Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Rolling Stock


Corbs
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Should a Mk1 take on a quad-art have a brake at each end or is 1 brake ok?

 

394955987_r4783-mk1art.jpg.ee4c0c8ce8785d76b4c3bdd341952f92.jpg

 

(original Mk1s shown for length comparison)

 

One brake end is fine. But shouldn't it be Mk1 non-corridor stock?

 

Perhaps the Eastern Region would have liked to continue its tradition of articulated Restaurant triplets?

Edited by Joseph_Pestell
Add
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

One brake end is fine. But shouldn't it be Mk1 non-corridor stock?

 

Perhaps the Eastern Region would have liked to continue its tradition of articulated Restaurant triplets?

 

Funny you should say that, started this experiment because I have 2x Lima mk1 buffets that don't fit my era/location and thought of trying a restaurant triple out of them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Should a Mk1 take on a quad-art have a brake at each end or is 1 brake ok?

 

394955987_r4783-mk1art.jpg.ee4c0c8ce8785d76b4c3bdd341952f92.jpg

 

(original Mk1s shown for length comparison)

 

If I was going to build this I'd have one of the two inner coaches as a combined brake and catering vehicle. The outboard coach beside it would be first class, and the other two coaches standard class. Doing this makes sure the brake coach is always on the platform at minor stations with short platforms. Are the inner coaches 50 feet or 57 feet?

 

- Richard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 47137 said:

 

If I was going to build this I'd have one of the two inner coaches as a combined brake and catering vehicle. The outboard coach beside it would be first class, and the other two coaches standard class. Doing this makes sure the brake coach is always on the platform at minor stations with short platforms. Are the inner coaches 50 feet or 57 feet?

 

- Richard.

 

I could go whole hog and give the end of the 1st class portion forward facing windows like an inspection saloon too.... food for thought...

 

not sure how long the bodies of the inners are, but the undergubbins between the bogies is straight cut and paste from a full length (64ft?) mk1. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

not sure how long the bodies of the inners are, but the undergubbins between the bogies is straight cut and paste from a full length (64ft?) mk1.  

Bogie centres on a 64 foot (actually 63' 5" over headstocks, 64' 6" over the body, 67' 1" over buffers) Mark 1 are 46' 6" - allowing for the gangways, I'd reckon on the innercoach bodies being 44' 10.5" on these articulated sets.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
44 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

If the coaches were painted green, this would be the forerunner of a Class 442.

I have happy memories of the Wrexham and Shropshire operation, this used two Mk3 coaches (75 ft each) plus a DVT. The forerunner to this, in an age when locos ran round their trains, might be three 57 ft or even 50 ft bodies on four bogies. Gangwayed within the set. I have built up a small stockpile of Lima Mk1s, and one day I am going to build something to represent "a one-off prototype, not hitherto seen in the literature" for my railway.

 

When I have an idea I can draw, I'll post it up, meanwhile I am much enjoying everyone else's designs.

 

- Richard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Should a Mk1 take on a quad-art have a brake at each end or is 1 brake ok?

 

394955987_r4783-mk1art.jpg.ee4c0c8ce8785d76b4c3bdd341952f92.jpg

 

(original Mk1s shown for length comparison)

I think the LNER had some gangwayed articulated twins, didn't they; not just the Silver Jubilee sets, either.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I think the LNER had some gangwayed articulated twins, didn't they; not just the Silver Jubilee sets, either.

 

So did the GWR, In 1925 they built some Brake First/First twins as well as Brake Third/Third/Third & Third Diner/Kitchen/First Diner triplets

They were all converted to individual vehicles in the mid 30s

They also had some suburban artic triples from around the same period, they lasted until about 1960.

 

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 62613 said:

I think the LNER had some gangwayed articulated twins, didn't they; not just the Silver Jubilee sets, either.

The LNER articulated 'everything' in coaches, getting as far as gangwayed 'quint'  in the Leeds sets which I don't believe any other of the big four got anywhere near attempting! Much of this of course was driven by the LNER's relative poverty: of necessity it grafted harder to obtain maximum capability for money spent. Fewer bogies and purchases of the licenced (excellent) designs for knuckle couplers and Pullman vestibules, per revenue earning passenger seat.

