Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

Very nice. As you're striving for perfection, a niggle: the numberplate was well-nigh universally (and definitely on these Drg 1143 wagons) to the right of the V-iron (or in the corresponding place on the non-brake side) with the load /ticket plate just to the right of the crown plate of the left-hand axleguard, as in the photo of No. 119497.

Hi Stephen ... I suspect with your knowledge you are correct. I placed them this way around as I was working from this drawing which appeared to suggest the opposite .... but most if not all the photos I have seen back your reading.

 

 

Interestingly this image hints at something nearer the drawing .... though it differs in other ways.

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Headstock]

Best wishes for Christmas and the New year to all on the Wright wagon thread.

 

Photo courtesy of Derek Shore.

 

V2 and carriage built by Ken Sayce of Shipley Model Railway Society, J11/3 and goods stock built by me.

[Compound2632]

Hi Stephen ... I suspect with your knowledge you are correct. I placed them this way around as I was working from this drawing which appeared to suggest the opposite .... but most if not all the photos I have seen back your reading.

 

6 TON LOW SIDED (3 PLANK) GOODS WAGON Diagram No.305 Drawing No.213 Dated 1877-.jpg

 

I hope enthusiasts for the ECML in the BR era will excuse us while we get technical here.

 

The drawing you post, from the Midland Railway Study Centre collection, is Drawing 213; this copy dated 30/11/75 and marked "Renewed 23/9/86". This drawing covers 5,250 wagons built 1877-87; the annotation makes it specific to Lot 164, the last 250 wagons ordered to this drawing on 14/1/87. This drawing shows the headstocks extended beyond the usual 7'6" width and gently angled to act as stops for the drop sides; also it shows the 8A grease axleboxes that were the standard Midland axlebox in the 1880s. Plate 68 in Essery's Midland Wagons Vol. 1 shows an example. This has the numberplate to the left of the V-hanger. 

 

The model you've built, with square-ended headstocks, stop-blocks on the ends of the drop sides, and Ellis 10A axleboxes, is typical of the 5,100 wagons built 1897-1907 to Drawing 1143. Note how on this drawing, the extended headstock was originally drawn but then erased in favour of the standard square-ended headstock. Photographs of wagons built to this drawing (e.g. Plate 69 in Midland Wagons) and the subsequent drawing 3208 (which covered a further 4,000 wagons built 1909-1915, identical except having both side brakes and oil axleboxes from new) uniformly show the numberplate to the right of the V-hanger. 

 

I've posted on the variations over time of these 3-plank dropside wagons on my wagon building topic - unfortunately modelling time has been scarce lately so I've not progressed with my batch of wagons. You're not alone in ending up with a model that conflates these two drawings - Slaters seem to have done the same, so I have to scrape the moulded numberplate off every one I build. My wagons are 00 and what I like to call "pseudo-finescale" so lack the refinement of your P4 model - the over-thick plastic brake lever gives the game away.

 

So, you, see, Mr Wright, it's every bit as interesting trying to get the details right on a simple goods wagon as it is on some big green pacific!

[APOLLO]

An interesting selection of vans - Southbound at Cross Tetleys, just north of Golborne early 60's. HS2 will (may !!) joint the WCML about here, sweeping in across the fields behind the train.

 

 

A fit looking but nameless Brit 70052 "Firth of Tay" storms north with a fast goods past Rylands Sidings just north of Wigan - around 1966. 

 

 

Like vans ? Garstang mid 60's looking north (that's me on the platform with my 16 on 120 camera !!)

 

 

My Dads photos.

 

Brit15

Edited December 22, 2018 by APOLLO

[Compound2632]

An interesting selection of vans - Southbound at Cross Tetleys, just north of Golborne early 60's. HS2 will (may !!) joint the WCML about here, sweeping in across the fields behind the train.

 

My Dads photos.

 

Brit15

 

Some happy modelling accurately replicating these! 

