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

[WFPettigrew]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Sorry about that. Were you on a stand or layout or just there as punters like myself?

 

I was there as a punter - my first Scaleforum since joining up and restarting modelling getting on for three years ago (and indeed the society's first actual one in that time after the virtual events held with the pandemic).   Paul @Flymo749 was there as a committee member. 

 

I had to leave at 1330 yesterday (long drive home to Cumbria, where I had commitments in the evening) so I spent most of yesterday on a mad dash between @MarcD, @Brinkly on the wagon demo stand, and various traders, working out the best way to get P4 wheelsets inside the 3D printed axleguards etc of one of Marc's FR brake vans. (This is blown down from his 7mm model and there isn't room for a sprung/compensated pinpoint system.  After numerous circuits, I have come home with a set of inside bearings from Dart Castings, and will try them with some Gibson wheels with the pinpoints cut off.)

 

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I thought I'd better not let him go too far, so with my best pomposity declared "I am Compound2632"! 

 

That is hilarious! 

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, WFPettigrew said:

I had to leave at 1330 yesterday

 

Probably passed you in the car park - that was about when I arrived.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I also need to do one further bit of research to settle the question of whether the Heysham bunker coal wagons were converted from lowside or highside wagons... (The Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes record authorisation for the conversion of 25 and then a further 50 lowside wagons.)

 

To elaborate on this while I've got the info to hand, so I've got it written down:

 

R.J. Essery, Midland Wagons Vol. 1 p. 108, "Almost certainly they were produced by using existing 14' 11" chassis, probably from D299 high goods, which were cut down to floor level, and the bunker built new - the probable date of construction being 1904 (when Heysham was opened)."

 

That is, I think, a reasonable inference on the basis of the photographs, which show wagons with Ellis 10A axleboxes (i.e. post-c. 1889/90 construction) and numberplate to the right of the solebar centre-line (continuous drawbar underframe):

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 64646.]

 

However, the minutes are clear that authorisation was for the conversion of lowside wagons - D305. C&W Committee minute 4325 of 21 July 1904 records a traffic Committee resolution that 50 lowside wagons be converted; financial approval for this was given by General Purposes Committee minute 12999, recorded in C&W minute 4332 of 4 August 1904. A further 25 were requested by the Traffic Committee the following September (C&W minute 4342 of 15 September 1904; General Purposes Committee approval by minute 13064, recorded in C&W minute 4343 of 7 October 1904) and a final 50 in February 1905 (C&W minute 4292, General Purposes minute 13223 reported in C&W minute 4397 of 3 March 1905).

 

If it was 125 lowside wagons that were converted, they must have been ones built in 1897-1899 to lots 394 and 448, as these had the features described above, rather than wagons built in the 1880s. In May 1902 the General Manager had said that the then stock of 18,200 low sided wagons was more than was needed and should be reduced to 15,000. Conversion of lowside wagons to bunker coal wagons would be a convenient way of doing this. It is interesting that relatively new wagons were chosen rather than ones from the 1870s/80s; likewise a number of wagons from these two late-1890s lots turn up as ballast wagons; whether they were such from new is less clear. 

 

The piece of the jigsaw I've not yet examined is the drawings. The Carriage & Wagon Drawing Register has the following:

Drg. 1955, 4 Mar 1904, J. Dobson "Three Box Wagon for Conveying Coal to Heysham"

Drg. 1993, 18 Apr 1904, C. Foster "Four Box Wagon for Conveying Coal to Heysham"

Drg. 1994, 18 Apr 1904, J. Dobson "Coal Tub for Bunker Coal"

Drg. 1995, 18 Apr 1904, H. Banks "Coal Tub for Bunker Coal"

 

The Midland Railway Study Centre has versions of Drgs. 1993 and 1994 [88-D0095 & 88-D0096]; I don't know if they've yet been scanned. They might give some clue as to which type of wagon the conversion was from. It's interesting that these drawings were prepared several months before the work was first authorised - often one finds they are of about the same date as the authorised construction - no working ahead of project. Evidently the three box wagon was a first idea, rejected in favour of the four box version, though if survival of the drawing is any indicator, Mr Dobson's tub was favoured over Mr Banks'. 

