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

[Andy Vincent]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The safety loops were a bit of a fiddle as the 90° twist in each needs to be further up than designed, so the hole making the intended twist-point is a weak point. A repair was needed after some handling!

Aside from the etch designer deciding that you had to do this twist in order to use the provided slots, I am never very convinced that these twists are visible at normal viewing heights (and distances). On the prototype, the twist is pretty much at solebar level so unlikely to be easily seen in a model - the extent to which it may become visible in a model is largely brought about by not being able to twist the strip as tightly as the prototype given the effects of material thickness and scaling. The only benefit I can see from modelling the twist is where the safety loops are angled in rather than hanging vertically.

[Andy Vincent]

17 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Photographs show very little open space between the bottom of the axle boxes and the keeper plates. OK, a heavy load or old weak springs would change that, but not by very much. 

 

It will be interesting to see it once painted, but there are photographs that show a significant gap. This 'ex works' example shows a pretty healthy gap and I have another image (of 11672) that matches @Compound2632's model pretty much exactly with bottom of axlebox above the lowest point of the axleguard leg junction

[embedded link to MRSC image 88-G5_19]

[Andy Vincent]

28 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Are you saying printed bodies on etched running gear are your preferred kit recipe?  I'm not convinced. ..[snipped]... there are likely to be fewer finished and more will turn up on eBay in five or ten years.

 

To the extent that may be true, I think it is a reflection, as @Compound2632 noted, on elements of the construction process rather than the material. The answer surely lies in iterating the chassis construction method to make that easier whilst retaining the significant advantages that a brass underframe provides. I know that the club I belong to, which is very active on the exhibition circuit, pretty much requires brass underframes because experience shows that they survive the rigours of exhibition running.

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

If people want to build wagons with "non-standard" running gear, they are definitely into scratch-building territory. 

 

As was everything, before someone realised a viable business manufacturing kits was possible!

 

19 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Is this the best 4 mm scale D299 kit to date? 

"Best" is always tricky, but great that there's another contender. Along with the ballast wagon vs. RCH pic (which should be mandatory viewing for all prospective small layout builders) would it be possible to have a photo of the various D299 options together?

 

If feeling brave/bored some pros and cons for each would be a valuable resource.

[Miss Prism]

8 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

Leaving aside the variation in bearing depth for a moment, this whole area remains a minefield - @Miss Prism's diagram (http://www.clag.org.uk/bearing-interface.html) underlines the problem but predates springing which brings the back of the bearing in by another 0.3mm (i.e. a half etched 0.15 either end).

 

Perhaps, after nearly 20 years, I should revisit that page and do an interface drawing for a typical sprung carrier.  Or maybe I should continue to take the view that those people dabbling in sprung carriers tend to be aware of the 'minefield' and will know what they are doing. In the meantime, I recommend this expedient 'filing a slight recess' trick to accomodate various generations of W-iron.

 

 

(expedient =  convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral, i.e. not for the purists)

 

 

[Miss Prism]

And now I can't find where I last caught up to of this thread - probably about 50 pages back!!

 

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Along with the ballast wagon vs. RCH pic (which should be mandatory viewing for all prospective small layout builders) would it be possible to have a photo of the various D299 options together?

 

In the fullness of time.

[billbedford]

8 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

Leaving aside the variation in bearing depth for a moment, this whole area remains a minefield - @Miss Prism's diagram (http://www.clag.org.uk/bearing-interface.html) underlines the problem but predates springing which brings the back of the bearing in by another 0.3mm (i.e. a half etched 0.15 either end).

 

This sounds like getting obsessed with minute theoretical dimensions and not paying attention to the look and feel of the model. 

[Andy Vincent]

3 minutes ago, billbedford said:

This sounds like getting obsessed with minute theoretical dimensions and not paying attention to the look and feel of the model. 

On one level I agree with you - but this measurement, and appreciating its relationship to bearing selection etc., has a direct bearing on whether the axle guards are splayed or not and thus does have an impact on appearance

[Compound2632]

Interesting discussion. 

 

 

illustrating, on the left hand, the seating of the sprung bearing carriers inside the axleguards. This time, no splay. Width over outside of the axleguards is 24.20 mm which is in fact a whisker under the scale dimension. Splay is avoided by paying attention to two things:

1. no solder on the front face of the bearing carrier - the recess on the rear face is tinned, then the carrier popped over the bearing, fluxed, and heat applied from the front - much neater, no doubt obvious to everyone;
2. making sure that the bearing carrier tabs are not bent after fitting the spring wire - no kink in the bearing carrier - a good hard squeeze in the flat-nosed pliers. 

Also illustrating, on the right, the merit of fitting the horse hooks and lever guard at an early stage.

