Jump to content

rodent279

BR diesel locomotive insignia

Recommended Posts

Surely a HST would be regarded as a dmu, malachite/electric green with speed whiskers and white cab roofs?

 

No, I don't know how they'd have applied the speed whiskers either...

 

Not all multiple units were green.

 

The AM9s were new in lined maroon, so why not a HST in the same style?

 

;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSTs were tested from Crewe to Shrewsbury in pairs, they were green then, only undercoat though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether NSE would suit an HST? Now there's a thought.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if 03 shunters carried the br coach roundel? Even better if you've got a photo of one?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T30RRA said:

Does anyone know if 03 shunters carried the br coach roundel? Even better if you've got a photo of one?

 

Thanks.

I've never seen a photo of one, and never heard of one with them on the livery grapevine, so very, very unlikely.

 

Paul J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/08/2017 at 23:40, rodent279 said:

I wonder whether NSE would suit an HST? Now there's a thought.......

NSE is only suitable for pairs of cheap trainers.  Horrible livery.  

 

On 03/08/2017 at 15:20, CloggyDog said:

Not all multiple units were green.

All the 1955 plan diesel units were, as were the Southern's demus.  I did specify dmus...

 

Based on the AM9s, though, I reckon the Swindon 4-car Intercities and the Transpennines would have looked much better in lined maroon!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Swindon 123 said:

I've never seen a photo of one, and never heard of one with them on the livery grapevine, so very, very unlikely.

 

Paul J.

Thanks. 

 

I've seen models of them like it but never any proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HSTs are DMUs.

 

The true meaning of the ‘MU’ part of the designation is that multiple power units are under control from one location - in this case two from either of two cabs.

 

Its easy to get confused into thinking that MU means either:

 

- it can be driven from either end; or,

 

- you can join more than one train together and control them all from one cab.

 

But, it doesn’t mean either of those things, although both are easy to implement once the basic function of MU, control of power units, is achieved.

 

The key point is that the ‘unit‘ in question is a power unit (Diesel engine and associated transmission; electrical controller such as resistor banks or power electronics Together with traction motors etc) not a collection of permanently coupled vehicles.

 

This was all firmly nailed by the person who perfected practical MU control c1890, Frank Sprague.

 

The above is fact; what follows is opinion.


I don’t like the maroon Hymek, I think because the grey band dulls a dull colour down even further.  Maroon diesels would possibly have looked better with the black/yellow stripes applied to coaches, because they are amazingly effective in ‘lifting’ the colour when both are clean.
 

All of which sounds negative, so I do apologise ....... this is an interesting thread and I have no wish to spoil the fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

NSE is only suitable for pairs of cheap trainers.  Horrible livery.

It may not be elegant, but it certainly did what was wanted of it, namely creating a brand identity that showed NSE as a single entity, not joined up bits of the four regions all still doing things their way. Same with the universal red lamp posts. It was deliberately "in your face". 

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

HSTs are DMUs.

 

The true meaning of the ‘MU’ part of the designation is that multiple power units are under control from one location - in this case two from either of two cabs.

 

Its easy to get confused into thinking that MU means either:

 

- it can be driven from either end; or,

 

- you can join more than one train together and control them all from one cab.

 

But, it doesn’t mean either of those things, although both are easy to implement once the basic function of MU, control of power units, is achieved.

 

The key point is that the ‘unit‘ in question is a power unit (Diesel engine and associated transmission; electrical controller such as resistor banks or power electronics Together with traction motors etc) not a collection of permanently coupled vehicles.

 

This was all firmly nailed by the person who perfected practical MU control c1890, Frank Sprague.

 

The above is fact; what follows is opinion.


I don’t like the maroon Hymek, I think because the grey band dulls a dull colour down even further.  Maroon diesels would possibly have looked better with the black/yellow stripes applied to coaches, because they are amazingly effective in ‘lifting’ the colour when both are clean.
 

