Scalefour Forum

Evening all,

I've had the work on my Airfix/High Level 48xx on hold for a few weeks. I've returned to my first love - wagons - doing a load of research on the 1880 to 1910 period, and restoring some of my earlier attempts and rescues from the Bring & Buy/eBay.

In the context of which, a bit of fun for those who want to participate.

I've been finishing a pair of part-built GWR diagram O5 4-plank wagons, based on Coopercraft kits. These are being finished in pre-1904 livery, but without the cast plates found on some vehicles in that period.

Musing on the commonly made statement that you never see pure black (or pure white) in nature, I thought that there had to be a better way of representing the black underframes, So I had a couple of different techniques in mind: one which I'd used before, and one which was an experiment.

So which underframe looks more convincing: Wagon A or Wagon B?







All pictures were taken under natural light, with under a minute or so between them. There is not yet any additional weathering on the underframe, such as rust, grease, brake block dust, etc.

Let me know your thoughts

Cheers
Paul

I'd be happy with either but I just about prefer A - it looks like it may have had a slightly heavier dry brushing?

Agree with John. A for me.

The idea that you never see pure black or white is let down by the misconception that paint is pure black or white which it isn’t either!

I find it difficult to see any significant difference between the two from the photos. Either would be a good base for subsequent weathering in my view, and quite acceptable without it. I await further information with interest.

Incidentally, these wagons were built before the GWR wagon index was set up; when it was, DC1 braked four plank wagons were given O5, but no open wagons with single sided brakes were put in the index, according to Atkins et al.

Noel wrote:I find it difficult to see any significant difference between the two from the photos. Either would be a good base for subsequent weathering in my view, and quite acceptable without it. I await further information with interest.

I'm glad you said that, Noel, because I am struggling as well. Once weathered, I wouldn't think it will make much difference.

Anyone remember 'Wagon Train'?

Hello Paul, I can’t really see a difference, both look good. I’m interested to learn What the painting differences were?

Philip

Of the two separate pics, I prefer Wagon B slightly - the underframe colour seems to have a 'warmth', lacking in the pic of Wagon A. I seem to be the only one who does..... hmmmmmm.

Confusingly, in the joint picture - I can barely see a difference in the underframes; lighting must be having some effect?

Steve

jim s-w wrote:The idea that you never see pure black or white is let down by the misconception that paint is pure black or white which it isn’t either!

I always used to argue with my students that black (and white) is not a colour - discuss...

Steve

I agree with Steve on both counts.

best wishes,

David

Noel wrote:Incidentally, these wagons were built before the GWR wagon index was set up; when it was, DC1 braked four plank wagons were given O5, but no open wagons with single sided brakes were put in the index, according to Atkins et al.

Ignoring the question of painting techniques for a moment (because I'm still interested in feedback on that, without telling all yet), I was aware of the point you made.

I have been collecting information from a variety of sources over the last couple of months about pre-1910 wagons. I have a Word document containing it that currently sits at 184 pages in length

The question of GWR wagon diagrams has been extensively discussed on RMWeb, from where there has been much knowledge and observation shared, including from Atkins. Taken from postings over there, my notes currently summarise that issue as:

"The diagram index only began in 1905 and, for some reason, only the single lot (L374) of four plank wagons with DCI brakes built in 1902 were included. This was only 200 wagons, but there were many thousands of otherwise identical types in existence at the time, mostly with single sided lever brakes. These 4-plankers cover a multitude of wagons that were essentially the same body.

Later, in 1927, over eighteen thousand of these were given diagram O21 when they received an extra brake lever on the other side. Diagram 'O21' was a post-diagram book-keeping exercise to cover many of the older specimens. Even the earlier wooden solebar types have pretty much the same body."

So whilst I could call it an O21, that would be a retroactive designation for my time period, and in any case, the Coopercraft kit is labelled at "O5"... The strict term would be "pre-Diagram", but that would include a multitude of sins (and probably a Crocodile or two).

Cheers
Paul

Atkins et al include "two of L335" in O5. I was aware of O21, but the GWR's provision of the additional lever in these circumstances normally included the addition of a single brake shoe on that side, with the push rod above the lever pivot [rather than a reversing clutch and cross shaft to operate the existing brake shoes which would otherwise have been necessary], so O21 would have had three brake shoes. I suspect they had oil axleboxes by then as well...

