More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Compound2632]

On 16/12/2021 at 13:14, Rowsley17D said:

I hope this isn't the start of a slippery slope, Stephen?

 

I'm reading that as meaning a slippery slope to the dark side...

 

 

I think there's sufficient evidence up-thread that I'm already there. I'm really quite broad-minded!

 

My thinking is that I want to cut my teeth on a good-quality etched kit of a simple prototype before moving on to more complex locomotives with more complex liveries, i.e. Midland engines. (This is the LRM kit, of course.) I had been dithering between a Coal Engine or an SDX as my starter locomotive, both being basic to a LNWR locomotive stud; @Jol Wilkinson advised the Coal Engine, the SDX having the minor complication of more complex splashers. But having been teetering on the brink throughout lockdown, what pushed me over the edge was the news that orders were being sought for John Redrup to produce a batch of the B.I.W.O. kit for the Class A 3-cylinder compound:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways Image lnwrns3267.]

 

... a locomotive that has a strange fascination. There's something about that pregnant front end - suggestive of a primitive statue of a fertility goddess? I've put my name down for one. (Class A, not fertility goddess.)

 

Speaking of the lap of the gods, that's where the wheels are - waiting for time and Mr Seymour. 

 

Motor and gearbox I haven't yet worked out.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Northroader]

Good luck with progressing new skills, and those locos were built to pull hundreds of wagons, so you’ll be busy for a long time now. Layout to be set between Washwood Heath and Bescot, presumably?

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Good luck with progressing new skills, and those locos were built to pull hundreds of wagons, so you’ll be busy for a long time now. Layout to be set between Washwood Heath and Bescot, presumably?

 

It's roughly North Birmingham, yes, but pulling the geography around a bit so that the North Warwickshire coalfield is served off a Midland line that also serves the Cannock Chase coalfield - roughly inspired by the Wolverhampton, Walsall and Water Orton line but with more of a north-south axis, as if the Midland had built the Sutton Coldfield branch rather than the LNWR in the 1860s (it could have gone either way), extended it to Lichfield and hence running powers over the LNWR South Staffs to Wichnor Junction, with LNWR running powers over the Midland line in exchange; perhaps a chord was put in at Saltley to connect the B&DJ and Grand Junction lines?

 

The Great Western gets a look-in too, exercising running powers for a twice-daily goods. This aspect in particular is inspired by Walsall, where such an arrangement existed over the Midland line from Wolverhampton. There, the Midland also had running powers over the LNWR to Dudley, where the Midland had its own goods station. 

[Compound2632]

Here's another, whole and entire this time, straight out of the box:

 

 

Apologies for the general impression of a smog-laden Black Country winter's afternoon - I used every anglepoise lamp I could lay my hands on...

 

I know there have been a few bad experiences with damage in transit reported; to those who have been disappointed, my sympathy, but in this case, which I hope is typical, it has arrived whole and entire. I've not yet run it - it's supposed to go straight under the tree. 

 

I have a spare etch for the tender coal rails, to update it to 1902 condition. I've yet to decide on a final identity - research on allocations needed. Also, this should spur me on to finish my rake of Ratio 50 ft corridor carriages. The trouble is, I've a feeling that those are really just a bit too modern for a secondary service and I ought to be building 42 ft non-corridor carriages, some with radial underframes...

Edited May 3, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Northroader]

“Sister Dora”, I would have thought?

 

https://go.walsall.gov.uk/history_of_walsall_s_sister_dora_and_the_steam_engine

Edited December 16, 2021 by Northroader

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Northroader said:

“Sister Dora”, I would have thought?

 

Whitworth, aka Small Jumbo, I'm afraid. But the thought is enough to get one ordering another LRM kit...

[Northroader]

I wasn’t too sure, about my Jumbos, I must admit.

[Compound2632]

On 16/12/2021 at 17:27, Northroader said:

I wasn’t too sure, about my Jumbos, I must admit.

