EFE Rail GW Bloater fish van

[locoholic]

12 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

........ and therein lies the nub of the problem - all knowledge is NOT available on the internet! There is a perception that research involves a simple Google search.

 

I do not KNOW the history of the BLOATER, but I have on my bookshelves all the information that I need in order to check the model's authenticity.

 

Of course, a comprehensive library of railway books comes at a price - which most present-day modellers seem unwilling to pay. There is a perception that knowledge should come free-of-charge.

 

It is inconceivable to me that anyone should attempt to review a model without the relevant reference books to hand - it is arrogant in the extreme to do so.

 

Still, when anyone can make a video with their smartphone, and publish it under the guise of a 'review' - and make money as a result - it's hardly surprising that there is so much misinformation and rubbish on the internet!

 

BLOATERs "obscure"? Not to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the GWR.

 

CJI.

I've got shelves and shelves full of books about British Railways in the steam era, and I've never heard of these vans. The scarcity of photographs of them indicates they are indeed obscure, except to that small band of rivet-counters who look down their noses at the lesser mortals who model companies rely on to buy their products and create their profits.

[Wickham Green too]

They should not be a mystery to anyone who has shelves and shelves full of books about rolling stock - as well as motive power etc. 😊

[Harlequin]

15 minutes ago, locoholic said:

I've got shelves and shelves full of books about British Railways in the steam era, and I've never heard of these vans. The scarcity of photographs of them indicates they are indeed obscure, except to that small band of rivet-counters who look down their noses at the lesser mortals who model companies rely on to buy their products and create their profits.

Just because you haven’t heard of them doesn’t mean they are obscure to everyone.

 

They are listed in Russell’s standard work on the brown vehicles, with photos.

 

John Lewis wrote about them in GWRJ, with many photos and original engineering drawings.

 

The HMRS website has many photos.

 

There were over 200 of them (if my maths is correct) and they lasted from 1919 until the late 50s as parcels vans and some even to the 70s as departmental vans.

 

This is not obscurity.

[Dunsignalling]

9 hours ago, locoholic said:

I've got shelves and shelves full of books about British Railways in the steam era, and I've never heard of these vans. The scarcity of photographs of them indicates they are indeed obscure, except to that small band of rivet-counters who look down their noses at the lesser mortals who model companies rely on to buy their products and create their profits.

Like most other Fish Vans, Bloaters tended to be concentrated on certain routes from fishing ports to major conurbations, and were mainly restricted to ex-GWR territory. 

 

Those later transferred to Parcels use ranged much more widely but the converted vehicles (which I hope EFE will offer us in due course) made them look quite similar to the more familiar Fruit D vans from any significant distance.

 

They can therefore be quite hard to pick out in photographs unless one is a rivet ventilator counter; former Bloaters have six, whilst Fruit Ds have eight.

 

Bloaters are comprehensively covered in the definitive works on GWR rolling stock, (passenger and freight) and touched on in several, more general, works (e.g. the familiar blue-covered Pendragon volume on Non-Passenger-Carrying Coaching Stock).

 

If you own none of those, I'd suggest the content of your "shelves and shelves" may be too narrowly focussed.    

 

John

Edited June 15 by Dunsignalling
punctuation

[gwrrob]

9 hours ago, locoholic said:

 except to that small band of rivet-counters who look down their noses at the lesser mortals 

 

Surely you mean discerning GWR modellers here.😉

[locoholic]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Like most other Fish Vans, Bloaters tended to be concentrated on certain routes from fishing ports to major conurbations, and were mainly restricted to ex-GWR territory. 

 

Those later transferred to Parcels use ranged much more widely but the converted vehicles (which I hope EFE will offer us in due course) made them look quite similar to the more familiar Fruit D vans from any significant distance.

 

They can therefore be quite hard to pick out in photographs unless one is a rivet ventilator counter; former Bloaters have six, whilst Fruit Ds have eight.