All of which sounds negative, so I do apologise ....... this is an interesting thread and I have no wish to spoil the fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


When I did the maroon Hymek, I found that it looked rather dull with no relief band at the bottom. I also tried light grey for the cab window surrounds, and that also was deadly dull. I'm sure BR would have used an off-white rather than the plain white I used. The yellow warning panels lift the maroon at the ends considerably (IMHO). I couldn't think of any other suitable colour for the lower band to replace the yellow-green of the green liveried Hymeks, but if the Baby Deltics can be used as a precedent, maybe an off-white for that lower band might have been used. I think my use of the circular carriage crest is consistent with the other maroon WR locos though.

As you suggested, though, the chrome yellow bands with black in the middle might have lifted it too - perhaps applied  a third of the way up the side, something like the orange/black lining used on the green class 50 Sir Edward Elgar.

Whatever you think of my experiment, I was being unusually brave for me! I don't usually stray too much from the prototype liveries, especially when dealing with really expensive newer models. The cheap Triang Hymek lent itself to my trying to use my rather limited imagination. I have seen other fictional liveries where their creators have been far more imaginative and creative than I have.

:)

p.s. I don't mind your opinion in the least: liveries and colours have always been a matter of personal taste, and what one person loves, another will hate (plus all the opinions in between).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/07/2017 at 08:05, rodent279 said:

Were class 20's the only mainline diesel locos to get carriage type BR roundels?

This is 20098, in original BR green, at Toddington yesterday, paired with 20137, also in green, but with full yellow ends, and post-1957 lion & wheel.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-XYsKXYhXM-anM5SFVrRU1zZmM/view?usp=drivesdk

At least one got it's TOPS number whilst still in green with coach roudel, 20075 the only tablet catcher in green. It's strange as dozens were still in green on the LMR , I'd assumed the use of the roundel was a Scottish class 20 trait.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2019 at 12:37, SRman said:


When I did the maroon Hymek, I found that it looked rather dull with no relief band at the bottom. I also tried light grey for the cab window surrounds, and that also was deadly dull. I'm sure BR would have used an off-white rather than the plain white I used. The yellow warning panels lift the maroon at the ends considerably (IMHO). I couldn't think of any other suitable colour for the lower band to replace the yellow-green of the green liveried Hymeks, but if the Baby Deltics can be used as a precedent, maybe an off-white for that lower band might have been used. I think my use of the circular carriage crest is consistent with the other maroon WR locos though.

As you suggested, though, the chrome yellow bands with black in the middle might have lifted it too - perhaps applied  a third of the way up the side, something like the orange/black lining used on the green class 50 Sir Edward Elgar.

Whatever you think of my experiment, I was being unusually brave for me! I don't usually stray too much from the prototype liveries, especially when dealing with really expensive newer models. The cheap Triang Hymek lent itself to my trying to use my rather limited imagination. I have seen other fictional liveries where their creators have been far more imaginative and creative than I have.

:)

p.s. I don't mind your opinion in the least: liveries and colours have always been a matter of personal taste, and what one person loves, another will hate (plus all the opinions in between).

ive seen a BR artwork of a Hymek picture in the exact maroon you recreated in a magazine circa 1978/9 ... I think it was a Railway modeller, or a model railway constructor article, where the modeller had painted a Triang one as a what might have been, based on the artwork, so I dont think your creation is entirely without foundation.

 

I never saw the article for since but as a kid I was forever asking for a model of it, only not to be understood and rebuffed... nothing changed as an adult, but its nice to see someone else has done it, indeed Ive seen a couple done.. I think ELR once considered doing D7076 like this once, but did D832 in Black instead.


As an aside there was going to be a Lima limited edition done of D832 in Black, It never proceeded but I owned all three paint EPs (we’d call them today) of the proposed model, though I since passed two of them on and retain one still.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

ive seen a BR artwork of a Hymek picture in the exact maroon you recreated in a magazine circa 1978/9 ... I think it was a Railway modeller, or a model railway constructor article, where the modeller had painted a Triang one as a what might have been, based on the artwork, so I dont think your creation is entirely without foundation.