[jamie92208]

Out of interest I have used the coal boxes as the basis for my luggage containers for the Heysham Boat Express. There was an open carriage truck with four of them on.  I postulated that the boxes would be the same size as the coal containers so that the crane slings etc would all fit. I now have sone 3D printed boxes but haven't got the truck built.  If anyone is interested I could post some pictures.

 

Jamie

Edited September 26, 2022 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Out of interest I have used the coal boxes as the basis for my luggage containers for the Heysham Boat Express. There was an open carriage truck with four of them on.  I postulated that the boxes would be the same size as the coal containers so that the crane slings etc would all fit. I now have sone 3D printed boxes but haven't got the truck built.  If anyone is interested I could post some pictures.

 

Please do! A search of the C&W Drawing Register turns up all sorts of equipment for train / ship transhipment at Heysham, e.g. pig trolleys. regrettably, few survive in the Study Centre collection.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Compound2632

[Grahams]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

To elaborate on this while I've got the info to hand, so I've got it written down:

 

R.J. Essery, Midland Wagons Vol. 1 p. 108, "Almost certainly they were produced by using existing 14' 11" chassis, probably from D299 high goods, which were cut down to floor level, and the bunker built new - the probable date of construction being 1904 (when Heysham was opened)."

 

That is, I think, a reasonable inference on the basis of the photographs, which show wagons with Ellis 10A axleboxes (i.e. post-c. 1889/90 construction) and numberplate to the right of the solebar centre-line (continuous drawbar underframe):

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 64646.]

 

However, the minutes are clear that authorisation was for the conversion of lowside wagons - D305. C&W Committee minute 4325 of 21 July 1904 records a traffic Committee resolution that 50 lowside wagons be converted; financial approval for this was given by General Purposes Committee minute 12999, recorded in C&W minute 4332 of 4 August 1904. A further 25 were requested by the Traffic Committee the following September (C&W minute 4342 of 15 September 1904; General Purposes Committee approval by minute 13064, recorded in C&W minute 4343 of 7 October 1904) and a final 50 in February 1905 (C&W minute 4292, General Purposes minute 13223 reported in C&W minute 4397 of 3 March 1905).

 

If it was 125 lowside wagons that were converted, they must have been ones built in 1897-1899 to lots 394 and 448, as these had the features described above, rather than wagons built in the 1880s. In May 1902 the General Manager had said that the then stock of 18,200 low sided wagons was more than was needed and should be reduced to 15,000. Conversion of lowside wagons to bunker coal wagons would be a convenient way of doing this. It is interesting that relatively new wagons were chosen rather than ones from the 1870s/80s; likewise a number of wagons from these two late-1890s lots turn up as ballast wagons; whether they were such from new is less clear. 

 

The piece of the jigsaw I've not yet examined is the drawings. The Carriage & Wagon Drawing Register has the following:

Drg. 1955, 4 Mar 1904, J. Dobson "Three Box Wagon for Conveying Coal to Heysham"

Drg. 1993, 18 Apr 1904, C. Foster "Four Box Wagon for Conveying Coal to Heysham"

Drg. 1994, 18 Apr 1904, J. Dobson "Coal Tub for Bunker Coal"

Drg. 1995, 18 Apr 1904, H. Banks "Coal Tub for Bunker Coal"

 

The Midland Railway Study Centre has versions of Drgs. 1993 and 1994 [88-D0095 & 88-D0096]; I don't know if they've yet been scanned. They might give some clue as to which type of wagon the conversion was from. It's interesting that these drawings were prepared several months before the work was first authorised - often one finds they are of about the same date as the authorised construction - no working ahead of project. Evidently the three box wagon was a first idea, rejected in favour of the four box version, though if survival of the drawing is any indicator, Mr Dobson's tub was favoured over Mr Banks'. 

Absolutely fascinating!

 

I happen to have the Drawings from the Study Centre.

I have had a quick look and it seems to me that the underframes could be either D299 or D305. The only dimensions on the underframe drawing of Drg 1993 are identical on both of the potential donors. Even the curb rail chamfers are the same on each drawing. However, there is a note on Drg 1993 which says

"Half inch packing on underframe to cover existing bolt heads

Cut out to clear bottom door bands."

Snip of the note attached.

It therefore looks like at least some of the donor underframes had been D299 (how on-topic is that!!). This may be the information on which Bob Essery made his assumption.

For those who don't know, the D299 high side (5 plank) had bottom doors and the D305 low side (3 plank) did not.

