Palbrick B in OO gauge

[Porcy Mane]

2 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Because some manufacturers think modellers are simple?

 

 Glad you included the question mark.

 

The cynic in me says these little  errors maybe the model railway manufacturers version of the everlasting light bulb. Wait for original run, with errors in to sell out; knowing that the same buyers will also buy a corrected second run.

[Cwmtwrch]

1 hour ago, Chuffed 1 said:

A note on pallets for those loading their original-type Palbricks. The pallets would have been what were commonly known as ‘block-Enders’, two-way pallets with boarded top and bottoms as this would have been before pallet trucks and modern four-way ‘standard’ pallets.

The idea was that they were unloaded by forklift onto lorries for site delivery, which was the big failing in this design as agricultural-type forklifts didn’t really arrive till the 1970’s and in many cases the labour saved was only at the brickworks end. 

Transport Age 9 [April 1959] has an article on the use of Palbricks for refractories for industry, principally for the iron and steel industry, where a user of any significance would have had direct rail access, and implies that this is what they were originally designed for. Possibly any later use for 'domestic' bricks was to minimise time and effort in loading at least, while hand unloading would have been no worse than already existed? The photographs in the article confirm your point about the pallets. Industrial forklifts were available in the UK by the early 1950s and major industrial concerns would have been amongst the earlier users, I would imagine. All loading in the photographs is by forklift, of course.

 

5 hours ago, Chuffed 1 said:

For anyone making their own brick loads, make sure the load top is below the level of the slots in the sides.

These were provided for the forklift tines to lift the plywood sides off the slotted ends.

They also stopped the brickworks overloading the wagon!

The same photographs confirm that the top of the load on the pallet was at virtually the same level as the top of the side panels, and well above the slots, therefore. The bricks on the pallet in one photograph are stacked 7 high, on edge. The same photo shows what look like  four 'H' containers, which were designed for brick traffic, and could be slung from a crane for (un)loading.

['CHARD]

2 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

No it doesn't!

 

https://www.krmodels.net/product/br-palbrick-wagon/

.......

The ends are dirty, you can see they are rail freight red as the number panel has been cleaned and that is the colour the writing is on. 

 

 

I hate to say this, but I beg to differ.  I don't think the panel looks like it's been cleaned, there are paint runs at the bottom, which appears to suggest that there has been patch painting before the numbers were applied. 

 

Cleaning also doesn't explain the localised, and very neat, freight red on the face of the bracing uprights, again which looks to be limited (albeit unexplained) painting over a black rather than weathered body structure.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Porcy Mane said:

If VAT is to be added? That makes it £20 per item for an incorrectly liveried wagon. Factor in paint, transfers & time if you care about accuracy. Begins to make Mr. MacDonald's kit all the more attractive.

 

Why do manufacturers make simple errors?

Because they don't do their research (if any?) properly, not even for a wagon.  If they can't even get colours right from a full colour  reference photo what hope is there?  Just slapdashery.

[hmrspaul]

1 hour ago, 'CHARD said:

 

I hate to say this, but I beg to differ.  I don't think the panel looks like it's been cleaned, there are paint runs at the bottom, which appears to suggest that there has been patch painting before the numbers were applied. 

 

Cleaning also doesn't explain the localised, and very neat, freight red on the face of the bracing uprights, again which looks to be limited (albeit unexplained) painting over a black rather than weathered body structure.

If you look at my Palbrick photos there are a whole series of Freightliner conversions which haven't been repainted that show these end plates to be FSR. Possibly the best https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/palbrick/e3e04584f

 

I'm the first to say that BR seemed to make up painting instructions as it went along, even though they had very precise instructions, but why would they paint these black? And even if one was black it was not what the Palbricks had - and the photo they use is of a Palbrick B on a Morton vacuum brake, the model is a later type of Palbrick B on a BR clasp brake rigging. 

 

I understand the expert Phil on Palbricks will be at Warley with his conserved one, if you or others are going, ask him. 

 

Paul

[John Isherwood]

1 hour ago, 'CHARD said:

 

I hate to say this, but I beg to differ.  I don't think the panel looks like it's been cleaned, there are paint runs at the bottom, which appears to suggest that there has been patch painting before the numbers were applied. 

 

Cleaning also doesn't explain the localised, and very neat, freight red on the face of the bracing uprights, again which looks to be limited (albeit unexplained) painting over a black rather than weathered body structure.

