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

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

after the two waiting completion that will be it

 

What! No! I can't believe you could hold to such a resolution.

[Ian Smith]

10 hours ago, RedTrain said:

Over the past week I've managed to finally cross the threshold and start painting the myriad wagon kits I've built, primed, and set aside to languish in shame... I'm still getting the hang of airbrushing, drybrushing, and other techniques, but I believe I've developed a method that works for me and that I'm able to get at least passable results out of.

 

I've just finished my third open wagon (been doing them at a pace of about one every one or two days). The first one I did (although technically preceded by two ex-Ratio GWR iron minks which, while I'm happy with them, don't hold a candle to the opens in terms of finish) was a Coopercraft GWR O5 four-plank, in my attempt at the pre-1904 (I subscribe to the later changeover theory) red livery:

 

 

I did attempt mixing a custom shade for the red which I used on one of the aforementioned iron minks, but in this case I decided to experiment and see how Tamiya red oxide primer would look if left as the body color. The finished look is a bit more brown than I'd have really wanted, but it does certainly make painting simple and expedient and the finish isn't displeasing to my eye... so I'm undecided on how I'll proceed with future attempts at this livery. This wagon got a hack-slash attempt at replacing the floor with a scratchbuilt one to gain back some height on the interior (shamelessly ripped from @Mikkel's Farthing Layouts blog, I'll admit) which I'm undecided on the worth of in the end. It's not square and the wagon does not sit level at all, but then I did that a long time ago and didn't have a proper flat surface available to ensure squareness, so future attempts may go better.

 

The next one was a GWR O4 five-plank, also Coopercraft, with the pre-pooling sheet rail:

 

 

This one's just the bog-standard kit with no modification other than Smiths couplings and a sheet rail bent from brass strip as opposed to the horrid coil of wire they expect you to use in the kit. Don't look at the brake gear too hard... I shudder when I do that myself. When I built this one I believe there was some confusion as to which of the three provided sets was correct; I came to find out later that I had used the set intended for the kit's representation of DCI(?) brakes and as a result it sat much lower than it should've in relation to the V hanger. Wouldn't have been impossible to remove and replace if I hadn't already gone and cut the good set in half to try and make the third brake shoe on the other side... oh well. It's something to grow from. I know now to be more attentive.

 

Finally, here's today's build (and probably the one I was anticipating getting to most), the celebrated Slaters MR D299:

 

   

 

Although I built this one before acquiring a copy of @Compound2632's fantastic article on the Slaters range and their flaws (and therefore didn't catch the solebar alignment issue until it was too late), I'm still happy with the finish I was able to achieve on this one. My intent was for it to look severely neglected, having not been shopped in a long time by 1913 (the upper bound of my general modelling era). The topmost body plank was filed as close to randomly as I could, to represent a lifetime of careless loads that weren't quite aimed high enough...! Black wash was poured on liberally, almost more than I had actually intended at first but I'm satisfied with the effect.

 

I do have some build photos of all three that I could post, but I figured that as a now completed trio they'd be good to show off in their finished state. I'm still learning and experimenting with how to go about things in a way that works for me, but I'm incredibly appreciative of the information and experiences that others have shared as they've helped immensely in my own attempts.

 

Now I'm sure it'll be said I need more D299s... One down, 63,009 to go?

Just a very minor point (and no way meant as a criticism) - the “triangle” plate on the 5 plank wagon was actually attached to the tarpaulin bar rather than the end of the wagon (ie not as coopercraft have moulded it), so you really need to have the tarpaulin bar upright rather than lying down.

Lovely wagons though!

Ian

[Andy Vincent]

Just now, Ian Smith said:

the “triangle” plate on the 5 plank wagon was actually attached to the tarpaulin bar rather than the end of the wagon

I have been looking at some GWR open drawings recently and whilst DC brakes are still something of a mystery to me, I had thought I had just about got my head around the sheet rail designs (there are two different depths for the mounting blocks) so your clarification was very welcome! 

[Compound2632]

Usually referred to a trapezoidal, I think?

 

If you're unhappy with how you've modelled it, there is a solution:

 

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liverieswagplate.html.

