Jump to content
 

Hornby - New tooling - 59' Bulleid 'Short' coaches


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

.............  Mind you, there is ample photographic evidence (especially in summer) that the Southern (Region, at least) often ran sets without covers, presumably to make joining and splitting services easier and quicker to manage.  

 

Indeed, as has been discussed elsewhere, gangway covers were largely to prevent water-trough tender overspill from cascading into the leading carriage .................. but that wasn't a problem on the Southern.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Pteremy said:

 

Another excellent review Graham.

 

I suspect most will live with the misplaced v-hangers - but if you wanted to correct the positioning is it simply a question of cutting off and moving to the correct position, or is it more involved than that?

The truss bars and vee hangers appear to parts of the same moulding. One reason, I suspect, why Hornby left it alone.

 

To correct, it would be necessary to remove all traces of the existing vee hangers and add new ones inboard. A bit fiddly, but not rocket science.

 

John  

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The truss bars and vee hangers appear to parts of the same moulding. One reason, I suspect, why Hornby left it alone.

 

To correct, it would be necessary to remove all traces of the existing vee hangers and add new ones inboard. A bit fiddly, but not rocket science.

 

John  

Maybe that's why the 'original' Bachman Bulleids had no bl#### V hangers so that us lot could fit decent ones in the correct position(s)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Pteremy said:

 

I suspect most will live with the misplaced v-hangers - but if you wanted to correct the positioning is it simply a question of cutting off and moving to the correct position, or is it more involved than that?

Hopefully, a far easier task than the repositioning of the LH battery boxes on their Mk1 BSKs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Closeup of the misplaced V Hanger.  It seems to be molded as part of the truss road making modification much more difficult. And in the glare of direct close lighting, the Malachite green seems closer to what I would expect.

 

 

Bulleid Compo Close Up V Hangler Location.jpg

Edited by autocoach
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
45 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Looks like these sets did get around, I've found a picture on the net with one in a train from the south coast to Wolverhampton in the early 1960s.

 

In 1962 a number of sets were expanded to 8 coaches by the addition of a Bulleid composite and 4 Maunsell seconds. These expanded sets were then used on a number of services that included through services to other regions so they will have turned up in a variety of locations outside the Southern Region. 

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

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, autocoach said:

Closeup of the misplaced V Hanger.  It seems to be molded as part of the truss road making modification much more difficult. And in the glare of direct close lighting, the Malachite green seems closer to what I would expect.

 

 

Bulleid Compo Close Up V Hangler Location.jpg

In the Mike King book the Vee hanger is shown as modelled by Hornby in the drawing in Fig. 40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
59 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

In the Mike King book the Vee hanger is shown as modelled by Hornby in the drawing in Fig. 40.

 

The drawing may show that, but I believe that's an original Southern Railway drawing. Not one of the photos of the coaches show the vee hanger where it is in the drawing. This leads me to believe that the drawing was one modified from a Maunsell drawing, without corrections to the chassis to show it as how the chassis was eventually implemented on the actual coaches.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the two pictures below might be of interest, taken at Corfe Castle this May.

 

The first shows the V hangar on one of their Bulleid Brakes, S4365S.

 

The second compares the profile and windows on the Bulleid coach to that of a BR Mk1 (probably less relevant to this thread).

 

John.

 

 

 

 

IMG_0765_copyweb.jpg

IMG_0766_copyweb.jpg

Edited by John Tomlinson
typo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

I thought the two pictures below might be of interest, taken at Corfe Castle this May.

 

The first shows the V hangar on one of their Bulleid Brakes, S4365S.

 

The second compares the profile and windows on the Bulleid coach to that of a BR Mk1 (probably less relevant to this thread).

 

John.

 

 

 

 

IMG_0765_copyweb.jpg

IMG_0766_copyweb.jpg

I raised the same point on Muz's blog, and apparently the later longer carriages had the V hanger on the outside, but the 59' didn't:

https://grahammuz.com/2019/07/05/bulleid-59ft-shortie-coaches-start-to-arrive-from-Hornby/#comment-16870

Edited by truffy
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigel, I wondered if this was the answer, and thanks for confirming.