 

It's confusing. Ramsbottom built "6 ft curved link passenger engines" aka Samsons and "6 ft 6 in curved link passenger engines" aka Newtons. Webb continued to build Newtons. He then went on to build 5 ft 6 in and 6 ft 6 in passenger engines, aka Precursors and Precedents, respectively. (I am uncertain as to the shape of their links.) The Precedents and Newtons were renewed as 6 ft 6 in straight link engines aka Improved Precedents from 1887 and the Samsons as 6 ft straight link engines aka Whitworths or Waterloos. from 1889. In most cases the names and numbers were handed on intact. The Precursors were withdrawn in the 1890s but their identities were revived by George Whale for his Precursors. That's the only case where the difference between the original and later class is immediately obvious to the casual observer:

 

 

Don't ask me about the link, curved or straight. I think it's part of the Joy valve gear.

 

Ref. E. Talbot, An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines (OPC, 1985)

Edited May 3, 2022 by Compound2632
Reference added; images re-inserted

[garethashenden]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm reading that as meaning a slippery slope to the dark side...

 

 

I think there's sufficient evidence up-thread that I'm already there. I'm really quite broad-minded!

 

My thinking is that I want to cut my teeth on a good-quality etched kit of a simple prototype before moving on to more complex locomotives with more complex liveries, i.e. Midland engines. (This is the LRM kit, of course.) I had been dithering between a Coal Engine or an SDX as my starter locomotive, both being basic to a LNWR locomotive stud; @Jol Wilkinson advised the Coal Engine, the SDX having the minor complication of more complex splashers. But having been teetering on the brink throughout lockdown, what pushed me over the edge was the news that orders were being sought for John Redrup to produce a batch of the B.I.W.O. kit for the Class A 3-cylinder compound:

 

 

[Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways Image lnwrns3267.]

 

... a locomotive that has a strange fascination. There's something about that pregnant front end - suggestive of a primitive statue of a fertility goddess? I've put my name down for one. (Class A, not fertility goddess.)

 

Speaking of the lap of the gods, that's where the wheels are - waiting for time and Mr Seymour. 

 

Motor and gearbox I haven't yet worked out.

 

 

Are there details of the Class A kit somewhere? I had heard rumors that a kit existed, but no concrete ways of getting ahold of one.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, garethashenden said:

Are there details of the Class A kit somewhere? I had heard rumors that a kit existed, but no concrete ways of getting ahold of one.

 

I was alerted to it via the LNWR Society Facebook page. The best thing to do, I believe, is to contact John Redrup via the LRM contact form. He's getting the kit produced but it's not his kit, if that makes any sense. I gather it has to be made in batches of four (I think) because of the way parts are spread across different etched sheets. I am one of the current four, apparently.

[Mikkel]

An exciting development, Stephen (rubs hands in anticipation).

 

For no other reason than to celebrate - and because there's a wagon in it - here's a favourite photo (embedded from Flickr as allowed):

 

2-4-0 L&NWR 1532 Hampden by Tony Hisgett, on Flickr

[Dave Hunt]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It's roughly North Birmingham, yes, but pulling the geography around a bit so that the North Warwickshire coalfield is served off a Midland line that also serves the Cannock Chase coalfield - roughly inspired by the Wolverhampton, Walsall and Water Orton line but with more of a north-south axis, as if the Midland had built the Sutton Coldfield branch rather than the LNWR in the 1860s (it could have gone either way), extended it to Lichfield and hence running powers over the LNWR South Staffs to Wichnor Junction, with LNWR running powers over the Midland line in exchange; perhaps a chord was put in at Saltley to connect the B&DJ and Grand Junction lines?

 

The Great Western gets a look-in too, exercising running powers for a twice-daily goods. This aspect in particular is inspired by Walsall, where such an arrangement existed over the Midland line from Wolverhampton. There, the Midland also had running powers over the LNWR to Dudley, where the Midland had its own goods station. 