 

I never saw the article for since but as a kid I was forever asking for a model of it, only not to be understood and rebuffed... nothing changed as an adult, but its nice to see someone else has done it, indeed Ive seen a couple done.. I think ELR once considered doing D7076 like this once, but did D832 in Black instead.


As an aside there was going to be a Lima limited edition done of D832 in Black, It never proceeded but I owned all three paint EPs (we’d call them today) of the proposed model, though I since passed two of them on and retain one still.

 

 



That's really interesting. I would have seen both Railway Modeller and MRC at that time, but I don't recall a maroon Hymek. I can say I created it from my own imagination, but even so, there could have been some buried subconscious memory of it if that was the case. Basically, though, I followed the general design principles that BR's panels used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/12/2019 at 16:31, Nearholmer said:

HSTs are DMUs.

 

The true meaning of the ‘MU’ part of the designation is that multiple power units are under control from one location - in this case two from either of two cabs.

 

Its easy to get confused into thinking that MU means either:

 

- it can be driven from either end; or,

 

- you can join more than one train together and control them all from one cab.

 

But, it doesn’t mean either of those things, although both are easy to implement once the basic function of MU, control of power units, is achieved.

 

The key point is that the ‘unit‘ in question is a power unit (Diesel engine and associated transmission; electrical controller such as resistor banks or power electronics Together with traction motors etc) not a collection of permanently coupled vehicles.

 

This was all firmly nailed by the person who perfected practical MU control c1890, Frank Sprague.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applying the above logic, a Class 101 (for example) "power-trailer" formation comprising of one vehicle with power equipment  and one unpowered vehicle is not a Diesel Multiple Unit(?).  Now I am confused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conventional definition of a multiple unit, diesel, electric or multi-mode, is a formation of one or more vehicles capable of operating as a train in its own right and (critically) being coupled to others of a compatible type in order to make up a train of two or more units, all under the control of one driver. An HST is not a multiple unit as you cannot couple two HSTs together as a train under the control of one driver. Nor, in their original form, were the Blue Pullman sets; it was only later after they were fitted with the necessary jumper capes each end that the 6-car sets qualified as diesel multiple units. 

 

Multiple Unit control is a different term that simply defines motive power units, whether locomotives or motor coaches, that are capable of being coupled together electrically so as to be controlled by a single driver. It doesn't matter how many non-powered vehicles are in between the powered ones. An HST is two locomotives coupled in multiple either end of eight carriages. Similarly, two, or three, blocks of locomotives coupled in multiple and controlled by wireless means from the lead set, as in very heavy freight trains in the US and other parts of the world, are operating in multiple, under MU control.

 

Jim

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The conventional definition of a multiple unit, diesel, electric or multi-mode, is a formation of one or more vehicles capable of operating as a train in its own right and (critically) being coupled to others of a compatible type in order to make up a train of two or more units, all under the control of one driver. An HST is not a multiple unit as you cannot couple two HSTs together as a train under the control of one driver. Nor, in their original form, were the Blue Pullman sets; it was only later after they were fitted with the necessary jumper capes each end that the 6-car sets qualified as diesel multiple units. 

 

Multiple Unit control is a different term that simply defines motive power units, whether locomotives or motor coaches, that are capable of being coupled together electrically so as to be controlled by a single driver. It doesn't matter how many non-powered vehicles are in between the powered ones. An HST is two locomotives coupled in multiple either end of eight carriages. Similarly, two, or three, blocks of locomotives coupled in multiple and controlled by wireless means from the lead set, as in very heavy freight trains in the US and other parts of the world, are operating in multiple, under MU control.

 

Jim

 

 

HSTs up until around 1988 were capable of been coupled in multi, it was around this time that nose end 36way socket was removed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 45125 said:

HSTs up until around 1988 were capable of been coupled in multi, it was around this time that nose end 36way socket was removed.

