GWR Iron Mink

[rapidoandy]

The Great Western Railway’s V6 ‘Iron Mink’ is one of the most recognisable designs that came out of the Swindon wagon drawing office – and now it has been released by Rapido Trains UK! What made these wagons so recognisable was the fact that they shunned traditional wooden construction and were made from metal instead.

 

 

Shortages of timber forced the GWR to investigate building vans from metal but it wasn’t until 1888 that what could be called the ‘standard Iron Mink’ appeared. This boasted a 16ft 6in underframe and a capacity of 8 tons. Over 4,000 were built up to 1901 when the GWR reverted to wood bodies.

 

The ‘Iron Minks’ were long lived with examples surviving through until British Railways days in revenue and Departmental service. They could be found all over the UK railway network and some were recorded as far north as Inverness.

The V6 ‘Iron Minks’ received many modifications over the years. Larger vent hoods were introduced in 1899, grease axleboxes gave way to oil, different brake styles were fitted and, when required, metals doors were often replaced with wood.

With war looming, the ‘Iron Mink’s’ metal construction made it an ideal gunpowder van. Wooden doors were replaced with thick metal ones and the end ventilators were covered with a plain panel. After the First World War, these ‘Iron Minks’ were converted back to goods traffic.

 

 

The Second World War led to further need for gunpowder vans and, once again, the ‘Iron Minks’ were called upon again. The GWR loaned 100 to the Southern Railway in 1937 (complete with SR lettering) where they stayed until the end of the war.

‘Iron Mink’ withdrawals started in the 1930s and continued through to the mid-1960s. Despite being condemned, many of the vans found alternate uses such as sawdust and sand vans in depots, lamp rooms and tool stores. Two van bodies even found usage as stop blocks at Machynlleth and were fitted with self-contained buffers!

 

 

Luckily, four complete ‘Iron Minks’ (alongside several van bodies) have survived into the preservation at the Severn Valley Railway, Didcot Railway Centre, Swindon and Cricklade and South Devon Railway.

 

As usual they are available direct from us or from any Official Retailer. RRP is £32.95 and the order books will close on the 1st May.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by rapidoandy

[Miss Prism]

Excellent. The W-iron legs could be a bit longer though.

 

[rapidoandy]

41 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Excellent. The W-iron legs could be a bit longer though.

 

 

There is always room for improvement! However a quote of "Excellent" from Miss Prism makes for a very happy Andy...

[Jon Harbour]

Looking forward to these! Excellent choice!

[Compound2632]

The "Ferrocrete" wagons were built by the trade and consequently featured a variety of non-Great Western grease axleboxes; sometimes that variety can be seen on the same wagon:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways image misc_hcw174.jpg.]

 

Will this be replicated on the model?

 

Variations on the running gear along with bodywork would permit such interesting vehicles as LNWR Gunpowder vans to be produced. These have been done before as RTR:

 

... but then so has the Iron Mink, and more recently.

 

 

[Miss Prism]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Will this be replicated on the model?

 

Rapido would be nuts to try to do so. Rapido has chosen two prototypes that can share the same chassis. Investing in new chassis tooling for such a niche variation would not make commercial sense.

 

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Rapido would be nuts to try to do so. 

 

As I'm sure you realised, I wrote my post somewhat tongue in cheek, adopting my annoying pedant persona. (At least, I hope it's a persona and not the real me!)

 

It does, however, leave the field open for Rails with their more flexible technology to cover some of these variants more authentically.

 

Meanwhile, anyone wanting to improve on the Rapido model has only to cut away their moulded axleboxes and replace with the appropriate MJT ones - or go the whole hog and strip out the axleguards and replace with brass ones.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Compound2632

[Dunsignalling]

TBH it's a piece of cake to slice off unwanted axleboxes and replace them with appropriate castings (always supposing somebody makes the pattern required).

 

Rapido are proposing to do the hard bit with the Ferrocrete vans (the livery) and a bit of fettling will make the model "mine" as opposed to "one of a thousand" identical out-of-the-box examples. Also, of course, at least some of them will have lasted long enough to be retrofitted with oil axleboxes. It would be hard to know where to draw the line with possible variations.

