Corridor Connection end plates

[Jack P]

Hi guys,

 

To those more knowledgeable than myself;

 

How frequently were corridor end plates put into use? From what I can gather (from photos, sometimes they were in place and sometimes they weren't, sometimes at the front of a rake and sometimes at the end) I'm particularly interested with the immediate pre-nationalisation Southern, but interested to know railway practices across the board.

 

Cheers!

[jim.snowdon]

I suspect that answer is "a lot less than modellers would like to believe", especially away from the top rank services.

 

Jim 

[The Stationmaster]

The subject of Gangway Shields (known on the WR as Blank Doors) is complex and relates to both vehicle types and ages, couplings, and era (jn respect of what applied at a particular time).   The earliest wholly BR Instructions date from 1960 and I am not sure (other than for the WR) to what extent Regional Instructions - or indeed Company Instructions varied before then.  The WR came into line with the 'standard' Instructions in 1966 and I suspect that all other Regions did the same at that time if they hadn't already adopted the 'standard' Instruction.  The 1960 standard Instruction was revised in 1971 and effectively remained in force until overtaken by events - those events being basically the withdrawal of older vehicles.

 

The WR Instruction was 100% consistent across all types of gangwayed vehicles and required blank doors to be fitted on the 'open' ends of both train and vehicles within trains where they weren't attached to another gangwayed vehicle.  Officially if there was shortage of blank doors to comply with the Instruction they were required to be obtained from Swindon Stores.  It is possoble that where strnghtening vehicles were added at  the more remote locations or formations were otherwise altered blank doors might well have not been fitted but all the main yards held stocks so should have had no trouble complying with the Instruction - apart from the nuisance of fitting and removing the things from ground level.

 

The 1960 standard Instruction was more complex.  Firstly it divided the gangway shields into the three different types - viz those for use on buck-eye coupler equipped coaches, those for use on screw coupled coupled coaches, and finally those for use on mail vans (i.e. Post Office vehicles).  In terms of use generally things were consistent with long established practice -

On a complete gangwayed trains the shields were required at the two outer ends of the formation (except where the train engine had a corridor tender - see below)

On trains composed partly of gangwayed stock shields were required on the front and rear of the gangwayed portion even if it was only one or two vehicles

Where trains included buckeye and screw coupled vehicles and no gangway adaptors were available shields were not to be placed on the buckeye and screw coupled adjacent vehicles , except

If buckeye coupled stock was marshalled adjavcent to screw couple Post Office vehicles no shield was required on the buckeye vehicle but one had to be used on the Post Office vehicle

 

If there was a shortage of shields at the train originating point (or yard) the first priority was to provide a shield on the end of the train next to the train engine.  If that could not be done a shield was to be provided at the first place one was available enroute.

 

Attaching to corridor tenders basically depended on the type of coupling on the leading coach.  If it was buckeye fitted then no problem but if it had a screw coupling then either a gangway adaptor had to be provided on the coach's gangway (and use the screw coupling).   If there was no gangway adaptor available the screw coupling was to be used and the gangway secured in the out of use position.

 

It all changed in 1971 although memory suggests that some changes had occurred before then in respect of MkI and Mk II coaches although I can't find any printed reference to date it - late 1960s sounds about right to me so there was probably an Instruction by letter rather than an amendment to the general Instruction.

 

Anyway it all got a lot simpler -

MkI and Mk II coaches noted as having gangway doors metal clad on the outer face while MkIIA and subsequent builds were noted as having fire retardant glass fibre doors - in all these cases gangway shields were no longer required.  But vehicles older than the BR MkI design were still required to have gangway shields fitted.   The v basic Instructions for the use of shields then continued as noted for the 1960 Instruction (although no longer any reference to buckeye fitted engines and corridor tenders of course).

[The Stationmaster]

And now for the Southern - always different of course. (and people say that about the GWR!).  This is the 1934 Instruction but I doubt if it had changed except in minor detail by 1948.

