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

[Schooner]

51 minutes ago, magmouse said:

then why is the (presumably) new paint on the repaired planks darker than the old?

Had we previously suggested that gloss plays a part in how these paints photographed? Matt (be it through dulling with age, or a coating of dust, soot etc) showing lighter, higher gloss darker...?

[magmouse]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

My point was that they seemed to be the same - the photos of Midland wagons match West's description.

 

Sorry - poor use of the word 'strategy' on my part. Probably I should have said: "curious that there seem to have been quite different loading practices between MR and LNWR" with reference to your comment:

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I think I struggle to find a Midland goods train photo showing such high sheeted loads but there are plenty of LNWR goods train photos that show such loads

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

15 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Had we previously suggested that gloss plays a part in how these paints photographed? Matt (be it through dulling with age, or a coating of dust, soot etc) showing lighter, higher gloss darker...?

 

That's an interesting thought - certainly a gloss finish can have that effect. Looking closely at the photo, though, there are scuff marks going across both the lighter and darker planks, and what looks like a similar amount of dirt. The darker planks don't look especially new compared to the others, just ... darker.

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, magmouse said:

with reference to your comment:

 

Perhaps I should revise that comment:

 

Quote

I struggle to find a Midland goods train photo

 

Mineral trains dominate the photographic record, as do photos taken after the Great War, by which time covered vans had become more common and were probably taking much of the sundries traffic. Here are a few I've found that do show quite high sheeting:

 

 

Silkstream Junction, about 1905. 1798 class 0-6-0 No. 2712 pictured with a Down express goods train passing through on the fast line [Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 82334].

 

 

Before early 1903, Baldwin No. 2508 passing Welsh Harp station on the goods line with a down stopping goods train [Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 82430]. 

 

 

Up goods at Kings Norton, 16 July 1921 [W.L. Good, Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrknpreg272; see also MRSC 61728]. No guarantee the sheeted wagons are Midland vehicles or loaded at a Midland goods station, the first one is certainly non-Midland.

 

LNWR examples:

 

 

Posed view of a goods train ;eaving Crewe, before 1907 [Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

 

https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p412447729/e4e682ad1

 

Posed view of Webb 0-8-0 Class A 3-cylinder Compound No. 2534 on Shap with a train of 40 wagons and a brake van. 18-Jul-1899. Crewe Official C633.

[billbedford]

23 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm wondering whether these two, being in less land-locked locations than Sheffield, may have sent large plates to the shipyards by sea, with either short-haul rail to the docks or by road.

 

I don't know about other yards, but Harland & Wolff would have had all its material supplied by sea. 

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Perhaps I should revise that comment:

 

 

Mineral trains dominate the photographic record, as do photos taken after the Great War, by which time covered vans had become more common and were probably taking much of the sundries traffic. Here are a few I've found that do show quite high sheeting:

 

 

Silkstream Junction, about 1905. 1798 class 0-6-0 No. 2712 pictured with a Down express goods train passing through on the fast line [Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 82334].

 

 

Before early 1903, Baldwin No. 2508 passing Welsh Harp station on the goods line with a down stopping goods train [Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 82430]. 

 

 

Up goods at Kings Norton, 16 July 1921 [W.L. Good, Embedded link to Warwickshire Railways mrknpreg272; see also MRSC 61728]. No guarantee the sheeted wagons are Midland vehicles or loaded at a Midland goods station, the first one is certainly non-Midland.

 

LNWR examples:

 

 

Posed view of a goods train ;eaving Crewe, before 1907 [Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

 

https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p412447729/e4e682ad1

 

Posed view of Webb 0-8-0 Class A 3-cylinder Compound No. 2534 on Shap with a train of 40 wagons and a brake van. 18-Jul-1899. Crewe Official C633.

 

Thanks for that - very helpful.