 

[Compound2632]

14 hours ago, Grahams said:

"Half inch packing on underframe to cover existing bolt heads

Cut out to clear bottom door bands."

 

Many thanks for the drawings. As I've PM'd you, Graham, I've come to the opinion that the "cut out to clear bottom door bands" referred to the metal hinge straps on the bottom doors of the coal tubs, rather than to part of the wagon frame. 

 

There were a lot of protruding bolt heads on this type of underframe, on the end longitudinals and diagonals, which were made in upper and lower halves with a slot for the buffing spring to pass through them. The floor planks, which at first sight look to all be plain 7" x 2½" deals, must have had holes gouged in the underside to match these bolt heads, so that each was specific to its position. Having removed the floor boards, it was necessary to add the ½" packing mentioned to provide an even surface for the coal tubs to sit on, except that the underside of the coal tubs was not flat, because of the hinge straps, so cut-outs had to be made in the packing in the appropriate places.

 

There is also the question of the spacing of the bolts on the end pillars, which matches that on the lowside wagons rather than highside wagons. Assuming the end pillars on the coal box wagon conversions are cut down from the originals, this is a pointer to them being converted from lowside wagons.

 

So to my mind the evidence, from the minutes and from the drawings, points to these wagons being conversions of lot 394 and 448 lowside wagons.

 

 

[Grahams]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Many thanks for the drawings. As I've PM'd you, Graham, I've come to the opinion that the "cut out to clear bottom door bands" referred to the metal hinge straps on the bottom doors of the coal tubs, rather than to part of the wagon frame. 

 

There were a lot of protruding bolt heads on this type of underframe, on the end longitudinals and diagonals, which were made in upper and lower halves with a slot for the buffing spring to pass through them. The floor planks, which at first sight look to all be plain 7" x 2½" deals, must have had holes gouged in the underside to match these bolt heads, so that each was specific to its position. Having removed the floor boards, it was necessary to add the ½" packing mentioned to provide an even surface for the coal tubs to sit on, except that the underside of the coal tubs was not flat, because of the hinge straps, so cut-outs had to be made in the packing in the appropriate places.

 

There is also the question of the spacing of the bolts on the end pillars, which matches that on the lowside wagons rather than highside wagons. Assuming the end pillars on the coal box wagon conversions are cut down from the originals, this is a pointer to them being converted from lowside wagons.

 

So to my mind the evidence, from the minutes and from the drawings, points to these wagons being conversions of lot 394 and 448 lowside wagons.

 

 

All your logic looks sound Stephen. I would actually prefer the idea of using lowside and your knowledge of the minutes supports that.

It's very interesting that the drawing shows the reuse of 'old capping iron' as strapping on the tubs. This also looks like D305 capping from the scaled screw spacings. Unfortunately the D299 drawing has no screws shown.

I've never studied the D299 drawing in detail. What a lot of red ink! That will take a bit of unravelling lot to lot. For example, they use the "12 Ton axleguards in future (4/9/17).' I'll have to check why but my axleguards drawn from each drawing are not directly interchangeable between 14'11" and 16ft underframes.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Grahams said:

I've never studied the D299 drawing in detail. What a lot of red ink! 

 

Yes, that drawing in particular is a classic example of the Derby C&W Drawing Office's cavalier approach to version control! It purports to be Drg. 550 of 1882 but is clearly a much-redrawn copy or tracing. It is annotated "For and after the last 242 wagons of lot 513" - the very last lot of the main build of 8 ton highside wagons - and shows oil axleboxes, this being I think the principal difference to the immediately preceding wagons, since the adoption of oil axleboxes for new construction was minuted in early 1902. But it's then marked up for the wartime lot of 1,000 built in 1917. These have lots of features that had become standard on the D302 10 ton opens; from the minutes, the reason this lot of 8 ton wagons was built was a shortage of sets of wheels and axles for 10 ton wagons, whereas there were plenty of 8 ton sets from withdrawn wagons standing around. Otherwise, contemporary standard components such as those 12 ton axleguards were used, in place of the components that had been standard in the 1880s and 90s. 

[Grahams]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, that drawing in particular is a classic example of the Derby C&W Drawing Office's cavalier approach to version control! 

