Jump to content
 

September 2023 - The Sprinter Outer Gangway Connection Conundrum…


richierich

609 views

One thing that I have noticed over the years with models is how what are standard sizes on the prototype, when the model manufacturers replicate somehow the accuracy is lost in translation.  
 

I guess the biggest debated model in diesel world exemplified by the many models by difference manufacturers is the Class 37, a popular class of loco, which people scrutinise the dimensions even down position of the rivets and screws head positions. Questionable when the prototypes where built at a time when the was shall we say more “craftsmanship” was applied in series production and built between two factories, and have had numerous depot and works modifications over their operational life. 
 

In the more humble world of the second generation DMU (I.e. Sprinters and Pacers), some standard items should be standard within tolerance. For the Sprinter fleet I’m thinking the outer gangway connection and across both fleets the height of the BSI coupler above the rail head. 
 

So now for the some research regarding how the manufacturers have interpreted the outer gangway connection across the 4mm Sprinter models available so far. I don’t have access to a Dapol Class 150/2 nor a Realtrack class 156 so these are excluded. 
 

First, a table of dimensions for the outer gangway connector and inner gangway connector across the models I have available. These external measurements of the gangway connector.  All are measured using a Mitutoyo Digital Verner Caliper.

 

IMG_7429.jpeg.cc9cc1a4dca19f7b1c60fd52b2a77730.jpeg

 

As the table shows, there is quite a variation in height and width. The lowest height is on a Dapol Class 155 with the Hornby Class 153 not far behind. The highest height is the Bachmann Class 150/2 with the Bachmann Class 158 (2020 Release) not been far behind. Yet the width between these two 1mm difference. 
 

Sadly without access the manufacturers drawing of the prototype, it’s hard the verify any further whether these are accurate representations and the outer gangway between Sprinter classes does vary. Or the prototype is a standard design, which because these units do couple up in different permutations, and the outer gangway is used, the manufacturers have made their own interpretations of the dimensions.
 

If anyway out there has access to the manufacturers drawings or can take measurements off the prototype that would very helpful to verify the above table, please get in touch. 
 

One further dimensions I’d like compare is the BSI coupler height above the rail head.  Again on the prototype this is standard height with tolerance for wheel tyre wear and suspension height again within a tolerance. The models should reflect this. Although measuring that height accurately will probably need a tool making. To verify again would need prototype manufacture drawings and dimensions / tolerances. So maybe a future investigation in the depths of a cold miserable winter evening or weekend.…

 

However here are some photo taken more so the lighting clearly demonstrates the difference between the models and the outer ganagway connectors. 
 

Bachmann Class 150/2

 

Bachmann Class 150/2 to Hornby Class 153

IMG_7400.jpeg.44118719e26c485977aa46c8be7b1369.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 150/2 to Dapol Class 155

 

IMG_7403.jpeg.1b13fe19e97121775beacf803d882437.jpeg
 

Bachmann Class 150/2 to Lima Class 156

 

IMG_7398.jpeg.43d75ca9b4d0bc759a24cba50a2c9354.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 Original Version to Bachmann 150/2 

IMG_7431.jpeg.98ba3ba074d644a3f9880dce22ed781f.jpeg
 

Bachmann Class 150/2 to Bachmann Class 158 (2020 version)

 

IMG_7402.jpeg.bb17cc7c18a804c4631845ea83a9761a.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 150/2 to Realtrack Class 144

IMG_7406.jpeg.aa58b7aa4422f7dca35dec7b056b0eb7.jpeg

 

 

Hornby Class 153 

 

Hornby Class 153 to Dapol Class 155

IMG_7413.jpeg.bc65607ece80784fa9712b6b3ae37d59.jpeg
 

Hornby Class 153 to Lima Class 156

 

IMG_7410.jpeg.10b0ac6278d388ec4a61651f263d7313.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 Original Release to Hornby Class 153

 

IMG_7435.jpeg.f02678ba2111aa082cccbd5c5a238d78.jpeg

 

Hornby Class 153 to Bachmann Class 158 (2020 Release)

 

IMG_7416.jpeg.a7a52105d72e4657347710a5b4e05aa2.jpeg

 

Hornby Class 153 to Realtrack Class 144

 

IMG_7417.jpeg.1fa249da38179b8a6d6e64f9b56032e2.jpeg

 

 

Lima Class 156

 

Lima Class 156 to Bachmann Class 150/2

IMG_7420.jpeg.33046297f01fff7221d31a57b5c40f8f.jpeg

 

Lima Class 156 to Hornby Class 153

IMG_7422.jpeg.217cc1a158b393dd505e91c351064fe7.jpeg

 

Lima Class 156 to Dapol Class 155

IMG_7424.jpeg.e1b26b2f291d61e7665cbbef61277d58.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (original release)  to Lima Class 156

IMG_7439.jpeg.3dc37278e534e8f834205d90c68bd6b4.jpeg

 

Lima Class 156 to Bachmann Class 158 (2020 Release)

IMG_7426.jpeg.6ab907bdb6a3910c4dc06c06e98aef26.jpeg

 

Lima Class 156 to Realtrack Class 144

IMG_7428.jpeg.d92a0904c69dcd3ad22543f928e0b31a.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (Original Release)

 

Bachmann Class 158 (Original Release) to Bachmann Class 150/2

IMG_7431.jpeg.98ba3ba074d644a3f9880dce22ed781f.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (Original Release) to Hornby Class 153

