GWR Iron Mink

[Edwardian]

20 minutes ago, 2996 Victor said:

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.

 

IIRC someone took the view from a Rails product picture that the door frames were too thick, but that was just an optical illusion; there really isn't any sensible basis for assuming that there are dimensional inaccuracies or for requiring Rails to prove otherwise. The designer is something of a GW expert, had the GA and access to the mink at Didcot, so I think you can probably safely assume the Rails Mink is dimensionally accurate, unlike the venerable Ratio kit.

 

The Rails model is also more accurately and correctly detailed than the Ratio kit. 

 

Some time ago I did make a comparison between the initial Rails release (left), representing late '20s-early '30s condition, and the Ratio kit (right).

 

 

The Ratio kit lacks the solebar holes for horse shunting. There is also a little bracket that was added to connect the W iron to the brake ratchet, which is absent from the Ratio kit. The late '20s to early '30s condition requires the door retaining catches and corresponding hooks mounted against the side stanchions. The Ratio kit does not feature these, so, strictly, these very fiddly details would need adding to represent a Mink in 1930s.

 

Overall the detail is better on the Rails model. On the body, the stanchion rivets are finer, closer to scale, than on the Ratio.  The door fastener I would say is finer and better realised on the Rails version.  The ribs on the roof even feature rivet heads, which you might easily miss, and which Ratio's do not.   On the chassis, there are a number of areas that illustrate the greater accuracy and finesse. If you compare, say, the brake shoes. The Rails ones better captures the shape and has surface detail, which the Ratio ones lack. The Rails version depicts the brake ratchet and separate safety guard.  The Ratio one just has a simple vertical form. Similarly, the Rails brake lever has a loop at the end (albeit it's too deep due to printing constraints), the Ratio one does not. The Rails brake rods are, like on the SECR van, are double or split, and the safety loops are actually, loops.

 

The Rails Mink has the correct number of solebar rivets, for any who choose to count them, the Ratio one does not, or the necessary circular holes. The Rails version has a nicely detailed label clip, the Ratio version just has rectangle with no detail. The spring stops on the Ratio kit are overscale and relatively crude compared with the finer rendering on the Rails version. On the Rails version the spring shoes are a better shape and better detailed.

 

On the minus side, technical limitations mean the roof, buffer guides and brake handle loop are rather too thick and the product would have benefitted by continuing with Alan Gibson wheels instead of the Dapol ones supplied. 

 

The red versions feature grease axleboxes and are braked on one side only.  The body correctly lacks the later additions.

 

 

With this physical condition we are relatively safe to assume the red livery, though the question becomes harder around the turn of the century, with no certainty as to when the grey livery was adopted. The more modern view tends to be that grey was not introduced until the change to 21" initials in 1904, so the livery depicted on the Rapido models (and the preserved Didcot mink) - i.e. grey with the small G.W.R painted initials - never existed, although the evidence is not conclusive either way.  I tend to the view that grey did came in around the 'cast-plate' era at the turn of the century.

 

I haven't seen enough of the Rapido model to judge it (and none of the product pictures in this topic are showing up at time of posting); there must be some constraints on tooling that will likely throw up minor inaccuracies for some of the planned livery versions, but we'll see. Overall the Rapido quality is likely to be superb.  I have enough minks from the Rails print to convert to the 1880s-1900s versions I will require for any project, but will happily buy any of the Rapido ones where the livery/detail combination is correct and they fit my periods of interest. I look forward to seeing more of this product. 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The Ratio kit [...]

 

Overall the detail is better on the Rails model.

 

It would be disappointing if a new RTR model was not an improvement on a venerable cheap plastic kit!

 

I did drill the holes in the solebars of my Ratio minks (on all three, I hope). 

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It would be disappointing if a new RTR model was not an improvement on a venerable cheap plastic kit!

 

I did drill the holes in the solebars of my Ratio minks (on all three, I hope). 

 

Yes, many of the issue can be fixed readily enough. Originally I think I was prompted by some casual assertion that someone could not see any advantages over the Ratio kit, but, as you say, modern RTR standards might be expected to exceed a rather old kit, and this was simply to show how that was so in this case.

 

Having said that, I hear many say that the old ABS whitemetal kit was very good. I don't have one and don't have much incentive either to find one or seek to improve Ratio kits as I have a few Rails components to work with.  

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Having said that, I hear many say that the old ABS whitemetal kit was very good. I don't have one and don't have much incentive either to find one or seek to improve Ratio kits as I have a few Rails components to work with.  