 

(Among other things the undoubted excellence of the Kylchap ejector fitting was limited in application on the LNER pre WWII by the licence fee payable for this patented design. Quite what Gresley's team might have accomplished with adequate funding is a question to ponder.)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The LNER was famously impecunious, but no railway company threw money away by choice or policy; even BR didn't do this despite their reputation.  Articulation saves weight, which must be paid for in coal on the loco, and space, which can be used to generate revenue by putting bums on seats, so it is particularly suitable for heavily loaded suburban services, hence the quad arts and the GWR sets.  Close coupling is a common feature of non-articulated suburban stock as well for the same bums on seats reason, you can get more bums in a given train length; train lengths are a consideration when it comes ot platforms of course.  Articulation is also particularly useful in catering vehicles, which have to be marshalled together anyway, saving weight and enabling wider gangways which are a boon to the stewards carrying meals between the kitchen and dining cars.

 

This leads to the reason it was not used in general on traditional railways except in those specific situations; it was essential to maintain single vehicles to make up trains for specific loadings as required by the Traffic Department, and not tie stock into permanently coupled sets.  Modern operations are the opposite of this, and articulation of whole trains is a feature especially on high speed services.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 06/02/2019 at 13:41, Joseph_Pestell said:

And, of course, so did the LMS (Period III Stanier).

 

So quite reasonable that BR should have looked at it.

Jenkinson & Essery's LMS Coaches Vol 3 has some quotes from the various divisions and they are mostly not very complementary about them!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The LNER was famously impecunious, but no railway company threw money away by choice or policy; even BR didn't do this despite their reputation.  Articulation saves weight, which must be paid for in coal on the loco, and space, which can be used to generate revenue by putting bums on seats, so it is particularly suitable for heavily loaded suburban services, hence the quad arts and the GWR sets.  Close coupling is a common feature of non-articulated suburban stock as well for the same bums on seats reason, you can get more bums in a given train length; train lengths are a consideration when it comes ot platforms of course.  Articulation is also particularly useful in catering vehicles, which have to be marshalled together anyway, saving weight and enabling wider gangways which are a boon to the stewards carrying meals between the kitchen and dining cars.

 

This leads to the reason it was not used in general on traditional railways except in those specific situations; it was essential to maintain single vehicles to make up trains for specific loadings as required by the Traffic Department, and not tie stock into permanently coupled sets.  Modern operations are the opposite of this, and articulation of whole trains is a feature especially on high speed services.  

 

How does putting the gangway over a bogie give you space to make it wider?

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

How does putting the gangway over a bogie give you space to make it wider?

Hi Coryton,

 

The standards for flexible gangways between carriages is a set dimension and was likely covered by RCH standards as are buffer heights and shackle lengths &c.

However, should an articulated set be built then the gangways over the bogies may be manufactured to any dimension deemed reasonable and may therefore be wider than a standard gangway. This is possible because it will only be coupled to type and not general pool stock within the set although any gangways upon the ends of the set would be of standard RCH dimension.

 

For instance, the Metropolitan Cammel Blue Pullmans had wide non standard width gangways as they were only ever coupled to type. Also one of my latest model projects is articulated and has very wide, if rater open, "gangways" for the loading of cars.

 

DSCF0651.JPG.c5ec2220d4fd3b4821830157ded4cf6e.JPG

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coryton said:

 

How does putting the gangway over a bogie give you space to make it wider?

 

39 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Coryton,

 

The standards for flexible gangways between carriages is a set dimension and was likely covered by RCH standards as are buffer heights and shackle lengths &c.

However, should an articulated set be built then the gangways over the bogies may be manufactured to any dimension deemed reasonable and may therefore be wider than a standard gangway. This is possible because it will only be coupled to type and not general pool stock within the set although any gangways upon the ends of the set would be of standard RCH dimension.

 

Another reason is that there is less relative movement of one end to another if the coach ends are articulated over the centre line of a bogie as they are with the Gresley LNER pattern of articulation. This is particulaly true when going over crossovers where the coach ends will, at one point, be moving in opposite directions on conventional coaches as the ends of the coach overhang the bogie pivot. This is easy to observe by coupling a couple of model coaches together and running them over set track type crossovers. When articulated Gresley fashion the two ends merely change angle to each other.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Coryton,

 

The standards for flexible gangways between carriages is a set dimension and was likely covered by RCH standards as are buffer heights and shackle lengths &c.

 

Gibbo.

There were two styles of "Standard" gangways The "British" Standard (LMS & GWR) and the "Pullman" Standard (LNER & SR) where individual coaches needed to be coupled together.

There was an adaptor to connect the two different types.

TPO vehicles were different with offset gangways and any permanently coupled vehicles can have basically whatever they like.

The TfL S7/S8 trains have gangways about as wide as you can get.

Edited by melmerby
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

How does putting the gangway over a bogie give you space to make it wider?