IMG_7435.jpeg.f02678ba2111aa082cccbd5c5a238d78.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (Original Release) to Dapol Class 155

IMG_7437.jpeg.0b7e3967b636302a3d0de91aa33ff7d3.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (Original Release) to Lima Class 156

 

IMG_7439.jpeg.3dc37278e534e8f834205d90c68bd6b4.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (Original Release) to Bachmann Class 158 (2020 Release)

IMG_7441.jpeg.d2173b515d53d0ab619c7416ea41d766.jpeg

 

Bachmann Class 158 (original release) to Realtrack Class 144

IMG_7443.jpeg.2b7618f86642f6e259cff6dd615e6162.jpeg

 

 

IMG_7421.jpeg

IMG_7408.jpeg

IMG_7405.jpeg

IMG_7399.jpeg

Edited by richierich

  • Informative/Useful 1

5 Comments


Recommended Comments

Difficult lighting, but from this Flickr find is it the ride height between the 150 and 158 that's amiss?

Arriva Trains Wales Class 150 coupled to Class 158 at Chester

The 150/2 in your photo is noticeably lower than the 158, but the orange cantrail stripe should be about level, and the top of the gangways are flush.

 

Jo

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

The lighting was deliberate so the silhouette of the outer gangway connector was clear and the variance between models easy to distinguish. 

The table of outer gangway connection dimensions  between models shows the 2020 Bachmann 158 is 0.5m vertically less (and 1mm narrower) than the Class 150, hence the discrepancy shown by the photo.  

 

I disagree as to why the cantrail warning strip should be level between classes of units.  It’s effectively painted on the rain gutter, unless there is a group standard specifying the height the warning strip must be above the running board or step?

 

The running board or step between units is more likely to be a reference point to satisfy gauging requirements when the units were designed. 
 

That’s why for me the key reference heights are that of the BSI coupler above the rail head and the base of the outer gangway connector. The coupler height is the most critical. There will be a tolerance for wheelset tyre wear. Suspension air bag inflation height is controlled by the levelling mechanism so regardless of passenger load the body height will more or less be constant, assuming the suspension is set up to specification. 

Edited by richierich
Link to comment
6 hours ago, richierich said:

The lighting was deliberate so the silhouette of the outer gangway connector was clear and the variance between models easy to distinguish. 

The table of outer gangway connection dimensions  between models shows the 2020 Bachmann 158 is 0.5m vertically less (and 1mm narrower) than the Class 150, hence the discrepancy shown by the photo.  

 

I disagree as to why the cantrail warning strip should be level between classes of units.  It’s effectively painted on the rain gutter, unless there is a group standard specifying the height the warning strip must be above the running board or step?

 

The running board or step between units is more likely to be a reference point to satisfy gauging requirements when the units were designed. 
 

That’s why for me the key reference heights are that of the BSI coupler above the rail head and the base of the outer gangway connector. The coupler height is the most critical. There will be a tolerance for wheelset tyre wear. Suspension air bag inflation height is controlled by the levelling mechanism so regardless of passenger load the body height will more or less be constant, assuming the suspension is set up to specification. 

Apologies, my "difficult lighting" comment was referring to the prototype pic I linked from Flickr, it's very shadowy. Your pictures highlight the variation well.

My comment about the cantrail and flush gangway tops was also based on the prototype picture, as the cantrail stripe between the two units isn't far off matching.

 

If the gangway on the Bachmann 150 was massively out of position (since we know it and the 158 are similarly sized from your measurements) then the face of the 150 (or perhaps 158?) model would look off.

 

I agree with your wheelset / suspension thoughts. The step boards should be roughly level, though IETs have the driving car step boards lower than the intermediate cars, so prototype for everything and all...

 

If, for arguments sake, the 150 is too low, could it have been measured off a shut down unit with no air in the bags?

It'll be interesting to compare the Farish 150 with the 158 when it arrives.

 

Jo

Edited by Steadfast
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
On 23/09/2023 at 12:25, Steadfast said:

Difficult lighting, but from this Flickr find is it the ride height between the 150 and 158 that's amiss?

Arriva Trains Wales Class 150 coupled to Class 158 at Chester

The 150/2 in your photo is noticeably lower than the 158, but the orange cantrail stripe should be about level, and the top of the gangways are flush.

 

Jo

 

The lighting was quite deliberate to show the gangways in shadow, to make the dimensional differences clearer. I wish I could obtain a a drawing of the corridor connection for the real units and hence have base information to validate this exercise.

Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium
On 24/09/2023 at 18:09, Steadfast said:

Apologies, my "difficult lighting" comment was referring to the prototype pic I linked from Flickr, it's very shadowy. Your pictures highlight the variation well.

My comment about the cantrail and flush gangway tops was also based on the prototype picture, as the cantrail stripe between the two units isn't far off matching.

 

If the gangway on the Bachmann 150 was massively out of position (since we know it and the 158 are similarly sized from your measurements) then the face of the 150 (or perhaps 158?) model would look off.

 

I agree with your wheelset / suspension thoughts. The step boards should be roughly level, though IETs have the driving car step boards lower than the intermediate cars, so prototype for everything and all...

 

If, for arguments sake, the 150 is too low, could it have been measured off a shut down unit with no air in the bags?

It'll be interesting to compare the Farish 150 with the 158 when it arrives.

 

Jo

There are a lot of factors. Suspension inflation is one. As would be wear of the wheelset. But it will be within a tolerance. I’m sure the information is out there from the prototype, it’s just accessing it! 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...