Identifying RTR Wagons

[Bealman]

What a brilliant thread!!

Thanks for kicking it off, Pete! 

George

[CarriageShed]

Bit of an oddball one for you: http://i.ebayimg.com/t/N-GAUGE-GRAHAM-FARISH-N-E-FISH-VAN-/00/s/MTAzMVgxNjAw/z/Hc0AAOxy5jxSa-t0/$T2eC16V,!w0FIZ0germHBS,-t0EMMQ~~60_35.JPG The Farish fish van is a GNR design. there's an illustration of one in the old Tatlow LNER Wagons book with the alternative number 414124.

That's one I haven't come across before, possibly because the GNR is far outside the region that I'm modelling. Is it another vague design that could match rolling stock for Grouping companies?

What a brilliant thread!!

Thanks for kicking it off, Pete! 

George

Happy to help, George

Although I don't need to make sure my rolling stock matches the original in every tiny detail, I do need to know that it's generally accurate. I think pinning down RTR stock to specific diagrams is also the best way of helping anyone else to get what they want rather than collecting rolling stock only to find out later that it's not right for their period.

[Zunnan]

Don't let region stop you from running wagons from other railways!

The LMS may have had the largest freight fleet in the land, so more of their own wagons will have featured in their trains, but even so there would still be the odd interloper. Further north you'd want more LNER, from around Blackpool heading south you start mixing in more GWR and when you cross the Mersey I'd expect there to be as much as a third of a larger LMS train to consist of LNER and GWR vehicles, not to mention a good proportion of private owner wagons appropriate to the area conveying coal. Actually, pre WWII, much of the train should really be pre-grouping designs from the likes of the LNWR, MR, Furness, South Staffs, GWR, NE, GCR and so many more. A train of purely LMS stock would be the exception rather than the norm, even if it does look nice. Even the liveries carried will vary, freight stock was pretty much at the bottom of the priority list when it came to repainting, the closer to a changeover the greater the variety will become, and its the variety that will set the period. A 1930 LMS layout will still have a good amount of pre 1923 liveries evident, stretch that to 1939 and you'll have a mix of early and late Big Four liveries and new and early wagon designs, with a few of the oldest still bearing their old livery. Likewise, a 1948 BR layout will have next to no BR liveried stock, no BR standard locomotives, coaches or wagons, while even a 1955 BR layout will still have traces of the Big Four liveries and a majority of the stock will still be of older pre-BR design.

Take a look at a block train of vans from the period, if its a good clear photo I'd wager that you will be able to see (not necessarily accurately identify) at least a dozen different types of van in an LMS, LNER, GWR or SR freight from the '30s. The little stopping local will have some variety too, I've seen photos where not one vehicle after the locomotive was from home turf! (My favourite shows a MR 2F with NE pipe wagons and a SR Pillbox brake van on a GWR branch) Even something like cattle and Fish trains will have a mix of stock. This mix stretches well into the BR period too, even into the 70s you could see fitted van trains that had grouping stock mingling with the by then more common BR designs. Then take a 'windcutter' of what appears to all be 16t minerals, even this will have different heritage vehicles with LMS and LNER designs plus some exotics like the repatriated ex-SNCF/SNCB wagons with larger side doors, look closer and there are even planked ex-private owner vehicles to be seen into the '60s. The mix of vehicles in the train will actually say more about the region you model than if you were to use say all BR design stock on a '60s layout.

Embrace the 'chaos' that is mismatching liveries!

[CarriageShed]

I haven't really looked at GWR and LNER in my search for LMS, SR and S&DJR, but you're quite right. It seems a bit unfair that steam modellers can't have their version of the modern single-wagon type good trains that goes on for ages, but shorter and far messier goods trains were much more the norm in the Grouping days.

The trick is in embracing the chaos when you're a very ordered person. The chaos has to be achieved in a properly ordered fashion!

[BernardTPM]

That's (GNR Fish van) one I haven't come across before, possibly because the GNR is far outside the region that I'm modelling. Is it another vague design that could match rolling stock for Grouping companies?

