[Adrian Swain]

Hi Rob It's that annoying b----r agin ! GE wagons right up to 1923 did indeed use the toothed rack for "Pinning down" the brakes, very much like the GWR but unlike the latter, in later years the rack was not normally protected by an external metal strip to prevent the lever flying outward. Instead the lever had a wire "Staple" attached which ran behind the rack. I can't find the LWB 2 plank in Tatlow at all but assuming it is a GE wagon?? the toothed rack might well have been visible.
....The merchandise open, shown immediately before, may well also have had the rack similarly exposed even though in the LNER period livery some wagons did have a retrofit?? and had the two part '23 RCH Pin guide. It would have been nearly 30 years old at grouping, even if built at the end of wood solebar production ( 1895 ) These wagons would mostly have been scrapped in GE livery and only the best and youngest would have had N E livery at an overhaul in the early '20s. It is not clear if these were all built with protected toothed racks as Tatlow has no photos but the steel chassis variant which would have been concurrent with the last wood solebar variants did have unprotected racks but maybe only later.
....What is stated in Tatlow does NOT make sense as he describes the protected version as being attached to the "W" iron keeper but only the exposed rack version can be fitted that way. His own photos clearly illustrate that, so I think it should probably read that the 1901 version was unprotected and attached to the "W" iron keeper whilst earlier lever guides were protected and looked very much like the GWR version. These had the rack twisted at the bottom and bent back outside the rack up to the solebar. If the 1901 version was standard it was certainly not fitted to all later built wagons as photos show. Perhaps some knowledgeable GE enthusiast can clarify this rather puzzling situation.

 

[Rob Pulham]

Hi Adrian,

I am glad to see you are posting again. Are you feeling better?

Regarding the GE wagon's the long two plank is a Ragstone kit and the open a Powsides kit. The latter was recommended to me by Adrian Mark's who seems to be acknowledged as very knowledgeable on matters GE. He thought it a good representation of the prototype. I am pretty sure that I have seen a photo of the the open in LNER livery bt I can't put my hand to it at the minute

The Ragstone kit is a wool wagon and I know that they never made it into LNER livery. They did last quite a long time in the grouping period but they were departmental stock and retained the faded GE livery as far as I have been able to ascertain - I didn't know to check whether the brake lever guard would have a strap over or be exposed.

Thanks again for the input, it keeps me alert.

PS I knocked up the other Jubilee Open as a single sided brake version as you suggested but I haven't taken any photos of it yet.

 

[Rob Pulham]

The Southern Brake van that featured a page back has finally made it to the finish line

I am delighted with the fact that it sold within 10 minutes or so of hitting the small adds.

 

[Rob Pulham]

Since Telford I have been building some Slaters Wagons for a chap that is suffering from Motor Neurone disease but is endeavouring to make one last layout. They are finally complete and although I have enjoyed the building of them I am glad that they are finished and will be delivered to their owner next weekend at Bristol Show.

They are to be used on a Layout called Hobson's Brewery, hence the faint 'ALE' branding on the cattle wagons.

Here are the official portraits of each van.

Sadly Paul Barlett informs me that running number B68501 belongs to a steel mineral....but I am sure that I took the numbers from the ranges supplied in the Slaters instructions - all things BR not being my strong point.

 

[Rob Pulham]

Another session last night saw the GC open is almost finished, it just needs retaining chains for the side doors on the other side and the buffers fitting properly - just posed here for the photos.

The inside is nicely detailed albeit the bottom doors are for the version without the trestle bar so mine will be tarped when finished so they won't be visible.

I will definitely be adding more of these to a shopping list in the future.

 

[Rob Pulham]

The eagle eyed amongst you will also note that I have attacked the rather square profile of the coupling hook with some diamond coated burrs that fit my Dremel

In true Blue Peter fashion - Before:

After:

It looks more like a proper coupling hook now

 

[Adrian Swain]

Hi Rob, OOPS !! You've done it again Rob, on both the BR vans. Adrian

 

[Adrian Swain]

Hi Folks Minerva have just released pictures of their new GWR open wagon which they claim is to Diagram O4. Sadly nothing could be farther from the truth and as a follow up to the seriously inaccurate Iron Mink it shows an even greater lack of accuracy, difficult though that might seem to be. The first comment " Elsewhere" asks what type of buffers the model has, a very pertinent question to which the answer is emphatically "the wrong type" Indeed this answer applies to other parts such as the brakeshoes. the axleguard springs the brakegear type, the pushrod safety loops, the W irons, the door stops and banger plates, the axlebox design and the body Knees.

