Kernow OO gauge LSWR Road Van

[NHY 581]

Hi   nhy581  I suggest you look at the CADs of the Road Van and compare with the photo below and see how many of the 13 errors I have already found that you can spot.

   It's a QUIZ posed by Kernow/DJM  called  "SPOT THE BALLl"  no sorry! its called "SPOT THE BALLS-UP"    "The Country Needs You" or rather Kernow does to get them out of the, potential mess just as happened to some extent with the LSWR O2.  Remember how it was pointed out by Joe Public that there was no stiffening rib on the roof, the Westinghouse pump was far too large, there should be a smaller pump on the Mainland locos, the safety valve base was completely the wrong shape,  They did change all those, but are you sure that the critics who pointed out slightly less obvious mistakes were completely misguided in view of the fact that the initial CADs showed such large errors ??

 

    I have a very simple agenda, which I am prepared to explain but I wonder if you can explain yours.  I have tried to help manufacturers produce accurate models for over 45 years, from Martin Finney and Golden Age models down to individuals wanting just one component for themselves.  When I have tried to help in the early stages with  "certain ranges of models" I have been shouted down by contributors saying "why don't you wait, I am sure the model will be fine when you see it !"  or "these are only preliminary CADs and there are many modifications yet to be done"      If I wait until pre-production models appear, having seen no further CADs, I am then accused of deliberately waiting until it is too late to alter the model.  Sorreee! you can't have it both ways.  

 

    It matters little to me personally if very poor models are produced  as I can afford to get around the problem but there are many who have been very disappinted, having waited two or three years for something only to find they would have been far better building a kit or buying a similar item on ebay or even getting someone to build them a model.  I look forward to seeing how many errors you find on the Road Van, you might even find one or two I missed as I am not infallible.  However, be aware, if you try and persuade members of these forums that there are errors, you may well find yourself barred, just as I have been !!!!   I look forward to hearing from aussiebrfan on the forum about exactly what he disagreed with in post 44, have you any idea ??   Maybe he too has an agenda !    Regards adrianbs

   

 

    

 

The tone of your reply says if all really. You refer to a "spot the balls up and seem to indicate that Kernow are to make a mess of the road van, based on a CAD image, thereby pre judging the final outcome. These models are at least twelve months away from being available off the shelf. Give them chance.

You say you tried to help Finney and Golden Age, which seems to indicate you failed.

If it matters so little to you if poor models are produced, then why get involved and if you can afford it why do we not see you producing these models.

Look forward all you will to me finding errors. ....I will not be looking. Naively, I am trusting Kernow and Dave Jones to produce satisfactory models. They are the ones putting the time and effort into this product. I am simply the satisfied customer at the end of it....and I will be.

 

Slapping a disagree against someone's post simply saying "bloody great" to the prospect of yet another model of a favourite prototype, is a tad childish in my opinion.

 

The errors on the O2 were resolved but there is a way to pass comment. Adopting the tone of being superior therefore I must be listened to is not the way forward and it is from this that the negative feedback you receive, I am sure, stems from this attitude.

 

I am happy with knowledge I have of my chosen subject. Easily pleased, maybe. Happy in my hobby, definitely.

 

Rob

[bike2steam]

An old D&S etched brass kit LSWR Road Van in the siding at Bembridge, far from perfect, but it's a representation at least. There was also a smaller exS&DJR Road van somewhere on the layout. Life is easier with rtr.

Edited October 12, 2014 by bike2steam

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Stationmaster    Hope you are going to join in the quiz, the more the merrier.  I am afraid there is no prize apart from, perhaps?  a more accurate model we can all enjoy    Just try scrolling down a wee bit more below the CADs and all will be revealed..   I am afraid I doubt it is the Laser scanner unless it has some very unusual faults.  It is I am sure, more likely to be poor interpretation backed up by inadequate  or zero QC.  I am sure Kernow will be delighted with your findings, as will I

 

   Regards adrianbs 

 

I think it is best to compare the CADs with a picture of the vehicle which was scanned rather than any other one and after an admittedly quick check I find the following differences -

 

There are several bolt heads/nuts missing on the side of what I presume is the floor.

the planks in the door have the narrow plank at the top instead of the bottom,

the handrails have a different attachment method (but can anybody actually see something a coupleof inches long when it's reduced to 1:76 scale?),

the upper footstep is missing - which strikes me as the worst and most obvious shortcoming

 

Everything else, including the peculiar(to me at any rate) arrangement of rainstrips on the roof, seems to match but it would be nice to know what I am missing!