No, that's a very distinctly GNR and Fish vans would have been used in dedicated East coast trains, so not one you're likely to need.

There's one Farish van that does have a more general use if you're prepared to do a little work:http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/10-avmod/gfbvan.jpg Though discontinued some time ago the Farish NER bogie van body can be cut in half to produce two NER covered vans. You will have to scratchbuild two new matching ends of course, but you end up with something that would suit your 1930 period well. With their drop lower door and roof access they are quite a bit different to the run-of-the-mill van too. Here's a preserved one: https://chasewaterstuff.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/north-eastern-railway-box-van/ The diagonal strapping is a later addition and wouldn't have been on the van when new.

[E Pinniger]

Interesting - I haven't posted here or checked the forums for a while, but I was going to make a similar post on identifying RTR wagons (I'm working on repainting some tatty old second-hand wagons and was looking through my reference books to ID them, which got me curious as to what exactly all these old RTR models were based on). My post was more along the lines of compiling a list of types which could then be added to the N gauge wiki.

Shall I make a new thread or would it be better to post it in this one?

A couple of types I've identified myself which I didn't spot in this thread: the Farish 7-plank open mineral appears to be a LMS ex-North Staffordshire Railway 15t loco coal wagon (the model is a fairly close matc to the drawings in F.J.Roche's book). And Lima's 7-plank open, despite the awful chassis, is actually a quite accurate + nicely detailed representation of a LMS 12t mineral wagon (much closer to this type than the Peco one)

[CarriageShed]

There's one Farish van that does have a more general use if you're prepared to do a little work:http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/10-avmod/gfbvan.jpg Though discontinued some time ago the Farish NER bogie van body can be cut in half to produce two NER covered vans. You will have to scratchbuild two new matching ends of course, but you end up with something that would suit your 1930 period well. With their drop lower door and roof access they are quite a bit different to the run-of-the-mill van too. Here's a preserved one: https://chasewaterstuff.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/north-eastern-railway-box-van/ The diagonal strapping is a later addition and wouldn't have been on the van when new.

I haven't quite got the experience or materials to scratchbuild new van ends yet, but I'm certainly building up to it. I'll keep an eye out for the B Van (I guess that's what it was?) on the second-hand market and save it until I'm capable of doing a good job on it. Many thanks for the tip.

Interesting - I haven't posted here or checked the forums for a while, but I was going to make a similar post on identifying RTR wagons (I'm working on repainting some tatty old second-hand wagons and was looking through my reference books to ID them, which got me curious as to what exactly all these old RTR models were based on). My post was more along the lines of compiling a list of types which could then be added to the N gauge wiki.

Shall I make a new thread or would it be better to post it in this one?

A couple of types I've identified myself which I didn't spot in this thread: the Farish 7-plank open mineral appears to be a LMS ex-North Staffordshire Railway 15t loco coal wagon (the model is a fairly close matc to the drawings in F.J.Roche's book). And Lima's 7-plank open, despite the awful chassis, is actually a quite accurate + nicely detailed representation of a LMS 12t mineral wagon (much closer to this type than the Peco one)

I'm slowly going through my wagons to weather them and renumber where I have duplicates, so before I really start I also wanted to know exactly what I had and how accurate it was. Although I'm only researching Grouping-era wagons myself, the thread's title is all-inclusive, so feel free to post here and keep all the information in one thread. I was also thinking of adding the info to the wiki once a decent supply of it had built up.

Do you have diagram numbers for the LMS 7-plank open and the Lima wagon, and construction dates... and perhaps even running numbers? Each company had several variations of each wagon type, so I feel it might help to try and narrow them down - especially when it comes to attempting renumbering.

I should also mention (if I haven't already) that the only wagons book I have is the Southern Wagons Vol 1: LSWR & S&DJR, so if anyone needs look-ups I'm happy to help.

[E Pinniger]

Do you have diagram numbers for the LMS 7-plank open and the Lima wagon, and construction dates... and perhaps even running numbers? Each company had several variations of each wagon type, so I feel it might help to try and narrow them down - especially when it comes to attempting renumbering.