 

This is one of the end door wagons, D351. 

 

@Andy Vincent, what diameter wire is one intended to use for the end door hinge bar? Prototype is 2" diameter, so 0.7 mm?

[Andy Vincent]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

what diameter wire is one intended to use for the end door hinge bar? Prototype is 2" diameter, so 0.7 mm?

Hmm, generally a length of wire is included in the box and I didnt think yours were any different. That aside, the original Gloucester wagons went out with 0.7mm. However, for those wagons with hinges above the door, such as D351 and some PO models, I have been including 0.6mm on the basis that the hinges are less well supported at least until the wire is fitted. The bore is the same on all but these should need less easing, if at all, with 0.6mm. I am sure it will be 0.66mm after painting ;-)

[41516]

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

the merit of fitting the horse hooks and lever guard at an early stage.

 

Quick question if I may - For D351s as built, was the convention for the end door to always be on the right when looking at the side with the brakes?

 

Plates 110/1 and Figure 41(redrawn from Drawing 790) in Midland Wagons Vol1 seems to suggest this, I'm trying to work out if another photo showing a wagon with the door on the left and brakes visible has been fitted with a second set or not (I suspect so).

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, 41516 said:

Quick question if I may - For D351s as built, was the convention for the end door to always be on the right when looking at the side with the brakes?

 

Plates 110/1 and Figure 41(redrawn from Drawing 790) in Midland Wagons Vol1 seems to suggest this, I'm trying to work out if another photo showing a wagon with the door on the left and brakes visible has been fitted with a second set or not (I suspect so).

 

With one exception, all photos I've seen agree with Drg. 790 in having the brake lever at the end door end (contrary to what seems to have been the usual arrangement for PO wagons). The exception is Midland Wagons plate 112, No. 123984, a very late survivor in post-1936 LMS livery. On the side facing the camera, the door is at the left-hand end and there is brake gear. One of the bottom doors is down, but I think one can just make out a brake block and push rod on the far side - so brakes both sides.

 

I think survival to post-1936 livery is highly unusual, hence A.J. Watson thinking the wagon worth photographing. (A photograph is not evidence that something was common, rather, that it was out of the ordinary.) Also, I think the vast majority of 8 ton highside wagons - D299 and D351 - went to the grave with brakes on one side only, as built. 

[WFPettigrew]

11 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

I was also ruminating on this when I read @WFPettigrew's original post. At Bill's quoted 24mm on inner faces, this represents 24.6mm on the outer face (given 0.3mm brass) which is nearly 1" over early solebar spacing (or later solebar spacing after allowing for the joggle) - which maybe where @WFPettigrew observations originate.

 

Sorry I should perhaps have supplied more data to explain my reasoning.

 

Take an FR D15 fast side 2 plank.  These were the FR's most numerous wagon type and were seen widely across northern England and Scotland from the 1860s through into the Grouping era, and occasionally into southern England, as they were used to carry Kirkby and Coniston slate, and pig iron from the various ironworks heading to forges and steelworks.   They were 7'4 wide, with 3" side sheets.  The side rails (aka curb rails) were 4" deep, so the floor was 6'8 wide. The solebars were 10" x 5" so the inside edges of the soles should be 5'10" apart.  Clearly that's a non-starter with any proprietory W iron, so the one I scratchbuilt earlier this year* dispensed with the side rails as separate pieces, using the 3" sides - which buys the extra 2".  

 

The Brassmasters subframe folds up to 24mm over the outside edges, and works very well as a sprung chassis - so is better for narrow wagons such as this than the Bill Bedford or Masokits ones (as stated previously). As @Miss Prism says an option is to thin down the solebars to leave a notch but quite a bit of filing is needed. 

 

*The D15 build was to do a test build on some FR buffer guides, brakes and axleboxes, that will soon be available for sale from the Cumbrian Railways Association.  Please excuse the very cruel enlargement. 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

56 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

They were 7'4 wide, with 3" side sheets.  The side rails (aka curb rails) were 4" deep, so the floor was 6'8 wide. The solebars were 10" x 5" so the inside edges of the soles should be 5'10" apart.  Clearly that's a non-starter with any proprietory W iron, so the one I scratchbuilt earlier this year* dispensed with the side rails as separate pieces, using the 3" sides - which buys the extra 2".  

 

Are these dimensions from a works drawing? Were the side rails simply butted up to the solebars or were they shaped to overlap, as on Midland and RCH 1887 Specification wagons?

 

If one assumes 6' 6" centres of journals, then one expects the bearing springs to be at the same centres, and the solebars too. That makes the inside faces of the solebars 6' 1" apart, and 6' 11" over the outside faces. 

 

Forgive my scepticism.

