Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lovely stuff Jon.

 

I think we must have been at cross purposes on this one. The suspension unit I was trying to track down is that fitted to the vehicle in Darlington.

 

Did you make up the reinforcement yourself? I'm trying to extend the Hornby solebar but your reinforcement looks much "crisper" than anything I can achieve with the Hornby parts.

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely stuff Jon.

 

I think we must have been at cross purposes on this one. The suspension unit I was trying to track down is that fitted to the vehicle in Darlington.

 

Did you make up the reinforcement yourself? I'm trying to extend the Hornby solebar but your reinforcement looks much "crisper" than anything I can achieve with the Hornby parts.

 

Bob

 

Bob, the Darlington one has UIC doublelink suspension, which pretty much means the Hornby VIX ferry van or nothing - I can't off hand remember the number of spring leaf - a lot on the silver queen and not as many on the ven?

 

The solebar on mine is Evergreen styrene with the triang web thinned down - a long and boring task - I thought MikeW was planning something etched?

 

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

They used to -that's whats under this one - it may be he has stopped doing them, or they are out of stock - perhaps he needs to know there is still demand?

 

attachicon.gifcemflotriang001.jpg

 

attachicon.gifcemflotriang002.jpg

 

I know I've uploaded these before but I can't find the right thread.

 

attachicon.gifcemflotriang003.jpg

 

And this is what the Darlington one looks like, although I notice its on the later UIC double-link suspension rather than the original type Genesis did.

 

attachicon.gifcemflo002.jpg

 

attachicon.gifcemflo035.jpg

 

Jon

I didn't realise one has survived,is it the only one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having the end cylinders and filler hatches 3D printed, if anyone is interested.

 

I'm considering UIC suspension and axle box assemblies 3D printed but artwork plus the piece part price is making me think twice.

If there is enough interest, I'll pursue it further and get approximate cost and timing.

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Life, the universe and emigration got in the way,

No time to check  your bl**dy e mails either by the looks. My man is awaiting instructions to start cutting metal. :shout_mini:

 

Nowt to do with Cemflos's gents. Apologies for the quick excursion.

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I now seem to have developed a keen interest in this thread I thought I would dig out and scan the three slides I took of Cemflo's at Oxwellmains in April 1988. They had been parked up disused for some time and we managed to get permission to photograph them in the exchange sidings adjacent to the ECML.................it all seems such a long time ago now.

 

However they were all Gloucester built examples although two of them had the Metro-Cammell type circular holed solebar strengthening fillets and distinctly show part of the original re-branding showing through the layers of encrusted cement. I think I may have access to some more somewhere.

post-4697-0-36068800-1486400984.jpgpost-4697-0-64369100-1486401018.jpgpost-4697-0-44277100-1486401038.jpg

 

Hopefully this will contribute to keeping this excellent thread alive. There must be other Cemflo images out there that we haven't seen yet!

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

 

 

Hopefully this will contribute to keeping this excellent thread alive. There must be other Cemflo images out there that we haven't seen yet!

 

There are, but one of us doesn't like thread drift, no doubt the OP will be along to sort it out.

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I get a chance I'll review the thread. In the mean time I don't mind opening the thread out to cover bulk cement traffic flows in general but probably keeping the period within the time scale that the Cemflos remained in revenue earning traffic.

That will inevitably lead to mentions of Cemflo predecessors with of early use of Conflat L & Presflo use along with mention of the more modern types cement carrier (of which I personally haven't a clue about.)  As I said earlier I don't mind deviation at all. If it results in an increase in knowledge about the prototype and its sphere of operation. 

 

I've been trying to go back through my notes on cement traffic flows in the 1960's (I've suspect I've just scratched the surface) and will write it up here once I'm able. Those that know me know that using a keyboard is not a good thing for me at this time of year.

 

One cement flow  that should get a worthy mention is the Kent > Widnes Cemflos that could load up to 1000 tons. Looks like this traffic flow began in April 1964, with a Class 40 arriving in Widnes with the fulls and the empties returning South behind a Class Five.