 

Because I am putting off less palatable tasks, and I love a rabbit hole, I've done some rough some based on these photos. First the demonstrations of loading technique:

 

 

The squares are scaled to 1ft. Based on a D299 side sheeting height, including the curb rail, of 3'3" (rounded), the load height from the bottom of the curb rail is approximately 9', giving a total height of 12'9" - around the maximum possible within the loading gauge (noting that loading gauges varied, as per the thread you linked to).

 

And this familiar one:

 

 

This shows a very similar result.

 

Onto the train photos:

 

 

Here I have scaled the load height from the curb rail height above rail height. Ignore the grid - that isn't scaled to anything in particular. This indicates a total load height of 11'3" - high, but not pushing the loading gauge limit.

 

And again:

 

 

This one is a feeble effort by the loaders - a mere 8'11" from rail height.

 

So I think we will need to look further for any evidence that wagons were loaded in service to the limits of the loading gauge, as shown in the demonstration photos.

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, magmouse said:

This one is a feeble effort by the loaders - a mere 8'11" from rail height.

 

Some of those behind the Baldwin do look to me like sheeted mineral wagons. It's a down train so mineral wagons would otherwise be empty.

 

Of course one doesn't know what the load is. 

[magmouse]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Some of those behind the Baldwin do look to me like sheeted mineral wagons. It's a down train so mineral wagons would otherwise be empty.

 

Of course one doesn't know what the load is. 

 

Of course - I was having a ludic moment... And you are right - not all loads would have needed to be piled as high as possible, or been suitable for that. I think I am seeking to confirm or deny my sneaking feeling that the demonstration photos have an element of showmanship, as well as serious purpose, that wasn't often relevant to real-life needs and practices.

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I think I am seeking to confirm or deny my sneaking feeling that the demonstration photos have an element of showmanship, as well as serious purpose, that wasn't often relevant to real-life needs and practices.

 

I go back to that Fred West article. He may be describing a particular bravura performance, but not one done for the camera.

[magmouse]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

 

I go back to that Fred West article. He may be describing a particular bravura performance, but not one done for the camera.

 

I'm not doubting the skill required to pack a wagon in the way described - I've seen enough 40ft trailers packed with theatre scenery, lighting and sound equipment, props and costumes to know what an art that is. And the skill is still there in the West account after you discount the journalistic writing that is aiming to create a certain effect in the mind of the reader.

 

My question is purely about how common it was for the very high loading seen in the pictures - to the maximum allowed by the loading gauge - to be found in day to day use. I am interested in this partly out of curiosity, and partly because I want to know if I should add "GWR 4-plank, maximally loaded and sheeted" to my planned roster of stock...

 

Nick.

[Andy Hayter]

Surely the pictures are there to show how to load and what is possible; not to suggest that this has to be done on a frequent basis.

 

I would assume (dangerous) that most wagons were loaded for an A -> B journey - accepting that perhaps there might be some transhipment to allow onward passage to -> C.  As such the likelihood of having vast quantities of individual packages for an A -> B journey at any one time must have been limited.

 

Having worked with modern day groupage (individual pick up items rather than full loads*) hauliers the problems of pulling deliveries together is today quite an issue except on main traffic routes.  

 

* The haulier is responsible for collecting different cargoes from different customers for delivery to different destinations.  

[Compound2632]

Anyway, I'm still in special wagon mode I'm afraid, so here's my draft write up on wagons for the conveyance of tramcars and similar vehicles, a topic that has taken some unpicking! I hope this will be of particular interest to @jamie92208. I don't know much about where tramcar builders were located. Kitsons of Leeds were the leading supplier of steam tram engines - but that's a different topic. I have a copy of an interesting little book, D. Harvey, Birmingham before the Electric Tram (Amberley, 2013) in which one meets tramcars built by such well-known Birmingham firms as the Metropolitan RC& W Co. and Brown, Marshall & Co, - firms whose products would very likely go by the Midland - but also Starbucks of Birkenhead and the Falcon Engine & Car Works of Loughborough - renamed the Brush Electrical Engineering Co. in 1889. 