Noel wrote:Atkins et al include "two of L335" in O5. I was aware of O21, but the GWR's provision of the additional lever in these circumstances normally included the addition of a single brake shoe on that side, with the push rod above the lever pivot [rather than a reversing clutch and cross shaft to operate the existing brake shoes which would otherwise have been necessary], so O21 would have had three brake shoes. I suspect they had oil axleboxes by then as well...

O21 is somewhat after my period, so I haven't delved into it (or bothered taking any notes, other to note the reference) but yes, the three-shoe brakes was definitely a "thing". And quite peculiar it looks too.

One modification was to fit a lever and single brake shoe on the "other" side whilst still leaving a DC1 lever on the original braked side.

The other way was "DC1X" which had a linked DC lever at the opposite corner, and a convoluted system of operating rods. Possibly only fitted to a batch of V5 Minks.

Oil axleboxes had been used on some wagons since 1888, and started becoming more prevalent from the mid-1890s. I'm modelling a mixture, although I may end up tending toward grease, for that "definitely ancient" look to establish the period.

Cheers
Paul

Flymo748 wrote:O21 is somewhat after my period

But definitely before mine; it's interesting though because the history and evolution of the hardware still informed so much of the way that BR operated in the late 1950s, unlike the revolutionary changes from the late 1960s onwards.

Evening all,

I let this thread lapse for a couple of weeks as I realised that it was about to run into the preparations for Virtual Scaleforum 2020. There was so much of excellence in those videos and presentations that I am really pleased this wasn't a sideshow.

In the meantime, the wagons have gained identities (from the Great Western Wagons Appendix), been lettered, varnished, and weathered. And earlier today I took pictures of them:

Wagon A



Wagon B



There were one or two learning points for me with (i) using Microsol to "bed down" transfers, and (ii) applying Testors Dullcote. But we muddled through...

So back to my original question about the painting of the underframes, and the absence of "black" in nature. I'm pleased that the original images were almost indistinguishable. To a degree, that must say that whichever technique I used, the results were suitably convincing. In fact, the two sets of paints were completely different, and used completely differently too.

Set A, used to paint 45183, were Humbrol enamels:



I first applied an even coat of matt black, then when that was properly dry, I dry-brushed the edges where the light would be caught with metalcote gunmetal.

Set B, used to paint 49107, were acrylics:



The base coat was Lifecolour Worn Black, from their set of six different shades of black. When applied, and dried, it's really a very dark grey, which is convincing as (surprise) a worn black. Again, when properly dry, on top of this I applied a wash of Games Workshop "Badab Black", which is one of their standard coloured washes for wargaming figures. Unfortunately discontinued, but there are alternatives. I have a small stock which I'm hoarding...

So wagon A was basecoat+highlights, and wagon B was basecoat+lowlights. My personal preference seeing them in the flesh, is combination B, the acrylics. I won't be switching wholesale to them - I had a few problems getting coverage ove plastic, but I'm sure there are also tricks to that. But I will be experimenting more with them.

As a distraction, if you want to be inspired to do some painting, have a look at some of the wargaming figures being shown on Reddit. I was blown away by this. Apparently a first attempt! https://www.reddit.com/r/minipainting/comments/jden74/i_just_painted_up_my_first_sculpted_miniature/

Cheers
Paul

Paul,

Although I can’t see much difference in the two bodies, I prefer the colour of the underframe on 49107. However, I think that possibly much the same effect could be achieved with different shades of enamel. I like them both! Although this probably doesn’t help you with a decision.

For years now I have taken an easy way to painting underframes and roofs, which is to use three aerosol cans: Humbrol 53 Gunmetal, Tamiya Rubber Black and Tamiya Linoleum Deck Brown - or any similar brown. I mask off the body and make a few passes with the Gunmetal and darken it with the Rubber Black with a touch of brown. Subtle changes occur simply because naturally I never seem to do it the same way twice. After the initial passes variations can be introduced with powders or dry brushing. That can also remove or disguise any slight ‘spottiness’ as a result of using a rattle can. I used to use Metalcote gunmetal where I wanted to polish the paint later but not so much these days.

The great thing about acrylics when weathering is that there are no nasty fumes to worry me and I don’t have to make sure a window is open when it’s cold outside. As you have found, coverage isn’t as good with acrylics, although I believe different makes have different covering power. I have loads of Humbrol enamels and acrylics and on grounds of expense alone I feel inclined to try and use them all up!

Philip