroleum board' So I think the SM prefix was only applied to Shell BP liveried repaints at around the end of the petroleum board in June 1948 probably for no more than a few months. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now