 

Sorry, but all this reinterpretation of history to justify a poorly researched model is becoming a hallmark of KRM productions.

 

It is clearly apparent that KRM have little knowledge of the prototype, and care even less. Their modus operandi seems to be minimal research using others' material, and to misinterpret what little they do have.

 

If they are not prepared to avail themselves of the services of someone who knows what they are doing, they could at least post here renders / images during the design process before commiting to production, AND ACT WHEN CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT IS MADE!

 

Frankly, the whole KRM saga is becoming laughably predictable. It is understandable that new producers may not have personal knowledge of the subjects that they produce, but to press forward blindly, when the knowledge needed in order to ensure their models are accurate is out there, is inviting ridicule.

 

KRM models are fine for those who don't know or don't care - but a growing record of avoidable c*ck-ups will definitely deter those of us who do know and care.

 

CJI.

[Cwmtwrch]

44 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

It is clearly apparent that KRM have little knowledge of the prototype

Prototype numbers built according to Don Rowland: 

Palbrick A [oil axleboxes] 388

Palbrick B [oil axleboxes] 542

Palbrick C [roller bearings] 400

Palbrick B [roller bearings] 90

[hmrspaul]

Of course this criticism may be incorrect as their website doesn't show these ends in black on their models. And it looks like a nice model of the later incarnation of the Palbricks. As Phil said to me earlier this week they may have used my photo because it is the only colour shot he knows about. T'is a pity I was using b/w when I saw them in Feltham and Tony Dyer doesn't appear to have photographed them - nor Chris Leigh. I think both were shooting colour that day. 

 

It is the freightliner match not having the extended headstock that is a glaring mistake, despite the open framework looking very interesting. 

 

They did well choosing the Clasp brake (roller bearing) Palbrick B. My photos show BR chose the Freightliner match conversion to come from those 90. Table 10 in our book shows the differences in the dimensions of the bodies, and has a photo of a Palbrick C showing the additional screw for the pallet tightener and a difference in the way the side was held in place. Our drawing is of the B with clasp brake. 

 

Paul

['CHARD]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Sorry, but all this reinterpretation of history to justify a poorly researched model is becoming a hallmark of KRM productions.

 

It is clearly apparent that KRM have little knowledge of the prototype, and care even less. Their modus operandi seems to be minimal research using others' material, and to misinterpret what little they do have.

 

If they are not prepared to avail themselves of the services of someone who knows what they are doing, they could at least post here renders / images during the design process before commiting to production, AND ACT WHEN CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT IS MADE!

 

Frankly, the whole KRM saga is becoming laughably predictable. It is understandable that new producers may not have personal knowledge of the subjects that they produce, but to press forward blindly, when the knowledge needed in order to ensure their models are accurate is out there, is inviting ridicule.

 

KRM models are fine for those who don't know or don't care - but a growing record of avoidable c*ck-ups will definitely deter those of us who do know and care.

 

CJI.

 

Hi John, not sure why my earlier post was the trigger for this outpouring, which is clearly your heartfelt point-of-view.  I was merely suggesting that the photo being referenced does in fact show a wagon with black on the bodywork end as originally liveried. 

 

For the record, I haven't purchased anything from the KY range, but the Palbricks are of interest.  I do know and I do care; to imply others are philistines or ignoroids is probably not what you intended in your comments.

 

I am well aware of people's frustration at offering constructive advice only to have it rebutted or ignored.  on this occasion though, the black ends, patch-painting aside, appear to have justification.

[John Isherwood]

30 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Hi John, not sure why my earlier post was the trigger for this outpouring, which is clearly your heartfelt point-of-view.  I was merely suggesting that the photo being referenced does in fact show a wagon with black on the bodywork end as originally liveried. 

 

For the record, I haven't purchased anything from the KY range, but the Palbricks are of interest.  I do know and I do care; to imply others are philistines or ignoroids is probably not what you intended in your comments.

 

I am well aware of people's frustration at offering constructive advice only to have it rebutted or ignored.  on this occasion though, the black ends, patch-painting aside, appear to have justification.

 

Chard,

 

Please be assured that my frustration was not directed at you - it merely surfaced at the time that I read your post, not as a result of it's content.

 

That said, I cannot agree with your interpretation of the photo in question; it represents, to my eyes, a typical partial repaint after a works visit.

 

The end braces aren't black - they have the typical crusty surface of a well-weathered wagon that has run many a mile since its last (original?) overall paint job. The same untouched finish is evident elsewhere on the vehicle.