[Lecorbusier]

The drawing you post, from the Midland Railway Study Centre collection, is Drawing 213; this copy dated 30/11/75 and marked "Renewed 23/9/86". This drawing covers 5,250 wagons built 1877-87; the annotation makes it specific to Lot 164, the last 250 wagons ordered to this drawing on 14/1/87. This drawing shows the headstocks extended beyond the usual 7'6" width and gently angled to act as stops for the drop sides; also it shows the 8A grease axleboxes that were the standard Midland axlebox in the 1880s. Plate 68 in Essery's Midland Wagons Vol. 1 shows an example. This has the numberplate to the left of the V-hanger. 

 

The model you've built, with square-ended headstocks, stop-blocks on the ends of the drop sides, and Ellis 10A axleboxes, is typical of the 5,100 wagons built 1897-1907 to Drawing 1143. Note how on this drawing, the extended headstock was originally drawn but then erased in favour of the standard square-ended headstock. Photographs of wagons built to this drawing (e.g. Plate 69 in Midland Wagons) and the subsequent drawing 3208 (which covered a further 4,000 wagons built 1909-1915, identical except having both side brakes and oil axleboxes from new) uniformly show the numberplate to the right of the V-hanger. 

You are kind of right and kind of wrong.

 

I have definitely muddled up the axle boxes (unless some of the wagons were retro fitted after a visit to the repair shop?) and moving the plates is the easiest remedy to my dilemma.

 

However I have to come clean here ... I was trying to build the wagon as per the drawing posted (213) - I mucked up the projecting headstocks and ended up filing flat (oops!) On the drawing I think that there are shown stop blocks and it is this profile I have tried to model. - you see I wasn't joking when I said I see all the errors etc (plus the additional ones now pointed out). 

[chris45lsw]

I hope that this comment is not directed at me - I'm sure it isn't as I do occasionally post images of my modelling to RMweb.

 

Nonetheless, here are a few cruel images which demonstrate that, whilst I try to produce reasonably accurate model wagons, they certainly deserve the description 'layout' vehicles. They also indicate that I need to have a mass weathering session!

 

Capture_00033.JPG

 

 

Capture_00034.JPG

 

A pair of ex-GWR O30 steel general merchandise open wagons; one retrofitted with vacuum brakes; (Cambrian kits).

 

 

Capture_00035.JPG

 

A BR 1/645 STURGEON permanent way department wagon; (Cambrian kit).

 

 

Capture_00036.JPG

 

An ex-LMS 2080 WW2 conversion from a timber-built mineral wagon into a FLATCASE wagon; used for carrying military equipment packed in shipping cases; (probably an ABS kit).

 

 

Capture_00037.JPG

 

A Cowans Sheldon 6.5T hand crane (Tri-ang RTR) and match wagon (ancient Ian Kirk kit).

 

 

IMG_3142.jpg

 

IMG_3146.jpg

 

An ex-LMS 12t merchandise van; (Cambrian kit).

 

 

IMG_0418.JPG

 

IMG_0419.JPG

 

An ex-LMS 2000 6W STOVE passenger brake van; (detailed Hornby Dublo body on scratchbuilt chassis).

 

 

IMG_3517.JPG

 

IMG_3518.JPG

 

An ex-GWR F23 slip coach; (cut-and-shut from Airfix RTR B-set coaches).

 

That'll do for now - I'll see if I can find any more images of my output after the seasonal celebrations.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

What a brilliant conversion, John.  Would you care to describe how you did it, sometime?

 

Chris KT

[John Isherwood]

What a brilliant conversion, John.  Would you care to describe how you did it, sometime?

 

Chris KT

 

Chris,

 

Not sure that my memory stretches back that far !!

 

Frankly, if you compare an F23 diagram with the Airfix B-set coach, all should become clear.

 

Remember that the longer corridor-side windows can be achieved by removing the panel between two compartment windows.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

I hope that this comment is not directed at me - I'm sure it isn't as I do occasionally post images of my modelling to RMweb.

 

Nonetheless, here are a few cruel images which demonstrate that, whilst I try to produce reasonably accurate model wagons, they certainly deserve the description 'layout' vehicles. They also indicate that I need to have a mass weathering session!