 

Just reading Graham's answer, it doesn't presumably mean that some of the later 59ft's had the V hangar outside the truss, so that perhaps the anomally could be answered by re-numbering?

 

John.

Edited by John Tomlinson
clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

In the Mike King book the Vee hanger is shown as modelled by Hornby in the drawing in Fig. 40.

Agreed, but if you look at my 1983 drawings in the Ian Allan MRC Planbook No.1, you'll see that they are in the correct position, i.e. behind the truss angle.1132193269_Bulleid59BTK-BSKUnderframe-RHElevation-Copy.jpg.36156207112a02dbf290df1ed8b999d0.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, truffy said:

I raised the same point on Muz's blog, and apparently the later longer carriages had the V hanger on the outside, but the 59' didn't:

https://grahammuz.com/2019/07/05/bulleid-59ft-shortie-coaches-start-to-arrive-from-Hornby/#comment-16870

 

Bulleid 64'- 6" long BTK/BSK No. S 4365 S pictured, once formed part of 6 - car Bournemouth Dining Set No. 298.

As built, they featured the weight saving single 30" dia. 'Prestall' vacuum cylinder, centrally placed on the u/f to operate the brakes on both bogies. 

In service, these proved to need nigher maintenance than the trusted twin brake gear set-up. The result of this led, in the mid 50's, to the conversion of coaches so singularly fitted, to twin, diagonally opposed, sets.

These are distinguished by having the outer Vee hanger outside of the Truss angle.

Edited by Ceptic
  • Informative/Useful 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Ceptic said:

 

Bulleid 64'- 6" long BTK/BSK No. S 4365 S pictured, once formed part of 6 - car Bournemouth Dining Set No. 298.

As built, they featured the weight saving single 30" dia. 'Prestall' vacuum cylinder, centrally placed on the u/f to operate the brakes on both bogies. 

In service, these proved to need nigher maintenance than the trusted twin brake gear set-up. The result of this led to the conversion of coaches so singularly fitted, to twin, diagonally opposed, sets.

These are distinguished by having the outer Vee hanger outside of the Truss angle.

…..and sometimes the central Prestall tank remained and sometimes it didn't. The original Bulleids don't have correct underframe detail at all as I am sure you know. Took me years to notice!

Such fun.

P

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

…..and sometimes the central Prestall tank remained and sometimes it didn't. The original Bulleids don't have correct underframe detail at all as I am sure you know. Took me years to notice!

Such fun.

P

 When photographed, again at Swanage, back the 80's, BTK/BSK No. S 4365 S still retained the shaped ( to miss the central cylinder) steam heating pipe.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Or the prototype didn't have them?

 

1 hour ago, Mallard60022 said:

How so?

P

The ones built with Prestall 30" vacuum cylinder and brake rigging. These didn't have Vee hangers until retro fitted with two conventional 22" vacuum cylinders mostly during the 1950s.

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The ones built with Prestall 30" vacuum cylinder and brake rigging. These didn't have Vee hangers until retro fitted with two conventional 22" vacuum cylinders mostly during the 1950s.

Ah yes, of course and I suppose Bachman could have used a drawing showing that. I am forgetting how long ago they brought them out (early 90s?) before anyone was consulted that actually knew a thing or two. However it could have been a weird sort of 'design clever' allowing (as I joked earlier) modellers to add the appropriate parts for the modified coaches? That reminds me, I need to start fabricating/obtaining from Southern Pride, a large number of parts to do this task on my old Bulleids.

ATB

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

However it could have been a weird sort of 'design clever' allowing (as I joked earlier) modellers to add the appropriate parts for the modified coaches?

Would have been an ideal opportunity for one of the old Craftsman conversion kits. Two cylinders, a length of wire and two etches to fold up and stick under the floor. According to Mike King some coaches ran with the Prestall cylinder still in place after the conversion. 

 

Eric

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

C'mon guys ! ............. there's enough meat on that lump of plastic to file it down so it looks like it's behind the truss  -  call yerselves modellers ? something like this shouldn't defeat you !

The point of the V is quite thin - so what you suggest might work for the bulk of the V (which is the thickness of the truss rod) but not the tip. I am sure that could be substituted/moved inwards. But by then it might be neater/stronger to have a new V in the correct position.

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...