 

All of the new paint is freight stock bauxite / red - even the buffers, which 'should' be black; clearly this was an economy, minimum effort job.

 

Significantly(?), the wagon is marked MOD - modify? I would guess, perhaps wrongly, that the wagon has received modifications involving the framework / side panels. I also suspect that new / refurbished buffers were fitted, and the vacuum cylinder shows signs of being new / refurbished.

 

Until someone can proffer a logical reason why the end braces should be painted black, rather than the logical, prescribed bauxite, I will remain of the above opinion.

 

CJI.

 

PS. Note that the end braces have been painted only in the immediate vicinity of the vertical rods, near to the buffer-beam; I'd surmise that the rods have just been welded in place. I seem to recall that these were added as racks, behind which the removable side panels could be stored during loading / unloading.

Edited November 25, 2022 by cctransuk

[BrushVeteran]

Anyone looking for prototype inspiration to purchase some Palbricks here is my image of D7095 running back towards Calvert through Oxford Station in February1967. Unfortunately the wagons weren't the reason for taking the photo but are just about visible.

[John Isherwood]

23 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

What is the evidence for black end braces / lettering panels?

 

My understanding is that most / all originally had body coloured (bauxite) end braces to match the body, with white lettering thereon, in the normal manner.

 

John Isherwood

 

Copyright as indicated or unknown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I rest my case!

 

CJI.

[The Stationmaster]

I wonder if I'm alone in finding it strange that RMweb members trawling through the internet are able to find photos which 'manufacturers' either didn't find (or apparently ignored if they did find them)?

 

I can fully understand that some of us have far more extensive libraries, or archives, covering our areas of interest than would be the case with most manufacturers.  But then equally some manufacturers seem more than happy to ask for help when they can't run to earth information or explanation of various details they've come across.

[BlackRat]

I’d certainly agree that the end braces appear dirty as opposed to being painted. 
 

The above ( excellent) pictures speak for themselves.

[John Isherwood]

On 27/11/2022 at 00:32, The Stationmaster said:

I wonder if I'm alone in finding it strange that RMweb members trawling through the internet are able to find photos which 'manufacturers' either didn't find (or apparently ignored if they did find them)?

 

I can fully understand that some of us have far more extensive libraries, or archives, covering our areas of interest than would be the case with most manufacturers.  But then equally some manufacturers seem more than happy to ask for help when they can't run to earth information or explanation of various details they've come across.

 

I am at an advantage in that I have, for years, compiled an archive of downloaded images of rolling stock; (yes, there are ways of downloading ANY image that appears on the internet).

 

That said, I routinely check my archive for images if I see an appeal posted here, and supply them to the enquirer.

 

It was the work of minutes to locate and post the above images of PALBRICKs.

 

CJI.

Edited February 24, 2023 by cctransuk

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

I am at an advantage is that I have, for years, compiled an archive of downloaded images of rolling stock; (yes, there are ways of downloading ANY image that appears on the internet).

Yes, there are ways, but that doesn’t make it legal, even for personal use. 
 

Roy

[Cwmtwrch]

The top two photographs are very early, before BR worked out that putting identities on (re)moveable panels wasn't very clever. Pickford, Holland & Co Ltd [note the mis-spelling!] were makers of refractory bricks. I suggest that the remainder show wagons in 1960s BR freight brown rather than bauxite.

[John Isherwood]

3 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Yes, there are ways, but that doesn’t make it legal, even for personal use. 
 

Roy

 

That being the case, if you are worried about 'your' copyright, especially of images that you did not take, don't post 'em on't internet.

 

Simples,

CJI.

[John Isherwood]

1 hour ago, Cwmtwrch said:

The top two photographs are very early, before BR worked out that putting identities on (re)moveable panels wasn't very clever. Pickford, Holland & Co Ltd [note the mis-spelling!] were makers of refractory bricks. I suggest that the remainder show wagons in 1960s BR freight brown rather than bauxite.

 

You could well be correct - but they reflect an established painting practice - why would that change?

 

The fact is, KRM guessed wrongly again!

 

CJI.

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

That being the case, if you are worried about 'your' copyright, especially of images that you did not take, don't post 'em on't internet.

 

Simples,

CJI.

🤬 It is people with that attitude that wind me up. I have had my entire company website cloned and the logo, name changed. That took precious time away from actually doing work to get sorted. 

