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

[WFPettigrew]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

All Furness wagons, I presume? Perhaps ones outside the wagon works awaiting attention? not fresh out of the paint shop, at any rate!

 

Yes indeed. Just some of the very numerous Victorian 2 planks that were so prevalent on the FR due to the traffic demands (pig iron from the various ironworks, lime stone to the ironworks, slate from the quarries - all of which dense loads meant anything more than 2 planks was wasted). 

 

Types here are the D15 fast side (nearest the camera and 3rd along) and D16 drop side (behind the contestant and the 4th along).  Shame the photographer didn't get the  number of the D15 and the D16 cannot be read even at the best resolution available. 

 

The location is alongside the FR's Barrow goods warehouse (a building which still stands, long without tracks and marooned between Tesco and B&Q!) between it and Devonshire Dock (on the part now filled in for the BAE Systems submarine building hall). The view is looking north.  So they are there for the competition not because they are queued up awaiting shopping in the works, which was a mile to to the south of here.   

 

FR wagons began to be painted with the "FR" on the sides around 1895/6, prior to that company identification was through the brass plate on the solebar, as visible on the D16. These in Victorian times were oval, initially with F.R.C. over the top and the build date around the bottom with the wagon number in the centre.  Later - as in the D16 - it became Furnes on top, build date on bottom, and right at the end of the oval plate phase (1900) the build date was replaced with Railway.  Later the FR moved to a rectangular plate with FURNESS and the number below, and later still to a rectangular plate with the bottom corners nibbled off so it fitted between the tops of the V hangers. 

 

We don't know the date for this photo - the wagon coupling competitions were certainly running in the first decade of the 20th century and another photo in the same batch of negatives shows a 1904 built loco at Ramsden Dock station in Barrow.  The D15 has a very faint "F" visible, and the FR certainly did not repaint wagons until they really needed it.  It is impossible to tell I think whether these wagons are in well weathered paint, or worse bare wood, and whetherh the likes of the D16 has carried lettering that has been lost, or is a survivor of the old paint scheme without the lettering. 

 

Hope this helps.

Neil 

 

 

[Compound2632]

@MarcD, like I said before, I need to set harder puzzles!

 

I was going through the Derby collection on the SMG website in the vain hope of finding a version of Plate 84 in Colin Maggs' Highbridge in its Heyday, "S.S. Alpha at Highbridge", attributed there to British Rail and which I think is probably DY 13479 or DY 13483, listed with date 10 Sept 1924 in the Derby Registers pages of the MRS website. If that is correct, the S&DJR wagons on the wharf must be service stock retained. On the other hand, Maggs gives the date as c. 1895. In support of that he notes that Alpha is in pre-1904 condition, being lengthened in that year "to carry the longer rails which were coming into use" - rolled in South Wales and sent by sea to Highbridge, for the LSWR, I presume, as well as the S&DJR itself? Maggs, who has had sight of a larger print, identifies the wagons:

 

No. 647 - a D305-esque lowside (3-plank dropside) wagon like my 649 whose transfers are hardening nicely in the warm, dry atmosphere of the garage;

No. 676 - a fixed-side 2-plank lowside wagon, marked To work between Highbridge Wharf and Burnham, an injunction reinforced by three large Xs on its side;

No. 47A - a 3-plank highside wagon, possibly dumb buffered, lettered on a dark panel between the door hinges Loco Coal Highbridge;

No. 739 - a long fixed-side 2-plank lowside wagon, like No. 689 illustrated at Plate 73 [DY 8444] - that wagon has self-contained buffers and rather strangely-constructed headstocks, suggesting it might be a conversion from dumb buffers; the wagons in the Alpha photo have their running gear obscured by the edge of the dock but I think No. 739 may also have self-contained buffers.

No. 173 and one other - the standard D299-esque 5-plank highside wagons. Maggs also has a portrait of No. 174, Plate 71 [DY 8349], which by its numberplate was built in 1887 and not at Highbridge - suggesting a batch in this number range built by a contractor; there is a small oval builder's plate. Must read the Joint Committee minutes!

 

I'm intrigued by the non-Midlandesque wagons such as Nos. 689 and 739; I suppose they must be survivors from before the Joint Committee took over.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Compound2632

[Grahams]

On 11/09/2023 at 13:02, Simond said:

I felt that 5 sovereigns in 1905 must have been an impressive amount of money, but the Bank of England inflation calculator suggests it was "only" £495, so marginally more than a day return nowadays.