 

I've not yet come across any definite information on wagons for this type of traffic before the opening of the Litchurch Lane Carriage & Wagon Works, so for the moment my story begins with the entry in the lot list on 23 December 1878 of lot 26, four Omnibus Trucks to Drg. 388 [no copy in MRSC collection]:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, 1889, MRSC 28524-009; see also Midland Wagons, plate 25].

 

There is no mention of authorisation of these wagons in the Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes, so they were evidently built as renewals, but whether of older omnibus trucks or of ordinary wagons is unknown (I have not yet looked at Traffic Committee minutes before February 1881.)

 

These trucks were followed by lot 92 of 20 April 1883, for six Tram Car Trucks to Drg. 584 [no copy in MRSC collection]:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, 1889, MRSC 28524-009; see also Midland Wagons, plate 304].

 

These were also built as renewals, with no mention in the C&W or Traffic Committee minutes.

 

All ten of these trucks appear in the listing of Midland goods stock at 31 December 1894 [C&W minute 3037 of 14 March 1895; see Midland Wagons, fig. 22], along with one 8 ton Omnibus Truck which is presumably the last survivor from the Kirtley period.

 

Their diagrams appear in the September 1898 and c. 1902/3 editions of the Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction [TNA RAIL 491/859 and MRSC 28314] but they have been renamed as Wood and Iron Skeleton Wagons:

 

 

[Crops from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, c. 1902/3, MRSC 28314]

 

The Wood Skeleton Wagon does not appear on the c. 1906 edition, but the Iron Skeleton Wagon does; three examples survived to be listed in the December 1913 sheet of Numbers of Special Wagons [MRSC 25863, Midland Wagons, fig. 126] and two on diagram D324 (recalling that the surviving copies of the wagon diagram book appear to be of an edition produced c. 1914).

 

The only number known for the Omnibus Trucks or Wood Skeleton Wagons is No. 1292 on the diagram and in the official photo. For the Tram Car Trucks or Iron Skeleton Wagons, five out of six numbers can be gleaned from various sources: 

• No. 18278 from the above diagrams and the official photo;
• Nos. 16038, 17659, and 18866 from the Special Wagon list; and
• Nos. 15876 and 18866 from diagram D324.

Noting that 15876 from D324 does not appear on the Special Wagon list... I smell clerical error - the wrong numbers deleted from the diagram?

 

Midland Wagons also has three photos of No. 17659 [figs. 305-7]. Two show it loaded with 4' 0" gauge carriages for Dinorwic Quarries; these are Gloucester RC&W Co. photos so rather conveniently include descriptive boards giving the dates November 1896 and February 1904. In the earlier photo, the truck appears to be as built but in the second, it has new main frames with a shallower curve at the ends. This condition is also shown in Midland Wagons, fig. 306, where it is also fitted with a pair of longitudinal baulks. This photo is, I think, DY9971, which is dated 17 July 1913 in the Derby Registers - which at least agrees with the special Wagon list.

 

By the new century, tram cars were going electric and getting bigger; hence Traffic Committee minute 32,392 of 19 December 1901:

 

Wood skeleton wagons

                    Resolved that six wood 10 ton skeleton wagons each 40 feet long 2 feet 10 inches between floor and rail level and fitted with spring buffers be built at an estimated cost of £172 each, or a total of £1032, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

Lot 532 of 28 February 1902 was for eight Wood Skeleton Wagons to Drg. 1551 [no copy in MRSC collection]:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, c. 1906, MRSC 12300; see also Midland Wagons, fig. 319, which I think is DY9972, dated 17 July 1913 in the Derby Registers].

 

The family likeness to the Omnibus Trucks of 1879 is, I think, clear enough.

 

The six additions to stock were numbered 117292-117297. Of the two built as renewals, only one appears in the Special Wagon List or on diagram D317, viz. No. 5755. Essery quotes an LMS diagram book page for these wagons so they were still in existence post-grouping; No. 117294 was somehow renewed or reconstructed by lot 1004 of 7 March 1923.  