 

Capture_00033.JPG

 

 

Capture_00034.JPG

 

A pair of ex-GWR O30 steel general merchandise open wagons; one retrofitted with vacuum brakes; (Cambrian kits).

 

 

Capture_00035.JPG

 

A BR 1/645 STURGEON permanent way department wagon; (Cambrian kit).

 

 

Capture_00036.JPG

 

An ex-LMS 2080 WW2 conversion from a timber-built mineral wagon into a FLATCASE wagon; used for carrying military equipment packed in shipping cases; (probably an ABS kit).

 

 

Capture_00037.JPG

 

A Cowans Sheldon 6.5T hand crane (Tri-ang RTR) and match wagon (ancient Ian Kirk kit).

 

 

IMG_3142.jpg

 

IMG_3146.jpg

 

An ex-LMS 12t merchandise van; (Cambrian kit).

 

 

IMG_0418.JPG

 

IMG_0419.JPG

 

An ex-LMS 2000 6W STOVE passenger brake van; (detailed Hornby Dublo body on scratchbuilt chassis).

 

 

IMG_3517.JPG

 

IMG_3518.JPG

 

An ex-GWR F23 slip coach; (cut-and-shut from Airfix RTR B-set coaches).

 

That'll do for now - I'll see if I can find any more images of my output after the seasonal celebrations.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Good evening John,

 

My comment was not directed at any specific individual, more of a generalisation. Anyway, I know you post pictures of your work, so you're precluded from it.

 

There's some very nice work you've shown. Top-class modelling, and thanks for posting the images. May I pass comment, please? 

 

Is the first wagon supposed to be bauxite? It looks very red in your picture. It could be the camera's rendition of colour. Speaking of your camera, it appears to produce a very small depth of field. Are you using the smallest aperture? 

 

I'm also surprised you use the Peco-style coupling. I would have thought 'scale' three-links or screw shackles would have been your choice, given the diligence put into your modelling. I know my couplings are no better, but many of my wagons would appear to be wrong, anyway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

I hope enthusiasts for the ECML in the BR era will excuse us while we get technical here.

 

 

So, you, see, Mr Wright, it's every bit as interesting trying to get the details right on a simple goods wagon as it is on some big green pacific!

Stephen,

 

You're excused.

 

I do see, but you forget I was a trainspotter (more correctly, loco-spotter), not a wagon-spotter. What was on the front of a train (any train) was much more interesting, especially if it were big and green. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[John Isherwood]

Good evening John,

 

My comment was not directed at any specific individual, more of a generalisation. Anyway, I know you post pictures of your work, so you're precluded from it.

 

There's some very nice work you've shown. Top-class modelling, and thanks for posting the images. May I pass comment, please? 

 

Is the first wagon supposed to be bauxite? It looks very red in your picture. It could be the camera's rendition of colour. Speaking of your camera, it appears to produce a very small depth of field. Are you using the smallest aperture? 

 

I'm also surprised you use the Peco-style coupling. I would have thought 'scale' three-links or screw shackles would have been your choice, given the diligence put into your modelling. I know my couplings are no better, but many of my wagons would appear to be wrong, anyway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Tony,

 

I use car spray paint specially mixed to match the BR bauxite shade - it does 'glare' a bit under artificial light, and, in common with far too much of my stock, it is in dire need of weathering.

 

I have a decent Canon DSLR, but have never found the time to learn to use it properly; I have no doubt that, in the right hands, it is capable of great things. Unfortunately, my occasional post-completion record shots are hurried, hand-held snaps of the subject parked on the shunting plank.

 

I have used Peco Simplex couplers since the day I part-exchanged my Hornby timplate O gauge trainset for secondhand Hornby Dublo equivalents. I find them to be infinitely preferable to tension-locks, and I have recently devised a method of fitting them to stock with NEM pockets. With a stocklist count around a thousand, there is little chance of me changing now!

 

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I use car spray paint specially mixed to match the BR bauxite shade - it does 'glare' a bit under artificial light, and, in common with far too much of my stock, it is in dire need of weathering.