 

I like it Stephen. Lots of operating potential, plenty of scope for interesting wagons and trains and potentially quite colourful as well. An MRJ article in the offing? 

 

Dave

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

An MRJ article in the offing? 

 

At the moment, it's at the "concept" stage. The existing layout is a double line of code 100 round the garage with not much scenery...

 

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

For no other reason than to celebrate - and because there's a wagon in it - here's a favourite photo

 

Ah yes, double heading was often needed with these small LNWR locomotives. 

 

Mind you, Hampden was hampered by Webb's double blast pipe experiment, which as far as I can gather from Talbot's book dates the photo to 1897 or a year or two after. Of course it's in the way of the interesting wagon:

[...] DONELLAN & SO[N] / [Coal &] Coke Merch[ant]/ [nomber] CREWE

[Regularity]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Ah yes, double heading was often needed with these small LNWR locomotives.

Ah yes.

Something from which the LNWR learned and built bigger engines in the 20th Century.

Unlike their famous competitor…

[Dave Hunt]

3 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Ah yes.

Something from which the LNWR learned and built bigger engines in the 20th Century.

Unlike their famous competitor…

 

........which consistently achieved better returns on their outgoings......

 

Dave

[Regularity]

2 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

........which consistently achieved better returns on their outgoings......

Ah, so the LNWR under Webb was right, in terms of return on investment (nice for the stockholders) but it didn’t suit the growing volume of traffic that the WCML was carrying…

 

Joshing aside, as public companies, the railways had to tread a fine line between pleasing the customers (more speed, more comfort), their investors (keep it cheap, but don’t lose profitable business) and the government (we will impose upon you a common carrier status, control various rates for transport and publish these for everyone else to see.) 

In many ways, the concept of multiples of lower power engines being combined and separated was a sound concept, but with steam locos it led to an increase in manpower required. It took diesel and electric locos to make this really feasible - and with unfitted freight trains, a pair of 8-wheeled locos had more stopping power than a single 12-wheeled loco.

 

It’s iron horses for railway courses: Stanier knew full well that streamlining was of no great benefit below 80mph, and that it was the average speed which mattered more - fast trains if intermingled with slower trains suck the capacity out of the system. Gresley probably knew this, too, but was very aware of the “publicity value” of having very fast trains that looked sleek (and were!)

 

But that was in the future for them…

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Ah yes.

Something from which the LNWR learned and built bigger engines in the 20th Century.

Unlike their famous competitor…

 

Now I was having this very discussion after the LNWR Society's online quiz (in which I achieved the highest score) - I drew attention to the comparative size of Webb and Johnson 0-6-0s which got the well-deserved riposte that Webb was building 0-8-0s from 1892 (vide supra). Webb was desperate to build more powerful express passenger engines by the late 1880s, hence compounding and uncoupled driving wheels to give room for a bigger grate - the 2-2-2-0s certainly weren't small engines! 

 

What happened after Johnson and Webb retired holds comparatively little interest for me. The operating conditions and requirements of the two railways were rather different. As @Dave Hunt remarks, the Midland had the better solution for its circumstances; I would go so far as to say that the LNWR struggled to build locomotives that were powerful enough and sufficiently efficient to meet its needs without over-taxing its firemen. It's notable that as soon as George Hughes was in charge of LNWR locomotive affairs, he put his Dreadnoughts on the most demanding West Coast main line work, the defects of the Claughtons having become increasingly clear. 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Joshing aside, as public companies, the railways had to tread a fine line between pleasing the customers (more speed, more comfort), their investors (keep it cheap, but don’t lose profitable business) and the government (we will impose upon you a common carrier status, control various rates for transport and publish these for everyone else to see.) 

 

Looking through the reports of the Midland's half-yearly shareholder's meetings around the turn of the century, I came across this remark from a shareholder to the Chairman: "None of us like corridor carriages."

