Regency Rails - Georgian, Williamine & Early Victorian Railways

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

So we have Business Class and Executive class in the top train, Premium Economy and Economy in the second one. Plus ca change ......

The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway opened with :-

First class  -  upholstered seats and glass in the windows

Second Class  -  wooden seats, no glass

Third Class  -  No roofs

Fourth Class  -  No...........(you've guessed it).....seats!

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Caley Jim said:

The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway opened with :-

First class  -  upholstered seats and glass in the windows

Second Class  -  wooden seats, no glass

Third Class  -  No roofs

Fourth Class  -  No...........(you've guessed it).....seats!

 

But not an in-with-the-pigs class.

[whart57]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But not an in-with-the-pigs class.

 

Many third class coaches of the 1840s and 50s were fitted with drains for easier sloshing out though. Given that third class passengers were actually artisans or clerks this does give an idea of the mindset of the powers that be towards the lower orders

[rockershovel]

5 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Many third class coaches of the 1840s and 50s were fitted with drains for easier sloshing out though. Given that third class passengers were actually artisans or clerks this does give an idea of the mindset of the powers that be towards the lower orders

 

Been to a Hunt Ball, have you? 

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

16 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Many third class coaches of the 1840s and 50s were fitted with drains for easier sloshing out though. Given that third class passengers were actually artisans or clerks this does give an idea of the mindset of the powers that be towards the lower orders

 

Back in the now long gone period when we were still subjected to legislation that required our pubs to close at 6.00 pm passenger carriages with inbuilt drains for flushing out would have been useful. Travel home on the suburban lines was not always a particularly pleasant time surrounded by people who had nipped into the pub after work for a "couple" of quick drinks before heading home.       

[LBRJ]

On 07/01/2020 at 17:33, Caley Jim said:

The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway opened with :-

First class  -  upholstered seats and glass in the windows

Second Class  -  wooden seats, no glass

Third Class  -  No roofs

Fourth Class  -  No...........(you've guessed it).....seats!

 

Jim

 

But remember these were the days when the saying "better a third class ride than  a first class walk" actually was a real list of options.

[whart57]

On 06/01/2020 at 09:15, Hroth said:

In their 2020 range, Hornby have announced Rocket with three coaches....

 

 

 

When Triang - as it was - first released their Rocket they were constrained a lot by the fact motors smaller than the XT60 didn't exist. Presumably that is no longer a problem but the pic on the Hatton's web site (and on Hornby's) doesn't show any gear wheel on the driving axle. Does that mean its drive is via the trailing wheels?

 

The coaches look especially fine btw

[whart57]

On 09/01/2020 at 01:34, LBRJ said:

 

But remember these were the days when the saying "better a third class ride than  a first class walk" actually was a real list of options.

 

And on the stage coaches the class differences were a seat inside, a seat on the roof or a ride in a carrier's cart. That's why no-one initially thought it shocking that third class passengers were attached to goods trains

[Skinnylinny]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

When Triang - as it was - first released their Rocket they were constrained a lot by the fact motors smaller than the XT60 didn't exist. Presumably that is no longer a problem but the pic on the Hatton's web site (and on Hornby's) doesn't show any gear wheel on the driving axle. Does that mean its drive is via the trailing wheels?

 

The coaches look especially fine btw

There's another picture on the Hornby website (in the Triang-packaged train set product), which just shows a drive gear poking out just inside the driving wheels, although nicely hidden!

 

 

[Northroader]

Thought folks might enjoy this video:

 

[Hroth]

Just how one would imagine the Ankh-Morpork & Sto Plains Hygienic Railway to be like!

 

One of the chaps was even channelling Moist von Lipwig (1:50 ish).....

 

 

[webbcompound]

Is the second loco an 0-4-6T?

 

[Regularity]

LH running, safety chains, cross-head pump, annoyingly loud musical overdub!

But what a lovely long-boiler loco. Probably a (2-2)-2-0, as the leading wheels are not a bogie?

 

Not sure if they used such descriptions as "0-4-6T" when they were built, but yes - and outside Stephenson's motion, too.

[cctransuk]

25 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

Is the second loco an 0-4-6T?

 

 

Engerth?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Northroader]

The leading loco is a 4-2-0, they were quite popular in the early Railways, Southern German states, Austria, Switzerland, derived form imported American Norris locos. We had them, too:

[Northroader]

Here’s a still of the second loco, an Engerth. The trailing bogie is articulated to the engine portion, and the bunker component is fixed on the bogie frames. Popular in the same hilly areas, also France.