 

I have a decent Canon DSLR, but have never found the time to learn to use it properly; I have no doubt that, in the right hands, it is capable of great things. Unfortunately, my occasional post-completion record shots are hurried, hand-held snaps of the subject parked on the shunting plank.

 

I have used Peco Simplex couplers since the day I part-exchanged my Hornby timplate O gauge trainset for secondhand Hornby Dublo equivalents. I find them to be infinitely preferable to tension-locks, and I have recently devised a method of fitting them to stock with NEM pockets. With a stocklist count around a thousand, there is little chance of me changing now!

 

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

And my compliments of the season to you, too.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Woodcock29]

Tony in your photo of the 9F with 4 cattle wagons immediately behind the loco the 4th van looks to be an LNER cattle wagon and I presume it is a 9ft wb van in which case it would most likely have been well and truly scrapped by 1958 as virtually none survived into BR. However, I understand the later 10ft wb versions did. Based on info from Steve Banks.

 

Andrew

[Northmoor]

Despite wagons not being my area of expertise, I think I've learned a lot over the last few days. 

 

What a wonderfully-mixed train, at Doncaster in the late-'50s/early-'60s. 

 

The most-important goods train on LB is the afternoon Scotch Goods. This has been made-up largely by observation of prototype pictures. 

1. That makes (at least) two of us.  While I still have a pathetic lack of my own modelling to display, I never want to (or will believe I need to) stop learning so follow this thread to learn and do every day.

2. Does the term "mixed freight" seen in photos like this, create a false impression that such trains are made up a random assortment of wagons?  When I've played trains in the past on my own layouts, that's exactly what I've created.  But even this "mixed" train seems to have several groups of wagons, not 30 different ones.

3. That golden word again: observation.  Of the prototype too, not of others' layouts. (I've not spotted faults any with your wagons, by the way.  I'm still learning).

 

Over decades, countless articles advising how to build model railways have suggested that building a through station or other location gives the freedom to operate what you like, because it's always "on the way to somewhere else".  Even as a kid I could see that was much too simplistic; all routes have very good reasons for all the traffic carried along them.  

 

Rob

 

P.S. Merry Christmas to you Tony and to all the other contributors to this thread who remind me why I love this "silly hobby".

Edited December 22, 2018 by Northmoor

[Tony Wright]

Tony in your photo of the 9F with 4 cattle wagons immediately behind the loco the 4th van looks to be an LNER cattle wagon and I presume it is a 9ft wb van in which case it would most likely have been well and truly scrapped by 1958 as virtually none survived into BR. However, I understand the later 10ft wb versions did. Based on info from Steve Banks.

 

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

It'll be removed from the train and put up for sale.

 

I didn't build it, so assumed it was appropriate. Wrong. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Tony Wright

[The Fatadder]

Have you tried using any of the Micro-Sol products on your transfers? I find them very good for getting the decals to adhere.

Thanks again for your suggestion, I have just tried applying Microsol and then pressing down the transfer before treating with Microset and it looks like it’s done the job. Definitely a big improvement on before.

(It does seem to have lost a G off the Great Western branding on the side however so something else to fix ...)

 

 

Now to buy more lining and finish off the rest of the coaches in the to line pile!

[Barry O]

How many people know enough about wagons to make sensible comments at Exhibitions.

I added a bit more detail to my Triang freightliner set for Shap. New buffer beams, sprung buffers, bumpers on wagon ends, lowered the under frames on the bogies etc. Added a sceatchbuilt "brake caboose" and...... nothing..strange isn't it.

 

I wouldn't worry about wagons too much Tony. You have a lot of them and they are layout wagons. Weathered to give an "in use" look. How many visitors have spotted "wrong" wagons? I know you shuffleda couple of wagons in a train when we visited many moons ago but you didn't take any off the layout,

 

You, like me, have a lot of wagons. If your layout only had up to 20 wagons I am sure that every one would be exactly the correct shape and size, very detailed and would run perfectly.

 

I know some of my wagons are not correct but, with 502 of them, I am not starting to sell on ones which are not exact replicas of the real thing. Life is too short!