Do you believe they had several sets of the same drawing? This all looks like a record of instructions to the shop floor but I can't see how the shop floor would have been able to build a wagon based on this drawing. It's a recipe for errors. The last update I've spotted looks like the 'curb rail chamfers carried through' on 1/3/20. So they were still building D299 in 1920, probably using old wheelsets?

Anyway I have a D818 (one of 5 Wagon Works Lot 9!) to ship this evening and this won't see it finished...

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Grahams said:

Do you believe they had several sets of the same drawing? This all looks like a record of instructions to the shop floor but I can't see how the shop floor would have been able to build a wagon based on this drawing. It's a recipe for errors. The last update I've spotted looks like the 'curb rail chamfers carried through' on 1/3/20. So they were still building D299 in 1920, probably using old wheelsets?

 

The Study Centre has two versions of Drg. 1143, for the lowside wagons built 1897 - 1909, with numerous detail differences - as discussed in my article in the latest Midland Railway Society Journal. I think the surviving drawings are to a large extent copies of record, recording changes that had been made on the shop floor, quite possibly after the event. Something like the "curb rail chamfers carried through" I think refers to a change made for wagons that were being overhauled, or possibly only for new curb rails made as replacements - that's my speculation. Also, I doubt that these drawings themselves made it to the shop floor; the works foremen would, I think, be issued with tracings, as would outside contractors making, say, sets of ironwork. (Outside contracts would include a written specification as well as a drawing; the specification would be taken as understood by the Derby foremen.) Most of the work on the shop floor was kit-building anyway, from standard parts, including pre-cut and drilled solebars, headstocks, and other timer underframe components. 

 

Going back to the first part of my lowside wagons article, you'll see that the Derby copy of Drg. 10 reproduced there is stated to be identical to a Metropolitan Carriage & Wagon Co. drawing that you can get from the HMRS - Met built a batch of these wagons; they had presumably been issued with a tracing of the drawing as part of the tender documents but it seems to have been their practice to re-trace drawings and mark them up with their own insignia.

 

Sorry, lot of "I think" there - I would love to have more evidence!

Edited September 27, 2022 by Compound2632

[corneliuslundie]

An example from the Cambrian. A drawing of a 2-plank wagon, an order built by the Birmingham RCW though that company is not mentioned on the drawing.

It is annotated "Note: For future orders see corrected tracing."

Does that mean that the master drawing was amended and a new tracing issued if there was another order, or that the tracing had been amended? I don't know. As it happens I don't think that the Birmingham company built another batch for the Cambrian.

There is also a drawing annotated to use standard mineral wagon brake gear for future orders, even though it was not for a mineral wagon and as far as I know the Cambrian never built any dedicated mineral wagons until the 15 ton loco coal wagons.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

These drawings are like Scripture - reliance on them as the exclusive word of Clayton will lead to error; they need to be interpreted in the light of tradition and reason.

[jamie92208]

Good afternoon from a sunny and breezy Charente.   I did threaten to post some pictures of my luggage containers and have been looking through my files and have found some.  To set the scene, I looked at the carriage marshalling book and found the Heysham Boat Express that ran nightly to Heysham from St Pancras with carriages attached at Sheffield from Bristol.  This would fit nicely on Lancaster green Ayre, probably as the return working for various reasons to do with siding lengths.   I discovered that I had all the necessary coaches except for an open carriage truck that carried 4 luggage containers. I even have a dining pair.   Dave Harris at the MRS provided me with a drawing for a carriage truck, D409.  Dave was able to provide me with a copy of the drawing from the Study centre.  I did make a start on doing a drawing to produce an etch for the chassis in 7mm.  I was planning to build the bodywork in wood and put the strapping etc on the etch.  This is as far as I have got.

Unfortunately, Dave was unable to locate any drawings of the luggage containers despite a long search.   Then a photo appeared on a facebook group that I belong to about the Waverley Route of a container that someone had seen on a farm in the borders.

There was much discussion about what it was.  I immediately thought that it looked like a luggage container.  It had all the hallmarks of what I was looking for, including buffers on it that would limit damage when it was being slung.  It also had the necessary hooks and a lockable door.   Most of the group thought that it was for a calves or horses and i stopped arguing and left them to it.

 

I have acquired 5 of the Heysham coal container wagons, most of which need to be repainted and the coal tubs look very similar to the container that had been found.