 

I'd far rather that than do without or wait for a hypothetical 3D print equivalent that will (IMHO) still tend to look rather clunky if placed alongside a good injection moulding.

 

John

[57xx]

Not sure if it's an optical illusion on the Rapido pics due to the differing materials used, but the buffers look a bit chunky to me, I think they look more spindly on the prototype.

 

 

Close up crop from SVREnthusiast's pic.

[ChicagoNick]

Are iron mink vans a similar dimension to the released gunpowder vans.

 

I just received my GWR gunpowder van and I have to say its maybe the best wagon I own so looking forward to more offerings... Its a tiny little thing and not much longer than a Hornby 4-plank wagon. 

 

[Dunsignalling]

58 minutes ago, ChicagoNick said:

Are iron mink vans a similar dimension to the released gunpowder vans.

 

I just received my GWR gunpowder van and I have to say its maybe the best wagon I own so looking forward to more offerings... Its a tiny little thing and not much longer than a Hornby 4-plank wagon. 

 

Very close. Some early gunpowder vans effectively were Iron Minks and, apart from the name, not exclusively a GWR thing. Yeovil Railway Centre is the custodian of a LSWR Iron-Mink-style Gunpowder van from the National Collection that was built by commercial wagon builders G & R Turner. 

 

The later designs just followed the same basic pattern; as the man said, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

John

Edited April 3, 2022 by Dunsignalling
Correction

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 01/04/2022 at 13:04, Compound2632 said:

The "Ferrocrete" wagons were built by the trade and consequently featured a variety of non-Great Western grease axleboxes; sometimes that variety can be seen on the same wagon:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways image misc_hcw174.jpg.]

Does anyone know how long the APCM wagons lasted on the Greaves traffic? The last photo I have seen is 1953, which is a few years too early for me although I probably have enough stock to backdate that far for a running session.

[G-BOAF]

Is the white roundel 'salvage for victory' the correct config to represent the South Devon Iron Mink (in terms of doors, vents and brake gear?)

[2996 Victor]

Any chance of the red livery on the pre-1904 version?

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Compound2632]

16 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

Any chance of the red livery on the pre-1904 version?

 

Well, Rails have done the red livery, so Rapido doing the grey livery caters for both schools of thought, at least on the iron minks. But I'd be interested to hear what led to Rapido coming down on the grey side of the fence.

[2996 Victor]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Rails have done the red livery

I missed that - you live under a rock for a couple of years and look what happens? Actually, I've been building aeroplanes, but the result is much the same! I bet Rails haven't got any red Minks left.....

 

Cheers,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, Rails have done the red livery, so Rapido doing the grey livery caters for both schools of thought, at least on the iron minks. But I'd be interested to hear what led to Rapido coming down on the grey side of the fence.

Been reading the thread on the Rails Iron Mink and it seems it has some fundamental problems with the door framing and other dimensions? Disappointing.

 

If Rapido can do a better job, great, but the red livery would still be nice to see.

 

Mark

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

Been reading the thread on the Rails Iron Mink and it seems it has some fundamental problems with the door framing and other dimensions? Disappointing.

 

Please could you point to where that has been said?

[2996 Victor]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Please could you point to where that has been said?

Hi Stephen,

 