Carlisle has very few scratchbuilt wagons but all the RTR have been modified to EM gauge, fitted with scale couplings, vac pipes added ((although this is not complete) and weathered. Could this have been achieved by scratchbuilding? Yes but at a cost (£) and time.

 

Baz

[Lecorbusier]

..... Weathered to give an "in use" look. How many visitors have spotted "wrong" wagons? .......

You, like me, have a lot of wagons. If your layout only had up to 20 wagons I am sure that every one would be exactly the correct shape and size, very detailed and would run perfectly.

 

Rule 1 applies methinks.

 

If we choose to exhibit then some aspects need to be set .... but in the end we perhaps model for our own satisfaction and reward?

 

Everyones red lines will differ in a myriad of ways. The trouble from my standpoint is that - ignorance was bliss ... a state that sadly one can't return to and so the nagging niggles set in - it then just depends on one's own level of anality (is that a word?)  ....what I call the  'no one will notice - maybe but unfortunately I will' syndrome - hey ho.

[petrovich]

Rule 1 applies methinks.

 

If we choose to exhibit then some aspects need to be set .... but in the end we perhaps model for our own satisfaction and reward?

 

Everyones red lines will differ in a myriad of ways. The trouble from my standpoint is that - ignorance was bliss ... a state that sadly one can't return to and so the nagging niggles set in - it then just depends on one's own level of anality (is that a word?)  ....what I call the  'no one will notice - maybe but unfortunately I will' syndrome - hey ho.

Here you go.

 

anality :   Psychoanalysis. the condition or quality of having an anal character; collectively, the personality traits characteristic of the anal stage of psychosexual development.

 

 

Most impressed by the knowledge of the English language on here.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[PMP]

Here's a potential discussion subject concerning architectural structure modelling - low relief buildings and, I guess, what does the team think?

 

I'm not a great fan of low relief as they tend to encourage rather repetitive straight and regimented lines of features, such as a backscene board with a row of low relief buildings butted up against it, a road in front of the buildings, a parallel cutting with retaining walls on the other side of the road, a straight railway line in the cutting, and so on. But they are popular on model railway layouts as space savers and can help transitioning from 3D modelling to the 2D backscene. And, of course, with urban modelling they are difficult to avoid including.

 

Consequently I've made quite a few for what will be the back of the layout. I've tried to make sure that the road in front is not dead straight (it isn't in real life) but the building each have a straignt front edge so some are at an angle. Here's a few examples (again none are complete) of my efforts based on real buildings along Tooley Street:

 

 

 

G.

 

Joining 2D to 3D is one of the biggest challenges in scenic modelling due to the 'limitations' you've highlighted above. The other key contributor is the colour balance between the two elements. Having seen both your previous layouts you have an exceptional skill in mixing those two, particularly in the urban environments you portray. WIll these buildings be part of an exhibition layout? if so I look forward to seeing it.

 

I can think of several layouts where the backscene overpowers the foreground, for me its largely the 'whole' of the layout that captures my attention. At a show I can 'ignore' the class 20 with 1930's PO wagons if the scenery is really well presented, but in that extreme case is has to be 'really well' as the stock anachronism, would quickly over ride the 'better' modelled elements.

[Izzy]

Back in October I was lucky enough to see Jas Milholm's S scale Abbey Street at the Chelmsford Exhibition. To my mind it is a masterclass on how low relief should be. Look around on the web and you can see quite a few more. Pinterest seems to have links to quite a few layouts I have not encountered before elsewhere, but it might well be that the perspective angle from which shots are taken/reproduced doesn't show the whole picture (ouch) if you get what I mean. That in the flesh the viewing might generally be different/not so immersive. In general I would say that how succesful low relief is seems in many instances to be related to the size of the layout and it's scale. Whether it's a major part of the view, or just a small percentage at the edges. So with larger scales it is easier than with smaller ones. But if you look at Peter Denny's work he appears to have judged it right. I do so envy/admire those with an artists eye who can do this, which I can't really seem to really.