[fulton]

On 20/07/2024 at 09:55, billbedford said:

 

Because 1/customers can be devious and may wish to load more beasts than the space they are willing to pay for can hold, and 2/ if the cattle do not fill the space in the van they can fall and be injured or killed and the railway could then be held responsible for their loss. 

Just a thought, could the locking mechanism be more to do with holding the partition in place so that livestock cannot dislodge it?

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, fulton said:

Just a thought, could the locking mechanism be more to do with holding the partition in place so that livestock cannot dislodge it?

 

Fraudulent livestock rather than fraudulent dealers? I'm forming a mental image featuring Shaun the Sheep! The partitions were 7' 3¾" wide by 4' 6" tall, made of 1¼" boards attached to three 2½" x 2¼" vertical timbers and with a top rail 3½" x 3" to which were bolted iron catches that engaged with the slots in the guides mounted on the waist rails. That's 4.3 cu ft of timber. Figures for the density of old growth Baltic pine are not quick to come by something around 500 kg/m^3 seems likely: 

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html.

That's about 30 lb per cu ft, so the partitions weighed in at around 130 lb or a bit over 1 cwt. So, obviously and necessarily manageable for one man to move, the move is straight vertical lift of 1½", thanks to the locating chocks on the floor. I feel sure the possibility of a cow being able to lift it by bashing into it sideways would have been considered at the design stage.

 

The Midland committee minutes tell one that a thing was ordered to be done but often don't say why the thing was done. I believe it's well-established that the problem was customer fraud but I'm afraid I can't give a source for this. @Mikkel, is there any such reference in the context of the Wright-Marillinier device? 

Edited July 24 by Compound2632
Unit conversion corrected.

[magmouse]

34 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@Mikkel, is there any such reference in the context of the Wright-Marillinier device?

Not-Mikkel, here - in the Wright-Marillier patent, it says:

 

”In cattle trucks as at present constructed, which are divided into small, medium and large size, by a movable partition, it has been found necessary, to prevent fraud, to devise some means whereby the partition is automatically locked. The object of our invention is to automatically lock the partition in its place by the closing of the doors on each side of the cattle' truck, thus necessitating both of the doors being opened in order to move the partition from small to medium or large size or vice versa.” (My emphasis)

 

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/032364587/publication/GB190221140A?q=pn%3DGB190221140A
 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

17 minutes ago, magmouse said:

The object of our invention is to automatically lock the partition in its place by the closing of the doors on each side of the cattle' truck, thus necessitating both of the doors being opened in order to move the partition from small to medium or large size or vice versa.

 

This suggests the device was fitted on both sides of the wagon and the doors on both sides had to opened to release it. Close study of the photo I posted of the Tait & Carlton device shows that it too was fitted on both sides of the wagon. It does seem an awkward arrangement that one would have to open the doors on both sides, releasing the catches on both sides, to free the partition, but I suppose it was thought worth-while.

[Penlan]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

.....weighed in at around 130 lb or a bit over 0.5 cwt.

Uhmn, at approx. 114 lbs = 1 cwt, I think your calculator needs adjusting.
I wouldn't want to ask a coalman to carry one of you 1/2 cwt sacks of coal.....
.
I'm old enough to think in proper weights and measures 😎

Edited July 24 by Penlan

[Compound2632]

53 minutes ago, Penlan said:

Uhmn, at approx. 114 lbs = 1 cwt, I think your calculator needs adjusting.
I wouldn't want to ask a coalman to carry one of you 1/2 cwt sacks of coal.....
.
I'm old enough to think in proper weights and measures 😎

 

Corrected in post. NB 1 cwt = 112 lb.

[RedTrain]

7 hours ago, Ian Smith said:

Lovely wagons though!

Thank you!

 

7 hours ago, Ian Smith said:

Just a very minor point (and no way meant as a criticism) - the “triangle” plate on the 5 plank wagon was actually attached to the tarpaulin bar rather than the end of the wagon (ie not as coopercraft have moulded it), so you really need to have the tarpaulin bar upright rather than lying down.

