Oxford announce the 5 Plank Wagon

[autocoach]

Yes.  If you look at the currently available kit equivalent of this tooling - RCH 1923 5-planks from Cambrian Kits - you see that they are described as used for road stone, some having a metal sheeted floor for the purpose. 

English China Clay (of EC&P) appear to have used the RCH 1923 5 Plank in clay service. I bought 10 of the Cambrian kits for this purpose. Now if Oxford put out a late EC&P version, I might buy.

[tomparryharry]

It might be pertinent to remember that the floor planking is fore & aft, not side to side. Apparently done to allow easier tipping of the clay.

 

Ian.

[autocoach]

It might be pertinent to remember that the floor planking is fore & aft, not side to side. Apparently done to allow easier tipping of the clay.

 

Ian.

Would have to add a thin layer of scribbed plastic sheet as an overlay. Will go back and check/modify the 7 Cambrian wagons already built.

[Edwardian]

I did suggest that an RCH 1923 5-plank would not be used for coal traffic.  Well, 7-planks were typical for this period, but I don't think the situation is quite that clear cut. 

 

There is a useful summary of what RCH standards represent and the move from 5 to 7-planks for coal traffic here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74168-pre-grouping-general-discussion/page-9&do=findComment&comment=3022766

 

You'll note in reference to RCH 1907 that there were reasons why some users resisted the move from 5-planks (up to 10 tons) 7-planks (12 tons) for coal.  It would not surprise me if post 1923 there were still some users that preferred a lower capacity for coal wagons, and some new (i.e. 1923 standard) wagons may have been employed in carrying coal. 

 

The RCH 1923 5-plank would have been rated 12 tons, but, I suggest that their capacity would be limited to 10 tons when carrying coal. 

 

I suspect that it would be fair comment to say that Oxford's chosen tooling could be used for coal traffic. That does not mean that the coal user liveries chosen match the wagon type and period represented by the tooling.   

 

Given that the tooling seems to replicate a longstanding Bachmann product, I wonder why the modeller would need to buy these in preference to the numerous second-hand Bachmann versions likely to be available for even less than Oxford's keenly priced offerings.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Edwardian

[PenrithBeacon]

I notice that these wagons don't have end doors, or would this feature only be of value for the higher capacity 12T wagon?

[Adams442T]

I just cannot understand why wagons built to RCH 1907 standards are not available.  They would surely overlap the RCH 1923 versions, by many years in some cases, and be eminently more suitable for pre-grouping use. 

 

Instead we have these 'faux' wagons, often not in accurate liveries, which many people run because they are 'pretty'!

[81C]

It might be pertinent to remember that the floor planking is fore & aft, not side to side. Apparently done to allow easier tipping of the clay.

 

Ian.

I thought they had zinc flooring, still you learn something new every day. 

[tomparryharry]

I thought they had zinc flooring, still you learn something new every day. 

You could be right. However, our china clays up here have lengthwise flooring. A 7-plank ruin has a cross planked floor. More research required, methinks....

 

Ian.

[Penlan]

I just cannot understand why wagons built to RCH 1907 standards are not available.  They would surely overlap the RCH 1923 versions, by many years in some cases, and be eminently more suitable for pre-grouping use. 

Agree, I await the days we have circa 1907 etc, if not before, RCH specs., fully liveried, off the shelf

but fear my modelling days will be over by then.

[Mark Saunders]

You could be right. However, our china clays up here have lengthwise flooring. A 7-plank ruin has a cross planked floor. More research required, methinks....

 

Ian.

 

The China Clay end door tipplers had longitudinal planked floors to aid discharge and BR had them marked with a "L" to identify this!

 

Mark Saunders

[No Decorum]

I just cannot understand why wagons built to RCH 1907 standards are not available.  They would surely overlap the RCH 1923 versions, by many years in some cases, and be eminently more suitable for pre-grouping use. 

 

Instead we have these 'faux' wagons, often not in accurate liveries, which many people run because they are 'pretty'!

Yes indeed. Tooling up for an RCH 1907 wagon would be much cheaper than for a locomotive and the tool would just go on and on producing wagons every year for years. As for pretty wagons, they usually are offered to us singly, whereas in trains of the time they frequently ran in multiples. It isn’t as if the running number is a standard one which can be replaced with a transfer.

[57xx]

I thought they had zinc flooring, 

 

They did. On top of the longitudinal planking that they were originally built with.

[81C]

They did. On top of the longitudinal planking that they were originally built with.