 

Incidentally I see Kernow state the vehicle was scanned and knowing a bit about the company which they use for scanning (who also happen to work for a well known national company in the full size railway industry) I have little doubt about their abilities or the fact that they used one of their (several) laser scanning sets.

[adrianbs]

Hi Stationmaster,    You score 3  out of 17 ( I have found a few more since my quick look previously, sorreee !! ) One point is wrong as the restoration is not quite original to the "as built" and more standard appearance.   The Eyebrow rainstrips do represent some vans although as built they had none and because they are a later addition do vary somewhat.  Some are frowning and some are smiling so possibly better left off but they can be removed or replaced fairly easily. Seems to be a latish SR alteration if done at all!

 

     I am sure the laser scan file is correct for the van dealt with, but errors have crept in for various reasons during the processing of the information.  I assume Kernow obtained a copy of the GA from Mike King although I have only seen one, so the slight changes in design over the period they were built do present minor problems.  As it stands the version they are doing is not a hybrid fortunately but some of the numerous planned variants may not be this version.  The upper footstep is NOT the worst problem and could be easily added anyway if it were not on the model.    

 

     Glad to see you have had a go at least, I wonder if anyone else will try. Competition is only open to people not connected to Kernow/Dapol by the way.

              Regards  adrianbs

[Andy Y]

You score 3  out of 17 ........

 

     Glad to see you have had a go at least, I wonder if anyone else will try.

 

Competition is only open to people not connected to Kernow/Dapol by the way.

              Regards  adrianbs

 

You still seem to think it's a game to be played despite my earlier words.

 

You've now lost access to this topic too.

[Stubby47]

I bet the wheels are too close together and the brakes are inline with the wheels so are also in the wrong place.

 

Plus the brakes won't actually work, the glass will be plastic and not glass and too thick and I bet the doors don't open either.

[69843]

Just to say something in regards to the planking on the door issue with narrow at the top vs narrow at the bottom, the picture posted below the CAD images of 12424 shows the narrow plank at the top. While this may not be how it was originally (I will admit I have no clue, not having seen a LSWR Road Van knowingly until this model was announced), if 12424 was the one scanned, this may account for that fact.

 

As to the withholding of information about what is wrong with a model, posting what the issues are in a constructive and helpful manner might be a bit nicer then running a 'spot the faults "quiz"'? Remembering that the manufacturer might not know what these details are, not being 100% knowledgeable on all the little differences that a class of locomotives/collection of rollingstock has between them.

[aussiebrfan]

Lovely job, well done Kernow and Mr. Jones. Two mainland BR versions duly pre-ordered.

Cheers.

 

PS. My wallet didnt say a thing!

 

To quote myself, just for clarity.

I have no agenda other than to hopefully get my new baseboards together before I am seconded to do any bloody more gardening or decorating!

I'm happy these vans are being produced and available for me to pre-order.

I again congratulate Kernow and DJM for announcing this great looking piece of very useful rolling stock.

 

PS. Nothing in life is perfect, just accept it and enjoy (life that is).

 

Regards G.

[The Stationmaster]

You still seem to think it's a game to be played despite my earlier words.

 

You've now lost access to this topic too.

That comes as a big surprise (NOT).