 

1.  Trains running to/from other Companies had to have gangway shields on the outer ends of the trains as they might be worked over routes where water troughs were in use

 

For local working on the Southern Railway  (n.b. in this context 'local' means within the Southern Railway) -

1.  Certain vehicles have metal roller shuttersat each end provided they are in use no other shield is necessary

2.  All new steam train corridor coaches built after July1933 would have a metal covering on the outer side of their gangway doors, Certain older corridor coaches would be similarly equipped as they pass through works.  On vehces with these doors no gangway shierld would be necessary.

3.  In various circumstances where British Standard gangways were used adjacent to vehicles fitted with Pullman gangways there was a risk that rubbing between the cgangaways on curvature could detach a gangway shield so they were not to be used.

4.  All other gangway doors to be protected by a gangway shield of the relevant type. (i.e. as in the circumstances noted in the 1960 Instruction).

[Wickham Green]

Beat me to it SM ! ............

1   Yes, roller shutters were tried but I've never seen any illustrations so they were probably few in number or short-lived.

2   I'm not sure how a shunter was supposed to know whether a carriage had been built before or after 1933 ( He couldn't refer to Mike King's 'bible' ! ) .......... I'll need to check a few photos to see if the 'metal covering' is conspicuous.

3   Circumstances where the B.S. gangway doesn't have an adaptor, of course.

   

[eastglosmog]

In one of his books Harold Gasson gives an interesting description of what happened when the corridor blank was forgotten on an American troop train when they went over water troughs, could not get the scoop up in time and sent water cascading into the front of the leading carriage.  He and his mate made them selves scarce at the end of the run!

[jim.snowdon]

Yet, the traditional gangway cover hardly seems to have been exactly robust - a canvas cover over a wooden frame. The BR fibreglass cover would have been better, but still not exactly bullet proof.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Beat me to it SM ! ............

1   Yes, roller shutters were tried but I've never seen any illustrations so they were probably few in number or short-lived.

2   I'm not sure how a shunter was supposed to know whether a carriage had been built before or after 1933 ( He couldn't refer to Mike King's 'bible' ! ) .......... I'll need to check a few photos to see if the 'metal covering' is conspicuous.

3   Circumstances where the B.S. gangway doesn't have an adaptor, of course.

   

I've got the running numbers for the roller shutter vehicles if you're interested.

 

And yes quite how somebody knew at a glance when a coach had been built I'm not at all sure although presumably the fact that the gangway door was clad in metal would have been reasonably obvious - as it was on Mk1 coaches.

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I've got the running numbers for the roller shutter vehicles if you're interested.

 

And yes quite how somebody knew at a glance when a coach had been built I'm not at all sure although presumably the fact that the gangway door was clad in metal would have been reasonably obvious - as it was on Mk1 coaches.

I wouldn't have said it was that obvious, at least on the Mark 1s - all I can remember of them is a featureless grey painted finish. On the other hand, if the alternative was always a visibly wood panelled door, I take your point.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

On 31/05/2019 at 12:03, The Stationmaster said:

And now for the Southern - always different of course. (and people say that about the GWR!).  This is the 1934 Instruction but I doubt if it had changed except in minor detail by 1948.

 

1.  Trains running to/from other Companies had to have gangway shields on the outer ends of the trains as they might be worked over routes where water troughs were in use

 

 

On 31/05/2019 at 12:21, eastglosmog said:

In one of his books Harold Gasson gives an interesting description of what happened when the corridor blank was forgotten on an American troop train when they went over water troughs, could not get the scoop up in time and sent water cascading into the front of the leading carriage.  He and his mate made them selves scarce at the end of the run!

 

So were water troughs the primary reason for fitting gangway shields? Makes sense of the priority being to fit them at the leading end. 

 

I'd supposed they were a passenger safety measure, where the gangway door was not sufficiently substantial - i.e. wood.

[eastglosmog]

H Gasson did mention in his tale that during the run, several American GI's did look through the end gangway door.  Doesn't seem to have bothered anyone much!

[Compound2632]

I remember a trip from Reading to Oxenholme c. 1996, travelling on a weekend first ticket, spending some time north of Lancaster looking out of the gangway door windows of the MkII e/f (?) BFO that was the rear carriage.

[sandra]

In about July 1963 me and my cousin were travelling from Holyhead to Chester in a BR Mk 1 SK which was directly behind the engine which was Britannia 70047. My cousin discovered that not only had a gangway shield not been fitted but they had also failed to lock the the gangway door. So we could open it and watch the rear of 70047’s tender. I was amazed at how much the tender bounced about at speed.