 

Copyright theft is theft. Would you walk in a shop and just pick up stuff without paying? Then encourage others to do the same as you seem to have done above for images? I assume not. 
 

Time for you to perhaps move into the 21st century and abide by its laws. 
 

Roy

Edited November 26, 2022 by Roy Langridge
Typo

[John Isherwood]

15 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

🤬 It is people with that attitude that wind me up. I have had my entire company website cloned and the logo, name changed. That took precious time away from actually doing work to get sorted. 

 

Copyright theft is theft. Would you walk in a shop and just pick up stuff without paying? Then encourage others to do the same as you seem to have done above for images? I assume not. 
 

Time for you to perhaps move into the 21st century and abide by its laws. 
 

Roy

 

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone who values anything would put it on the internet - they might as well put it on their front step with a notice saying 'Free to a good home'.

 

I have pointed out, for the benefit of others who might imagine otherwise, that once something is on the internet it is common property; I have NOT specified how to download such material, and at no point have I encouraged anyone to follow my example.

 

My motive for downloading potentially useful images has been the ability to find them again - search engines rarely achieve this, but a properly indexed photo archive will easily do what I need.

 

People who post railway images usually say that they do so in order to assist others; what possible objection can they have to others categorising such material so that it can be readily accessed.

 

There is far to much 'look what I've got that you haven't' amongst the 'owners' of photo sites - especially those who buy their material rather than take photos themselves.

 

Post to the internet at your peril - once posted, it's common property!

 

CJI.

[melmoth]

8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Post to the internet at your peril - once posted, it's common property!

 

 

I could post images online of your waterslide transfers formatted in such a way that anyone downloading said images could print their own transfers from their copy of the image. How would you feel about that?

 

[Roy Langridge]

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone who values anything would put it on the internet - they might as well put it on their front step with a notice saying 'Free to a good home'.

 

I have pointed out, for the benefit of others who might imagine otherwise, that once something is on the internet it is common property; I have NOT specified how to download such material, and at no point have I encouraged anyone to follow my example.

 

My motive for downloading potentially useful images has been the ability to find them again - search engines rarely achieve this, but a properly indexed photo archive will easily do what I need.

 

People who post railway images usually say that they do so in order to assist others; what possible objection can they have to others categorising such material so that it can be readily accessed.

 

There is far to much 'look what I've got that you haven't' amongst the 'owners' of photo sites - especially those who buy their material rather than take photos themselves.

 

Post to the internet at your peril - once posted, it's common property!

 

CJI.

Utter tosh, information posted to the internet is not common property and those who breach copyright can face substantial fines.
 

I suggest you read this: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet

 

Roy

[John Isherwood]

1 minute ago, Roy Langridge said:

Utter tosh, information posted to the internet is not common property and those who breach copyright can face substantial fines.
 

I suggest you read this: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet

 

Roy

 

Legislation and real life rarely coincide.

 

I have stated fact, and have deliberately made no reference to measures which purport to regulate material posted to the internet, which are totally ineffective.

 

I note that you have not addressed in any way the facts that I have stated, other than to denigrate it as 'utter tosh'.

 

'Owners' of material which they do not want others to possess, but merely admire, should place it in a secure physical location which is open to the public to view under strict supervision.

 

As I have already stated, the internet is akin to a free-for-all giveaway; once the genie is out of the box, there's no putting it back! To believe otherwise is self-delusion.

 

CJI.

[Roy Langridge]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

Legislation and real life rarely coincide.

 

I have stated fact, and have deliberately made no reference to measures which purport to regulate material posted to the internet, which are totally ineffective.

 

I note that you have not addressed in any way the facts that I have stated, other than to denigrate it as 'utter tosh'.

 

'Owners' of material which they do not want others to possess, but merely admire, should place it in a secure physical location which is open to the public to view under strict supervision.

 

As I have already stated, the internet is akin to a free-for-all giveaway; once the genie is out of the box, there's no putting it back! To believe otherwise is self-delusion.

 

CJI.

Last post from me.
 

Your facts are not facts, they are your deliberate avoidance of the legal situation. Your posts clearly show you don’t care that people give you access to view, but not download, images to help but you deliberately circumvent the protection that they place upon that image. 
 

I am well aware of the problems of protecting material published on the internet, I just get fed up with people brazenly admitting to being petty thieves and seemingly proud to be so. 
 

Roy