We're getting off-topic here and the moderator may tell us off... but the point about Shildon (and Doncaster carriage works) is pertinent, and the LNER was a poorer company. It also saved money by keeping ageing stock in service for longer. It's hard to tell why the 9ft WB was retained for the cattle trucks for so long when its own pre-Grouping companies had already settled for longer (10' and 10'6") and, in this case, a big loss in service life was only offset by conversion to flat trucks. From the same period, the D.120 Passenger Brake Van with shelves also had a short wheelbase, unlike the amply proven ex-SECR "utility" design which the SR and BR multiplied, but at least that chassis was steel. You have to try and assess the thinking at the time and my feeling is that, as we have seen in loco design, and in other walks of life, conservative die-hards do exist. Gresley was bold and visionary in many areas, but a great deal rested on his design team, ie. the draughtsmen, and by the nature of the job, they tended to be more followers than leaders.
It's worth adding that while the LNER horse box was used as a basis for a new design in 1954, when it came to cattle trucks, the GWR one was chosen. Indeed, BR sanctioned construction in 1949-50 of cattle truck designs per the former LMS, GWR and SR companies, but not LNER. It's another reason why the LNER designs disappeared so quickly post-WWII while the others proliferated. Er, can we get back on topic now?
jwealleans wrote: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.
I think that's the first explanation I've ever seen proffered about that.
60117 Bois Roussel wrote:
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.
I am inclined to the view that it is a 10ft w/b version too.
jwealleans wrote: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.
Peter Tatlow mentions this investment in wooden underframes in his original LNER Wagons book.
John
Last edited by JASd17 on Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Interesting thread, not least because of the wealth of data.
As for the wooden underframes, I always understood that one of the other reasons that the LNER stuck to wood for so long was that it did
not have its own steel making plant, whereas Crewe did. So it would still have been much more expensive to use steel.
With all the data produced, herein, does anyone have any details of the various opening mechanisms for doors on GNR Stock?
Nice to view them in photos, but rather like the mention of V hangers it is nice to see some measured details.
jwealleans wrote: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.
Wasn't it Faverdale?
(On the NW side of Darlington)
I think I've read somewhere that wooden underframes were better at resisting the fluids resulting from loads of cattle!
The LMS Diagram 1840 also had wooden underframes (although perhaps flitched?). These had an 11' wheelbase however.
Could it be that metalurgy moved on so that later vehicles could utilise steel solebars?
So just to clarify - as a model of an LNER cattle wagon, it's the shorter 9ft wheelbase which probably isn't suitable post war (for modellers like me 1946-49), it looks reasonably like the prototype but there's a number of missing details and one specific big dropped ball with the vacuum brake cylinder being missing.
If we were looking to make a representative cattle train for the LNER post-war, what should we be buying?
S.A.C. Martin wrote:So just to clarify - as a model of an LNER cattle wagon, it's the shorter 9ft wheelbase which probably isn't suitable post war (for modellers like me 1946-49), it looks reasonably like the prototype but there's a number of missing details and one specific big dropped ball with the vacuum brake cylinder being missing.
If we were looking to make a representative cattle train for the LNER post-war, what should we be buying?
Bit bigger than that , It has been done with same side layout on both sides , it should have a Left end as modelled but its missing the Right End as its another Left end
S.A.C. Martin wrote:So just to clarify....... If we were looking to make a representative cattle train for the LNER post-war, what should we be buying?
Perhaps 'making' rather than 'buying'. The Parkside kit for LNER cattle wagons is discussed above, and some of our excellent modellers have illustrated what can be made of them.
Since (according to Tatlow Vol4a page 29) Cattle wagons were common user at various times from 1925 onwards, with various exceptions until 1939 when (if I am reading correctly) both fitted and unfitted became common user and presumably would have remained so until nationalisation.
There were several flows of livestock traffic from west to east across the country.
The old Mainline/Bachmann 'short' cattle wagon is based on LMS Diagram 1661/1840. I have converted one to an 11' wheelbase ( .... see here (scroll down)..., but now Parkside have produced a kit for the selfsame diagram! I have one to build, but also some more of the proprietary ones which may get converted.
I've also got plans for other livestock vehicles, but these will involve scratch building.
drmditch wrote:
Perhaps 'making' rather than 'buying'.