Having had another look through my reference books I think I was wrong about the Lima wagon, it is actually a RCH 7-plank mineral wagon, not the LMS design (they're very similar-looking) which would make it more suited to P.O. wagons.
My layout is set in the early 1960s so the exact ID of the wagon types isn't so critical (they will all be grey or bauxite, heavily weathered and in some cases with replacement planks and/or unpainted woodwork) though I wanted to get the regions right for the running number decals. I probably won't attempt to get the correct running numbers for the wagon type, though.

I'll post my list of RTR wagon IDs once I've made a bit more progress with it, in the meantime I'd be happy to contribute to this thread!

One type I'm particularly curious about is the Peco "Butterley" steel open wagon. I've heard that this is based on a one-off prototype built in the 1940s, rather than a production design - am I correct? I know there were numerous very similar types produced before the BR standard 16t designs were introduced.

[CarriageShed]

The list so far. This is what we've worked out, although some items are still open to a degree of debate. Red text is for questions still remaining:

Dapol Cat No NB-009, SR 7T Gunpowder Van No 61204, Diagram 1701, Built LSWR 1912. Accurate, but needs SR lettering added to either side of the doors. Remove the 's' and 7T and number, add 'Load 7 Tons' to bottom right corner and add running number in larger digits above that. Rest of lettering is okay.
Alternative running numbers: 61201-61212

Dapol Cat No NB-027, United Dairies 6-Wheel Milk Tank, Diagram 3155 Type 3, Built 1932. Accurate but unnumbered.
Alternative running numbers: 4419-4424

Graham Farish Cat No ?, LMS 7 Plank Open Wagon No ?, Diagram ?, Built ?. Appears to be an ex-NSR 15T mineral wagon.
Alternative running numbers: ?

Graham Farish Cat No 2401, LMS 12T Twin-Vent Van No 7126, Diagram 2078, Built c.1940-1947. Has incorrect shallow-sloping roof and is an SR design that spread to the other companies during WWII. Should be in post-1937 LMS bauxite with small company lettering.
Alternative running numbers: ?

Graham Farish Cat No 2301, LMS 12T Single Vent Refrigerator Van No 7704, Diagram ?, Built ?. Generally accurate to an LNER design but should be fitted with vacuum pipes. The LMS used a flatter roof profile than the LNER and, as built, their sliding doors didn't have the central horizontal. Another LNER-only feature are the two pressings above the end vent. There's now a new super-detailed version of the LNER fitted underframe, though the old body could still be used to represent the unfitted van. Alternatively, use the earlier body only in NGS kit NGK018.
Alternative running numbers: 91548, 117870

Graham Farish Cat No 2403, SR 10T Twin-Vent Van No 52783, Diagram 1426/29, Built 1919/1931. Has incorrect shallow-sloping roof but is otherwise fairly accurate.
Alternative running numbers: ?

Peco Cat No NR-40M, LMS 12T 5 Plank Open Wagon, No 345699, Diagram 1667, Built 1928-1959. Not an exact match - too long in the body - but passable.
Alternative running numbers: 304719

Peco Cat No NR-40S, SR 10T 5 Plank Wagon No 5095, Diagram 1380, Built ?.
Alternative running numbers: 9509 (?)

Peco Cat No ?, 'Butterley' 14T Steel Open Mineral Wagon, Built 1935. Based on a one-off prototype built by Butterley.

Peco Cat No NR-42S, SR 10T Banana Van No 50680, Diagram 1477, Built 1931. If the Parkside 7mm kit is anything to go by, this is a fairly close match to the SR insulated van, so re-lettering and renumbering is called for. Should also be fitted with vacuum pipes, at least for its pre-war days.
Alternative running numbers: Insulated Vans 50568, 50559; Banana Vans 50480; Meat Vans 50289

Peco Cat No NR-50A, BR 8T Banana Van with Fyffes Logo, No ?, Diagram ?, Built ?. A passable GWR Mink. Also useful as a base for customisation into vans for the other Big 4, but not entirely accurate for any of them.
Alternative running numbers: ?