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator

 

frankly I think the BoE calculator is not telling the whole truth...  If one assumed a constant 6% inflation, it would be more than £5440, and I imagine it would be possible to get a helicopter to Aylesbury for that.

And if you happened to have the 5 sovereigns today, you would be able to sell them for just under £2000 of paper money. 

The £495 would be from the cashier of the organisation who signs the fiver with "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five pounds" 🤣

[Chas Levin]

On 12/09/2023 at 12:19, Compound2632 said:

MSJS No. 8 of Lot 28 sports the 10 ft radius roof:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64397.]

 

@Chas Levin, note the light appearance of everything below solebar level. @billbedford has suggested whitewash.

 

 

Thanks Stephen, noted; I also saw @billbedford's note downthread about photographic grey being partly composed of whitewash.

I'm assuming Stephen that you were linking this to the MR coach discussed earlier, where some parts below the solebar appeared similarly coloured?

I'd certainly agree it looks like something like whitewash/photographic grey but I'm still a little puzzled by the areas to which it's been applied and by those to which it hasn't.

I understand why an entire loco might be finished that way for overall photography purposes, but why are only certain parts of this van and the coach done that way? Is it simply the metal parts?

[Compound2632]

33 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

I understand why an entire loco might be finished that way for overall photography purposes, but why are only certain parts of this van and the coach done that way? Is it simply the metal parts?

 

I think it is simply the parts below the solebar that, if black (as was the standard livery) would become very hard to distinguish - as I know from photographing my own models! The carriage body and underframe, being already lined out, stand out clearly enough. I have the impression that most of the official photos of Clayton arc-roof carriages were taken on several different days, sometime in the late 80s / early 90s - probably several different years - not, necessarily, when the carriages were brand new and in high gloss out of the paint shops. One sees the same trees, in the same leafless state, in a number of photos, then in another set, looking a bit different. I haven't attempted to catalogue this (yet)! 

 

There are a very small number of photos where the entire carriage is in photographic grey; my impression is that this was only done where the photo was going to be used in company publicity. One such is the Paris Exhibition carriage:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0042; DY 636.]

 

The official photographer also took a "normal" photo, but still with the running gear etc. light-coloured:

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0090; DY 6432.] This isn't the best version of this photo I've seen; it appears to be a copy of a print. This one is better, but I can only show the thumbnail:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64266.]

 

Compare an example where the bogies etc. have been left in black:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0089, DY 6549.]

 

The axlebox fronts and the stepboards are highlighted by the natural illumination but the bogie frames are pretty much lost in shadow.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Compound2632

[41516]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

DY 12660. The date is a simple typo, should be 1922, but what's the other glaring error? 

 

8 hours ago, MarcD said:

back to front RM's

 

My eye was drawn to the familiar outline to the left of the image - I'd have said the bell is on the wrong side of the saddle!

 

Out of the three candidates for location and period, it's either 1503 or 1509*, as 1510 had the full cab.

 

 

*The original 1509, not 1506 later renumbered 1509 which also had the full cab.

Edited September 13, 2023 by 41516
a missing i

[Compound2632]

On 05/09/2023 at 00:51, Siberian Snooper said:

Don't forget that Colin from Alan Gibson, will be at Scaleforum at High Wycombe over the weekend of 23/24 September.

 

On 05/09/2023 at 08:28, Compound2632 said:

Am aware - probably Sunday for me, family commitment on the Saturday, clashing with our club's local exhibition at Earley St Peters Church Hall, unfortunately. After ExpoEM in Bracknell (20 minutes), it's my nearest finescale show (30 minutes).

 

I posted my order off yesterday, with cheque, so let's see if my wheels arrive before Scaleforum!

 

After getting on for eight modelling-free pages, the wheels have arrived. 

 

i have also been busy painting and lettering - with luck, photos tomorrow.

[MarcD]

I have about 50 wagons to paint and or apply lettering before a week on Friday would anyone like to give me odd on finishing the job before Scalefourum?

Very rarely do I get to do anything for me these days.

[MrWolf]

1 minute ago, MarcD said:

I have about 50 wagons to paint and or apply lettering before a week on Friday would anyone like to give me odd on finishing the job before Scalefourum?

Very rarely do I get to do anything for me these days.