 

Even these vehicles weren't big enough for the latest tram cars, as the Traffic Committee was made aware in November 1904, minute No. 33680:

 

Wagons for the conveyance of tramcars.

                   The General Manager reported that three 6-ton wood skeleton wagons, 29’ 6” long, which are used for the conveyance of tramcars, are worn out and require renewing. He explained that a larger type of wagon is now needed on account of many tramcars being built to larger dimensions than heretofore, and, therefore, recommended that three suitable vehicles, forty feet long, on bogies, to carry fifteen tons, be built, in accordance with the plan produced, in place of the three worn out vehicles in question and four 8-ton goods wagons.

                    Approved, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

That only three 6-ton wagons were to be renewed suggests that perhaps No. 5755 of Lot 532 renewed one of the lot 26 vehicles; maybe the other renewed the one mystery 8-ton truck recorded in 1894. This would account for the absence of the Lot 26 type from the c. 1906 Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction.

 

These three 15-ton bogie vehicles formed lot 597 of 6 December 1904. They were built to Drg. 2252 [MRSC 88-D0205]:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, c. 1906, MRSC 12300].

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64092, DY3489 (no date), No. 14145; see also Midland Wagons, plate 333, No. 10918, DY9961, 13 June 1913].

 

The family likeness continued.

 

By the following July, the Traffic Committee was calling for more, minute No. 33,957:   

Trucks for the conveyance of tramcars.

               Resolved that six 40-feet bogie trucks, to carry fifteen tons, be built for the conveyance of tramcars, in accordance with the plan produced, in place of sixteen ordinary goods wagons, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

These were built as lot 624 of 18 August 1905. Both lots were renewals and the way they were financed was typical of the period from c. 1904 onwards. The earliest 8-ton open wagons of D299 were falling due for renewal and, rather than renewing them as new open wagons, they were used as accounting tokens for wagons of new types. As far as the Accountant's Department was concerned, what mattered was not the total number of wagons in stock but their total capital value. Thus the cost of building one bogie tramcar truck was about the same as the cost of building two and two-thirds ordinary open wagons, or about £160.

 

The numbers of these nine wagons appear in the Special Wagon list and on diagram D318: 

12917, 13425, 14145, 8380, 10207, 10918, 22391, 23369, and 30685.

One can't tell which numbers belong to which lot. Possibly three are the numbers of the lot 26 vehicles, though No. 1292 is not among them. Otherwise they are presumably numbers from the ordinary goods wagons they replaced.

 

The last reference to skeleton wagons in the minute books comes in Traffic Committee minute No. 36,053 in October 1911:

 

25-ton trolley wagons.

               Resolved that two 25-ton trolley wagons with 32 feet wells be built on renewals account in accordance with plan “D.136” now submitted in place of five old skeleton wagons on the broken up list. The matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

These two trolleys were built as lot 783 of 3 December 1911 to Drg. 3585 [MRSC 88-D1180]:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 44087, DY9968 dated 31 July 1913, depicting No. 10255].

 

The Special Wagon list and diagram D642 give these trolleys as Nos. 10255 and 23415. What is unclear is whether the five old skeleton wagons they replaced were of the wood or iron variety. It seems that at all four wood skeleton wagons of lot 26 had been renewed by c. 1906; on the other hand, three of the six iron skeleton wagons lasted to at least the end of 1913. None reached the LMS, judging by Essery saying they were not listed as LMS special wagons. (Noting that the lot information he quotes is in fact that for 5 ton deep case wagons, as discussed in an earlier post.)

 

I'm sure I've seen a photo of tram car trucks - probably the bogie ones - loaded with new trams but I can't track it down...

[Penlan]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Posed view of a goods train leaving Crewe, before 1907 [Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

This loco is the small boiler 'C' class, converted from the 'A' class.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Penlan

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Penlan said:

This loco is the small boiler 'C' class, converted from the 'A' class.

 

Dang! Your are quite right. At least I could see it wasn't a 'B'.