 

It saddens me that someone who apparently claims to have so much to contribute sets about in such an acerbic manner.  My hide is (usually) fairly thick so a lot of childishness doesn't particularly upset me and the naive jibe on this occasion certainly didn't.  However I am bemused by the other 14 'faults' - I could just as cheerfully say there are 12 and nobody would know the difference one way or another, or place any value on my critique, if I didn't happen to say what they were.  And that is perhaps the nub of it - we all know the way we say things really does count although I fully appreciate that some people can have difficulty expressing their thoughts and views in written form.  But if, for example, you are talking about factual discrepancies it doesn't help very much to say how many there are without saying what they - and therein lies a crucial aspect of the art of critique (or of praise).

 

Breakdown vans returned to shed 13.15

NWR 13.24

Edited October 13, 2014 by The Stationmaster

[Gilwell Park]

Hi

 

Do not forget that there are many differences between 56046 which has been scanned and 12424 shown in the larger photo.  Not surprisingly the Kernow artwork most closely resembles the one they scanned. How many 100 year old wooden vehicles are now the same as when they were built? I will certainly order one when I have worked out which version is most useful, probably the BR departmental.

 

Roger.

[Dunsignalling]

I've got a photo of a preserved one I took (on 35mm) some years ago at (I think) Cranmore on the East Somerset Railway.

 

The paintwork is grey and in very good nick with a Western Region engineers "Ew" plate attached suggesting perhaps that the ESR had not done much to it since arrival. The roof appears to have received some recent attention but there is a plank missing from one door.

 

I have always thought that BR Southern Region just added a 'D' to wagons transferred to departmental use without otherwise altering the number but this one was numbered DS 12424 which does not fit the number series of these vans.

 

Can anyone shed any light?

 

John

Just sussed that 12424 was its LSWR number and the preserved van nowadays carries LSWR livery.

 

When I photographed it in BR grey, it was presumably numbered incorrectly, as it should have been in the (D)S 5xxxx series in BR ownership.

 

Bit slow on my part......

 

John

 

Edit. I have recently been advised that my long held assumption about Southern Region Departmental wagon numbering is incorrect and things were a good deal more complex than that ! 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Big James]

Just accidentally pre-ordered all the BR version. Now gonna see how much the boss loves me and see if she will buy me them as a late birthday present.

 

Big James

[Hippel]

Just curious, but is there any more news on these yet?

[JohnR]

Could someone advise which of these would be suitable for a West of England  based branch in the late 50s/early 60s? Is there somewhere with details of allocations for these vans?

[autocoach]

Just curious, but is there any more news on these yet?

I know the boys at Kernow are really busy but any word on the LSWR Road Van? Did it run off the end of the new pier at Padstow?

[NHY 581]

Spoke to Kernow today and mentioned the Road van. Chap I spoke to indicated not at the tooling stage as yet and most likely to be very end of this year but in all probability early next.

 

Rob

[br-nse-fan]

HI All

 

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but my quick read over did not show me... but can anyone advise how long these would have lasted on the network?

I'm assuming it would be the BR Departmental one... but would it be out of the realm of possibility that it could have made it into the 70's?

Do we know what livery it will have?

 

Many thanks in advance!

[PhilJ W]

Most had gone by the early years of nationalisation, the last ones were on the Isle of Wight and lasted a bit longer one or two until the end of steam on the island.

[Brinkly]

For what it's worth I'm still going to order one. Thank you Kernow!

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[IWCR]

Last  BR  road  vans  were  indeed  on  the  Isle  of  Wight.

Several  In  traffic use  until  the  end  of  1966  with a  pair  beng   retained  for  a  further  few  months  in  engineering  use.

2  preserved,  1 at  IOWSR, 1  at   York.

 

A  van  was withdrawn in  1958  from  service  on  the  Bodmin  &  Wenford  line and is  now  presered  on the  Bluebell,  this  would likely  be  one  of  the  last  in  mainland  BR traffic. 

 

In addition  one  road  van  was  part  of  the Longmoor  Military  Railway weed killing  train  until  sold  in  1970.

This  would  hae  been  the  last  one  in  any  sort  of  pre  preservation  service.

This is  now on  the  West Somerset.