Firstly, it makes closer coupling possible so that all you have to do is have the coach ends buff against each other; the gangway does not need a telescopic flexible section.  Then, secondly, and having achieved the above, you can then make the gangway openings wider than standard; the bow ends of the coaches may be flatter to achieve this, so long as the outer ends of the complete set are the standard profile.  In a catering set this has a direct impact on the size of the trolley you can push through the gangway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Firstly, it makes closer coupling possible so that all you have to do is have the coach ends buff against each other; the gangway does not need a telescopic flexible section.  Then, secondly, and having achieved the above, you can then make the gangway openings wider than standard; the bow ends of the coaches may be flatter to achieve this, so long as the outer ends of the complete set are the standard profile.  In a catering set this has a direct impact on the size of the trolley you can push through the gangway.

 

And yet - as pointed out above - we have modern non articulated trains with gangways that come quite close to body width.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This is because modern trains are able to use closer automatic couplings.  'Traditional' stock, even when fitted with buckeyes, still needed conventional buffers and screw couplings to be compatible with non-buckeye fitted vehicles, but the arrangement of modern trains in fixed sets enables closer semi-permanent coupling to be maintained.  AFAIK the last coaches built with conventional buffers and couplings were the BR mk 3s, and the first orders of these were for HSTs and not so fitted.

 

Modern stock for intercity or cross country use generally features catering from trolleys serving throughout the train; the size of these trolleys, and presumably the trolley dollies that push 'em, is determined by the gangway dimensions and the width of the central aisle of open saloon coaches.  The days of restaurant cars with sittings, where the passengers came to the food rather than the other way around, are as the snows of yesteryear...  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Added a few more corridor Mk1 quad-arts. Big 1st class Buffet, a version with a lot more baggage space, and a full parcels set with a couple seats in the guards portion (all guards sections removed from the 'BG' parts) which could lend itself nicely to being a TPO. Could be a good way of ridding the world of some Lima BGs, just need an excuse for a BG and a Lima Buffet to be in the same set...

 

1530746978_r4783-mk1art.jpg.f71746e085bfd12af14f07763991eda7.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imaginary Prototype MGR Wagon

 

Hi Folks,

 

After buying enough HAA wagons to create a full formation of them I ended up with a couple of scrap bodies that were part of separate job-lots. One was a body and cradle with out a chassis and the other had smashed up W irons so with the bits I had I thought I might see what a bogie Variant might look like. The bogies are left overs from my initial Cartic-4 musings before I was assisted in the production of printed bogie of the correct type and the chassis is scratch built from .020" plasticard loosely based on the BAA steel carriers.

 

I estimate that it would carry 62 tons of coal and have a tare weight of 20 tons giving an axle load of 20.5 tons.

 

DSCF0665.JPG.1fd45c4574a0115761faf8f031fb392a.JPG

 

DSCF0666.JPG.e133134a85b5224cee64c3ceb9a59bef.JPG

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 11
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Imaginary Prototype MGR Wagon

 

Hi Folks,

 

After buying enough HAA wagons to create a full formation of them I ended up with a couple of scrap bodies that were part of separate job-lots. One was a body and cradle with out a chassis and the other had smashed up W irons so with the bits I had I thought I might see what a bogie Variant might look like. The bogies are left overs from my initial Cartic-4 musings before I was assisted in the production of printed bogie of the correct type and the chassis is scratch built from .020" plasticard loosely based on the BAA steel carriers.

 

I estimate that it would carry 62 tons of coal and have a tare weight of 20 tons giving an axle load of 20.5 tons.

 

DSCF0665.JPG.1fd45c4574a0115761faf8f031fb392a.JPG

 

DSCF0666.JPG.e133134a85b5224cee64c3ceb9a59bef.JPG

 

Gibbo.

 

Very nice, any chance of seeing it mixed in with some standard HAA hoppers?. I think (although it's been a while since I did the research) that the Tiphook KPAs (?) saw time running in MGR sets as an experiment in their early years before being turned into autoballasters so it would be interesting to see how the numbers stack up in comparison.

 

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Love it. Probably the way BR should have gone rather than continuing with 4 wheelers?

 

I watched a video about MGR operation when first introduced, I thought it odd that the train had to drive over the weighbridge, then reverse slowly over it, then load, then back over the weighbridge, and why they didn't just have a weighbridge either side of the loader?

Could have had effectively a dog bone arrangement at either end for almost non-stop operation. Presumably the use of the same weighbridge ensured no difference in calibration.

  • Like 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...