 

However we reached the water toughs at (I think) Aber and the water flooded into the carriage even though we had by that time closed the gangway door. The water spread the whole length of the carriage which I think shows why gangway shields were necessary.

 

Sandra

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

I wouldn't have said it was that obvious, at least on the Mark 1s - all I can remember of them is a featureless grey painted finish. On the other hand, if the alternative was always a visibly wood panelled door, I take your point.

 

Jim

If you looked closely enough you could see the heads of whatever it was that secured the steel plate to the door (screws I think without going out and looking for one) and teh appearance close u was not 'wood like'.  On older stock the doors were almost invariably varnished wood - on both sides.

10 hours ago, sandra said:

In about July 1963 me and my cousin were travelling from Holyhead to Chester in a BR Mk 1 SK which was directly behind the engine which was Britannia 70047. My cousin discovered that not only had a gangway shield not been fitted but they had also failed to lock the the gangway door. So we could open it and watch the rear of 70047’s tender. I was amazed at how much the tender bounced about at speed.

 

However we reached the water toughs at (I think) Aber and the water flooded into the carriage even though we had by that time closed the gangway door. The water spread the whole length of the carriage which I think shows why gangway shields were necessary.

 

Sandra

The locking of gangway doors is an interesting subset here.  The earlier Instructions were not explicit regarding locking the doors - almost implying that a gangway shield/blank door was an alternative to locking the gangway door.  When the standard Instruction considerably eased the circumstances in which gangway shields/blank doors were required there were c very specific Instructions regarding the locking of the gangway door and ensuring that the French key was properly inserted (on the outer side if the door on MkI stock).

 

Oddly I can't trace any pre 1971 alterationss to the 1960 General Appendix Instruction but I'm reasonably sure there must have been something issued as shields can be seen as missing in 1960s photos of MkI stock.  This suggest to me that something must have been put out by letter.  I have now delved out the 1956 letter which seemingly introduced first the 1960 standard Instruction on the WR (but which the WR then didn't use in its own 1960 Instruction!).  Interestingly this letter mentions a fourth type of blank door (WRland note) which was of solid wood to be used on the rearmost gangway when it was adjacent to a slip coach.

 

And one interesting feature - relating to other questions - is that the letter clearly states that if a gangway shield/blank door cannot be fitted when one should be fitted then the gangway door must be locked.  Ipso facto - no need to lock the gangway door when a gangway shield/blank door was not fitted.

[Gibbo675]

10 hours ago, sandra said:

In about July 1963 me and my cousin were travelling from Holyhead to Chester in a BR Mk 1 SK which was directly behind the engine which was Britannia 70047. My cousin discovered that not only had a gangway shield not been fitted but they had also failed to lock the the gangway door. So we could open it and watch the rear of 70047’s tender. I was amazed at how much the tender bounced about at speed.

 

However we reached the water toughs at (I think) Aber and the water flooded into the carriage even though we had by that time closed the gangway door. The water spread the whole length of the carriage which I think shows why gangway shields were necessary.

 

Sandra

Hi Sandra,

 

Water used to shoot through open windows along the side of the leading coaches also, I would think an unpleasant shock should a column of water cascade in through an open window.

 

Gibbo.

[robertcwp]

I have also seen a suggestion that the end shields had a fire protection role in the days of steam as they were fire resistant and would prevent hot coals etc lodging in the gangway and setting fire to the carriage. There are a few photos of Mark IIa-d stock with gangway shields even though steam had by then finished and their folding end doors were supposed to have rendered them unnecessary. 

 

I think one of the last passenger trains to use them was the Hull Pullman which had a 1960 Metro-Cammell Pullman Car at the London end of the formation. Those cars did not have proper sliding doors in the end vestibules so a gangway shield was necessary.

[Wickham Green]

Now, mention of Pullmans reminds me that the 'traditional' Cars had no end doors at all - as there was nowhere in the vestibule for them to slide, swing or fold to - so gangway covers HAD to be used ...... maybe the Metro Camms were similarly compromised even if they didn't have windows in the ends.