Thanks for confirming that I thought I was going off my trolley, thinking about it I must have to be posting on this forum. 

[ColHut]

I just cannot understand why wagons built to RCH 1907 standards are not available. They would surely overlap the RCH 1923 versions, by many years in some cases, and be eminently more suitable for pre-grouping use.

 

Instead we have these 'faux' wagons, often not in accurate liveries, which many people run because they are 'pretty'!

The Dapol 7 plank on 9' WB wood u/f are passable 12 ton 1907 RCH wagons despite their idiosyncratic side rail. They at least match the maximum length given in the 1907 specs. It is true that most 10 ton wagons would be shorter, and 8 tons probsly only 5 plank as well.

 

NB for those interested in the capacity and dimensions of actual welsh coal wagons, there is a great deal in the South Wales Coal annual 1908 available here https://archive.org/details/southwalescoalan00carduoft complete. Doubtless locals can browse the various editions in their local library

 

regards

Edited January 30, 2018 by ColHut

[Penlan]

The Dapol 7 plank on 9' WB wood u/f are passable 12 ton 1907 RCH wagons despite their idiosyncratic side rail. 

Are these the ones that are product No. 4F-072-xxxx, please

[ColHut]

Yes. The 5 plank is still too long at 16' over the headstocks, but I think the 7 plank is the same length thus passable as 12 or 10 tons depending on the coal density. They have brakes on one side only and a 9' wood u/f.

 

The downside is that the plank grooving is very noticeable, The solebars have detail but are all black and are not in the body colour (except by chance). The side rail is also not cut into the head stock making the model slightly higher than it needs to be.

 

Bear in mind that there were large detail differences between PO wagons in practice, and that the RCH standards took some time for some of their provisions to come into effect.

 

regards

Edited January 30, 2018 by ColHut

[Penlan]

Thank you ColHut, they do look remarkably high, compared with my 7 plankers which are the likes of Slaters 'Gloucester' wagons etc.,  I shall have to get a cheapy off Ebay or something, to compare.

 

Edit - I see what you mean about the body not cut to clear the headstocks - thus to much solebar exposed.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Penlan

[PenrithBeacon]

Yes. The 5 plank is still too long at 16' over the headstocks, but I think the 7 plank is the same length thus passable as 12 or 10 tons depending on the coal density. They have brakes on one side only and a 9' wood u/f.

...

regards

I think I might have lost the thread, whose wagons are being spoken of here?

[Nile]

All but Oxford, it would seem.

[Penlan]

Well, we have got to 60+ replies so far, which based on the general way RMWeb topic flows,
seems good to have got this far without straying far from the OP. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Penlan

[ColHut]

Apologies for the OT. It is ironic that but for the fineness of construction of the new Oxford 5 plank, the old Dapol model is probably more in proportion.

 

There - back to to Oxford

 

regards

[PenrithBeacon]

Have any drawings been published of RCH standard 5 plank wagons?

[Penlan]

Have any drawings been published of RCH standard 5 plank wagons?

A.J.Watts 'Ince Waggon & Ironworks' has a RCH 5 plank 1887 GA drawing, page 14.

The Gloucester book by Keith Montague doesn't.

I know I've seen GA's in some of the other PO wagon books available, those that run into numerous parts.

I'm sure. somewhere on my shelves I have a couple of PO books with drawings in, but it's Wednesday, and it's lads night out down the Legion, so    

 

If you really want to get to the nubb of PO's, then L.Tavenders 'Coal Trade Wagons' should give you plenty of information.

[ColHut]

Have any drawings been published of RCH standard 5 plank wagons?

There is a copy of the specifications in the back of Essery, Rowland & Steel's British Goods Wagons at Appendix 5.

 

Diagrams except for name plates are not included. A standard underframe dagram is included. Bill Hudson's books also have much of this.

 

regards

[Penlan]

Bill Hudson's books also have much of this.

Bill Hudson's book are the one's I can't find on my shelves at present.

Edit: Vol 1, can't be found, Vol's 2, 3 & 4, to hand.  I assume the RCH pre 1923 drawings and Spec., are in Vol 1. 

Vol 2 has the 1923 Spec., but any drawings are Charles Roberts, which may, or may not be, exact copies of the RCH recommendations  All E.& O.E.  

 

The specifications in the back of Essery, Rowland & Steel's 'British Goods Wagons' at Appendix 5, is the 1907 Specification, no drawing(s) though .