 

I'll see your fifty unpainted wagons and raise you a hundred and twenty that aren't even built! 

Best get stuck in, you can do it!

[Chas Levin]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think it is simply the parts below the solebar that, if black (as was the standard livery) would become very hard to distinguish - as I know from photographing my own models! The carriage body and underframe, being already lined out, stand out clearly enough. I have the impression that most of the official photos of Clayton arc-roof carriages were taken on several different days, sometime in the late 80s / early 90s - probably several different years - not, necessarily, when the carriages were brand new and in high gloss out of the paint shops. One sees the same trees, in the same leafless state, in a number of photos, then in another set, looking a bit different. I haven't attempted to catalogue this (yet)! 

 

There are a very small number of photos where the entire carriage is in photographic grey; my impression is that this was only done where the photo was going to be used in company publicity. One such is the Paris Exhibition carriage:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0042; DY 636.]

 

The official photographer also took a "normal" photo, but still with the running gear etc. light-coloured:

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0090; DY 6432.] This isn't the best version of this photo I've seen; it appears to be a copy of a print. This one is better, but I can only show the thumbnail:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64266.]

 

Compare an example where the bogies etc. have been left in black:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0089, DY 6549.]

 

The axlebox fronts and the stepboards are highlighted by the natural illumination but the bogie frames are pretty much lost in shadow.

Thanks Stephen, very interesting stuff. The grey Paris Exhibition carriage photo is fascinating - I've certainly never seen a carriage in grey before.

The direct comparison of similar coaches where one's running gear's in grey and one's isn't is very revealing, isn't it?

 

I look forward to your cataloguing of official Clayton arc-roof carriage photos' background foliage in due course...

[Nick Holliday]

10 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Thanks Stephen, very interesting stuff. The grey Paris Exhibition carriage photo is fascinating - I've certainly never seen a carriage in grey before.

The direct comparison of similar coaches where one's running gear's in grey and one's isn't is very revealing, isn't it?

 

I look forward to your cataloguing of official Clayton arc-roof carriage photos' background foliage in due course...

What about in white?

https://lightmoor.co.uk/books/great-north-of-scotland-railway-carriages/L9419

 

[Compound2632]

Just now, Nick Holliday said:

What about in white?

 

Is that white or grey?

 

There were plenty of in-service white carriages on colonial railways!

[Chas Levin]

30 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

What about in white?

https://lightmoor.co.uk/books/great-north-of-scotland-railway-carriages/L9419

 

 

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Is that white or grey?

 

There were plenty of in-service white carriages on colonial railways!

 

Thanks Nick, it's certainly a very striking image, isn't it? I think I too might have assumed if I'd seen it for myself that it was grey, but in bright light, but nevertheless, it's certainly an entire carriage in some sort of photographic colour. That makes more sense to me than those photos where only certain parts are done that way.

 

It does also raise another aspect of this whole 'photographic grey' business that sometimes crosses my mind when I see such photos: the amount of work needed to paint them that way, then to remove that coat and re-apply a new livery! I realise there were perceived advantages to the 'full disclosure' photographic records this system facilitated, but if you've ever tried stripping something far too large to dip (not to mention something with parts such as wood, that probably have to be protected from any kind of heat or stripping chemicals) then like me, you'll wonder if it was really worth it...

[billbedford]

20 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

It does also raise another aspect of this whole 'photographic grey' business that sometimes crosses my mind when I see such photos: the amount of work needed to paint them that way, then to remove that coat and re-apply a new livery! I realise there were perceived advantages to the 'full disclosure' photographic records this system facilitated, but if you've ever tried stripping something far too large to dip (not to mention something with parts such as wood, that probably have to be protected from any kind of heat or stripping chemicals) then like me, you'll wonder if it was really worth it...

 

But the whole point of photographic grey was that the whitewash was water soluble so the vehicle could be hosed down and the original livery would not have been affected. 

[Dave Hunt]

Presumably the lining in photographic grey livery was achieved by altering the amount of black in the mix?

 

Dave

 

I bet that if it rained while the vehicles were outside awaiting photography that a few choice words would have been heard.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

But the whole point of photographic grey was that the whitewash was water soluble so the vehicle could be hosed down and the original livery would not have been affected. 

 

I wonder if the practice was different for locomotives, though, as there are photographs taken on trial turns when still in grey, purportedly:

 

Here's one of the series of officials photo of No. 2601:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 61879.]