Was that ever tested on the mainline? I guess the issue with service use would be platform length. However, shortened 2+5 rakes might have been useful for splitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 45125 said:

HSTs up until around 1988 were capable of been coupled in multi, it was around this time that nose end 36way socket was removed.

That, I hadn't appreciated. Coupling pairs of full length sets would I guess have been a no-no for length reasons, but I wonder if it was done to facilitate moving single power cars by coupling them onto the front or rear of a set.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some power cars were actually tested with the jumpers fitted between pairs of power cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

That, I hadn't appreciated. Coupling pairs of full length sets would I guess have been a no-no for length reasons, but I wonder if it was done to facilitate moving single power cars by coupling them onto the front or rear of a set.

 

Jim

A single power car on the end of a fully formed HST set would have been unlikely. The back end coupling was a fixed head buckeye and the pointy end relied on the attachment of either the short or long adaptor coupling bar. (Short bar for coupling the pointy end to a rescuing loco, long bar for coupling to the pointy end of another HST). The back end of a power car thus had no way of coupling to the pointy end of another power car. In theory you could put a single power car pointy end to pointy end on the back of a full HST, but then if the train failed there was nothing that could couple to the rear end, unless you had a loco with a buckeye facility.

I have seen images of single power cars moving on their own, although with a barrier vehicle attached at the rear - typically a Mark 1 or 2 carriage. The carriage could couple to the power car using the buckeye, but drop the buckeye at the rear to leave coupling hook and buffers for any rescue loco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you see a convoy of power cars these days (such as the one for the 40th anniversary) they managed to couple the pointy end to the blunt end, so some kind of adapter must exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The conventional definition of a multiple unit, diesel, electric or multi-mode, is a formation of one or more vehicles capable of operating as a train in its own right and (critically) being coupled to others of a compatible type in order to make up a train of two or more units, all under the control of one driver. An HST is not a multiple unit as you cannot couple two HSTs together as a train under the control of one driver. Nor, in their original form, were the Blue Pullman sets; it was only later after they were fitted with the necessary jumper capes each end that the 6-car sets qualified as diesel multiple units. 

 

Multiple Unit control is a different term that simply defines motive power units, whether locomotives or motor coaches, that are capable of being coupled together electrically so as to be controlled by a single driver. It doesn't matter how many non-powered vehicles are in between the powered ones. An HST is two locomotives coupled in multiple either end of eight carriages. Similarly, two, or three, blocks of locomotives coupled in multiple and controlled by wireless means from the lead set, as in very heavy freight trains in the US and other parts of the world, are operating in multiple, under MU control.

 

Jim

 

 

Jim, that sounds like my understanding of units / multiple units. 

Thinking back to my A Level mathematics days, "unity" was the smallest number, also known as "1", and it cannot be divided any further (ignoring fractions!). In my last job on the big railway, we operated multiple units, and each unit was the smallest portion that could not be divided any further. 

A unit on its own had everything it needed to do a day's work; it had traction equipment, the ability to run in service in either direction, and passenger accommodation. There was never any intention to split a three car Class 185 into anything less than three cars during a day's work. (It would be a major pain to do so, it would leave two segments that could only be driven in one direction and only one vehicle of the three had the air compressor...)

Via the magic of inter-vehicle connections, we could couple two or three such units together and operate them in multiple. Simple!

 

When HSTs were first delivered, they were regarded as diesel units (though it seems, with the ability to operate in multiple, if you could find a station long enough...). A Class 253 unit was intended to be a fixed formation diesel unit with permanently allocated power and trailer cars. Experience soon proved that it was easier to maintain the power cars as individual vehicles and swap them around between sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EddieK said:

Jim, that sounds like my understanding of units / multiple units. 

Thinking back to my A Level mathematics days, "unity" was the smallest number, also known as "1", and it cannot be divided any further (ignoring fractions!). In my last job on the big railway, we operated multiple units, and each unit was the smallest portion that could not be divided any further. 