You may have to explain the m-word for the benefit of some...... although not nearly so many as if you were to use that word on another well known website.
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
Wow there is some info in this thread, I've learnt quite a bit, thank you Oxford rail for making all this possible keep up the poor work.
Now on to what happened to 9'-0" fitted wheel base cattle wagons, whilst looking for a lettering drawing post 1936 I came across this drawing listed at the NRM in the Doncaster C&W list.
11383N dated 03-04-1936. 10Ton Cattle wagon with timber underframe, alterations of wheel base from 9'-0" to 10'-0" on vehicles with power brake.
Looks like they were altered, could explain a lot ?, I'll leave that up to the experts.
Tatlow mentions in his last volume that an order for 400 cattle wagons in 1938 was cancelled and instead a 'small number' (21, according to his later table) were converted from 9' to 10'. What is more interesting is that some of these were unfitted, which seems very odd.
We are, very pleasingly, getting not so much into deep water as several waters. In reply to recent questions:
a) Wood versus steel resistance to animal effluent - both materials were maintained by regular flushing with water, hence the slots at floor level, but steel needs additional protection and this was done by painting with red lead plus a top coat, and refreshing every so often. (By the way, use of the word "iron" for underframes is a common mistake: they were steel).
b) LNER census data quoted by Peter Tatlow is known to be suspect but neither he nor anybody else can resolve it.
c) The census data for 1947 quotes 2,560 cattle trucks. The question is, is it true, and if so, what kind were they and where were they - when BR period train photographs show very few indeed? My analysis shows only around 1% ex-LNER trucks among them in actual service. The picture is affected by massive construction by BR of Big Four Designs (excluding the LNER's) from 1949 which would have allowed an already shrinking and largely failing LNER fleet to be eliminated with only the odd survivor remaining in service.
PS - I now have 12 BR-period pictures of trains with cattle trucks and in 7 of them, there are no LNER trucks to be seen. Where they do show, it's only the odd one, and as far as I can tell, on the 10ft wheelbase. I've added a second picture to the article on my w/s: http://steve-banks.org/modelling/256-lner-cattle-truck.
S.A.C. Martin wrote:So just to clarify - ... it looks reasonably like the prototype but there's a number of missing details and one specific big dropped ball with the vacuum brake cylinder being missing.
Warning: pragmatic, objective, unemotional and non-judgemental commentary follows.
I think my summation of it would be that it's a high quality yet inaccurate product (and I know that may be an oxymoron to some, but I know what I mean). The shape and size is OK, and the BR period finish is very nicely applied, but the error with the partition slots would entail some basic modification to put right. The underframe detailing is actually excellent, in terms of what's there - the clasp brakegear has more linkages and suchlike than any other RTR wagon I know of. The missing vac cylinder is what I'd class as a howler, but it's something that's very easily put right, and the vac pipes are certainly a very poor interpretation but again, easily replaced.
If I wanted one (and I don't, particularly), I'd be happy at paying a tenner, but not very much more. I'd like to think I could make a more than passable model out of it without reducing it to near kit form or any major amount of repainting or lettering. That said, I do accept that a low price isn't really an excuse for an inaccurate model, but I don't seriously suppose they've actually set out to make it wrong. In the cold hard light of day, it is what it is, or what you can make of it
Hi All Pennine MC Seems to have overlooked quite a number of errors in his summation which have already been pointed out. in particular his remark about the "BR livery being very nicely applied". Photographic and well documented evidence shows that whilst it may be "well applied" most of the printed lettering actually needs removing or replacing. No photos I know of have "Large" on LNER cattles in BR days and XP is inappropriate on a 9'wb wagon. The number is not correct for a cattle wagon so also needs replacing and the positioning of most of what is left does not match that in pictures. Many wagons in BR days still had the letters VB on the ends, carrying on LNER practice. In BR days the axleboxes would almost certainly be the later designs and often the brakeshoes, quite different to those on the model. Provided one is willing to carry out a significant amount of alterations, additions, a partial repaint plus new lettering it would be possible to achieve a reasonable model. This may be marginally less than building the Parkside kit provided that you can obtain the parts and transfers needed. Assuming you are willing to undertake this work which involves much the same skills as building the kit and which it appears many "modellers" would not dream of undertaking, I wish you success.
keep up the poor work.