 

Look at the wagons, everybody; never mind the engine.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Compound2632

[Andy Hayter]

Not sure if it is at all relevant to your MR tram wagons studies, but are you aware of the article in Spring 2017 LYR Focus on the LYR tram wagons?

[jamie92208]

Several questions to try and answer.  

 

First of all the date is significant. Round the turn of the century electric trams were being built in large numbers to replace horse and then steam trams.  Until then the only bogie vehicles wete the 100 seater steam tram trailers.  These were built in two separate  decks for transport. On a steam tram the upper deck was enclosed because of the smoke, soot, cinders etc. Thus they had to be split into 3 for transport.  The bogies on one wagon then each deck, which were longer, on separate  wagons.  40' would be about the maximum in those days.  

 

Secondly the initial electric cars had open top decks and were generally quite short and 4 wheeled.  The main difference  between horse and electric cars was that the electric ones had a separate truck that had the motor and wheels plus bearer girders for the body. These would be about 3' high but up to I think 15' long.  The bodies of open cars would be about 9' high and up to about 20' long.  

 

However wwhen enckosed cars became the norm the the same construction methods as the steam tram trailers applied and continued till the end of tramcar construction.   The famous Middleton bogies in the 1930's were delivered on 3 wagons to Leeds from Lougborough.  

 

I'm not sure when longer bogie cars became more common but the 1905 date could well be right.   

 

As to the major constructors, the ones that I know off the top of my head are, Brush at Loughborough, Hurst Nelson in Glasgow, Dick Kerr in Preston and Milnes in Birkenhead and Shropshire.  The Milnes works used to be Starbucks and went bankrupt before WW1 when Dick Kerr took them over.

 

There is a very famous photo of  lo g train of London trams being delivered from Hurst Nelson  to London with upper and lower decks on alternate wagons.  I saw it in a book about London trams.

 

Given time I could get more precise dimensions but have some concrete to mix.

 

Jamie

 

[Compound2632]

52 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

some concrete to mix.

 

A time-critical activity that definitely takes priority over tramcar musings!

[jamie92208]

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

A time-critical activity that definitely takes priority over tramcar musings!

Now done and the last set of water tank footings poured.  If you need any more about trams I can start looking through books in due course.

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

If you need any more about trams I can start looking through books in due course.

 

It would be interesting to know if there were more-or-less standard sizes and how those compare with the dimensions of the wagons, and the loading gauge.

 

5 hours ago, magmouse said:

I'm not doubting the skill required to pack a wagon in the way described - I've seen enough 40ft trailers packed with theatre scenery, lighting and sound equipment, props and costumes to know what an art that is. And the skill is still there in the West account after you discount the journalistic writing that is aiming to create a certain effect in the mind of the reader.

 

My question is purely about how common it was for the very high loading seen in the pictures - to the maximum allowed by the loading gauge - to be found in day to day use. I am interested in this partly out of curiosity, and partly because I want to know if I should add "GWR 4-plank, maximally loaded and sheeted" to my planned roster of stock...

 

Looking up Great Northern wagon sheets in Bob Essery's Sheets, Ropes and Sacks in Midland Record Vol. 3, I was immediately struck by two photos of D299s loaded high and sheeted. Both photos are attributed to Bob's collection, but might be officials. In one, the sheeted wagon is standing next to an as-yet-unsheeted (?) wagon piled high with crates and boxes in the approved manner. The sheeted wagon has DERBY 7-6-10 chalked on its door; that's not a weight so it must be the date! The other example is standing on its lonesome. Both wagons have needed two sheets placed across the wagon - the rule was that the overlap had to be trailing relative to the direction of travel. 

 

Both wagons have 10A axleboxes and the extra vertical strap between the end pillars, which dates them roughly to no earlier than 1889 and no later than 1894, as far as I can work out. Numbers are almost legible: probably 75340 and 43800. 

 

Thanks to @WFPettigrew for PM'ing me a photo with some sheeted Great Northern wagons in the mix!