 

Pete

[Wickham Green]

A brake van required 3 lights in total. One tail lamp hung on the back plus 1 lamp hung on each side. The side lamps were there so when the loco crew looked back from the engine they had visual confirmation that the guards van was still on the back and the train was complete. The tail lamp was for the use of signalmen and its presence confirmed the train to be complete.

Sorry to hark back to September '14 but I'm catching up with a few things and I think the matter of tail lamps needs a little clarification. What phil-b259 says is perfectly correct ( Rule 120 ) - EXCEPT ON THE SOUTHERN ! : from the 1933 Rule Book ( 1st January ) Rule 120 had a footnote stating "Southern Railway Goods trains must carry on the last vehicle two side lamps only, which will serve as tail lamps, viz., one on each side of the trailing end of the vehicle, each showing a white light forward and a red light at rear." - so from 1933 a third lamp was NOT carried on the Southern. This certainly still applied in 1945 when the Rule Book was reprinted ( my copy ) and may have lasted until the B.R. Rule Book was issued in 1950.

 

When originally built, these L.S.W.R. brake vans ( and those of numerous other Companies ) carried fixed side lights which shone fore and aft - with a red slide fitted to whichever was aft at the time. Clearly these could not be used as tail lights to denote the rear of the train as a van marshalled in the middle of a train still carried them and they'd look exactly the same in daylight - so a ( third ) tail light WAS carried until the fixed lights were removed early in Southern days ........ and three lamps would have been carried until ALL side lamps had been removed and the Rule Book revised : unfortunately I can't say whether this changed with the 1933 Rule Book or earlier. ( Rule 107 was the equivalent number in earlier Rule Books - the previous edition dating from only 2nd February 1930 : "All copies ..... must be ..... sent ..... to the Waste Paper Depot, Longhedge" ! )

 

Anyway, to sum up - a) L.S.W.R. and early Southern days ; fixed side lights + tail light : b) transitional period ; loose side lights + tail light : c) 1933 ( or perhaps earlier ) to 1945 ( at least ) ; two side lights ONLY : 1950 ( or, perhaps earlier ) 'til the end of unfitted freights ; loose side lights + tail light. ( Different rules applied to fully fitted freight or passenger-rated trains, of course.)

[autocoach]

Time to churn this topic. Although I really want an diagram 1541 or 1543 Brake.....Cambrian do it or loose it.....

[Dunsignalling]

Time to churn this topic. Although I really want an diagram 1541 or 1543 Brake.....Cambrian do it or loose it.....

The one Kernow have commissioned is the Diagram 1541. Cambrian have been expressing long term intentions to produce a 1543 but no sign yet.

 

If any manufacturer is reading this, the heavier (20 ton) LSWR road van of 1907 (Diagram 1545) would make a very good subject for a r-t-r model. The design was later adopted by the War Department and built by the Midland RC&W Co., later being allocated SR Diagram 1549. 

 

After WW1, more than 200 were sold to a number of railways, including the GCR, GER, LNWR, LSWR (!) Metropolitan, NER and all the Scottish lines except the Highland. They could, therefore, be legitimately produced in the liveries of all groups except the GWR.

 

Some remained in traffic on BR Southern Region until c1958. The only difference was that those built for the WD were two inches narrower than the LSWR-built versions, presumably to increase route availability.   

 

John

Edited June 17, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Brinkly]

I didn't know that (info in post 73) John.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

[Brinkly]

Time to churn this topic. Although I really want an diagram 1541 or 1543 Brake.....Cambrian do it or loose it.....

I emailed Cambrian Models a couple of weeks ago with reference to both their LSWR D1410 Van and the proposed LSWR "New" Brake van D1543. Barry replied saying that he hoped the D1410 van would be ready for the Chatham show last weekend, however work on the D1543 guards van wouldn't be started until next year, no mention of when though.

 

I'm not sure though if the D1410 van is on sale yet or not. The website doesn't suggest that it is.

 

Sorry to go off topic, but it seemed partly relevant!

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.