I got in touch with a good friend from the Wakefield Club, Chris Mead who has the Overlord layout.  He had bought a 3 D printer and I asked him if he could help.   After measuring the interior of the D409 from the drawing I did a CAS drawing of a container that would fit.   Chris managed to convert this to a 3D file, a skill that is beyond me, and this was the result.

I did wonder why a short Carriage truck was used but then realised that it would have to be shunted onto the same quayside lines that the coal wagons would be on so that the dockside cranes could sling them aboard.  There would probably be some rather tight curves on that trackage which may well have been horde shunted in those days.

 

The 3D prints look superb and one day i will get the carriage truck built.

 

Jamie

[WFPettigrew]

Picking back up with slate, a topic that we discussed at some length earlier this summer, I have now had a chance to properly study the book "Burlington Blue-Grey", the history of the slate quarries at Kirkby-in-Furness, which were a major driver for the creation of the Furness Railway.  The history was written by R Stanley Geddes, who worked at Burlington Quarry from a boy until he retired from being a director there.  He had access to the company records, so I hope that what follows is pretty definitive.

 

The book is about an inch thick, with small type, delving into all sorts of aspects of the quarries, their workforce, village life, etc.  I have tried to pick out the points which I hope are of use to modellers. 
 

He described Welsh slate as the best for splitting, as it can be split to 1/6 of inch.  These slates are very true but he describes them as "rather fragile". Burlington Best slates were at least twice as thick – so 1/3 to ½ inch thick – and stronger.  Looking at the other Cumbrian quarries, Coniston Green and Buttermere were slightly thicker than Burlington. 

 

Although Burlington could produce a wide range of slate sizes (as well as larger stones for walls, buildings, etc) 90% of sales were “randoms” – slates of both random length and width, most often Large Bests (24” to 36” long and random widths), Small best (14” to 25” long and random widths) as well as two which only went to the Scottish market (and these sizes died out after WW2), Best Peggies (10” to 14” long, random widths) and Second Peggies (6” to 10” long, random widths).

 

Randoms could be used to lay diminishing courses from the eaves to the ridge which was popular with architects.  These were laid with a number (say 3) courses of 24” long slates, then one row of 23”, then the same number of multiple courses of 22”, and one row of 21”, and so on – this ensured that the diminishing continues right up to the ridge, rather than having an appearance of the bands (visible slate) diminishing, then getting larger for the top row.

The other 10% of output were generally fixed length and random width (aka Best sized), or fixed length and fixed width (Best and Second Patterns) 24”x12” or 20”x10”etc. which took much longer to make as a template was needed.

The book has no data for customers in the early 20th century, but in 1883-4 principal sales were:

Furness area                                                          5%

Lancashire (not Furness) and Cheshire            20%

Westmorland                                                        4%

Carlisle and West Cumberland                            6%

Yorkshire                                                               28%

Scotland                                                                  34%
The other few per cent went to the north east, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and other places but all in small percentage quantities.

 

The author says that at this time, the English South and Midlands were supplied “almost entirely” by Wales, but in the North of England and Scotland, “we competed more closely”. 

 

All these sales from Burlington were transported until 1923 by Furness Railway wagons, usually 2 plank opens with the slates stacked across the width in rows from either end, leaving a small gap in the middle where the men had stood to stack the slate.

 

By 1934-39, 35% of output still went to Scotland, whilst 31% went to Barrow and district, and 10% each to Lancashire and to Yorkshire, where building remained slumped after the recession. 

 

Comparison of output with Wales

Until 1831, Penryn output was actually less than Burlington, but then output in N Wales exploded with the industrial revolution. Welsh slate peaked in 1898, producing 65 tons for every ton at Burlington. Until 1939 the Welsh quarries were giants in production compared to Delabole, Burlington, Elterwater, Coniston, Honister, Ballachulish etc.  By 1969 (the closure of Dinorwic) Wales was producing just 6.5 times what Burlington was producing. 

 

Hopefully this gives some likely proportions of traffic to various parts of the country from different slate producers.

 

Finally, he also recounts a lost tradition that could make a lovely little cameo on a pre-grouping model – the bidding to a funeral. Before newspapers (and the reading of them) were as common, bidding was when two men went round the village to invite people to a funeral. The men were not near relatives but were rather friends of the bereaved, and they seemingly always worked in pairs, knocking on doors to break the news and invite people to attend the funeral. This was common still in Kirkby in 1914, but the last occurrence in the village was in 1925.