The posts that I was referring to are http://There has never been an RTR GWR Iron Mink prior to this one.   There has been two kits of the V6 diagram; a white metal one by ABS kits (no longer available), and a plastic one by Ratio (now via Peco) and still available. I've never seen an ABS kit but I seem to understand that it was quite well regarded in terms of dimensions and detail, but happy to be proven wrong.   The Ratio kit is too narrow in the body, and as the sides are too high the roof doesn't sit flush against the sides and ends, leaving a minor air gap, but is otherwise quite serviceable and can be tinkered with to suit the modeler's prerogative.    This new Rails version has attracted much comment as to its quality and finesse. Straight away I would say the roof sheet looks too thick and therefore crude, the brake gear looks overscale, the coupling hook looks a bit flimsy and done in plastic which would make fitting 3-links a challenge (and it doesn't seem like 3-links are included, despite Oxford Rail now including them with their wagons at 1/2 the price of this), and the wheels are Dapol's standard crude type that are overscale in most dimensions (spokes, wheel rims etc). Others have mentioned that the holes on the solebar are too large, but I cannot comment on that.   The livery on some versions is suspect too. It would have been very unlikely for the late GWR and BR versions to have a brilliant white roof such as that shown - certainly by the start of WW2 all van roofs went into a dark grey colour. Furthermore, the late-GWR livery is dodgy as the font style does not look right - the lettering is too narrow.    Hope this helps.   CoY https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/166005-new-gwr-iron-mink/?do=findComment&comment=4520762 

 

and most particularly

http://The absence of an RTR V6 has always been something of an inexplicable omission from the mainstream manufacturers (also the absence of an authentic GWR open!), so this Rails announcement is not a surprise.   As to the current Rails pictures, I have comments similar to others made here, but the aspect that jumps out at me is the badly incorrect proportions of the door framing. No excuse, really, given the real thing is accessible to a simple tape measure at Didcot.       https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/166005-new-gwr-iron-mink/?do=findComment&comment=4521558

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Dunsignalling]

I don't imagine anybody who has been using 3-link couplings for any length of time being bothered what size any plastic hooks may be.

 

They'll have to replace them sometime, so they might as well do it before putting the wagon into service.

 

John

 

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

The posts that I was referring

 

Thanks. Your links don't work for me. 

@County of Yorkshire did not comment on overall dimensions but on details. I'll allow their comment on the thickness of the roof; there I suspect that one is up against the limitations of the manufacturing process; thin sheet metal is challenging to represent at 4 mm/ft scale even with thin sheet metal! Their other comments are, I think, things that will hold true for any RTR model (certainly in 00 where brake gear is inevitably compromised) and indeed most kits except those where the brake gear is soldered up from etched components.

 

Any comment on Great Western matters my @Miss Prism carries weight but you did not link to the response given by one who, as I understand it, was involved with the model:

 

 

One would, I suggest, need to run the vernier callipers over a sample with the GA in front of one before reaching a definite conclusion on this point.

 

Having enough iron minks for my purposes, built from the Ratio kit, I'm something of an impartial bystander in this debate; I would wish to see praise given to the merits of both models, since RTR pre-grouping wagons do not grow on trees - after all there are still great gaping holes in the range of grouping-era wagon available RTR, or shall I just say accurate RTR wagons altogether? I would also defend the Ratio kit (having used it) against one of @County of Yorkshire's charges, that of being too narrow. Whilst when I measured this up I found it to be a scale 2" under-width, I didn't feel that was as drastic as the impression I was being given would suggest:

 

It does need 1 mm trimming off the top of the sides and ends and there are various other issues of detail but for a kit that is now about half-a-century old it shapes up well enough. 

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 31/03/2022 at 12:22, rapidoandy said:

Shortages of timber forced the GWR to investigate building vans from metal 

 

By the way, what is the evidence for this statement? This does not seem to have been an issue affecting other wagon builders, whether railway company or trade. 

[Edwardian]

13 hours ago, 2996 Victor said:

Been reading the thread on the Rails Iron Mink and it seems it has some fundamental problems with the door framing and other dimensions? Disappointing.

 

If Rapido can do a better job, great, but the red livery would still be nice to see.

 

Mark

 

Not sure that's right. The CAD was drawn from the GA. Please be careful about spreading what could be misinformation.  

[2996 Victor]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Thanks. Your links don't work for me

Thanks, Stephen, for managing to embed the actual comments - unfortunately I'm using my mobile at present and it's causing a few problems at the moment.

 

Thanks also for adding the additional info.

 

Regards,

Mark

[2996 Victor]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Not sure that's right. The CAD was drawn from the GA. Please be careful about spreading what could be misinformation.  

Thanks - I was merely hoping that someone who had the model on their bench might be able to confirm or dispel what had already been inferred by others, hence the question mark.