Yes, I appreciate the tip; a couple other folks pointed out the same. While the inaccuracy bothers me, I don't have the heart to glue the sheet rail up permanently as I like the ability to pose it, even if the plate looks conspicuously off standing up on its own. Thankfully the end mouldings are well defined enough that if I set the rail in the upright position, it stays like that; as close to "best of both worlds" as I can get without cutting it all off and either scratchbuilding or finding a kit for a new, more finescale one.

 

I wonder, how frequently (if at all?) did empty (with no tarpaulin fitted) sheet rail wagons run with the rail in the upright position?

[RedTrain]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Usually referred to a trapezoidal, I think?

 

If you're unhappy with how you've modelled it, there is a solution:

 

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/liverieswagplate.html.

 

I would like to make a sheet for it in the future! It's on the long list of plans.

 

Are there any particular approaches to making loads that are favored here? Any method beyond digging through photos or pure imagination to picking what to model? I do quite like the various builds I've seen which replicate cask loads, but one look at all the thread involved to represent the ropes gives me the urge to pull my hair out. Also, casks; any particular supplier that'd be worth pointing to? I believe I've got a few white metal bits and pieces which may include barrels but they might look a touch undersized as they're all HO (1:87) rather than 4mm.

 

If worst comes to worst, did the GWR have any qualms using sheet rail wagons for loose loads? I'd think the sheet would be well suited to keeping lime dry.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, RedTrain said:

one look at all the thread involved to represent the ropes gives me the urge to pull my hair out.

 

You could be onto an idea there!

 

11 minutes ago, RedTrain said:

Also, casks; any particular supplier that'd be worth pointing to?

 

Genuine Burton casks: https://www.monksgate.co.uk/shop?category=4mm

 

But of course casks were used for dry goods as well as liquid and came in all sizes and aspect ratios.

 

11 minutes ago, RedTrain said:

Any method beyond digging through photos or pure imagination to picking what to model?

 

I'm for observation over imagination, but that's just because I'm an anti-fun puritan.

 

There's an excellent topic - or several - on pre-grouping wagon loads, I think mostly in the pre-grouping sub-forum.

Edited July 24 by Compound2632

[mikeallerton]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There's an excellent topic - or several - on pre-grouping wagon loads, I think mostly in the pre-grouping sub-forum.

 To save you looking,here's the link

 

[Bulldog]

Is this of any help?

https://website.rumneymodels.co.uk/wagon-detailing

Rumney Models GWR/SR Sheet Support (Tarpaulin Bar) Detailing

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, RedTrain said:

how frequently (if at all?) did empty (with no tarpaulin fitted) sheet rail wagons run with the rail in the upright position?

I have seen one or two pictures showing empty wagons with the rail up, as well as down, so I think you are on safe ground to run it like that.

 

Nick.

[Mol_PMB]

Or if you want an excuse to eat a Tunnock's Caramel Wafer, put a sheet on it!

[RedTrain]

1 minute ago, Mol_PMB said:

Tunnock's Caramel Wafer

I question where I'm going to get one of those on the west side of the Atlantic ocean... 😛

 

Jokes aside, you make a good point; food wrappers seem to work surprisingly well for sheet material.

 

A friend of mine mentioned Taco Bell wrappers being a good pick; I suppose it's for the best that only the wrapper is required and not the food itself...

[Mol_PMB]

Just now, RedTrain said:

I question where I'm going to get one of those on the west side of the Atlantic ocean... 😛

 

Jokes aside, you make a good point; food wrappers seem to work surprisingly well for sheet material.

 

A friend of mine mentioned Taco Bell wrappers being a good pick; I suppose it's for the best that only the wrapper is required and not the food itself...

The Tunnock's Caramel Wafers are wrapped in a paper-backed foil. It's similar in principle to some baking products but thinner. It makes excellent sheets for wagons, because it can be crumpled and smoothed out, then painted, and retains its strength. They're a Scottish product so there might be an ex-pat source?

I work in 7mm scale and I've found a neat trick which is to buy some M1 (tiny!) washers and superglue them to the inside of the sheet. Then I can thread through the hole in the washer and tie the sheet down to the roping hooks on the solebar (you did add them, right?) in a prototypical manner, without the sheet tearing.