 

@Mikkel has described building and refining these:

 

and several other places...

[Quarryscapes]

Shame the Cambrian one isn't going to be any better than the Dapol one. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Quarryscapes said:

Shame the Cambrian one isn't going to be any better than the Dapol one. 

 

How so? From my reading of All About..., the differences in construction would be difficult to address. All About doesn't give the builder - is it the Midland RC&W Co.? (I think I read SHREWSBURY) on the bottom line of the builder's plate.)

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

How so? From my reading of All About..., the differences in construction would be difficult to address. All About doesn't give the builder - is it the Midland RC&W Co.? (I think I read SHREWSBURY) on the bottom line of the builder's plate.)

 

I'm not aware what the Rapido tooling suite will cater for (as opposed to what liveries may purport to represent; compromise is always necessary with costly injection moulding tooling), so will reserve judgment. 

 

If I understand, we will get the V6.  The question is how much of the physical variation we will get given reasonable tooling constraints.

 

There seem to be planned alternative doors for (a) the planked replacement doors and (b) the flush gunpowder doors.  The GPVs appear to be late '30s-'40s V6 conversions, rather than purpose-built X1s. As such, the GPVs should also have blanked-off vents, and the EP sample shown suggests they have.

 

Whether the long vents bonnets from 1899 onwards are to be included is perhaps unlikely.  The cast plate phase seems to be unrepresented and I suggest likely to remain so in tooling terms. Whether we have 6-rivet early bodies seems doubtful and we don't seem to have the option of the original grease axleboxes many batches were built with, but oil boxes were retro-fitted IIRC, so that is not too bad a constraint.

 

The EPs show double-brake one side (as built) and the additional single brake on the originally unbraked side. Hopefully the ones representing earlier conditions won't have the additional brake.  Those representing late '20s onwards (with the extra brake) ought also to have door retention catches on the door and stanchions, but EPs don't appear to have this detail. 

 

For example, one of the blue salvage minks had a 6-rivet body, not 7-rivet. One of them was double-braked both sides (the only example of that I can recall).  Both had evidence of 'patching'.  Both should feature door retention catches. I would not be surprised, from what I've seen and based on sane tooling constraints, if we don't see all or any of such features. 

 

Once we go outside the V6 diagram, we are dealing with vehicles that would only be accurate with significantly different tooling and I see no evidence that this is planned.

[rapidoandy]

Well people only have to ask….

 

We have tooled…

 

One body. 

One chassis with oil boxes

One roof
Standard doors.

Planked doors.

GPV doors

Short vents

Long vents

GPV played over vents (etch)

Single sided double shoe brakes.

Additional single single brake shoe for the opposite side.

The two shoe brake will fit on both sides to allow for both side double shoe as found on some.

Door retention fixings are planned to be in a polybag to fit as required.

 

I would say that is fairly comprehensive and covers an awful lot 😃.

 

Andy

Edited April 21, 2022 by rapidoandy

[Miss Prism]

8 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

I would say that is fairly comprehensive and covers an awful lot 😃.

 

I agree. Actually, I'm surprised so many variations are being offered; it goes beyond what one should traditionally expect from an RTR. (But I accept that is an old-fashioned view these days.)

 

Anyone who wants different to this should get out a sheet of plasticard or start bashing a Ratio kit.

[Quarryscapes]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

How so? From my reading of All About..., the differences in construction would be difficult to address. All About doesn't give the builder - is it the Midland RC&W Co.? (I think I read SHREWSBURY) on the bottom line of the builder's plate.)

 

Shouldn't have plated over vents (didn't have vents to be plated over until the GWR added them later after grouping)

Stanchions are wrong at the bottom

Axleboxes should be Cambrian Oil Boxes

Brakes are wrong

Wheels are wrong

 

Basically everything below floor level wrong + vent plating. 

 

[Compound2632]

Yes, any of the mink-u-likes built as gunpowder vans were built without vents, for obvious reasons. 

[Edwardian]

13 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

Well people only have to ask….

 

We have tooled…

 

One body. 

One chassis with oil boxes

One roof
Standard doors.

Planked doors.

GPV doors

Short vents

Long vents

GPV played over vents (etch)

Single sided double shoe brakes.

Additional single single brake shoe for the opposite side.

The two shoe brake will fit on both sides to allow for both side double shoe as found on some.

Door retention fixings are planned to be in a polybag to fit as required.

 

I would say that is fairly comprehensive and covers an awful lot 😃.

 

Andy

 

Well that is useful, and, I think, represents more comprehensive treatment than many of us would have expected. So thanks and well done.