 

I hope this is as helpful as I found it!

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[jamie92208]

Thanks very much for that. Does anyone produce a 2 plank FR wagon in 7mm.  It could appear on a trip working down from Castle on Green Ayre.

 

Jamie

Edited September 27, 2022 by jamie92208

[MarcD]

Silly question Jamie. Yes PGR7-08 on the website.

 

Marc

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

All these sales from Burlington were transported until 1923 by Furness Railway wagons, usually 2 plank opens with the slates stacked across the width in rows from either end, leaving a small gap in the middle where the men had stood to stack the slate.

 

That's a useful tit-bit, if one can assume the same stacking arrangement was used in Wales - although there are good photos of slate loaded on North Wales narrow-gauge wagons, I've struggled to find good views of slate loads in standard-gauge wagons. 

 

At our club exhibition on Saturday I had an interesting chat with the builder of a very fine 009 North Wales layout, the name of which now escapes me - and I never got a copy of the exhibition programme! He was using cast resin slate loads by ARB Modelcraft (available through Dundas Models). The ones he had, had representations of the broken slates that were hammered in as wedges to pack the slates in tightly into the narrow-gauge wagons, so I wonder if similar was used for loads in standard-gauge wagons. I'm not certain I understand clearly the orientation of the slates as described for the Furness wagons - are the slates leaning up against the ends or the sides of the wagon?

[Annie]

55 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm not certain I understand clearly the orientation of the slates as described for the Furness wagons - are the slates leaning up against the ends or the sides of the wagon?

[corneliuslundie]

That's brilliant. Presumably the same in Cambrian Railways 2-planks. 

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

@Annie, excellent, thanks. I note that these slates are stacked with what will be the top end when fixed to a roof uppermost, i.e. the end with corners cut off, which will add to the fun when modelling...

[MarcD]

Yes but they had drop-side or fixed-side wagons (See PGR-41A/B). The LSWR used 1 fixed sides and 3 drop-side wagons (PGR-105/106) and LNWR used 1 and 2 plk fixed sides (PGR-121/122) as well as a dia7 state wagon transporter wagon where 3 NG slate wagons were loaded directly on.

Marc

[WFPettigrew]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I note that these slates are stacked with what will be the top end when fixed to a roof uppermost, i.e. the end with corners cut off, which will add to the fun when modelling...

This reminds me, for those who prefer the deeper, darker days of pre-grouping, until the mid 1890s, Burlington was unique in producing an entirely curved top to the slate, hence the quarry workers being known as Roundheads even for decades after they switched to the more conventional "nip off each corner" approach, as seen in this photo.

 

@Annie beat me to it with that photo but there is also the one I posted previously of some wagons at Grange which shows that the gap in the middle remained after loading (in other words, the place where the two of them are stood in the photo at Kirkby Slate Wharf (btw the book dated it to circa 1910) wasn't just a gap because they hadn't finished loading). 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[WFPettigrew]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

He was using cast resin slate loads by ARB Modelcraft (available through Dundas Models).

It's a shame that these don't feature the correct top of the slate as that is so distinctive. 

 

As I am now the proud owner of one of @MarcD's 4mm FR 2 planks, I need to find a solution so it can be loaded with slate. The Kirkby slates scale at approximately 5 to 6 thou in 4mm, he says mixing his units, so some suitable thickness of card or styrene sheet could be the way to go, unless there is a proprietary product I am not aware of?

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, MarcD said:

Yes but they had drop-side or fixed-side wagons.

 

Ah hum yes. My Cambrian 2-plank is drop-side...

 

18 minutes ago, MarcD said:

LNWR used 1 and 2 plk fixed sides as well as a dia7 state wagon transporter wagon where 3 NG slate wagons were loaded directly on.

 

I discussed the D7 wagons with the above-mentioned 009 modeller; his view, which seems reasonable to me, is that these were only used between the exchange sidings at Blaenau and the port at Deganwy. This is confirmed on looking in LNWR Wagons Vol. 1.

 

Slate traffic by the Great Western would presumably be in their two or three plank wagons, which had centre doors like the Furness wagons.

 

Even for a fixed-side wagon, from a structural point of view loading against the end, supported by the end pillars, ought to have been better practice than loading against the sides, where the effect might be to bend the side knees outwards.

 

So I'm now back to a square one, or a clean slate, if you prefer.