My initial reaction was even more worrying as the body proportions did not look quite right. By scaling off the photo of the model and comparing with the prototype it would appear that the body is too high, indeed matches the later wagons such as Dia O11 which have wider top planks than an 04. At the moment it is not possible to check if the wagon is the wrong width as the pictures do not show an end on view. Even the spacing of the corner plate bolts leaves much to be desired, probably due to the fact that each plank is wider than it should be.

All in all a total disaster on a par with the equally awful original Dapol O gauge wagons and a total waste of very expensive tooling investment. A further strange detail is that the photo of the interior of the model show diagonals on the inside of the planking, something which the GWR did not do if there were diagonal braces on the outside. Very curious

 

[Adrian Swain]

Hi Folks It now appears that Minerva are trying to convince us that the model will not be a Diagram 04 but instead a GWR Dia. 011. An interesting change of choice especially as the sample EP is no more a Dia 011 than it was a Dia. 04. I would describe what they have shown as "Total Rubbish" but at the moment it appears that models with this level of accuracy seem to be quite acceptable to the current majority of the modelling public. The design is very reminiscent of those by the late, apparently no longer lamented, Dave Jones.
Having printed off the original CAD to a large scale and done checks on most of the details I find it almost impossible to find a single detail that is correct either in design, dimension, detail or definition and what is more, the EP does not match the CAD and shows even more mistakes have been made. I do speak with some authority having designed Dia 011 kits in 3mm. 4mm and 7mm scales many decades ago and had Minerva taken the trouble to obtain and copy an example of my 7mm version, most of their problems would have disappeared.

 

[Julian2011]

QUOTE (Adrian Swain @ 13 Jun 2019, 11:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Folks It now appears that Minerva are trying to convince us that the model will not be a Diagram 04 but instead a GWR Dia. 011. An interesting change of choice especially as the sample EP is no more a Dia 011 than it was a Dia. 04. I would describe what they have shown as "Total Rubbish" but at the moment it appears that models with this level of accuracy seem to be quite acceptable to the current majority of the modelling public. The design is very reminiscent of those by the late, apparently no longer lamented, Dave Jones.
Having printed off the original CAD to a large scale and done checks on most of the details I find it almost impossible to find a single detail that is correct either in design, dimension, detail or definition and what is more, the EP does not match the CAD and shows even more mistakes have been made. I do speak with some authority having designed Dia 011 kits in 3mm. 4mm and 7mm scales many decades ago and had Minerva taken the trouble to obtain and copy an example of my 7mm version, most of their problems would have disappeared.

The last comment is a genuinely interesting idea, having never been a fan of "reinventing the cartwheel" and letting them have a good start, on the design, would seem to everyone's advantage. Out of interest, would they have been aware of your previous work on the Dia. 011? It makes me wonder if it may be possible to develop a contact system with specific, receptive, manufacturers, such that they might pop a question about a specific model they might be planning. It would have to be confidential, on both sides, until the project was announced, but might bring in a few pennies for people's designs, paid out of savings in planning/design time for the manufacturer. Perhaps I'm missing a snag, although I am already well aware of human nature being what it is and the mighty effect of the "not invented here" syndrome, which is prevelant arround the world. I have seen many really good ideas lost on the back of that one.

Regards

Julian

 

[Adrian Swain]

Hi Folks Julian 2011 would be right if it were not for the fact that most manufacturers get too far down the road before the public are aware of what they are doing for any corrections to be made. Even when this is not the case, the point blank refusal by most to listen to comments, even when presented with the most damning evidence, indicates that they do not appreciate any offers of outside help even when freely given. Sadly I have encountered this with DJ Models, Dapol, FTG models, Oxford Rail, Rapido/Rails, Kernow and Minerva although Hornby and Hattons have been more receptive. Other experts have found much the same and the old saying "one can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" seems prevalent. When I have supplied much requested information it has been ignored to the detriment of a certain model which resulted in major errors never being altered.
I have found this incredibly frustrating, especially when I know what needs correcting could be done quite cheaply. What is worse, many of the models where I have tried to assist have been ones I particularly wanted personally but have turned out to be so poor, I was not even prepared to buy them and do upgrades. Once poor models have been produced there is little likelihood of better versions being made for at least a generation so it is just a matter of keeping one's fingers crossed that something else of good quality will be made to fill the gap.