 

Personally I will be looking out for the long-vent versions in particular. 

[rapidoandy]

Tomorrow is order deadline folks!

 

[Dungrange]

Not knowing much about the pre-grouping period - would these vans ever have got over to East Anglia in the 1914 - 1919 period, or were they only really seen on the Great Western until Nationalisation?  I note that they got everywhere in BR days.

[BVMR21]

Common user would mean they’d get around pre-nationalisation so I’d assume they got around during the war years.

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Not knowing much about the pre-grouping period - would these vans ever have got over to East Anglia in the 1914 - 1919 period, or were they only really seen on the Great Western until Nationalisation?  I note that they got everywhere in BR days.

 

Pooling of unfitted covered vans was introduced on 13 June 1919. Prior to that date, any Iron Mink loaded to a destination off the Great Western system would have to be returned within a short time (not sure, a couple of days) whether or not there was a return load available. Pre-Great War photos of goods yards show that the home company's wagons were very much dominant (along with PO coal wagons) with "foreigners" being rareties. 

 

So the answer to the first part of your question is, only very occasionally; to the second part is, during the 20s and 30s there would be a reasonable chance of seeing one off the Great Western system, though as more 12 ton vans became available these old 9 ton vans would increasingly fall from favour and indeed were being steadily withdrawn. As to your note that they got everywhere in BR days, I have to say that I remain thoroughly unconvinced that there were any left in ordinary revenue service by the 1950s. (The two famous WW2 "Salvage" vans are to my mind good evidence that Iron Minks were not regarded as very valuable for revenue traffic by the early 40s.)

[Dunsignalling]

Not sure if it was on here, but I've seen a photo of dozens of Iron Minks lined up on sidings as if stored or withdrawn, some of which had gained a W prefix to the number and had the GW painted out. No sign of BR grey.

 

IIRC the date was around 1952 or '53. They haven't had the condemned symbol added, though I'm not sure when that came into use on the WR.

 

BR had periodic clear-outs of elderly stock at approximately 3-year intervals (photos suggest 1948-9/51-2/55/58), and I suspect these were the fruits of one (probably 1951-2). Being almost all-metal they were probably a prime pick for scrap sales. My gut feeling is that there were probably a few still hanging around remote corners of the system as unofficial internal users but seeing little or no traffic use until maybe 1954/5.  After that, I'd think any survivors would have been departmental or formal internal users as tarpaulin stores etc.

 

John  

[The Stationmaster]

The main place to have found them would be stood on the blocks in goods yard sidings where they a served  as document stores for stuff which had to be held for along while (6 years in some cases); possibly some for general storage; but most likely for salvage pending its disposal.

[TrevorP1]

Ideal for a tarpaulin van on a china clay branch then. 🙂

[Dungrange]

On 22/09/2022 at 09:32, Compound2632 said:

Pooling of unfitted covered vans was introduced on 13 June 1919. Prior to that date, any Iron Mink loaded to a destination off the Great Western system would have to be returned within a short time (not sure, a couple of days) whether or not there was a return load available. Pre-Great War photos of goods yards show that the home company's wagons were very much dominant (along with PO coal wagons) with "foreigners" being rarities. 

 

How does the period post 13 June 1919 compare to during World War One?  I understand that following the declaration of war in August 1914 the railways were brought under Government control via the Requisition of Forces Act 1871.   I'm assuming that these wagons would therefore have been pooled during WWI in much the same way as they were post-June 1919 and therefore your comment on the 1920s/30s would equally apply to the war years.

 

Having submitted a pre-order for a GER C53 (the LNER J70) - which predates all my other stock by the best part of 100 years, I need some stock to go with it and there doesn't appear to be a lot of suitable stock from that era on the market.  The Rapido train pack I've pre-ordered seems to represent the 1914-1919 period, so effectively I think I'm looking at devising a wartime layout idea.  If one of these could have got to East Anglia (even only occasionally) during WWI, I can probably justify a purchase.

 

How long would one in pre-1904 livery have survived in that livery?  I understand that the 16" letters were introduced in 1921, so they would be too modern for a WWI era layout, so my options would appear to be either the pre-1904 variant or one of the versions with 25" letters.  Is that correct?

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Dungrange said:

How does the period post 13 June 1919 compare to during World War One?  I understand that following the declaration of war in August 1914 the railways were brought under Government control via the Requisition of Forces Act 1871.   I'm assuming that these wagons would therefore have been pooled during WWI in much the same way as they were post-June 1919 and therefore your comment on the 1920s/30s would equally apply to the war years.