 

In the meantime, anyone contemplating modifying a Hornby Cemflo and being put off by the thought of having to build a whole rake. Just build a single and run it with some Presflos. APCM (Blue Circle) set up a few temporary rail heads to service major civil (and military) projects. Here's a couple of Flickr pics of an example at Great Ponton.

Presflos and Cemflos used to supply the dualling of the A1 and building of the Grantham bye-pass.

9606882076_f562a7cfbe_z.jpgGreat Ponton by Kevin Lane, on Flickr

 

6526494993_666db9f64a_z.jpg0519 by Alan Curtis, on Flickr

P

 

Ps Smashing pics form Brush Veteran. I think I have seen a third type of solebar strengthener fitted to Cemflos but I'm bu**ered if I can find the photograph. A gent I knew(sadly he departed last year) that worked in wagon design referred to them as "Anti Wracking Plates".

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

In trying to esaiblish the livery transition of the Cemflo's I have reached the following conclusion based on photographic images so far published.

 

The Gloucester vehicles were introduced first and carried the long "Cement Marketing Company Blue Circle Bulk Delivery" logo which was yellow with blue lettering with the Blue Circle roundel in the centre. Evidence shows that this livery was carried on the un-modified solebar vehicles from new and was carried for quite a long period of time with some wagons still showing it in the 1980's.

The Metro-Cammell build however all seem to have the central vertical brackets for the roundel which was fitted from new as evidenced by the excellent shot of LA277 at Newcastle. Furthermore I haven't found any evidence of the longer logo appearing on the MC built vehicles apart from Paul Bartlett's image of LA233 with pedestal suspension at Millerhill. Although the vertical brackets were fitted to some of the Gloucester built vehicles I haven't yet seen evidence of the Blue Circle roundel plate fitted to these vehicles either.

 

Am I therefore correct in my assumption that the two wagon builders may have fitted different logo's to their specific build?  Of course many of the wagons appeared without any logos in later years so it makes dating specific details rather difficult.  The detective work on these wagons is certainly proving interesting!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Official Met Cam photograph of new LA 200 dated 1963 shows Blue Circle roundels fitted from new along with the Solebar Stiffeners. Livery exactly as shown in Mr Lamberts pic.

 

I'm trying to find out evidence of the initial Gloucester builds ever running in revenue earning traffic without the stiffeners. The RCTS has a colour phot in their archive dated 25/11/61 of LA5 with one more cemflo looking virtually ex works without them.

What I do know is the the original Cemflos underwent extensive running trials as BR engineers had misgivings about their high speed running characteristics. So did these trials lead to the fitting of the solebar plates before they entered revenue traffic?

 

By August 1962 photographs of the Cliff > Udd show the entire rake to be so fitted.

 

More later.

 

P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find out evidence of the initial Gloucester builds ever running in revenue earning traffic without the stiffeners. 

 

The BTF Road and Rail video recommended hereabouts recently showing the loading and departure of the train from Cliffe reveals one wagon passing the camera with an intermediate twin short plate arrangement which I hadn't come across before. There's certainly a lot going on with these superficially uniform wagons!

 

Has anyone else noticed that the brake cylinders appear to be arranged slightly differently between Gloucester and M-C? The Gloucester ones seem to be aligned with their lower faces more or less at the same level, whereas M-C ones are aligned somewhere about their mid-heights. The cylinders themselves seem identical. Kind of rules out your friendly purveyor of whitemetal castings producing 'a one size fits all' product, unless you'd want to arrange the supports yourselves around bare cylinders?

 

The Nim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also subtle differences in the tank profiles between the two builders and the different weld line positions may indicate different assembly techniques. The discharge arrangement is different and I have wondered if this could have been down to research done by the BTC's department set up at Darlington to examine bulk powder flow and discharge methods as applied to rail wagons.