Peco Cat No NR-P167, United Dairies 4-Wheel Milk Tank, Diagram 3152 Type 1, Built 1931. Accurate but unnumbered.
Alternative running numbers: 4404-4409

[CarriageShed]

One type I'm particularly curious about is the Peco "Butterley" steel open wagon. I've heard that this is based on a one-off prototype built in the 1940s, rather than a production design - am I correct? I know there were numerous very similar types produced before the BR standard 16t designs were introduced.

I've added Butterley to the list because it's not one I'm familiar with either.  (You wouldn't believe the amount of formatting that went into that list!)

[BernardTPM]

The single vent van is actually the LNER version rather than LMS, though the two had very similar designs. The LMS used a flatter roof profile than the LNER and, as built, their sliding doors didn't have the central horizontal. Another LNER only feature are the two pressings above the end vent. There's now a new super-detailed version on the LNER fitted underframe, though the old body could still be used to represent the unfitted van.

For LMS vans you're better off using the NGS kit NGK018, however only the earlier body is really correct for your period - perhaps you could find someone (BR 1960s modeller?) who wants more of the later type.
The Midland van (NGK003) would still be common well into the 1930s.

[talisman56]

... and the list by Pete in reply no.23 above is why the vans on my layout are almost exclusively kits - the RTR ones are so inaccurate...

[PLD]

The list so far. This is what we've worked out

I'd summarise that anything designed in the last 10 years (Dapol, Farish items newly introduced since the Bachman takeover) are reasonably acurate models of specific types. Anything before then (Peco, Poole-Farish Lima) are generic / Imressionistic and to be brutally honest it is futile trying to match them to specific types...

[BernardTPM]

I'd summarise that anything designed in the last 10 years (Dapol, Farish items newly introduced since the Bachman takeover) are reasonably acurate models of specific types. Anything before then (Peco, Poole-Farish Lima) are generic / Imressionistic and to be brutally honest it is futile trying to match them to specific types...

I'm sorry, but that itself is just a generalisation and in many cases untrue. While the new models are better, several of the older ones can be improved, often by mounting on a better and/or more appropriate chassis. Where there is an equivalent new model it's probably not worthwhile, but there are still many where there is no replacement is available yet.

[CarriageShed]

The single vent van is actually the LNER version rather than LMS, though the two had very similar designs. The LMS used a flatter roof profile than the LNER and, as built, their sliding doors didn't have the central horizontal. Another LNER only feature are the two pressings above the end vent. There's now a new super-detailed version on the LNER fitted underframe, though the old body could still be used to represent the unfitted van.

For LMS vans you're better off using the NGS kit NGK018, however only the earlier body is really correct for your period - perhaps you could find someone (BR 1960s modeller?) who wants more of the later type.
The Midland van (NGK003) would still be common well into the 1930s.

Thanks for pointing out the NGS kits that would be more than suitable replacements. It's much harder to estimate whether these would be suitable when you've never seen them in detail, so that's really helpful advice. I've noted those two kits in my stocklist and will certainly give them a try. I'm sure I'll be able to find an early BR modeller to take the later type off my hands. People modelling the BR steam period seem to be in the majority.

Do you know any diagram and running numbers for NGK018 and NGK003? I'll probably end up with half a dozen of them eventually as they will replace the RTR versions, so advance info would be very useful.

I'd summarise that anything designed in the last 10 years (Dapol, Farish items newly introduced since the Bachman takeover) are reasonably acurate models of specific types. Anything before then (Peco, Poole-Farish Lima) are generic / Imressionistic and to be brutally honest it is futile trying to match them to specific types...

Only resistance is futile. I feel that, at the very least, the old wagons are a good staring point for those returning to the hobby (like me), so that you can get something to hook onto your locomotives. They also serve to draw you in and find out more about what you're running (which is what I'm doing here). That way you can learn which are the truly unrealistic or period-inaccurate models, which can be replaced by kits or with modifications, and which wagons are pretty acceptable. It's all an exercise in familiarisation and expanding one's knowledge, so I'm finding it pretty useful.