7mm Wagons For Westerfield

[Dog Star]

Looking at the photo above I guess that the half-etch holes are in the areas which represent a part of the corner knees between headstock / solebar and in the areas where the stanchions turn under the body to join the solebar... in which case I exepct that those half-etch holes are meant to form the rivets which attach the knees / stanchions to the prototype solebar.

 

[SteveO]

You're correct, Graham. When I looked, after I'd noticed, they lined up with the full height etch - which equates to the where I'd imagine chassis frame bracing and fixing points to be. If it's very noticeable I can make something up but I'm tempted to leave it as it is and learn from it. After all, it's going to be very dark in there.

 

[Dog Star]

You can always buy one more of the kits to make with all of the improvements which come to mind on the first three... which takes nothing away from what you have achieved so far.

regards, Graham

 

[SteveO]

Thanks, but I fear the relationship between myself and Lochgorm will be over after these three, unless I can find some cast corrugated ends so I can make a different prototype.

Next in line will probably be Haywood's vans.

 

[Rob Pulham]

Steve, I have built quite a few different van from various origins and I although I haven't built any Haywood's (I have a couple of their LMS suburban coaches on stock) I can thoroughly recommend Connoisseur's kit's. They are the best I have built for ease of getting them together squarely etc. Jim very much designs them for build-ability and although some of them can be improved in terms of the details they do for a good solid basis to get achievable results

 

[SteveO]

Rob, I agree, from what I've heard and read they sound great. I have one of his brake vans but I don't feel I'm up for that yet.

I bought these mainly to see if I'd actually be able to build metal kits. I'd never soldered before this and they were the cheapest vans I could find.

I was going to get a couple of his kits at Reading but I never managed to find a gap in the crowd gathered around his stand. Hopefully I'll get some at Bristol.

 

[Dog Star]

Steve, if you were to run a WT-poll on the buildability of Jim's kits then my guess is that the result would be either four stars or maybe eleven out of ten. Get to Bristol early or telephone Jim to reserve a handful of goodies....

regards, Graham

 

[hrmspaul]

I still haven't found any pictures of a 'Cov B' but on Paul's Bartlett's site I did find an LNER Diagram 170 van, which looks identical to me. I'm wondering if the 'Cov B' had provision for through steam piping but otherwise was a Dia 170 van?

I don't know where the "COV B" brand comes from. I cannot see it mentioned in:
Tatlow, Peter (2012) LNER Wagons, Volume 4A, LNER Standard Designs. Wild Swan, 158 pages . ISBN 978-1-905184 95 8.
You haven't mentioned what brake rigging the kit comes with, or you are intending to fit. However, if it is diag 170 then it is unfitted. There are no photographs of these in Tatlow, (there are three of the vacuum braked version of the same body style diag 161 - and of course it is a few of these which were provided with steam heating pipes for carrying loco materials).
There are two photos of diag 170 - as LMS diag 2079 in:
Essery, R, J, (1996) Official drawings of LMS wagons No. 1. Wild Swan Publications Ltd 72 Pages. ISBN 1 874103 30 5.
Plate 104 is in original condition - with a Morton brake (ie brakes on one side only but brake lever and single V hangers each side and cross linking bar. The other, Plate 105 is a after that brake rigging has been converted to Vacuum brake by BR - so totally different to the LNER brake rigging of 161).

There may well have been different arrangements of "rivets" to be punched out as each of the three different riggings would require different fixings.

This is a diag 161 in reasonably original condition http://bit.ly/SRT83n (although the upright vac pipe appears to have been replaced by a down pipe - one of the photos in Tatlow shows the same alteration by BR). This diag 161 one is out of use http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/lnercoveredmerchandise/e29f412c0 being used by the Engineers.

I hope of use; like you I cannot find a photo of diag 170.

Paul Bartlett

 

[SteveO]

Paul, thanks for the info, all very interesting.

This particular kit can produce either a 'Cov B' or an LMS 2079 - only the brake rigging differs between the two apparently. So that would suggest this is a Diag 170.

However, the kit is supplied with vacuum braking for the LNER version of the underframe, and also provision for through steam piping, which suggests it is a Diag 161!

I'm confused!

 

[hrmspaul]

Paul, thanks for the info, all very interesting.

This particular kit can produce either a 'Cov B' or an LMS 2079 - only the brake rigging differs between the two apparently. So that would suggest this is a Diag 170.

However, the kit is supplied with vacuum braking for the LNER version of the underframe, and also provision for through steam piping, which suggests it is a Diag 161!

I'm confused!

No your not, the manufacturer's were As you say, it is a diag 161 if it has the full LNER clasp rigging.

From the photos of the bodies it appears that both fitted and unfitted can be made, as both offset Vs and central Vs are supplied.