[Regularity]

0-4+0-6T?

[rockershovel]

37 minutes ago, Regularity said:

0-4+0-6T?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0-4-6 , although I imagine things like this are more a matter of opinion than fact.

Edited January 30, 2020 by rockershovel

[Regularity]

49 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0-4-6 , although I imagine things like this are more a matter of opinion than fact.

It's articulated, rather than a bogie, hence my putative alternative designation, but who knows? many weird things were built before (and after!) the Whyte notation came along.

[rockershovel]

My understanding is as follows;

 

- a locomotive with a single boiler, a clearly differentiated front end (note that this doesn’t necessarily mean the smokebox end) and partial articulation (notably, Mallets) are counted from the front with NO intermediate gaps for carrying wheels, ie a single axle pony truck, two three-axle engines with the front one partially articulated, and a two-axle trailing truck is described as 2-6-6-4.

 

- a locomotive with a single boiler, clearly differentiated front end, single articulated engine and a trailing bogie (single Fairlie, Mason bogie etc) is described as a non-articulated engine, eg 0-4-4. 

 

- a locomotive with single boiler and two differentiated, articulated engines under a single frame (Kitson-Meyer etc)   capable of bi-directional running is described as for the Mallet (eg the Trans Andes rack locomotives were described as 0-8-6-0) although this oddity was described as 0-6-2+2-6-0

 

- a locomotive with no clearly differentiated front end, differentiated engines with carrying wheels before or behind the driving wheels and capable of bi-directional running (Breyer-Garrett, Double Fairlie) is described as 2-6-0+0-6-2 with the carrying wheels, or their absence denoted as for a non-articulated locomotive

 

- there are precedents from early designs, particularly broad gauge types, by which carrying wheels grouped together in a rigid frame are treated as a bogie - so the GWR broad Gauge singles were 4-2-2s, and a Crampton was a 6-2-0. However divided drives were counted separately, so Webb compounds were 2-2-2-0 rather than 2-4-0, each axle being regarded as a separate engine. 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

You chaps should join the Industrial Railway Society; they have a huge debate going on at the moment about the notations to be used in their handbooks, which are up for review after about sixty years of everyone getting used to the present system for sixty years.

 

The main subject under contention is whether common notation (Bo-Bo etc)  should be adopted for non-steam locos.

 

Rest assured, this is as important as The Synod of Whitby was in 664.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

You chaps should join the Industrial Railway Society; they have a huge debate going on at the moment about the notations to be used in their handbooks, which are up for review after about sixty years of everyone getting used to the present system for sixty years.

 

The main subject under contention is whether common notation (Bo-Bo etc)  should be adopted for non-steam locos.

 

Rest assured, this is as important as The Synod of Whitby was in 664.

 

The UIC notation is unambiguous and gives complete detail - going beyond the mere arrangement of axles. Thus a Great Western 4073 class express passenger locomotive is designated 2'Ch4S - two unpowered axles in a bogie, three coupled powered axles, superheated, four cylinders, for express passenger trains. A Webb Greater Britain is 1AA1n3vS - leading unpowered axle, two independently powered axles, trailing unpowered axle, saturated steam, three cylinders, compound, for express trains.

 

It is straightforward to distinguish a broad gauge single - 2A1n2S - from, say, a Dean 3031 class single - 2'A1n2S - the apostrophe distinguishing the separate frame for the bogie from axles mounted in the main frame. 

 

For most early-mid Victorian purposes purposes, 1A1n2S, 1Bn2P, and Cn2G suffice.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Yes, that’s the point being made by some protagonists.

 

The main objections seem to be:

 

- nobody understands it;

 

- it’s foreign (but then, so is most of the notation used now, and we are members of the UIC).

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Worsdell forever]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

You chaps should join the Industrial Railway Society; they have a huge debate going on at the moment about the notations to be used in their handbooks, which are up for review after about sixty years of everyone getting used to the present system for sixty years.

 

The main subject under contention is whether common notation (Bo-Bo etc)  should be adopted for non-steam locos.

 

Rest assured, this is as important as The Synod of Whitby was in 664.

 

So is Easter at stake?  

[auldreekie]

"At stake",  is that QUITE what you meant?

auldreekie