[Regularity]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I would go so far as to say that the LNWR struggled to build locomotives that were powerful enough and sufficiently efficient to meet its needs without over-taxing its firemen. It's notable that as soon as George Hughes was in charge of LNWR locomotive affairs, he put his Dreadnoughts on the most demanding West Coast main line work, the defects of the Claughtons having become increasingly clear. 

I think the same could be said of a lot of the “big” engines of the Edwardian era and the following 10-15 years. Loco designers (not necessarily the actual CME, but the draughtsmen under his command) who could produce very good 4-4-0s seemed to struggle with 4-6-0s: Drummond’s last express passenger design was a 4-4-0 and much better than his 4-6-0s. The exception which tests the rule was Churchward, whose “County” 4-4-0s weren’t a patch on his Stars and Saints.

[Penlan]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I was having this very discussion after the LNWR Society's online quiz (in which I achieved the highest score) 

But did you win? 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Here's another, whole and entire this time, straight out of the box:

 

 

Apologies for the general impression of a smog-laden Black Country winter's afternoon - I used every anglepoise lamp I could lay my hands on...

 

I know there have been a few bad experiences with damage in transit reported; to those who have been disappointed, my sympathy, but in this case, which I hope is typical, it has arrived whole and entire. I've not yet run it - it's supposed to go straight under the tree. 

 

I have a spare etch for the tender coal rails, to update it to 1902 condition. I've yet to decide on a final identity - research on allocations needed. Also, this should spur me on to finish my rake of Ratio 50 ft corridor carriages. The trouble is, I've a feeling that those are really just a bit too modern for a secondary service and I ought to be building 42 ft non-corridor carriages, some with radial underframes...

 

For the Radial underframe carriages, you need the kits that were originally produced by Microrail  IIRC and later were available through David Geen. You'll need to find them on Ebay and such. Some radials were later converted to bogie underframes.

 

 

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was alerted to it via the LNWR Society Facebook page. The best thing to do, I believe, is to contact John Redrup via the LRM contact form. He's getting the kit produced but it's not his kit, if that makes any sense. I gather it has to be made in batches of four (I think) because of the way parts are spread across different etched sheets. I am one of the current four, apparently.

 

The BIWO (Because I Want One) kits were designed by Nick Easton for his own purposes. He used LRM LNWR tenders and fittings AFAIK (although I think he may have done his own Webb 2500 gallon tender, before I designed one for LRM). John Redrup marketed BIWO kits for a while but they have never actually been part of the LRM range.

 

Nick Easton supplies the loco body/chassis etches in small batches if/when John has sufficient orders, The kits are then made up with LRM tender, fittings, etc. 

 

I've never built one, although John gave me a Bill Bailey kit at one time. I am not enthusiastic about some of these rather ugly locos, preferring the clean lines of Webb's smaller locos, so I gave it back.

 

Edited to add.

 

Six LNWR trolley wagons that Nick Easton designed were "taken over" by John and are part of the LRM range.

 

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

At the moment, it's at the "concept" stage. The existing layout is a double line of code 100 round the garage with not much scenery...

 

 

Ah yes, double heading was often needed with these small LNWR locomotives. 

 

Mind you, Hampden was hampered by Webb's double blast pipe experiment, which as far as I can gather from Talbot's book dates the photo to 1897 or a year or two after. Of course it's in the way of the interesting wagon:

[...] DONELLAN & SO[N] / [Coal &] Coke Merch[ant]/ [nomber] CREWE

 

While double heading was used on the LNWR main line expresses as the weights increased, it wasn't at all common on lighter inter city expresses, cross country, or suburban trains. So "often needed" is a little wide of the mark, in my biased opinion.

Edited December 17, 2021 by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Penlan said:

But did you win? 

 

It was a friendly little affair without prizes. I learned something about the railways of New Zealand along the way, one of the participants being a native of that country.