 

And a couple of photographs taken by a Mr. Wilkinson at Birmingham New Street in January 1900, purporting to show the engine in grey, having worked a trial trip from Derby:

 

 

 

[Embedded links to catalogue images of MRSC 81520 and 81521.]

 

Note the different appearance of the smokebox door.

 

Also, compare with another enthusiast photo, taken in September 1901, undoubtedly showing the engine in full fig:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 61293.]

[Chas Levin]

10 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

But the whole point of photographic grey was that the whitewash was water soluble so the vehicle could be hosed down and the original livery would not have been affected. 

 

Ohhhhhhhh! Thanks Bill, I hadn't realised that at all...

 

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I wonder if the practice was different for locomotives, though, as there are photographs taken on trial turns when still in grey, purportedly:

 

Here's one of the series of officials photo of No. 2601:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 61879.]

 

And a couple of photographs taken by a Mr. Wilkinson at Birmingham New Street in January 1900, purporting to show the engine in grey, having worked a trial trip from Derby:

 

 

 

[Embedded links to catalogue images of MRSC 81520 and 81521.]

 

Note the different appearance of the smokebox door.

 

Also, compare with another enthusiast photo, taken in September 1901, undoubtedly showing the engine in full fig:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 61293.]

 

Even if there were different practices in some cases - which I'm sure there were - I'm fascinated to learn that the grey finish was simply hosed off, even if only in some cases, because that hadn't occurred to me.

 

Puzzled by those 2601 photos though Stephen: the first is undoubtedly in grey but Mr Wilkinson's B'ham New St ones look so very different, to the extent that I'd wonder if they weren't in fact a more permanent finish? Though I realise that a smoky run might darken the grey pretty spectacularly. Yet again, we're up against the difficulties of monochrome film stock.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Chas Levin

[MikeOxon]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

And a couple of photographs taken by a Mr. Wilkinson at Birmingham New Street in January 1900, purporting to show the engine in grey, having worked a trial trip from Derby:

Part of the point of photographic grey was the dull matt finish, to eliminate reflections.  The engine at New Street seem to have more of a 'sheen' than I would have expected from matt grey.

[MrWolf]

From an engineering and economic point of view, would it not have made sense to paint something in a semi matt grey as an undercoat, then your only expense would be lettering and lining.

A skilled coach painter could even work around that with the topcoat and then varnish the whole lot. Photographic grey with the livery details to red, green or whatever without having to hose and scrub at whitewash. No karcher washers in 1880, besides, such things might well damage the underlying paint.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, MrWolf said:

From an engineering and economic point of view, would it not have made sense to paint something in a semi matt grey as an undercoat, then your only expense would be lettering and lining.

A skilled coach painter could even work around that with the topcoat and then varnish the whole lot. Photographic grey with the livery details to red, green or whatever without having to hose and scrub at whitewash. No karcher washers in 1880, besides, such things might well damage the underlying paint.

 

The Midland's painting specifications for locomotives and for carriages are documented. For locomotives (0-4-4Ts in the particular case cited): "The boiler was given two coats of lead paint before lagging and the frames, splashers, tanks, coal bunker and cab received two coats of oxide or iron paint. After lagging, all these parts had one coat of lead colour or oxide, then well stopped, filled up properly and rubbed down, after which two coats of lead colour or oxide were applied." Then came the oxide and crimson lake, lining out, and varnish [Midland Style, p. 71]. So it depends, I think, on what colour "lead colour" is: red lead or a mixture of white lead and black - the latter being how the term is usually understood in the description of wagon colours.

 

For carriages, after exhaustive surface preparation, there were two coats of lead colour, with stopping up between, before the first coat of lake ground [Midland Style, p. 103]. So the same question as to lead colour applies. But it is, I think, significant that work grey photos are only of new-built locomotives and carriages, whereas the majority of official photos of carriages of the Clayton arc-roof period were taken of vehicles that had been in service for some years. I doubt that any carriage was completely stripped back, except for parts where bodywork was altered or repaired.

[billbedford]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I wonder if the practice was different for locomotives, though, as there are photographs taken on trial turns when still in grey, purportedly:

 

There is a photo of a grey loco about to enter Woodhead Tunnel. This is in Great Central vol2. The caption describes this livery as 'Workshop Grey'. 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

There is a photo of a grey loco about to enter Woodhead Tunnel. This is in Great Central vol2. The caption describes this livery as 'Workshop Grey'. 

