Jump to content
 

GER 10T Goods Van announced!


Garethp8873
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Bishop of Welchester said:

 

I'm being a pedant here, but didn't the Ports Express take GW stock north and NE stock to Wales on the same day and each back the next?

I approve of pedantry, or keeping to certain standards as I call it.  Mea culpa for any lack of clarity; the Ports stock, and it's catering staff, worked on the 'double home' principle, which meant that the GW stock worked empty from Canton to Barry, up to North Shields, and then ecs to Manors in a working day.  Route was Gloucester/Banbury/GCR Sheffield/NER York/Newcastle, locos changed at Banbury and Sheffield, as were guards.  The stock stabled overnight at Manors, and the staff slept overnight in local lodging houses, with the landlady in Uncle Ted's case, for which they were paid expenses.  They arranged accommodation themselves.  They then signed on at Manors, stocked the restaurant car, worked ecs to North Shields, then back to Barry ecs Canton the following day.  A set of NER stock 'reciprocated' in the sense that it was a reciprocal arrangement, not in the engineering sense, passing the GW train in the Sheffield area.

 

Double home was a common feature of railway work in steam days, and in later years was a feature of the Radyr-Exeter, Salisbury, Corby, and Shrewsbury coal trains hauled by 72xx.  Railway hostels appeared during WW2 to accommodate footplatemen transferred to busy war traffic hubs like Severn Tunnel, Westbury, and Banbury where there was little local lodging to be had, and horror stories of conditions at them were still in common circulation in the 70s.  I couldn't say when the practice was discontinued for traincrew, but assume it was with dieselisation.  Post Office staff working on the Cardiff-York TPO worked double home, lodging in York while York sorters worked the opposite direction and lodged in Cardiff for the day, in much the same way as the Ports' catering staff did 80 years before.

 

The Cardiff-York TPO had a double home cat, which would turn up a few minutes before the train's 20.40 departure, install itself in a sorting coach where it knew it would be fed, then retired to a bag tender to sleep, Arrival at Leeds triggered it's waking up and returning to sorting coach to demand breakfast.  It hopped of the train at York and went about it's own business, returning for the run home in the evening.  Nobody knew what it did in Cardiff or York during the days.  Food whore.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I refer you to my earlier comments about Hornby and Dapol 16ton minerals with stretched bodies on 10' wheelbase chassis.  We could re-chassis them if the bodies were correct!  Only Bachmann make these in the correct size.

I'd forgotten them, having relied on Airfix, Parkside and Cambrian kits for such things until Bachmann finally made a decent one r-t-r.

 

The aforementioned atrocities were originally committed by Hornby Dublo and haven't been perpetuated (AFAIK) under the auspices of Margate. Tri-ang did a 16-tonner that was a bit closer dimensionally but with their own somewhat peculiar underpinnings. Mainline also did a (different) stretched one that (IIRC) was OK to represent some fitted minerals that were later constructed on (I think) ex--Palbrick underframes.

 

John 

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, The Johnster said:

I had a girlfriend with somewhat peculiar underpinnings once.  But only once...

 

I have no objection to the much derided Ox LNER cattle wagon; you can only see one side at a time!

True, but it looks a bit daft seeing half a dozen all the same way round.:jester:

 

My big objection is that the very few 9' wheelbase ones that did survive into BR ownership were turned into firewood in very short order and certainly didn't last long enough to receive BR paint or markings. The LNER had converted many to container flats during WW2 and had begun to eradicate the remaining 9' cattle wagons on the outbreak of peace,   

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

True, but it looks a bit daft seeing half a dozen all the same way round

I strenuously deny having had half a dozen all the same way round; oh, sorry, you mean cattle wagons, not girlfriends with odd underpinnings, whichever way round...

 

Sorry, John, it's that sort of Sunday afternoon!

 

What's wrong with re-chassising the Ox cattle wagon in BR livery with a 10' wb underframe; I'm assuming that the BR livery Ox is numbered suitably for this.  Then you've got an Ox 9' wb underpinning for another girlfriend, I mean project, perhaps having sourced your 10' wb from a surplus Hornby or Dapol 16ton mineral...

 

There's something that should be very satisfying about a cattle wagon made by Ox.