 

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

While double heading was used on the LNWR main line expresses as the weights increased, it wasn't at all common on lighter inter city expresses, cross country, or suburban trains. So "often needed" is a little wide of the mark, in my biased opinion.

 

I was teasing, of course. Much the same could be said of Midland expresses in the 1890s, which mostly fell into the "lighter inter city" category. 

[Compound2632]

Steady progress on the Coal Engine's tender, which is sufficiently wagon-like to be mentioned here. Perhaps I should start a new topic, though. I've reached the point where the next move will be to solder the tank top-plate in place, creating an enclosed (though ventilated) volume. I'm thinking whether to stick a bit of lead on the inside, to give a bit more weight. I wonder what an experienced builder of these kits such as @Jol Wilkinson does?

 

Ruminating onwards, I've been mulling over what an appropriate locomotive stud for my North Birmingham scheme would look like.

 

For the LNWR first, since that's the hot topic:

• Cannock Chase mineral train - Coal Engine
• Ordinary Goods and mineral - Class A (bit of a luxury, really)
• Ordinary or Express Goods - Special DX
• Local passenger - looking through Warwickshire Railways, 4'6" Tanks look to have been the thing in the late 80s/early 90s but by my c. 1902 period 5'6" Tanks and even spanking new Watford Tanks were evident; all types available as London Road Models kits. On the other hand, I've got a Bachmann Coal Tank that is fit for the purpose. Moreover, No. 1054 was an Aston engine.
• Ordinary passenger (New St - Lichfield - Derby) - as discussed above, a Whitworth would be right, ideally Sister Dora, which was a Derby engine on this diagram for many years. But I've got an Improved Precedent.

I'll be needing more brake vans. There's a newly-introduced London Road Models kit for a D17 6-wheeler...

 

The Birmingham District got some of the 468* 50 ft arc-roof suburban sets of carriages built 1897-1902, five seven-carriage sets for the Sutton Coldfield / Four Oaks suburban service and five four-coach sets for the Derby trains. The seven-carriage sets were formed brake second / second / second/first composite / first / first/third composite / third / brake third - no two carriages the same. However, it seems these sets were often made up to eight carriages with an additional third or first, as were the two trains involved in an accident at Sutton Coldfield in 1902. The locomotives on that occasion were Nos. 751 and 32; both were eight wheeled tank engines with brakes working on 6 wheels which would make them 0-6-2Ts rather than 2-4-2Ts, but whether Coal or Watford I don't know. I don't have a complete listing of LNWR locomotives and information on allocations at this period seems elusive. [Edit: now that I have Baxter Vol. 2A, I know they were both Coal Tanks.] But a seven or eight carriage train is a bit on the long side so I'd be tempted to postpone the arrival of the 50 ft carriages...

 

*I was lucky on that question!

 

For the Midland, I'm on firmer ground for allocations as Summerson gives them for 1898-1902. Goods trains could be:

• "Kingsbury Branch" mineral
• Local Goods
• Express Goods

Here's my favourite Aldridge photo again:

 

On the left, a Johnson 5'3" 0-6-0. Saltley had six of the Neilson Goods, Nos. 1925-1930 and 65 Class Ms; the last 25 of the first Neilson batch , Nos. 2334-2358; all 20 of the second Kitson batch, Nos. 2641-2660; and all 20 of the second Sharp Stewart batch, Nos. 2661-2680. The latter two batches were barely a year old in 1902, having been delivered between March and December 1901. Six of the Neilson Ms were shedded at Bournville. 

 

Now, there's not currently a kit for the M (which would also do for the Neilson Goods). London Road Models do do a Johnson 0-6-0 but it's 4'11" mineral variety, the Derby-built 1698 class of the 1880s. In 1902 the majority of these were in Lancashire, with some at Hasland. I wonder what would need to be done to convert the kit to produce an M?