[corneliuslundie]

But when did journals with 6 ft 6 in. centres become common?

J

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But when did journals with 6 ft 6 in. centres become common?

 

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Journal centres of 6' 6" were specified in the 1887 RCH Specification for private owner wagons and had been the standard on the Midland since at least the late 1860s but I have come across 6' 4" or 6' 3" for some pre-1887 private owner wagons; trouble is I can't now think where I saw that.

 

Assembled:

 

 

The 0.6 mm diameter wire was in one of the two D351 boxes, @Andy Vincent, but not quite long enough for two wagons! I think I've got 0.33 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.8 mm, and 0.9 mm straight brass wire but not 0.6 mm... I'll have to have a rummage through the odds and ends of kits!

 

Ready for the paint shop:

 

 

 

The difference in ride height is curious - the springing is set up the same way in both. They're not yet weighted, though.

[Andy Vincent]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Are these dimensions from a works drawing? Were the side rails simply butted up to the solebars or were they shaped to overlap, as on Midland and RCH 1887 Specification wagons?

One other clue is to look at the strapbolt positions on the headstock. Whilst there is no hard and fast rule, there was a period where three strapbolts at each end of the solebar was common: two on one side and one on the other. Often the two on the inside also provided the outer pair of bolts used to fix the buffer guide with the strapbolt on the outside of the solebar having its nut visible on the headstock. 

 

3 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

The solebars were 10" x 5" so the inside edges of the soles should be 5'10" apart

 

If correct, and with buffers at their usual 5' 8½" spacing (centre lines) then fitting bolts to hold the buffer guides in place would be interesting unless the guide baseplate was relatively wide.

 

At least it has heightened my interest in finding some end or threequarter photographs! 

[billbedford]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Journal centres of 6' 6" were specified in the 1887 RCH Specification for private owner wagons and had been the standard on the Midland since at least the late 1860s but I have come across 6' 4" or 6' 3" for some pre-1887 private owner wagons; the trouble is I can't now think where I saw that.

 Journal centres of 6' 6" were used with axles with 8" x 3" journals such as the MR 8A. However, the LNWR was still building wagons with 6" x 3" journals into the 20th century. These had either 6' 3" or 6' 4" journal centres. These had 5' 11" or 5'11.5" respectively between the soles. 

[Craigw]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

The difference in ride height is curious - the springing is set up the same way in both. They're not yet weighted, though.

 

That is why the Brassmasters chassis has the three holes for the wire. If you can stand another swearing and cursing session raise or lower the height of one to match the other. Your swear jar should contain enough to buy another wagon after that.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[WFPettigrew]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Are these dimensions from a works drawing?

 

If only.  There are - to my knowledge - only two surving FR wagon works drawings.  What does survive is the c1922 diagram book which has scale drawings but not full works drawings, and which are annotated with the key dimensions.  These dimensions are, in the case of the D15, corroborated by measurements taken by Ken Werrett who then produced a drawing in the MRN (July 1961).  And although different diagrams, the measurements of the similar D16 drop side wagon taken by Ross Pochin of the Manchester MRC for his drawings. 

 

And, I have realised tonight that I undersold the issue in my earlier post - the width stated there is 7'3.5", so even worse in terms of narrowness - my 7'4 was what I had rounded it up to for the purposes of making the model and to give myself a teeny bit of extra wriggle room.

 

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Were the side rails simply butted up to the solebars

 

Yes as I understand it. 

 

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

RCH 1887

 

That was in the dim and distant future when the first D15s were produced.  Unlike the habits of Derby, with a total replacement of each wagon after about 25 years, from what we can make out the FR worked on the basis of the parson's broom, constantly refreshing worn out parts - as wagons with numbers dating back to the 1860s or even a smidge earlier still bearing the original single wheel brake lasted until into the Grouping. 

 

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

6' 6" centres of journals

 

Sadly the early build wagons in the FR diagram book do not have the journal size stated, which is in contrast to the more recent ones.  So we don't know the journal size.  But given their age, I think it would be unwise to assume they fitted the mould of the RCH 1887 standards. 

 

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Forgive my scepticism.

 

No need to apologise.   Now you see why I have been getting my head in a tangle over FR wagons for several years now!

 

4 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

the strapbolt positions on the headstock

 

There was only one on the outside of the solebar.  An informative photo is poor No 484 which had come off badly in a fight with a Caley wagon at Thankerton (picture courtesy of @Caley Jim and the Caledonian Railway Association):

 

 

This shows the standard FR wagon buffer with its four bolts.  

4 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

buffers at their usual 5' 8½" spacing

 

Sorry Andy it's late and my brain is now  hurting so I cannot work out what this means in connection with the D15. 