 

[Julian2011]

QUOTE (Adrian Swain @ 13 Jun 2019, 20:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Folks Julian 2011 would be right if it were not for the fact that most manufacturers get too far down the road before the public are aware of what they are doing for any corrections to be made. Even when this is not the case, the point blank refusal by most to listen to comments, even when presented with the most damning evidence, indicates that they do not appreciate any offers of outside help even when freely given. Sadly I have encountered this with DJ Models, Dapol, FTG models, Oxford Rail, Rapido/Rails, Kernow and Minerva although Hornby and Hattons have been more receptive. Other experts have found much the same and the old saying "one can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" seems prevalent. When I have supplied much requested information it has been ignored to the detriment of a certain model which resulted in major errors never being altered.
I have found this incredibly frustrating, especially when I know what needs correcting could be done quite cheaply. What is worse, many of the models where I have tried to assist have been ones I particularly wanted personally but have turned out to be so poor, I was not even prepared to buy them and do upgrades. Once poor models have been produced there is little likelihood of better versions being made for at least a generation so it is just a matter of keeping one's fingers crossed that something else of good quality will be made to fill the gap.



Absolutely yes, indeed, I can and have seen all the above, hence my comment, - and the frustration that results - to no benefit for anyone. I think Adrian's first comment is very relevant and to the point. The frustration for people who have information, which is then bypassed, must be hard to handle. It is precisely that to which my observation would tend [tend!] to mitigate, for those with the motivation to obtain mutual benefits.

Adrian, rightly, says that "most manufacturers get too far down the road before the public are aware... for any corrections to be made". That circumstance must be of immense frustration to both of those involved and resultant defensive stances.

The suggestion was that earlier, confidential, consultation, far prior to making the public aware, with, previously, identified and trusted designers early in the planning process, like Adrian, might result in the benefits to all concerned, to which I alluded. The trick, it would seem, is to get both sets of players to team up at the same end of the pitch, so all may benefit. I am not certain quite what might trigger co-operation to replace confrontation, but maybe, offers of advice from skilled model designers, like Adrian, accompanied by examples of successful projects, to selected manufacturers, might arouse interest for some mutual collaboration.

Yes, I am still mindful of the "not invented here" syndrome... and it may take a considerable number of rebuttals before a manufacturer sees the mutual financial benefits. Those that do, might share the benefits that both possess. I'm not going to rabbit on any further.. nor am I holding my breath.

Regards

J

 

[Graham Plowman]

QUOTE (Rob Pulham @ 17 Jan 2019, 05:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Since Telford I have been building some Slaters Wagons for a chap...

Just seeing your pictures of your cattle vans prompts me to ask a question about a small project I am planning on undertaking.

I am contemplating building "Ashburton" to scale in 7mm.

Ashburton was often populated by large numbers of cattle vans.
I note that Slaters make a kit for a GWR cattle van, but would that van be appropriate for the late 1950's and early 1960's period if painted in BR bauxite ?

Alternatively, does anyone make kit of the BR cattle van like the one Dapol makes in 00 ? (I'm actually surprised that Dapol doesn't make 7mm versions of all its 4mm wagon kits!)
I see that Skytrex made an RTR version, but that doesn't seem to be available any more.

Thanks

 

[Adrian Swain]

Hi Folks Graham Plowman's request for info on cattle wagons likely to be seen on the Ashburton branch was of some interest to me as I have a layout in 4mm built by Martin Finney and slightly rebuilt by myself of the same station. Mine is based around 1940 but there are books which deal, in part, with the branch with photos but cattle trains are not featured in the one I have just looked at. I reduced the cattle dock and moved it to a race horse loading dock a la Lambourn branch. I have seen photos of such traffic but can't now source them.
…. However in various studies of cattle traffic Steve Banks and I have come to the conclusion that the most common wagon seen in such trains is the LMS type as produced by Slaters. The GWR version, also made by them, may also have appeared on the branch although rather elderly by then and more likely to have been the later high roof GWR/BR design. LNER and SR designs by Parkside/Peco would be less likely especially the LNER designs. The serious drawback with the LMS truck kit is that it is unfitted and by them they would almost certainly be the Vac. fitted variant as would the Slaters kit for the GWR van which does give this option. The Fitted LMS underframe is very different and there are also various minor body styles made over the decades. This is all rather disappointing for Graham unless he is prepared to do quite a lot of surgery to the kits. In 4mm the situation is little better as I discovered so I have reduced the cattle traffic and renamed the station Ashbury which is a village just north of Lambourn, but never had a railway, giving me quite a lot of Rule 1 licence.