 

Another question I've mused over is why APCM went to Met Camm for the subsequent batch. There was a tenuous link between Gloucesters and APCM through Wingnet Ltd. Winget was originally a Tyneside company building machinery used in the cement industry and eventually moved their operations to the APCM heartland of Kent. Winget bought Gloucester's in 1961 and subsequently moved out of railway wagon production due to unprofitably.

Purely speculation on my part, but maybe APCM approached Mett Camm due to not been fully satisfied with the original wagon? Maybe it was just simply Winget had mad the decision to scale back wagon building?

I assume there must have been some sort of tendering process. 

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also subtle differences in the tank profiles between the two builders and the different weld line positions may indicate different assembly techniques. The discharge arrangement is different and I have wondered if this could have been down to research done by the BTC's department set up at Darlington to examine bulk powder flow and discharge methods as applied to rail wagons.

 

Give the same drawing to two different builders and there will also be differences, the same applies to the Procor and Powell Duffryn  Metalair PCA's!

 

Mark Saunders

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BTF Road and Rail video recommended hereabouts recently showing the loading and departure of the train from Cliffe reveals one wagon passing the camera with an intermediate twin short plate arrangement which I hadn't come across before. There's certainly a lot going on with these superficially uniform wagons!

 

Has anyone else noticed that the brake cylinders appear to be arranged slightly differently between Gloucester and M-C? The Gloucester ones seem to be aligned with their lower faces more or less at the same level, whereas M-C ones are aligned somewhere about their mid-heights. The cylinders themselves seem identical. Kind of rules out your friendly purveyor of whitemetal castings producing 'a one size fits all' product, unless you'd want to arrange the supports yourselves around bare cylinders?

 

The Nim.

, hadn't noticed that. Better get the artwork corrected as it's Gloucester's that I want.

 

Were there any significant differences in the cylinders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the same drawing to two different builders and there will also be differences, the same applies to the Procor and Powell Duffryn  Metalair PCA's!

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

 And not just in the railway industry

 

Not that the diagram book is a haven of accuracy but two different diagrams and at least two different issues. I suppose there would have been more following the experimental suspensions systems tried following Thirsk.

Edited by Porcy Mane
Link to post
Share on other sites

 And not just in the railway industry

 

Not that the diagram book is a haven of accuracy but two different diagrams and at least two different issues. I suppose there would have been more following the experimental suspensions systems tried following Thirsk.

 

The diagram book is not there for the benefit of modellers but for staff loading and unloading them, the drawing may be of a different version but the dimensions are the important bit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BTF Road and Rail video recommended hereabouts recently showing the loading and departure of the train from Cliffe reveals one wagon passing the camera with an intermediate twin short plate arrangement which I hadn't come across before. There's certainly a lot going on with these superficially uniform wagons!

 

Has anyone else noticed that the brake cylinders appear to be arranged slightly differently between Gloucester and M-C? The Gloucester ones seem to be aligned with their lower faces more or less at the same level, whereas M-C ones are aligned somewhere about their mid-heights. The cylinders themselves seem identical. Kind of rules out your friendly purveyor of whitemetal castings producing 'a one size fits all' product, unless you'd want to arrange the supports yourselves around bare cylinders?

 

The Nim.

Looking at the photos posted by Brush Veteran, it appears that the centre and left hand brackets have been extended to raise the cylinder so that the two cylinder shafts are not on the same axis.

 

The left hand cylinder itself looks as if it is mounted at the same position on the cylinder. If you see what I mean.

 

Artwork will have to be modified for Gloucester variants but both artworks will be available for printing, if there is any interest.

 

Regards,

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say Yellow. With the lift date of May 61 for LA5 in the RCTS photo and that has a yellow ground. I think it is just the strong low sun bleaching out the branding on the FlickR image?

 

I'm sure I can see the additional solebar plates on the first wagons. Maybe it's my eyes. What do others think?

 

P

Edited by Porcy Mane
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.