 

Ok nurse, I'll take the nice medication now...

Edited by The Johnster
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I strenuously deny having had half a dozen all the same way round; oh, sorry, you mean cattle wagons, not girlfriends with odd underpinnings, whichever way round...

 

Sorry, John, it's that sort of Sunday afternoon!

The chance would be a fine thing. Mind you, if there were half a dozen the same, they wouldn't be peculiar.....

 

And, yes, it's exactly that sort of Sunday afternoon.

 

John

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I approve of pedantry, or keeping to certain standards as I call it.  Mea culpa for any lack of clarity; the Ports stock, and it's catering staff, worked on the 'double home' principle, which meant that the GW stock worked empty from Canton to Barry, up to North Shields, and then ecs to Manors in a working day.  Route was Gloucester/Banbury/GCR Sheffield/NER York/Newcastle, locos changed at Banbury and Sheffield, as were guards.  The stock stabled overnight at Manors, and the staff slept overnight in local lodging houses, with the landlady in Uncle Ted's case, for which they were paid expenses.  They arranged accommodation themselves.  They then signed on at Manors, stocked the restaurant car, worked ecs to North Shields, then back to Barry ecs Canton the following day.  A set of NER stock 'reciprocated' in the sense that it was a reciprocal arrangement, not in the engineering sense, passing the GW train in the Sheffield area.

 

Banbury - Gloucester included the former Banbury and Cheltenham Direct Railway, and led to Leckhampton Station being renamed Cheltenham South and Leckhampton in an attempt to convince unsuspecting seafarers that it wasn't a long way from the town centre (it was also renamed 'Ayton' for the BTF film Mishap).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
14 hours ago, Nile said:

The brake gear on the far side is the wrong way round. Another cattle wagon like boo-boo.

It is if the thing is supposed to have (4-shoe*) Morton brakes, but the pink bits look correct if it should be independent. I'm not familiar with how the GER did things, so it could be right or wrong!

 

The weird (and definitely wrong) bit is the grey/white linkage of the sort used in clasp brake systems, which is attached to the centre of the cross-shaft. Also, the cross-shaft itself shouldn't exist if the prototype had independent brakes. 

 

Incidentally, the brake gear on the Oxford cattle wagon was OK but for the omitted vac cylinder. Their LNER 6-plank was the one with the brake-gear boo-boo, having the 4-shoe independent type where the prototype had 2-shoe (same-side*)Morton. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
(xxx*) inserted
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Garethp8873 said:

 

Thank goodness this is just a CAD.

 

Who draws these things - do they know anything about wagon brakegear? (Apparently not) !

 

It's clear that the designers have no understanding of the workings of what they are trying to reproduce - one can only blame their employers; ( ..... though it is, after all, akin to the blind leading the blind).

 

I'm just glad that I will not be around to see what will be churned out in years to come, when real modellers are no longer around to point out the plethora of errors.

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

I'm just glad that I will not be around to see what will be churned out in years to come, when real modellers are no longer around to point out the plethora of errors.

 

That's unduly bleak. Generations yet unborn will arise with an understanding of Morton brake gear and the history of the BoT/MoT brake gear regulations. I say unto you: Lo, there are modellers yet to come who will fathom the mysteries of the Dean-Churchward brake even unto its third generation.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I can't tell from photos if handbrake only vans had brake shoes on both sides, so it's possible only one pink brake shoe part should be present in the CAD image. They didn't have independent brakes, so a cross-shaft is correct. The one in the CAD belongs to a vacuum braked van, which should have 8 clasp brake shoes, not the type in the image shown.

The cattle wagon boo-boo I was referring to was making the sides the same, rather than mirror images as they should be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

It is if the thing is supposed to have Morton brakes, but the pink bits look correct if it should be independent. I'm not familiar with how the GER did things, so it could be right or wrong

The Great Eastern favoured  two-shoe Morton, with one shoe acting on the left-hand wheel on each side.  This is the arrangement seen on the prototype photograph of E612630 on the first page of this thread.  Some photos show two shoes on the same side - presumably a later modification?   I've yet to see a photo of one with a pair of V-hangers on the same side, so think it unlikely that independent either side brake gear was ever used on these wagons.