 

[Graham Plowman]

Adrian,

My understanding is that the was a large cattle market nearby to Ashburton station. Photos show that there was very significant cattle wagon activity in the area at market times and while the markets were inactive, the cattle wagons seem to have been stored at Buckfastleigh. I'm not sure how the cattle got to/from the station.

I haven't yet been able to determine whether the cattle movement was inbound via the railway to the market or outbound via the railway (or even both), but I'm sure someone here will be able to advise. The cattle dock at Ashburton seems to have been no larger than two wagons in length, so it doesn't appear to me to be sufficient for a large inbound and outbound movement of cattle.

With regards the cattle wagons themselves, photos seem to show quite a variety. Midland versions certainly were in numbers as were BR versions. While not in the same numbers, the GWR (pre-BR) version seems to have been relatively well represented, so I'm thinking that as modellers, we probably wouldn't be far wrong with a mixture of all three!

 

[Graham Plowman]

QUOTE (Julian2011 @ 14 Jun 2019, 07:19) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Absolutely yes, indeed, I can and have seen all the above, hence my comment, - and the frustration that results - to no benefit for anyone. I think Adrian's first comment is very relevant and to the point. The frustration for people who have information, which is then bypassed, must be hard to handle. It is precisely that to which my observation would tend [tend!] to mitigate, for those with the motivation to obtain mutual benefits.

Adrian, rightly, says that "most manufacturers get too far down the road before the public are aware... for any corrections to be made". That circumstance must be of immense frustration to both of those involved and resultant defensive stances.

The suggestion was that earlier, confidential, consultation, far prior to making the public aware, with, previously, identified and trusted designers early in the planning process, like Adrian, might result in the benefits to all concerned, to which I alluded. The trick, it would seem, is to get both sets of players to team up at the same end of the pitch, so all may benefit. I am not certain quite what might trigger co-operation to replace confrontation, but maybe, offers of advice from skilled model designers, like Adrian, accompanied by examples of successful projects, to selected manufacturers, might arouse interest for some mutual collaboration.

Yes, I am still mindful of the "not invented here" syndrome... and it may take a considerable number of rebuttals before a manufacturer sees the mutual financial benefits. Those that do, might share the benefits that both possess. I'm not going to rabbit on any further.. nor am I holding my breath.

Regards

J

I too am very well aware of this.

My father has for several decades, been trying to encourage Peco to correct the geometry of their turnouts and produce track that actually looks like British track. On numerous occasions, he has provided them with diagrams and explanations to help them.

My father had been a professional permanent way design engineer for well over 35 years before he retired. His engineering credits include many well known locations in the UK as well as several overseas.

Unfortunately, in our hobby, we are afflicted by a small number of 'know-it-alls' who have no professional training or qualifications in the space (although some are 'armchair book-read experts') and have even less practical experience. Professional people who are passionate about their hobby do offer free advice to manufacturers, yet somehow, the 'noisy experts' get listened to and we end up with the sub-standard results we see.

Quite often, I observe 'know-it-alls' who were little more than cleaners (no disrespect to cleaners), yet because they had an 'association' with railways, they are somehow experts on the subject and are put on pedestals and given voice to shout down the people who really know.

A classic example of 'expert by association' was an article written in a well known club magazine about signalling a few years ago. The author was explaining how MAS worked and then proceeded to demonstrate how it should be implemented on a model layout. It was immediately obvious to me that the author's knowledge of signalling was limited because the key concept of 'overlaps' was noticeably missing from his article and demo layout. But Oh! This guy knew all about signalling so we were told. Turns out that he worked in a workshop assembling and testing real MAS components. Which probably explained why his knowledge of the components came out in the article, yet the signalling engineering discipline didn't!

It is akin to people assuming that because someone is a hospital orderly (no disrespect to orderlies), that they are experts in brain surgery, which of course, they are not.

When someone omits to mention foundation topics, it is a dead giveaway as to whether they know what they are talking about.

We also need to be aware that in the manufacturing space, there are many commercial considerations and interests involved.

Apologies for the ramble, now to go back on topic.