 

[Andy Vincent]

37 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I work in 7mm scale and I've found a neat trick which is to buy some M1 (tiny!) washers and superglue them to the inside of the sheet. Then I can thread through the hole in the washer and tie the sheet down to the roping hooks on the solebar (you did add them, right?) in a prototypical manner, without the sheet tearing.

 

4mm modellers needn't feel left out - M0.6 washers are available on eBay . . . . 

[RedTrain]

So I've had a dig through my detail parts box and come up with some things that might, in fact, be usable.

 

These sacks (and indeed all of the other detail parts in question that I have to hand) are from a Canadian company called Juneco. They're nominally HO, but I think the size actually looks fairly good:

 

 

As it happens, just the load pictured is enough to double the weight of the wagon from 15g to 30g... and here I was thinking I'd have to utilise automotive wheel weights to get any serious amount!

 

I'll have to play around with the arrangement and perhaps see if I can find a photo to reference.

 

What tends to be a good weight to aim for for wagons? I haven't a home layout, but these will see action at a modular layout club show this weekend and I'm sure no elaboration is needed on the sorts of strange track alignments and unaccounted for gradients that can result in that setting. Is there a good general range to aim for to ensure good running but also ability to be pulled by smaller locos? I'd sure hate the Terrier I'm working on relettering to be little more than a paperweight.

[WFPettigrew]

8 minutes ago, RedTrain said:

What tends to be a good weight to aim for for wagons?

 

Some reckon on 25g per axle in 4mm scale - so 50g for a typical open.  That can be quite difficult to achieve if you have a plastic or 3D kit and want to model the wagon without a load, depending on the undergubbins, but equally it is very easy to overachieve that weight if its a whitemetal kit! 

 

The most important thing is consistency across your fleet: you don't want half the wagons weighing next to nothing, with some that weigh 50g as all that will happen is the light ones will come off as they try to create a straight line across the first corner they come to. 

 

As long as they have good pinpoint bearings and are built well, they should then run very freely.  Whether the loco will then haul them is perhaps as much down to how well that has been made (and being a RTR product does not automatically equal well made as regards haulage capacity). 

 

Hope that helps. 

 

Neil 

 

 

[RedTrain]

39 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

50g for a typical open

 

I'm not quite sure why my expectations were what they were, but that's about double what I would've guessed! Good to know what the target is for some though,

 

40 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

The most important thing is consistency across your fleet: you don't want half the wagons weighing next to nothing, with some that weigh 50g as all that will happen is the light ones will come off as they try to create a straight line across the first corner they come to.

 

That's what I was concerned about myself.

 

49 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

As long as they have good pinpoint bearings and are built well, they should then run very freely.

 

I do use pinpoint bearings and (usually) Gibson wheels on all my stock, and in most cases have managed to get quite good running. This applies to some better than others though; the O4 5-plank runs very poorly (that is to say, it almost doesn't roll period; it acts as if the brakes were actually engaged) on account, I suppose, of the underframe having been poorly built. It was one of the first Coopercraft wagons I did and I'll be the first to admit that I underestimated the care and attention needed to ensure a good result. That wagon in particular has been coaxed into rolling semi-consistently by adding a drop of oil to the bearings, but I'm noticing now that the running is much improved with a load.

 

Much to consider; I appreciate your advice!

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, WFPettigrew said:

Some reckon on 25g per axle in 4mm scale - so 50g for a typical open.  That can be quite difficult to achieve if you have a plastic or 3D kit and want to model the wagon without a load, depending on the undergubbins, but equally it is very easy to overachieve that weight if its a whitemetal kit! 

 

Yep, I'm sure that the 50gm weight dates back to when most wagons were white metal and just no one has really questioned it since. I think most RTR wagons are 30-40 gm. 

 

I know someone who advocates using a scale such as 4gm per ton of the original. He's been quiet about this after I asked whether we should use tare or loaded weights. 

[Compound2632]

55 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Yep, I'm sure that the 50gm weight dates back to when most wagons were white metal and just no one has really questioned it since. I think most RTR wagons are 30-40 gm. 

 

The weight per axle must matter when setting up sprung vehicles - indeed you mentioned this on learning that I was replacing resin printed floors with lead, to get to 25 g per axle. Is there a table relating spring length (between supports), wire gauge, material, and weight per axle?