 

D

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

1 hour ago, Darryl Tooley said:

The Great Eastern favoured  two-shoe Morton, with one shoe acting on the left-hand wheel on each side.  This is the arrangement seen on the prototype photograph of E612630 on the first page of this thread.  Some photos show two shoes on the same side - presumably a later modification?   I've yet to see a photo of one with a pair of V-hangers on the same side, so think it unlikely that independent either side brake gear was ever used on these wagons.

 

D

 

I acquired one of these vans from RNAD Bedenham. It had been plywood clad but the independent, one-block per side brakegear appeared to have been unaltered.

 

Edit:< I have just taken a look at Peter Tatlow's LNER Wagons Vol. 1 and there seems to have been several types of handbrake gear fitted to various build lots of these vans.>

Regards,

Martin

Edited by MartinTrucks
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Who draws these things - do they know anything about wagon brakegear? (Apparently not) !

 

It's clear that the designers have no understanding of the workings of what they are trying to reproduce - one can only blame their employers; ( ..... though it is, after all, akin to the blind leading the blind).

 

I'm just glad that I will not be around to see what will be churned out in years to come, when real modellers are no longer around to point out the plethora of errors.

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

To be fair, that's by no means confined to Oxford Rail, Bachmann have substantial history in the matter.

 

In the best tradition of Morecambe and Wise; they make all the correct bits but they are frequently assembled in the wrong order.:jester:

 

As for the future, if the hobby even continues to exist, it will bear little resemblance to the one we know. I suspect it may become much smaller and more scholarly with commercial emphasis moving from mass-production to artisan output in (by todays standards) tiny volumes. Research may actually improve!

 

Mind you, there's a philosophical argument that if I can't spot an inaccuracy in a model and nobody else can point it out to me, {a} does it matter, and {b} am I going to be interested enough to buy the thing in the first place? :triniti:

 

John

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

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I'm just glad that I will not be around to see what will be churned out in years to come, when real modellers are no longer around to point out the plethora of errors.

 

Yeah, because RTR was so much better when we were all kids and everybody was a real modeller.

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

It's clear that the designers have no understanding of the workings of what they are trying to reproduce - one can only blame their employers;

 

I'm just glad that I will not be around to see what will be churned out in years to come, when real modellers are no longer around to point out the plethora of errors.


Don’t blame the employers, blame whoever is responsible for drawing up the specifications and checking the design against them. 
 

And is it ‘real modellers’ that point out the plethora of errors, or knowledgeable enthusiasts (who may, or may not, be one and the same)?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkSG said:

 

Yeah, because RTR was so much better when we were all kids and everybody was a real modeller.

 

No - RTR was pretty dire by today's standards, but there's far more documentary material available now and there's no excuse for getting something as simple as wagon brakegear wrong.

 

To mix up at least two different designs like that, somone must be combining random elements from different prototypes with no understanding of how they are supposed to function.

 

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just possible that Oxford have just done what Hornby and Bachmann have done in the past and designed a genericish chassis that can be used on multiple wagons - so keeping the cost down when designing new wagons.

 

I don't think we expect this to be a premium product do we?

 

Oxford don't do premium they do good value at a good price.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see the Brakes for these vans was as follows:

 

The 19ft3in vans built 1903-10 were fitted with 2 shoe single sided brakes with one lever. There was only one v-hanger, a vertical strut held inner end of the shaft. See the photo of the egg truck on page 195 of Tatlow vol1. The photo of 631758 on page 205 show a van in this condition well after the Grouping. Presumably these van were brought into line with MoT  regulation by having a cross shaft, v-hanger and second lever with a Morton cam fitted to the non-brake side. 

 

At least some batches of 19ft vans built 1911-23 were fitted with the GN style* diagonal single brake shoes with a cross shaft and Morton brake lever. Since these were MoT compliant it is likely they kept this brake arrangement through out their lives. There is some evidence that later builds had normal single sided 2 shoe Morton brakes. 

 

Since the AVB vans had 8 shoe clasp brakes it is almost certain that none of the vans ran with 4 shoe brakes. 

 

*There was a period, around the time of their failed amalgamation, when the GER, GNR and GCR seemed to be standardising their designs of new freight stock. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 8
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...