 

Back to the photo: on the right, a Kirtley outside-framed 0-6-0 with straight top to the frames - 240 Class (or similar). Saltley had 17 of these, along with four of the 480 Class and five of the 700 Class. It's the latter that is represented by the NuCast Partners ex-K's kit, but the 240 Class that are more characteristic of the area.

 

For local passenger work, Saltley had 22 0-4-4Ts, mostly outstationed at Bournville and Walsall. Only seven of these were the 1532 Class (per Bachmann), Nos. 1729-1735; 13 were of the larger-wheeled 1252 Class built by Neilsons in 1875/6, Nos. 1269-1281. There were also three of the South Wales Tanks, 1102 Class, Vulcan-built Nos. 1129-1131, which would appear to have worked the Walsall Wood branch from Aldridge:

 

 

I want to work an analogue of that into my scheme. 

 

2-4-0s were also used on local trains in the Birmingham area; there's a superb photo of No. 89A of the 156 Class at Castle Bromwich at the head of a close-coupled set of five 6-wheelers [Lacy & Dow Vol. 2 Fig 346]. This engine had moved to Burton shed by 1902 but Nos. 160-164 were at Bournville. There were also eight of the 800 Class but I think these would still be on longer distance work at this time. Of the inside-framed 2-4-0s, there were 15 of the 890 Class, again mostly at Bournville; five of the Dubs-built 1282 Class, and seven of the Derby-built 101 Class. The latter had 7'0" drivers, so I think are not possible from The Ratio or LRM kits, which represent the 1400 Class (of which Birmingham had none) - though the 6'6" Dubs engines might be possible. The best bet is probably the 890 Class. There were a handful of 4-4-0s - three old 1327s at Bournville and four rather newer 2183s at Saltley, but none of the piston-valve engines. For that one has to turn to the singles, of which there were four of the piston-valve engines and three with slide valves. But of course on the long-distance expresses one would be as likely to see Bristol, Gloucester, or Derby engines.

 

The remainder of the Birmingham District allocation consisted of eight 1377 Class 0-6-0Ts, Nos. 1090, 1094-1100. These would have been hard at work shunting at Lawley Street, Camp Hill, and Central Goods; possibly also Washwood Heath. So, unlikely to be seen out on the main line.

 

So I'm in a bit of a quandary. I'm in danger of being overrun with not-so-useful 0-6-0Ts (including a Lickey banking 2441) and the available or possible 2-4-0s, 4-4-0s (LRM 1808 Class), and 0-6-0s (Ks 700 Class and LRM 1698) don't fit my bill...

 

Finally, those Great Western interloping goods trains based on the Wolverhampton-Walsall ones. I've got that Oxford Rail Dean Goods that I'm supposed to be backdating but I suspect that's a bit too grand for the job. My reading indicates that saddle tanks were used [B. Yate, The Midland Railway Route from Wolverhampton (Oakwood Press, 2018)].

 

It should by now be clear why I'm doing the LNWR part of the stud - it's the straightforward bit!

Edited May 3, 2022 by Compound2632
More info on engines in the 1902 accident. Images re-inserted.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Hi Stephen,

 

I have found that the LRM LNWR tenders don't need additional weight,. You could alsways add some lead in the floor/rear of the coal space before adding the coal, if you find differently.

 

It is a shame that the MR700 Class that LRM had under development for a long time is unlikely to see production, as the designer of that let John Redrup down when it was at final test etch stage.

[Compound2632]

On reflection, it might have been an idea to tin the underside edges of the tank top rather than just adding solder from above:

 

 

Making the flare wasn't so bad - mostly bending it over a needle file handle, pressing down and rubbing hard with a blunt instrument, and a bit of tweaking with the flat-nosed pliers to give it some encouragement. My success or otherwise is not very evident from the angle of this photo. My real bugbear at the moment is the corners of the flare, which are soaking up solder without satisfactorily filling the gaps between the fingers. Any advice for a novice tenderwright?

Edited May 3, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted