LMS Coronation Scot Coaches

[markw]

18 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Erm.the kitchen car bogies are of a standard LMS length.. .

 

Baz

Erm, no they are not.

[robertcwp]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

It's carrying reporting number W97 1 (pre-war, remember) which, according to the caption writer (Jenkinson) was the Saturday Midday Scot. Maybe Robertcwp can comment? The '1' digit indicates that two trains are being run.

 

Saturday arrangements were often different, particularly in the summer, when many reliefs were run to cater for the additional traffic.

All I know regarding that working is what is in the photo caption but I believe there is also another shot of one of the sets in use as part of a Saturday train.

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, markw said:

Erm, no they are not.

Oops!

 

Just been playing with mine (see post to follow) and noticed the same thing. Just done a quick measure up. Wheel spacing on the seven passenger coaches - 36mm (9 foot); wheel spacing on the two kitchen cars - 32mm (8 foot). Hmm ... ?!

 

[Compound2632]

Re. Euston ECS workings:

 

"In July 1946, the Railway Observer reported that 'the Euston to Willesden line, wit MR 2F 0-6-0s in charge of empty passenger trains, has lost its LNW character as it is the first time this section has been without Cauliflowers and Coal Tanks.' [In early 1944] the railway at Euston was littered with ageing LNW veterans, down-graded from their original work and mainly engaged on empty stock workings - 18in Express Goods of 1880-1902 (Cauliflowers), 17in 0-6-2 Coal Tanks of 1881-1897 (Gadgets) and 18in 0-6-2 Passenger Tanks of 1898-1902 (Watford Tanks) ... eight, seventeen and nine, respectively [shedded at Willesden]."

 

Keith Miles, Of Cauliflowers, Gadgets and Watford Tanks, LMS Journal No. 38 pp. 2-9 [edited to omit extraneous detail].

 

No mention of LMS Standard 3F 0-6-0Ts on this work.

 

 

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Just been playing with mine (see post to follow) and noticed the same thing. Just done a quick measure up. Wheel spacing on the seven passenger coaches - 36mm (9 foot); wheel spacing on the two kitchen cars - 32mm (8 foot). Hmm ... ?!

 

No mention of this is made in The LMS Coach (1969 edition) but in the photo of Coronation Scot kitchen car No. 30084, Plate 9d, it is very obvious that the bogies are of shorter wheelbase than standard, comparing with Plates 9a-c. However, I have the impression that they are at the usual centres - 38 ft 6 in - so appear to be further from the ends than standard.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Compound2632

[LNER4479]

OK, so had a bit of a play with mine ...

 

Most of the seven passenger coaches would roll away down my 1-in-90, some more freely that others. For those less free running, easing off the pick-up pressure improved their running.

 

Bogies can be eased out of their pivots ...

 

... sufficient to rotate them like so. Obviously the wires for the pick ups are still attached so can be removed no further without more intrusive work. Actually, as it turned out, didn't end up needing to do this, but good to know.

 

Adjustment of pick-ups is work of a moment. Was going to use tweezers but actually can be done with a small screwdriver. Just apply pressure immediately beyond the 90degree bend (ie the non-wheel end). Doesn't need much.

 

The Kitchen cars wouldn't roll away at all. Definitely the 'problem' vehicles. The wheelsets are noticeably more 'sloppy' in their bearings, ie more side-to-side movement ... which means that they are likely to be rubbing on the brake blocks. I even wonder if the axle is rubbing on the plate beneath it? When I applied gentle pressure to push the two opposing axleboxes together, then it all trued up and ran freely (other than the braking effect of the pick-ups)

 

For tonight, the only other thing I've done is to tweak the brake blocks away like so - note the brake block above - you should be able to see it angled back slightly.

 

This made some difference but still not able to freely run away down the gradient. Anyhow, I gave it all a try and this was the result:

 

 

Did you like the bit where the loco went and retrieved its coaches?

 

More work to improve the free running of the RKs may be possible but I'm not sure how much difference it would make overall. It's quite a heavy set as it is, just feeling the pull on the lead coupling. What I haven't told you is that I also quickly added a piece of lead underneath the 'bath tub' before this piece of filming, as it still wasn't making too much of an impression. Might try it with my 46256 just to see - from here on in I think it's the loco that needs working on!

[LNER4479]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Re. Euston ECS workings:

 

"In July 1946, the Railway Observer reported that 'the Euston to Willesden line, wit MR 2F 0-6-0s in charge of empty passenger trains, has lost its LNW character as it is the first time this section has been without Cauliflowers and Coal Tanks.' [In early 1944] the railway at Euston was littered with ageing LNW veterans, down-graded from their original work and mainly engaged on empty stock workings - 18in Express Goods of 1880-1902 (Cauliflowers), 17in 0-6-2 Coal Tanks of 1881-1897 (Gadgets) and 18in 0-6-2 Passenger Tanks of 1898-1902 (Watford Tanks) ... eight, seventeen and nine, respectively [shedded at Willesden]."

 

Keith Miles, Of Cauliflowers, Gadgets and Watford Tanks, LMS Journal No. 38 pp. 2-9 [edited to omit extraneous detail].

 

No mention of LMS Standard 3F 0-6-0Ts on this work.

 

 

Actually, I did have a look through pictures and found - in the 1930s - picture of Stanier 2-6-4Ts, a Fowler 'Crab'(!) and - as per above - a MR 2F 0-6-0. Also a picture indicating a ex-LNWR Super 'D' 0-8-0 also used (caption actually says 'the inevitable LNWR 0-8-0'?!)

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, LNER4479 said:

Actually, I did have a look through pictures and found - in the 1930s - picture of Stanier 2-6-4Ts, a Fowler 'Crab'(!) and - as per above - a MR 2F 0-6-0. Also a picture indicating a ex-LNWR Super 'D' 0-8-0 also used (caption actually says 'the inevitable LNWR 0-8-0'?!)

 

But no LMS Standard 3F 0-6-0Ts?

[robertcwp]

Just had a prod at some of my set. I think the main issue is the brake blocks making contact with the wheels, with the pickups being a secondary issue. I have tweaked them on five of the nine carriages including the two kitchen cars and they seem to run a bit more freely now. Will do the others tomorrow.

[Barry O]

4 hours ago, markw said:

Erm, no they are not.

Strange.. all LMS 4 wheel bogies according to the books and drawings I have show that the LMS did one major 4 wheel bogie design (albeit to a riveted construction or a welded construction) to the same wheelbase . I.e. 9 feet. Do Hornby have drawings which differ to everyone elses?

Rip off the short ones and fit standard ones.. especially if they run more freely.

 

Remember these kitchen cars were the same as other LMS kitchen cars. The bogie centres were different to the 50' BGs.

 

Or were Messrs Jenkinson, Essery, Hinchliffe, Whitehead and Warburton wrong?

 

Baz

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Barry O said:

Strange.. all LMS 4 wheel bogies according to the books and drawings I have show that the LMS did one major 4 wheel bogie design (albeit to a riveted construction or a welded construction) to the same wheelbase . I.e. 9 feet. Do Hornby have drawings which differ to everyone elses?

Rip off the short ones and fit standard ones.. especially if they run more freely.

 

Remember these kitchen cars were the same as other LMS kitchen cars. The bogie centres were different to the 50' BGs.

 

Or were Messrs Jenkinson, Essery, Hinchliffe, Whitehead and Warburton wrong?

 

Baz

 

Well, you'd have to look at the photo I mentioned. I think the problem with replacing the 8 ft bogies on the model with 9 ft ones is that they'd then be too near the end - but that's just from the photos. There was some story about second-hand LNWR 8 ft bogies being used but I thought that had been discounted - it sounds rather a strange thing to do for the company's flagship express train. 

[Clive Mortimore]

20 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Strange.. all LMS 4 wheel bogies according to the books and drawings I have show that the LMS did one major 4 wheel bogie design (albeit to a riveted construction or a welded construction) to the same wheelbase . I.e. 9 feet. Do Hornby have drawings which differ to everyone elses?

Rip off the short ones and fit standard ones.. especially if they run more freely.

 

Remember these kitchen cars were the same as other LMS kitchen cars. The bogie centres were different to the 50' BGs.

 

Or were Messrs Jenkinson, Essery, Hinchliffe, Whitehead and Warburton wrong?

 

Baz

Hi Baz

 

I fully agree they should be 9ft wheelbase, well that is what is shown of the LMS diagram 1912 and on D2184 the post war rebuilds to cafeteria cars. How odd to go into so much work and get the bogie wheelbase wrong.

[robmcg]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

OK, so had a bit of a play with mine ...

 

Most of the seven passenger coaches would roll away down my 1-in-90, some more freely that others. For those less free running, easing off the pick-up pressure improved their running.

 

Bogies can be eased out of their pivots ...

 

... sufficient to rotate them like so. Obviously the wires for the pick ups are still attached so can be removed no further without more intrusive work. Actually, as it turned out, didn't end up needing to do this, but good to know.

 

Adjustment of pick-ups is work of a moment. Was going to use tweezers but actually can be done with a small screwdriver. Just apply pressure immediately beyond the 90degree bend (ie the non-wheel end). Doesn't need much.

 

The Kitchen cars wouldn't roll away at all. Definitely the 'problem' vehicles. The wheelsets are noticeably more 'sloppy' in their bearings, ie more side-to-side movement ... which means that they are likely to be rubbing on the brake blocks. I even wonder if the axle is rubbing on the plate beneath it? When I applied gentle pressure to push the two opposing axleboxes together, then it all trued up and ran freely (other than the braking effect of the pick-ups)

 

For tonight, the only other thing I've done is to tweak the brake blocks away like so - note the brake block above - you should be able to see it angled back slightly.

 

This made some difference but still not able to freely run away down the gradient. Anyhow, I gave it all a try and this was the result:

 

 

Did you like the bit where the loco went and retrieved its coaches?

 

More work to improve the free running of the RKs may be possible but I'm not sure how much difference it would make overall. It's quite a heavy set as it is, just feeling the pull on the lead coupling. What I haven't told you is that I also quickly added a piece of lead underneath the 'bath tub' before this piece of filming, as it still wasn't making too much of an impression. Might try it with my 46256 just to see - from here on in I think it's the loco that needs working on!

 

 

Should have done what the prototypes usually did.... take a 'run' at the bank! 

[Clive Mortimore]

I have had a look at Vol2 of the Essery and Jenkinson books. On page 49 is a photo of a Coronation Scot Kitchen Car 30084. The bogies do look shorter than the ones under the other Kitchen cars of the same diagram in general service a few pages later. The inner wheels line up differently to the windows.

 

So are Hornby right and no note was made on the diagram?

 

 

[Barry O]

7 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have had a look at Vol2 of the Essery and Jenkinson books. On page 49 is a photo of a Coronation Scot Kitchen Car 30084. The bogies do look shorter than the ones under the other Kitchen cars of the same diagram in general service a few pages later. The inner wheels line up differently to the windows.

 

So are Hornby right and no note was made on the diagram?

 

 

Clive, why go back to a non standard design when the Kitchen cars in service worked fine with the standard bogies?  As these were, in effect, two more full kitchens as per the rest of the 50' Period III full kitchens cars built .. why would they have a different bogie type fitted? The LMS were very standardised in the designs they used. Somewhere I have a postwar photo of one of these kitchen  ars. The Hornby ones shown do have different axleboxes.. a much earlier design..so it a rendirion of a LNWR design?

Baz

[Clive Mortimore]

2 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Clive, why go back to a non standard design when the Kitchen cars in service worked fine with the standard bogies?  As these were, in effect, two more full kitchens as per the rest of the 50' Period III full kitchens cars built .. why would they have a different bogie type fitted? The LMS were very standardised in the designs they used. Somewhere I have a postwar photo of one of these kitchen  ars. The Hornby ones shown do have different axleboxes.. a much earlier design..so it a rendirion of a LNWR design?

Baz

Hi Baz

 

I have just looked in Jenkinson's British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century, it has that diagram of the whole train and it shows 8ft bogies under the two kitchen cars, page 223. The distance between bogie centers remains 33ft 6ins. Like you I am baffled by this.

 

It looks like Hornby got it right, and I was wrong saying they were wrong.

[markw]

The coronation scot kitchen cars were all from lot 956 built by Glos C&W, was it just these that had 8ft bogies or was the whole of lot 956 fitted with them.

Edited April 20, 2021 by markw
To make meaning clearer

[LNER4479]

Tis indeed a puzzlement from the point of view of the LMS - as a general (but not universal) rule, a longer wheelbase bogie should give a better ride. But, as increasingly seems to be the case, if Hornby HAVE got this right then top marks to them.

 

It does appear, however, that as a new(?) design of bogie for Hornby, it has got a few rough edges that need attending to ...

[robmcg]

On 21/04/2021 at 10:49, LNER4479 said:

Tis indeed a puzzlement from the point of view of the LMS - as a general (but not universal) rule, a longer wheelbase bogie should give a better ride. But, as increasingly seems to be the case, if Hornby HAVE got this right then top marks to them.

 

It does appear, however, that as a new(?) design of bogie for Hornby, it has got a few rough edges that need attending to ...

 

Did you ever see such a fine sight as Stanier Princess Coronation 6220 making easy work of Shap regardless of dragging bogies on the kitchen cars?   

 

Thankyou LNER4479...  I may have jumped the gun while you sleep, but I do so like the picturse, especially full screen!  And what a great part of railway history.

 

Such fine models!  Will remove if my modifications to LNER4479's photo offends.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by robmcg
correction to pic

[atom3624]

I liked the view as well.

Good job - both of you.

 

My story should continue with my delivery today.

I had 4 older streamlined, now one, with 2 'newer' re-tooled streamliners ... all have added weight so some additional traction.

 

Al.

[JaymzHatstand]

Just a thought, would it be possible to open out the axleboxes and fit bearings to aid running/reduce drag?

 

I've currently got the wheels out of one of my kitchen cars, and it looks like there's quite a bit of plastic to work with, I just don't have the necessary tool for opening out the holes.

 

If anyone has tried such an operation, on these or any RtR coaches, please do report back as if it's viable, it could well be a useful tweak.

 

Cheers

 

J

[atom3624]

Just a thought .... he says.

 

Are the pickups on every wheel and both bogies?

1. Does it need to be both bogies?
2. Does it need to have (if reduced to one bogie) 2 pickups on each side?

Could feasibly consider one bogie, and having diagonal pickups?

 

Just a thought.

Provisionally, those 'deselected' could simply be bent back.

 

Al.

 

PS:  My rake of 9 arrived today - look better in the flesh!

[Cor-onGRT4]

About the discussions of the kitchen bogies , these are right, they are 8 foot instead of the 9 foot bogies of the other coaches, so Hornby is right about this.

The evidence , The Railway Gazette of 28 May 1937, the official magazine for railway companies worldwide.

There is a extensive article about the building of the Coronation train, with drawings of the coaches, and the bogies of the two kitchen cars says 8 foot.

So hope this solves the question.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Cor-onGRT4

[Compound2632]

... although, if you run a ruler over that sketch, the bogies are drawn 9 ft wheelbase!

 

Irrespective of which, it's clear from the dimensions that the bogies would have the same centres if they were 9 ft, giving 3'9" from outer axle to headstock as on the 57 ft carriages, whereas from the photos of the Hornby models, it looks as if they've put the 8 ft bogie and the 9 ft bogie at the same outer axle-to-headstock distance.

[Pete the Elaner]

5 hours ago, atom3624 said:

Just a thought .... he says.

 

Are the pickups on every wheel and both bogies?

1. Does it need to be both bogies?
2. Does it need to have (if reduced to one bogie) 2 pickups on each side?

Could feasibly consider one bogie, and having diagonal pickups?

 

Just a thought.

Provisionally, those 'deselected' could simply be bent back.

 

Al.

 

PS:  My rake of 9 arrived today - look better in the flesh!

 

I've still not fettled mine yet, but a thought about the number of pickups:

Hornby's 4 wheeled coach does not use track pickups for lighting, it uses a battery and a magnetic wand to turn the lighting on & off. Why? I believe that Hornby felt that 2 pickups per side was not enough to provide flicker-free lighting but 4 pickups per side are.