 

It is always unwise to make assumptions about the past based on common-sense ideas about what would be done in a similar situation nowadays, or even what was done during the Second World War - where lessons had been learnt from the Great War. Government control did not mean government management in detail, nor did it mean over-riding all existing ways of working. Prior to 13 June 1919, the working of ordinary covered goods wagons between companies would have been subject to the long-established rules requiring return to the parent line within a fixed period. A point to remember here is that at that time covered goods wagons only accounted for something around 15% of merchandise wagons, unlike the near 50% of BR days.

 

8 hours ago, Dungrange said:

How long would one in pre-1904 livery have survived in that livery?  I understand that the 16" letters were introduced in 1921, so they would be too modern for a WWI era layout, so my options would appear to be either the pre-1904 variant or one of the versions with 25" letters.  Is that correct?

 

That is difficult to say. There are photos illustrating loading methods, from the GW's General Appendix, 1920-something? edition, showing wagons with the small lettering or with cast plates, but these could well have been old photos re-used. @Mikkel did a survey of early 20th-century descriptions of GW wagon livery from magazines etc., there was one that was relatively late on, as I recall, that said "grey, some red" or something like that - perhaps he can be induced to give chapter and verse?

 

Having studied a variety of goods station photos, my impression is that post-Great War, i.e. after the pooling of ordinary opens from 2 Jan 1917*, the GW wagons one sees all have the 25" lettering. The photos I'm thinking of are mostly 1920-22, rather than immediately post-war. I don't think it's that I'm not spotting ones with small lettering, because GW wagons were quite distinctive in their construction, with only the most modern SECR wagons being at all similar.

 

*There was pooling of ordinary opens among those companies that had existing working agreements (dating from 1907/8) - the GC/GE/GN group from 13 December 1915 and the L&Y/LNW/Midland group from 2 April 1916, along with the GW and NE.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Compound2632

[Dunsignalling]

Wartime conditions would have presumably had an impact on how often wagons were repainted, thereby affecting the pace of any changes in livery/markings.

 

The likely effect would have been to slow the application of the 25" letters during the conflict. 

 

Conversely, once the war was over, there would have been a drive to eliminate arrears of maintenance, which would have resulted in large numbers of wagons getting them over a relatively short period prior to the next change in 1921.

 

That would explain a preponderance of 25" markings in 1920-22, and those wagons would not be due full repaints for several years, slowing the rate at which the 16" letters became dominant within the fleet.

 

John

Edited October 19, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Wartime conditions would have presumably had an impact on how often wagons were repainted, thereby affecting the pace of any changes in livery/markings.

 

The likely effect would have been to slow the application of the 25" letters during the conflict. 

 

Conversely, once the war was over, there would have been a drive to eliminate arrears of maintenance, which would have resulted in large numbers of wagons getting them over a relatively short period prior to the next change in 1921.

 

That would explain a preponderance of 25" markings in 1920-22, and those wagons would not be due full repaints for several years, slowing the rate at which the 16" letters became dominant within the fleet.

 

Yes, I've been looking at the Midland Railway Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes for the period. It's evident that there was a backlog of repairs, which was making it difficult to get back up to the pre-war target of renewing (i.e. building new wagons to replace withdrawals) at the rate of 5,000 per year (about 4% of the company's wagon fleet).

[Craigw]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

 

The likely effect would have been to slow the application of the 25" letters during the conflict. 

 

 

 Since the 25" lettering had been in use from 1904 and the GWR had a pretty significant fleet expansion from that time, I really do doubt that there would have been many (any) wagons in use by even 1914 with the older lettering.  I model the early 1920s and keep an eye out for photos. I do not remember seeing a pre 1904 livery even in the years around WW1

 

Craig W

Edited October 19, 2022 by Craigw
Typo!

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Craigw said:

 Since the 25" lettering had been in use from 1924 and the GWR had a pretty significant fleet expansion from that time, I really do doubt that there would have been many (any) wagons in use by even 1914 with the older lettering. 

 

I think that 1924 is a typo for 1904 there. Fleet expansion, yes, but that doesn't directly bear on the livery condition of wagons built before the 1904 livery change - in the early 1920s there were many thousands of 4-plank wagons in traffic, many of which were brought up to "modern" standards as diagram O21, to say nothing of iron minks and earlier wood minks. I'm inclined to agree that the pre-1904 livery was extinct by your 1920s modelling period, though the interesting question remains how rapidly it disappeared in the decade before the Great War.