Queen Mary's Makeup

What are you up to on your workbench
Post Reply
Richard08
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:39 pm
Contact:

Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Richard08 »

There will be a staring session, but the QM finally got painted and first stab at weathering. Must confess, I'd got used to brass colour, it almost seems a shame to paint it. Glazing next. And a bit of red and yellow for the air/reservoir pipe ends - not used to these modern air brake thingies...
DSC01504.resized.JPG
Bigmet
Posts: 10251
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Bigmet »

Looks very fine. I always think on seeing these how strange it is that the other railway companies didn't follow suit, especially for fast freight. They all had salvageable running gear as coaching stock was replaced.
Richard08 wrote:...I'd got used to brass colour, it almost seems a shame to paint it...
You are far from alone, many leave their models in brass.
Richard08
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Richard08 »

Bigmet wrote:Looks very fine. I always think on seeing these how strange it is that the other railway companies didn't follow suit, especially for fast freight. They all had salvageable running gear as coaching stock was replaced.
The Midland had some bogie brake vans at one point, five I think for use on a specific route - didn't make it to BR days though as far as I can tell. The GWR also had one (or two!), a really weird thing that also carried goods. I think they were largely redundant, or overkill anyway. They were (originally?) rated at 75mph which was a bit redundant when most freight wagons were restricted to 45mph, and even later 60mph fitted trains (pre abolition of brake vans on fitted trains); the LNER/BR 'standard' vans were 60mph. Also the requirement for an actual brake van on a parcels (Non passenger coaching stock) trains disappeared at some point didn't help - just use 'passenger' full brake. Another downside is the length - the QM is (at least) 2 SLU's, thus wasting space for a revenue earning wagon. Then there's how effective they were (bang for bucks) - brake van brakes were used by the guard to avoid snatches (unfitted trains) or in emergencies (broken couplings or 'running away'), or as a mobile buffer stop when shunting. The QM is only 5 (and a bit) tones more than a BR standard - though I suppose they probably offered more brake force, I not convinced the extra maintenance would be cost effective.
Last edited by Richard08 on Fri Nov 11, 2022 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Richard08
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Richard08 »

Richard08 wrote:
Bigmet wrote:Looks very fine. I always think on seeing these how strange it is that the other railway companies didn't follow suit, especially for fast freight. They all had salvageable running gear as coaching stock was replaced.
The Midland had some bogie brake vans at one point, five I think for use on a specific route - didn't make it to BR days though as far as I can tell. The GWR also had one (or two!), a really weird thing that also carried goods. I think they were largely redundant, or overkill anyway. They were (originally?) rated at 75mph which was a bit redundant when most freight wagons were restricted to 45mph, and even later 60mph fitted trains (pre abolition of brake vans on fitted trains); the LNER/BR 'standard' vans were 60mph. Also the requirement for an actual brake van on a parcels (Non passenger coaching stock) trains disappeared at some point didn't help - just use 'passenger' full brake. Another downside is the length - the QM is (at least) 2 SLU's, thus wasting space for a revenue earning wagon. Then there's how effective they were (bang for bucks) - brake van brakes were used by the guard to avoid snatches (unfitted/part-fitted trains) or in emergencies (broken couplings or 'running away'), or as a mobile buffer stop when shunting. The QM is only 5 (and a bit) tones more than a BR standard - though I suppose they probably offered more brake force, I not convinced the extra maintenance would be cost effective.
User avatar
Lysander
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:53 pm

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Lysander »

I am struggling to identify a GWR bogie brake van Richard, unless you are referring to the ‘Tadpole’, a long open bogie wagon with a small covered guard’s compartment in the middle. These were used for the carriage of fish.

Tony
Men with false teeth may yet speak the truth.......
Richard08
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Richard08 »

Lysander wrote:I am struggling to identify a GWR bogie brake van Richard, unless you are referring to the ‘Tadpole’, a long open bogie wagon with a small covered guard’s compartment in the middle. These were used for the carriage of fish.

Tony
That's what I was thinking of.
Bigmet
Posts: 10251
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Bigmet »

The LNER and then BR ScR and ER ran 'the fish' from Aberdeen at express speed overnight in fully fitted van trains, on faster schedules than the night passenger services; and had an exception for brake van placement, which was permitted to be a third of the way in from the train end to provide a better ride. Near the end of this traffic the use of a BG was reportedly permitted, no clue on placement! Photos are rarities, due to the nighttime operation, (We had no O. Winston Link this side of the pond...) largely the vehicles standing at dockside and terminus, understandably enough.
Richard08
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Queen Mary's Makeup

Post by Richard08 »

And QM 1.0 is now all done, glazing etc and round two with tare transfer making... Apart from a little toning down of the lettering, all is done. At last...
DSC01945.resized.JPG
Post Reply