Oxfordrail LNER Cattle wagon

[adrianbs]

Hi All One contributor on another forum seems to have completely misunderstood the level of inaccuracy in believing all that needs altering is the "lashing rings ?" along the top of the sides. He assumes these are the partition locators but these have been totally omitted by OR. Although there may be exceptions to the rule when it comes to livery, and there often are, it is usually wise to choose the version which is in the overwhelming majority. If it obeyed the standard in force at the time the BR livery style chosen by OR needs to be almost completely altered only leaving the tare weight in place. If OR have actually found photographic evidence of an example in BR livery with a 9'wb vacuum braked underframe it would be very helpful to see this. The running number would still be wrong of course and it is unlikely XP would appear. No pictures of LNER cattles that I have seen have LARGE in BR days but some BIG 4 wagons do, so it is possible.

Hattons have now taken their own pictures and these have shown that both vacuum pipes are the same hand and therefore one will need removing and hopefully can be bent the other way and refitted so that both point away from the side which should have the (Missing) vacuum cylinder. Whilst this model may have some potential for upgrading, especially with it's low price, I do not feel that it offers value for money as an accurate RTR model if it has to be reduced back to near kit form, new parts sourced and then partially repainted and almost fully re-lettered. I have no doubt CCTrans might consider a set of lettering and numbering if evidence were to be forthcoming that there were wagons like this in BR days but until such proof appears I think it would not be a wise investment of his time. Conversion to 10'wb might be practical but would also involve the addition of the reinforcement brackets at the ends of the diagonal bracing.

[adrianbs]

Hi All It is a great pity OR's researches were so cursory as they might, had they asked the right people, have decided to do the earlier design LNER cattle wagon which, whilst not exactly the same, is derived directly from the GNR design of about 1914. It is known that at least one of the LNER Diagram 26 wagons lasted until about 1955 as a 9'wb fitted vehicle in BR livery. The photo in Tatlow 4B of E 135713 is proof of this. It also means that since one of these early cattles lasted into BR days with only 9'wb there is no reason why one of the later versions could not have lasted to a similar date.

A few mods to an accurate RTR model of this would produce a reasonably accurate GNR vehicle and a certain W/M range even contains exactly the right GNR buffers. Perhaps we might see Parkside supplementing their existing kit with one of these useful wagons which appeared both fitted and unfitted and add a bit more variety to livestock traffic trains. As has been suggested elsewhere one might well expect to see Oxfordrail applying numerous non authentic liveries to this model, indeed they appear to have already done so on this very first issue !!

[60117 Bois Roussel]

Hmm, I have followed this debate with a kind of detached curiosity. The basic point is that accuracy on a 1/76 scale model of a historical prototype falls into two categories - simplify by omission; or get it right. A confusing factor can be a desire to make a scale model more profitable by cutting corners.

Secondly, accuracy of kits and RTR models is at an all time high; purchasers have a reasonable expectation that what they buy is accurate; and in this case not only is there a lot of information that is easily accessed, there is also a plastic kit from Parkside, which seems to have dropped out of the analysis. Personal confession: I wrote it up and how to produce the 9ft and 10ft variants with manual and AVB brakes (MRJ No 87, 1996, 10 pages, 23 model and prototype illustrations).

The upshot is that there were MANY variations and that was the actual scene on the railway. A train with all-the-same version was rare. And that's what a RTR model offers, warts and all.

There also comes a point, that's been made obliquely, that when clearly visible errors need correcting, it may be easier to start with the kit. What’s so hard about building a kit anyway, especially one that is pretty good and is so well covered in articles and books?

My final observation is that I have dealt with RTR manufacturers who sought out and debated the subject very well, but I also know of a case where historical feedback was requested and then ignored. I also have personal experience of modern kits stuffed with errors. In short, some manufacturers are more diligent than others, and reviewers are as entitled to critique them as any product sold to the public.

In this case it’s evident that not only was OR not diligent in its research - or deliberately cut corners - it chose the wrong type. The 10ft AVB version became the dominant one in both LNER and BR periods. It's at times like this that people who take the trouble to write up subjects and guide people want to pull their hair out!

[60117 Bois Roussel]

PS - I have just posted some pictures of LNER cattle trucks via the Parkside kit on my w/s, including the version covered by OR for comparison.

[mick b]

This shows what can be done by other makers.


http://www.hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-en ... nd-cattle/

Shame SR and LMS versions.

[60117 Bois Roussel]

Well said, Mick.

I have added three prototype pictures to the topic on my w/s showing the problem with the 9ft wheelbase and why the LNER rebuilt such trucks on the more sturdy, 10ft wb. [I've forgotten and can't work how to add pictures here]! And some service notes about the balance of types in LNER and BR days.

[jwealleans]

Steve's article can be read here.

[strang steel]

Well, I have purchased 2 of the BR version because I like a bit of wagon variation in my trains, and I can ignore the minor faults because that is the kind of crazy 'live life on the edge' person I am

[adrianbs]

Hi All Some very amusing points have arisen in "another place" following close-up pictures of the underframe. It is now clear what one possible reason for the omission of the vacuum brake cylinder might be. The tooling has the makers nameplate where it should be fitted and the cylinder would obscure this so would be a no-no. Having removed metal on that side instead of the other would mean additional cost in rectification, also a no-no.