 

Bloaters are comprehensively covered in the definitive works on GWR rolling stock, (passenger and freight) and touched on in several, more general, works (e.g. the familiar blue-covered Pendragon volume on Non-Passenger-Carrying Coaching Stock).

 

If you own none of those, I'd suggest the content of your "shelves and shelves" may be too narrowly focussed.    

 

John

I think my "problem" is that I'm more interested in the railway network than the vehicles that travelled on it, and my book collection is too general, rather than too narrowly focussed - I even have (dare I say it) books on foreign railways! Nevertheless, I can still tell the difference between a Python and a Siphon, and even between a Fruit C and a Fruit D, but somehow the Bloater had not impinged upon my consciousness. 

It's also not true that it's impossible to do a video review of a model without knowing the prototype - issues such as whether bits fall off it when you remove it from the box, and whether it couples to other stock reliably and runs without derailing, are as important to most modellers as dimensional accuracy and the absence of gas pipes.

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, No Decorum said:

On the other hand, lots of us have been acquiring reference books for decades. It took me a long time to assemble a complete set of the RCTS “green books” in pre-web times. Sam isn’t old enough to have acquired much. Of course, you could say that in that case, he shouldn’t be reviewing.

It depends what/how he reviews a model.  If he says anything about protptype fidelity/lack thereof then it's probably worth ignoring (or being rude about should that take your fancy).  If he says that it runs badly or bits fall off, or paint application is poor that is a statement of fact about the model j he has reviewed and it doesn't need any knowledge of the real thing to say it doesn't do what it is supposed to do as a model.

 

But let's face it he's not alone in talking about thing he knows nothing about when it comes to railways or model railways and don't forget that secondary sources aren't necessarily accurate (and in many cases aren't).  I have a fairly large library covering a range of railway subjects; it's interesting counting the caption errors in them let aloe textual errors.  I also have a reasonable collection of original material covering operations and various other things but even when it comes to them I have enough personal knowledge and experience to know that they might not even have been correct on the publication date and they would definitely have had some differences a year or two later.  All written sources should be treated with care.

 

PS I also have books about foreign railways and a secondary source about signalling on all Western European railway networks happens to agree not only with BR primary sources but also with the official SNCF signalling principles and equipment manual (which I also happen to have).  Mind you an article explaining DB push-pull development and equipment on steam engines is definitely in the esoteric category - which I fully acknowledge

Edited June 15 by The Stationmaster

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

... If he says that it runs badly or bits fall off, or paint application is poor that is a statement of fact about the model j he has reviewed and it doesn't need any knowledge of the real thing to say it doesn't do what it is supposed to do as a model. ...

Ah ...... but does he know whether the prototype ran well/badly, was/wasn't infamous for shedding bits or how well Swindon - in this case - painted their rolling stock ??!? 😉

[locoholic]

50 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Ah ...... but does he know whether the prototype ran well/badly, was/wasn't infamous for shedding bits or how well Swindon - in this case - painted their rolling stock ??!? 😉

Ah, yes - that quest for authenticity that led Heljan to produce a model of the Clayton diesel that broke down all the time!

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, locoholic said:

I think my "problem" is that I'm more interested in the railway network than the vehicles that travelled on it, and my book collection is too general, rather than too narrowly focussed - I even have (dare I say it) books on foreign railways! Nevertheless, I can still tell the difference between a Python and a Siphon, and even between a Fruit C and a Fruit D, but somehow the Bloater had not impinged upon my consciousness. 

It's also not true that it's impossible to do a video review of a model without knowing the prototype - issues such as whether bits fall off it when you remove it from the box, and whether it couples to other stock reliably and runs without derailing, are as important to most modellers as dimensional accuracy and the absence of gas pipes.

 

Entirely agree with your second paragraph so long as the reviewer makes that clear.

 

What I would call a "consumer" review rather than a critique of all aspects of the item. 

 

That said, I would not place much store by any review that did not at least inform me if the basic dimensions were accurate, and consider that anyone putting a review in the public domain really should  (at minimum) obtain sight of a reliable drawing.