 

Browsing the Derby Registers, failing to find any likely reference to those Essery photos, I came upon the following entries:

 

DY11015 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey 8/5/1919 Goods

DY11016 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey 8/5/1919 Goods

DY11017 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey, side down

DY11018 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey, shewing butts and spaces

DY11019 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey, shewing butts and spaces, perspective

DY11020 Burton, NBR wagon 4477 containing casks of port wine

DY11021 Burton, NBR wagon 4477 containing casks of port wine

 

No idea if the photos actually survive, but tantalising for those interested in loading casks!

[41516]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

DY11015 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey 8/5/1919 Goods

DY11016 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey 8/5/1919 Goods

DY11017 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey, side down

DY11018 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey, shewing butts and spaces

DY11019 Burton, L&NWR wagon 44772 containing 8 butts whiskey, shewing butts and spaces, perspective

DY11020 Burton, NBR wagon 4477 containing casks of port wine

DY11021 Burton, NBR wagon 4477 containing casks of port wine

 

As a possible guess, going to/from B Grant & Co Ltd, wine and spirit merchants based on Station Street and mere yards from the station itself. The building still stands, albeit converted to flats.

 

 

Edit: Possibly to be bottled, ready for distribution to pubs and other licensed properties.

 

https://whisky.auction/auctions/lot/66657/grant-s-invercauld-scotch-whisky

Edited February 16, 2023 by 41516

[drduncan]

9 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

I don't know about other yards, but Harland & Wolff would have had all its material supplied by sea. 

True, but with regard to warship building H & W built very few between 1880 and WW1 - I can only think one, the Admiralty yacht Enchantress, so with regard to movements of armour plate to a seaport for shipping to Northern Ireland this would have been almost non existent.

Duncan

[Dave Hunt]

 A couple of points regarding earlier posts. The supposition that the oxalic white paint used for the MR on Midland wagons would stay pristine is a falsehood. It may have been 'self cleaning' but at best this would mean that it would remain cleaner (using the term loosely where the steam railway environment was concerned) than other types of white paint. If only exposed to soot and other particulate dirt they may well have been sloughed off and the lettering remain bright for some time but once damaged by grit or other abrasives, such as those in locomotive exhausts, and exposed to oil and grease as well as other types of contamination it would have started to look grubby.  Think of the term 'self cleaning' in the same vein as self cleaning smokeboxes or ovens.

 

As regards the colour of smudge, whilst it contained a lot of war surplus battleship grey paint, an ex-Derby paint shop employee interviewed by David Jenkinson and Bob Essery said that it also had almost all the leftovers of all the other paints used in the works and thus the colour would vary quite a bit from one day to the next. 

 

Dave

[Compound2632]

I've spent the evening at a L&NWR Society Zoom meeting, David Maltman talking about his 3D resin printing of LNWR carriages in 4 mm scale, with some interesting compare and contrast with @Grahams ' techniques for 5 in gauge. My feeling is that I could easily get into the 3D design software side of it but the practicalities of having a printer in the home would be a little tricky, from an H&S perspective. But the results look very good. 

 

I did ask about 3D colour printing, which is coming on, but not yet perhaps at the stage where one could economically print a fully-lined carriage body! 

[Compound2632]

On 16/02/2023 at 13:12, Compound2632 said:

Dang! Your are quite right. At least I could see it wasn't a 'B'.

 

@Penlan, it's a C in the posted photo, an A on Shap in the linked photo.

[billbedford]

On 16/02/2023 at 20:54, Dave Hunt said:

 A couple of points regarding earlier posts. The supposition that the oxalic white paint used for the MR on Midland wagons would stay pristine is a falsehood. It may have been 'self cleaning' but at best this would mean that it would remain cleaner (using the term loosely where the steam railway environment was concerned) than other types of white paint.

 

I presume the oxalic acid paint would not have darkened in the way that lead based paints did. 

 

It's a pity Derby didn't think of using this paint on their coach roofs, then many carriage models wouldn't be so obviously mis-painted .