The pictures also very clearly illustrate the shape of the brake lever which does not have most of the distinctive bends of the prototype and has resulted in the end attached to the vee being way to far out, It should be hard up against the vee, Whilst it may be moveable I would rather prefer it to look correct.

The "Effluent drain pipe" is nothing of the sort but is a very poor, incorrectly oriented Steam heat pipe with which all these fitted cattles were equipped so that they could be marshalled at the front of a train when loaded, Quite a lot of extra detail has been incorporated in the chassis and had the various other errors not been committed the model would actually have been more than acceptable. Those prepared to do some plastic surgery, repainting, adding mssing details and a full re-lettering may eventually be pleased with the result. Those who could never build a kit would probably find this a bridge to far and will have to accept the various faults.

[adrianbs]

Hi All Another little message to be transferred to those on that "Other forum" is that clearly the designers at Oxford rail are not very competent at reading engineering drawings. Having myself produced underframe kits for LNER wagons in both 3, 4 and 7mm scales with the typical "3 Vee" vacuum brakegear I do have just a smattering of experience and one of the more obvious errors on the OR chassis which has caused problems with the brake lever is that the OUTER FACES of the VEE HANGERS and the W IRONS should be in the same plane. Pretty obvious really when you realise they are all bolted directly to the inside face of the solebar. Before any wise guy says that the W irons are actually joggled inwards just below the bottom of the solebar I would point out that the vee hangesr are also joggled by the same amount. Somehow OR have moulded the Vees much further inboard for I know not what reason. That and the inaccurate shape of the brakelever has necessitated the huge gap between lever and vee. It is not going to be that easy to rectify this problem although cutting out the Vees and removing the excess plastic might be possible. The Vees may be separate mouldings in which case there may be an easier solution. A change to 10' wheelbase might be possible by literally cutting the inner moulding in half and removing 2mm at each end although the relevant fixings on the solebars will all need re-positioning and the coupling pockets may need moving if tension locks are used. If the vee hangers are separate mouldings OR might have thought ahead far enough to realise that a set of Morton 2 shoe unfitted brake parts could be substituted although there does not seem to be provision for plug-in central vee hangers on one side. Most cattle wagons, probably including all the new-build 10'wb variant would have been fitted with the standard LNER cast steel or pressed front axlebox in later years which would present a further difficulty.

[60117 Bois Roussel]

Well said, Adrian. This supposedly scale model is turning out to be "not as described", a pillar of the Sale of Goods Act. The idea crosses my mind of producing a replacement 9ft AVB underframe that is accurate; a 9ft manually braked one; and even a 10ft AVB one although for that the body was slightly different with strengthening plates on the diagonal timbers.

Meanwhile, re the truck's use in BR days, I have examined prints of 11 trains between 1949-60 with a magnifying glass and a total of over 75 cattle trucks in which only three LNER cattle trucks show, of which I think two are 10ft WB and only one is 9ft (ie. about 1% of the whole). It's common to quote a final withdrawal date of a vehicle and argue that the type remained in service until then but this suffers from the fact that the type may have dwindled to near extinction, only to be found semi-abandoned and out of use. Analysis of train photographs can be more helpful and these 11 pictures show only a 1% appearance in this period. I've added this picture to my article on the w/s. http://www.steve-banks.org/modelling/25 ... ttle-truck

[1H was 2E]

I'm not sure whether I've understood the questions about the prototype wagon correctly, but if there's doubt that wagons were vacuum fitted retaining the original 9' wb wooden underframe, I have a photo.
On 14/9/57 well-known Northampton photographer Les Hanson captured a cross Northampton trip and at its head was an empty cattle truck probably returning from Bridge St cattle pens possibly to Holyhead (from where a lot of Irish cattle traffic for Northampton was loaded).
It is an ex LNER wagon (number might be E1x5076) but unfortunately the rhs of the wagon was not included on the print I have, so whether it was marked XP was not recorded (there were photographed examples of GWR 9'0" wb fitted vans so marked, in error).
I hope I can be forgiven for the attached, which is from a small part of the photo at low res., in the hope it's of interest.
Edited - forgot to include photographer's name

[60117 Bois Roussel]

There's no doubt that these wagons were built on the 9ft WB with AVB and it's been written up in some detail (see my w/s, for example, and reference to a 10-page article). The deeper question is how many survived into BR days, for reasons that I have also raised on my w/s (see address below).

It looks to me that the photograph you have attached doesn't show the 9ft version but the far more numerous - and longer-lived - 10ft version. To my eye it has the wider wheel spacing and the diagonals braced at both ends, fitting of the later, LNER axlebox, and disc wheels also tally.

[1H was 2E]

Thank you for the amplification and correction. I inferred from the distance beyond the axleguard to the bufferbeam (which seemed comparatively long) that the wagon must be short wheelbase, but the perspective effect misled me. As an aside (triggered by the thought of a wood-framed wagon on the back, or indeed front, of a passenger train) it puzzles me that, while the LMS and LNER had broadly similar wagon outlines (think of the sliding door van, for instance) the LNER remained loyal to wood frames long after the LMS had turned to steel.

[jwealleans]

I'll stand to be corrected but I believe that's to an extent due to the fact that in 1923 the LNER inherited an almost new facility at Shildon (I believe) which was equipped to produce wooden underframes.