 

Izzy

[grahame]

Joining 2D to 3D is one of the biggest challenges in scenic modelling due to the 'limitations' you've highlighted above. The other key contributor is the colour balance between the two elements. Having seen both your previous layouts you have an exceptional skill in mixing those two, particularly in the urban environments you portray. WIll these buildings be part of an exhibition layout? if so I look forward to seeing it.

 

I can think of several layouts where the backscene overpowers the foreground, for me its largely the 'whole' of the layout that captures my attention. At a show I can 'ignore' the class 20 with 1930's PO wagons if the scenery is really well presented, but in that extreme case is has to be 'really well' as the stock anachronism, would quickly over ride the 'better' modelled elements.

 

Unfortunately it won't be a portable exhibiton layout. I've got to the stage where attending exhibtions with a layout has become a struggle and too much effort - the carrying up stairs, constantly packing it up, getting home late and so on. Consequently it will be a home based layout that I can fiddle and play with.

 

For low relief there are a couple of considerations that I try to keep in mind.  Firstly, is to make the depth of the building a little more than just cursory or minimal. Try to include the ridge (the highest point of the building) as part of the model and locate it a little forward of the backscene so that there is at least a small amount of the far side roof surface sloping away and down to the back-scene giving the impression the building extends further back than it does. That way the truncated, or missing part of the building is less apparent, especially from above.

 

Secondly, I try to avoid having the back-scene board cutting through the roof ridge especially where the building is at an angle to the backscene board. Obviously, with flat roofs and where you are representing the gable end of a building (as the low-relief part of the model) that can’t be done but in those circumstances I like to model the complete front facing fascia (for flat roofed buildings) and/or complete gable end wall (for those with a pitched roof running at right angles to the backscene). Finally, I suggest trying to disguise the side joint of the building with the back-scene so that it doesn’t appear abrupt and make it obvious there is some of the building 'missing'. A tree or bush can help in that respect, or perhaps a porch or small outbuilding/extension on the modelled part of the flank wall that is most visible.

 

G

[thegreenhowards]

Tony et al,

 

This thread never ceases to entertain and enlighten. Having been busy for a couple of days, I’ve enjoyed catching up on several pages of wagon modelling which I find a fascinating and daunting subject.

 

Personally, I find your goods trains look the part. They’re clearly not perfect, but I certainly wouldn’t throw large parts of them away, as it could quickly become an all consuming task to replace them. It seems to me a classic case where taking it steadily and making modest improvements gradually is the answer. As Clive suggested, identify a few wagons in need of replacement and build a handful every year to replace the worst examples. Much of the critique, while clearly valid, is aimed at making a showcase wagon, rather than one wagon of a ~30 wagon train (I.e. a layout wagon). Is having the wrong brake gear any worse than having no brake gear as (I would guess) on many of your coaches, or, for example, missing off the roof alarm gear (as on your recent Kirk Gresley)? NB, this is not a criticism of your coaches, but just making the point that on a layout of LB’s size it’s practically impossible to have every detail correct, and one has to aim at getting the important details right and aim at the ‘big picture’ for smaller details.

 

One question for the wagon experts about the difference between GM wagons and minerals. Is it the case that 5 plank wagons were always GM? If so, I’m sure I’ve seen photos of 5 planks wagons in long mineral trains (e.g. p140 or p181 of the Book of the Great Northern part one). Would they have been co-opted into the mineral fleet, or is it in practice a mixed train? Sorry for my ignorance!

 

Andy

[stewartingram]

As mostly a lurker here, I have to say that the latest "diversion" on the thread shows how marvelous this thread is. Not a word of contempt, just a few words of constructive criticism given, and taken, in the best way possible. How refreshing - and enjoyable! Long may it continue.

 

Stewart

[Lecorbusier]

One question for the wagon experts about the difference between GM wagons and minerals. Is it the case that 5 plank wagons were always GM? If so, I’m sure I’ve seen photos of 5 planks wagons in long mineral trains (e.g. p140 or p181 of the Book of the Great Northern part one). Would they have been co-opted into the mineral fleet, or is it in practice a mixed train? Sorry for my ignorance!

 

Andy

Not a wagon expert .... but the midland certainly regularly used the D299 5 plank for coal.