As to the designation COV B, there is no sign of this coding in either of Peter T's books - 12ton unfit were COVAN, and those with pipes/VB COFIT.

Paul Bartlett

 

[SteveO]

I suppose it's not so bad that I have a choice I guess. Do you know whether they were designed for different tasks or the difference only being fitted and unfitted? I was planning these as part of my express freight so I guess the fitted option will suit better.

 

[hrmspaul]

I suppose it's not so bad that I have a choice I guess. Do you know whether they were designed for different tasks or the difference only being fitted and unfitted? I was planning these as part of my express freight so I guess the fitted option will suit better.

You need the fitted version for the Express freight. They both carry merchandise, but in the 1940s most freight trains trundled around very slowly and didn't need continous brake.

Paul Bartlett

 

[SteveO]

Filing - often a chore in office jobs but I found tinkering and nibbling away at my vans quite therapeutic over the very little time I managed to salvage over the Christmas break.

During this time I've filed the stanchion-tops to match the profile of the roof arc while not managing to detach anything, which has done wonders for my soldering ego. While I had the file out, I trimmed the solebars to fit between the buffer beams - all of them were too long by around half a mil. I've also test-fitted the shunting handles and all is well. All that remains is to solder everything together. I've got half an eye on doing it tonight - Mrs O permitting - but may have to wait a few days for an Access All Areas pass.

I've bought a few books on the line recently which has helped a great deal in knowing what type of rolling stock to concentrate on for future builds. In one (I don't immediately recall which) there is a photo of a mass of sidings used for the fruit picking season somewhere in Suffolk which travelled on the ESL to Ipswich and London. Once this goods train is finished I will have a go at building a 10-12 wagon fruit train.

 

[7mmMick]

Hi Steve,

As always I'm enjoying progress here. I smiled to myself reading your last post as some of it rings true with me; with the access all areas pass. I too have had very little modelling time over Christmas and am as we speak working on the wife for a pass tonight to do a bit! I will watch progress with the fruit train as your research and kit sourcing will help as I also have to put a similar train together. In my chosen period banana's ( and I'm sure other fruit ) would have been imported through Hull frequently and I know little about the stock used to covey such merchandise,

ATB Mick

 

[SteveO]

Thanks Mick. Regarding the pass, I think it's on! Mrs O has brought home some work which will keep her occupied for a couple hours at least - enough time for the handles I reckon.

Anything I find out on fruit trains I'll certainly pass on. I'm pretty sure I've seen a restored banana van at the Bluebell but I'm not sure what era it is or which design. I'll look it up later tonight. I bought a part-built Haywood LNER Banana Van from ebay a few months ago but this seems to be a moden variety as I can't see provision for steam heating. Mind you, it is only part-built so maybe the original owner hadn't got that far. When I looked into it, I remember reading that later vans were more heavily insulated, plus the bananas were of a more hardy and quicker-ripening variety so didn't need to be heated on-route.

 

[SteveO]

I was going to post these last night but after the shock news I thought I'd leave it. I'm still shocked, to be honest. I'd only met him recently at Reading and he seemed to be a thoroughly honest and generous man.

Being a family man myself, it brings to the fore the fragile thread we walk upon, even when going about our mundane daily duties, and what devastation we would leave behind should the worst happen.

Rest in peace Cynric.

 

[SteveO]

I've not long been back long from shopping for the littleman's birthday present (from Southampton Ikea - a 122 mile round trip, made worse by a detour due an accident) and was up in the loft hiding it away when I had another look at my wagons. I'm not expert but I'm sure the solebars are meant to be level with the bottom of the buffer beams. Am I right? All of my solebars protrude lower than the buffer beams.

If I'm correct, I could either desolder them and file away the excess or for speed I could file away the protruding part of the solarbar. Any help or advice gratefully received, as always.

 

[7mmMick]

It does sound a bit strange Steve, I've never heard of this but without studying the prototype I couldn't say whether its correct. Of indeed they should meet at the bottom as suspected I would remove them completely and remove the material from the top and then re fit once an inline fit is achieved. Clear as mud I bet ha ha,

ATB Mick

Edit: sorry Steve but looking at the above link to Paul's picture it seems they should be in line, my advice would be as above

 

[hrmspaul]

Both are usually (not invariably, but it is so in this case) made of the same channel. The solebar channel is shaped to fit into the solebar channel. illustrated here http://bit.ly/V1qvUk This is well illustrated by Parkside kits.

Paul Bartlett

 

[Buckjumper]

Looking back at the 4mm thread on RMW I'd say the kit designer has boobed, though no one's mentioned it, and from this photo you can see the solebars protrude below the headstock. IIRC the solebar should be 9" deep (can Paul confirm?) so a quick measure and you'd soon know if the solebar is too deep or the headstock not deep enough and adjust accordingly.

Bit of a faff either way though for what should be a straightforward build