A unit on its own had everything it needed to do a day's work; it had traction equipment, the ability to run in service in either direction, and passenger accommodation. There was never any intention to split a three car Class 185 into anything less than three cars during a day's work. (It would be a major pain to do so, it would leave two segments that could only be driven in one direction and only one vehicle of the three had the air compressor...)

Via the magic of inter-vehicle connections, we could couple two or three such units together and operate them in multiple. Simple!

 

When HSTs were first delivered, they were regarded as diesel units (though it seems, with the ability to operate in multiple, if you could find a station long enough...). A Class 253 unit was intended to be a fixed formation diesel unit with permanently allocated power and trailer cars. Experience soon proved that it was easier to maintain the power cars as individual vehicles and swap them around between sets. 

Just to throw confusion into what seemed an orderly situation, London Underground created something of an exception to the basic principle.

 

Starting with the 1938 stock, tube trains were made up of multiple units, except that some, the 3-car units, were single ended, and could only be coupled to double-ended 4-car units. LU stock was handed, so single ended units could only be coupled onto one end of a 4-car, and two 3-cars could not be coupled blind end inwards to make a 6-car. (The first un-handed, ie reversible, LU stock was the A stock for the Metropolitan, and the 67 t/s for the Victoria Line (although its stock could never turn round)). The R stock for the District Line had a similar arrangement with 4-car west end units and 2-car east end units, all single ended, with trains made up as 4+2 for off peak and 4+2+2 for peak period. A peculiarity of this was that after the peaks, the 2-car units would be uncoupled at Ealing Broadway and when several had been gatthered in the sidings there, would be run as a single ended train up to Ealing Common. After off-peak shortening was abandoned, the R stock was modified to run as permanent 7-car sets.

 

Later on, the C stock was entirely single ended 2-car units, the plan at the time being that they would become the common stock for the Circle, H&C and District service, made up as 6 or 8 coach trains as required.

 

Prior to 1938, pretty well every train on the Underground was made up of individual motor and trailer coaches jumpered together, so although the trains looked like multiple units, they weren't.

 

Jim

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

I recall hearing about 1938 stock vehicles - "UNDM" - Uncoupling, Non-Driving Motor cars (I think) that were presumably the blind end of the three car sets you mention? From memory, the three car sets were intended to uncouple from the 4 car sets at Watford Junction, to then leave a 4 car set in traffic off-peak. The blind end of the 3 car set had a passenger vestibule with a secret control panel, to allow the unit to be driven out of Watford Junction to Croxley Depot for parking until the evening peak. The source of this info was modeller of many things Croxley, "Xerces Fobe"....

 

Another quirk of Multiple Units were the Southern's TC sets. They had everything every other unit had, apart from self-propulsion. It was sort of implicit that they relied on REP units or Class 33/1s, but could happily be split from these....

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EddieK said:

Jim,

 

I recall hearing about 1938 stock vehicles - "UNDM" - Uncoupling, Non-Driving Motor cars (I think) that were presumably the blind end of the three car sets you mention? From memory, the three car sets were intended to uncouple from the 4 car sets at Watford Junction, to then leave a 4 car set in traffic off-peak. The blind end of the 3 car set had a passenger vestibule with a secret control panel, to allow the unit to be driven out of Watford Junction to Croxley Depot for parking until the evening peak. The source of this info was modeller of many things Croxley, "Xerces Fobe"....

 

Another quirk of Multiple Units were the Southern's TC sets. They had everything every other unit had, apart from self-propulsion. It was sort of implicit that they relied on REP units or Class 33/1s, but could happily be split from these....

 

 

Interesting that the TC's were classified in the EMU number series, when really they are hauled stock, and should be numbered as such. Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pull sets were very similar in principle, except they could only be driven from one end, yet they were not numbered out of the hauled stock range, nor, as far as I am aware, were they treated as "units."

Share this post


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.