 

This particular model is OK in that respect but attempts to cover multiple diagrams, and it does have things missing from all versions. 

 

Fair enough, but, apart from the odd misplaced louvre (which is likely to be period specific) such sins as do exist are of omission rather than commission, which I can live with 😀.

 

Far better than having a load of incorrect  stuff to remove without damage first, IMHO.

 

John

[JSpencer]

Got mine today, nice model, but I do feel the spring is too weak for the kinematic systems. When stuck at the front of a 15 long van train, they won't return to centre after going round a curve (both ends).

Can be countered by placing the van at the back of a train (though I thought steam heat was needed on these) or using Roco style which I don't fit to steam locomotives (generally reserved to coaching stock in fixed rakes and locos on push-pull duty).

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, JSpencer said:

Got mine today, nice model, but I do feel the spring is too weak for the kinematic systems. When stuck at the front of a 15 long van train, they won't return to centre after going round a curve (both ends).

Can be countered by placing the van at the back of a train (though I thought steam heat was needed on these) or using Roco style which I don't fit to steam locomotives (generally reserved to coaching stock in fixed rakes and locos on push-pull duty).

It would be marshalled at either the front or the back end of a train when running as tail traffic on a passenger train.  It all depended on how and where it was attached and going to be detached.  For example at Reading it was far quicker, and much easier, to detach tail traffic from the rear of up Express Passenger trains and to attach it front to Down Express Passenger trains

[Fat Controller]

33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It would be marshalled at either the front or the back end of a train when running as tail traffic on a passenger train.  It all depended on how and where it was attached and going to be detached.  For example at Reading it was far quicker, and much easier, to detach tail traffic from the rear of up Express Passenger trains and to attach it front to Down Express Passenger trains

Photos I've seen of the Bloaters in 'Enparts' use show them at the head of the train. It must have been fun when multiple reversals were involved ; there were at least three between Neyland and Swindon.

[Dunsignalling]

15 hours ago, JSpencer said:

Got mine today, nice model, but I do feel the spring is too weak for the kinematic systems. When stuck at the front of a 15 long van train, they won't return to centre after going round a curve (both ends).

Can be countered by placing the van at the back of a train (though I thought steam heat was needed on these) or using Roco style which I don't fit to steam locomotives (generally reserved to coaching stock in fixed rakes and locos on push-pull duty).

TBF "kinetic" close-coupler links and tension-lock couplers aren't, and never will be, compatible. The couplers allow loads of angular movement between the vehicle before any centreing force is exerted on the links. 

 

Whatever coupler head is used, only those that lock pairs of links together rigidly (like the Rocos you mention) do the job as intended.   

 

The problem is that the linkages have been adopted by UK brands from continental practice, whilst failing to recognise that the link and coupler form two halves of a system. 

Edited June 17 by Dunsignalling

[Wickham Green too]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

... For example at Reading it was far quicker, and much easier, to detach tail traffic from the rear of up Express Passenger trains and to attach it front to Down Express Passenger trains

Preferable for the travelling public too - smelly fish at the back of the train but empty van ( after a cursory swill-out ) on the front ! 😁

[Pteremy]

I have rediscovered a published photo with a good view of a Bloater roof. It was taken at St Ives on 1/8/53, looking down at a train arriving but with a good view of the bay siding. In the bay is the Bloater with gas piping and vents (and what I assume are 4 4 wheeled fish vans). I found it on page 149 of GWR Then and Now by Laurence Waters but I suspect it will have featured elsewhere as well.

[Brunel276]

I have bought several bloaters and very nice they are too. I wondered what the composition of a typical GWR fish train with bloaters would be in the mid !920’s or early 1930’s I assume that they would have travelled from Fishguard to Paddington. I suspect the train may have a few other types of brown vac vehicles Would they have a diag K Passenger brake at the rear  and what loco would have typically pulled  them ? Any info welcome. I want to build a typical 20 van or so train.

[Miss Prism]

The classic shot of a fish train is a Mogul with a string of bloaters.

 

More variety in a Milford Haven fish departure