 

Presumably it came out the other end a darker shade of grey.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Compound2632
sp.

[Compound2632]

My literary endeavours:

 

 

Unvarnished prose, at this stage!

 

The S&DJR lowside wagon has had the Railtec transfers re-applied. The five Midland wagons have Slater's waterslide transfers (from their re-issued kits) for tare weights and builder's plates, also for the 12" M R lettering on the covered goods wagon and the loco coal wagon. These are a better shape than the equivalents on the HMRS sheet. The covered goods wagon's number is also from the Slater's sheet. I'm in two minds about this: they're supposed to be 5" numerals; those on the sheet are either slightly too small - being closer to 4" - or slightly too big, being intended for brake vans, which used 6" numerals, but they're slightly under for that. I've used the smaller size but have an unhappy feeling that it looks a bit skinny.

 

All the rest are Methfix, from the HMRS sheet. The E D lettering we've seen before. The LOCO COAL ONLY transfers went on very nicely on this side, though it's noticeable that these transfers are a brighter white than the waterslide ones. I waited an hour before applying water to release the tissue paper, per @Dave Hunt's advice. But the other side is a nightmare: they haven't stuck at all. At least they haven't curled up and disintegrated like the other pair of E D letters did. The curious thing is that the M R transfers on the other highside wagon (the Mousa Lot 29 wagon), from the same sheet, both sides applied at the same time using the same meths/water mix as the second side of the loco coal wagon, were absolutely fine.

 

The D353 covered goods wagon (Mousa kit) is lettered as I believe it would have been c. 1902. There are few good photos of these vehicles; I've taken the number of the one that sat for the official portrait:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64059, DY 5789.]

 

Note the light-coloured running gear etc., and the darker patches on the buffers - @billbedford would say this is where the whitewash has worn off when the wagon was shunted into position; I'm coming round to his view but still don't believe in red brake ends!

 

At the time these wagons were built (up to 1892), the M R lettering was limited to open wagons but by the turn of the century, it was becoming ubiquitous, though one might ask how quickly it was applied to existing covered good wagons, as opposed to the large numbers of 16' 6" covered wagons being built around that time. I presume the number was put on the door at the same time. That some at least of these older wagons got the door lettering and number is, I think, demonstrated by Midland Wagons, plate 177. This shows a wagon that has had its numberplates removed and, I believe, its lettering and number painted over - one, can, I think, see the patches; anyway, I've put my transfers in the same places. I think this wagon has been sold off and has been prepared for delivery. According to the C&W Committee minutes, 219 old covered goods wagons were sold second-hand between 1906 and 1916. The majority of these sales were to J.F. Wake of Darlington or his partners R.Y. Pickering & Co. (the Glasgow wagon-building firm) and E.E. Cornforth of Stoke-on-Trent. But in 1911, 24 were sold to Baldwins of Swansea, foe use in their tinplate works. The photo has a 1911-ish feel to me (by comparison with other officials) so this might be one of those.

 

In writing the above, I have come to realise that I have blundered. No. 19243 was built in 1884 as part of Lot 116 and has 8A axleboxes; the model has 10A axleboxes and hence represents a wagon from one of the later lots, 236, 248, and 287. So I'll have to change the number.

[Compound2632]

Hum. There's a wonky O in LOCO.

[Grahams]

On 13/09/2023 at 11:16, Compound2632 said:

Time for a little gentle fun at the Science Museum Group's expense. This is captioned "Liverpool goods depot, 1932":

 

 

[Embedded link to Derby collection at Science Museum Group website.]

 

DY 12660. The date is a simple typo, should be 1922, but what's the other glaring error? 

What a delightful photograph! 

I've flipped it left to right and improved the texture slightly. Can anyone say which Liverpool dock is featured? 

I have 'nearly' finished what I now call my whisky wagon, the D305 in Midland Wagons Vol 1 with the 6 casks. That says 'Liverpool Brunswick to Wirksworth' in chalk on the side and I wonder if this picture also shows the Brunswick dock? 

It's always interesting to see inside the wagons and the sheets are very helpful too. 

The nearest wagon is a D305 with Monarch door controllers, oil axleboxes (90% sure?) and a long brake lever on the right. 

It's such fun that apparently every man on the picture is posing for the camera!