 

4 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

end or threequarter photographs

 

Well you have one above, and here's the one that will the basis for my model No 607 photographed during the Great War (photo from the Cumbrian Railways Association).

 

 

40 minutes ago, Craigw said:

If you can stand another swearing and cursing session raise or lower the height of one to match the other.

 

Craig's right - but you can save a bit of swearing time by waiting until you weight the wagon before moving the springs up or down. Like all sprung subframes/W irons, they do expect the wagon to have some weight so won't ride at the right height without. 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[Andy Vincent]

3 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

If only.  There are - to my knowledge - only two surving FR wagon works drawings. 

Wearing my HMRS hat, we have a GA drawing of a Furness Railway 4 plank wagon built in 1864 - "4 Plank Mineral, 8ft 6ins w/b, 14ft o/b". I have asked if we can have this scanned to see if this adds anything to this discussion

[Compound2632]

13 hours ago, billbedford said:

 Journal centres of 6' 6" were used with axles with 8" x 3" journals such as the MR 8A. However, the LNWR was still building wagons with 6" x 3" journals into the 20th century. These had either 6' 3" or 6' 4" journal centres. These had 5' 11" or 5'11.5" respectively between the soles. 

 

Thanks - must have been drawings in LNWR Wagons that I was thinking of. J. Watson Emmett was Wagon Superintendent from 1867 to 1903 and as far as I can seem presided over a period of stagnation in wagon design. 

 

11 hours ago, Craigw said:

That is why the Brassmasters chassis has the three holes for the wire. If you can stand another swearing and cursing session raise or lower the height of one to match the other. Your swear jar should contain enough to buy another wagon after that.

 

I would rather buy another wagon in the first place. On both wagons I have used the middle hole of the three. I have put the bearing carriers in before gluing the subframe to the floor, and bent the ends of the wires round to stop the carriers from falling out when the wheelsets aren't in place, during painting. So the chance of making a subsequent adjustment is nil.

 

10 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

That was in the dim and distant future when the first D15s were produced.  Unlike the habits of Derby, with a total replacement of each wagon after about 25 years, from what we can make out the FR worked on the basis of the parson's broom, constantly refreshing worn out parts - as wagons with numbers dating back to the 1860s or even a smidge earlier still bearing the original single wheel brake lasted until into the Grouping. 

 

Rather like North Staffs wagons as described in Chadwick's book - 1-plank opens of 1860s vintage still in service in the first decade of the 20th century, and in one notable case the cause of an accident. I had a quick look at that for comparison but the sketches of these wagons are done from photos and dimensions estimated, I think.

 

Applying the Vincent analysis technique to those two photos of Furness wagons, it looks to be the case that the buffer head is of larger diameter than the headstock is tall - say 12" and 11". The base of the buffer guide fits the height of the headstock, 11" diameter. The width over the buffer guides is therefore 5' 8½" + 11" = 6' 7½". The heads of the solebar strapbolts are maybe another 2¼" further out, i.e. at 7' 0" centres; allowing ½" for the thickness of each strapbolt gives 6' 11" over the outside faces of the solebars; if they are 5" thick, 6' 1" between inside faces - the canonical dimension.

 

The buffer guides are similar to Midland ones, with the bolts in a rectangular pattern, two at the top and two at the bottom, which, given that the outer bolts are pretty certainly the outer ends of solebar strapbolts - the fixing bolts for which can be seen on the solebar - strongly supports the idea that the inside faces of the solebars are at 6' 1" apart. 

 

The headstocks extend about another 3" beyond the strapbolts, giving 7' 6" overall; the side rails are set back a bit from the headstock ends, say 1", giving an overall width of 7' 4". This leaves the side rails projecting just 2½" beyond the solebars.

 

One could make a little spreadsheet calculator to play around with these numbers for different estimates or assumptions.

 

Midland D299, where the dimensions are known, for comparison:

 

 

[Crop from DY1061 / MRSC 88-2014-0044]

 

Headstocks 7' 6" x 11" x 4½", Solebars 11" x 4½", 6' 1" between inside faces, 6' 10" over outside faces. width over side rails / sheeting is 7' 5", i.e. ½" inset from end of headstock. 

 

I don't suppose you've got a view of the inside of an empty wagon, showing the relationship between floorboards, side rails, and side sheeting?

Edited June 21 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

I would say that both of the FR wagons shown have 6" x 3" journals going by the depth of the axleboxes.

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, billbedford said:

I would say that both of the FR wagons shown have 6" x 3" journals going by the depth of the axleboxes.

 

There are two dimensions in play: centres of journals, and length of journals. A shallow axlebox can be the result of short journals, or closer centres, or most likely a combination of the two.

Edited June 21 by Compound2632