Wooden Framed Stock Used into the 1960's

[60526]

Below is an extract from December 1962 edition of the Model Railway Constructor, initially this was not of much interest to me until I read the text. It's a wooden framed wagon and was still in use in April1962, It would be an interesting prototype to have in amongst the Mainline and Bachmann 14T oil tankers I have, but was there a shut-off date when wooden framed wagons could not longer be used?

 

 

[Fat Controller]

There were quite a few different types of wagon with wooden underframes running into the 1960s:

ex-LNER 6-plank opens and ventilated vans (at least those with vac-brakes and 10'wb)

Private-owner salt wagons (wood less prone to corrosion by load)

I've never heard about any sort of 'ban' on using wooden solebars; most likely, wagons were simply scrapped when they became life-expired (40 years+) or would have been too expensive/difficult to repair.

[Wickham Green]

Most timber-framed wagons were getting elderly by nationalisation though the LNER were still building such vehicles - including for the LMS - during the war and there was even one batch of LNER-style hoppers built in early BR days ......... so there would have been a number of such wagons still running post 1960.

[Compound2632]

Hardwicke has a standard Webb wood-framed tender and ran on the main line in the mid 70s - so that's perhaps the most unusual late example of a wood-framed vehicle in BR days!

[Wickham Green]

There were probably still a few wooden p-way trolleys in use even later than that !

[The Johnster]

The Royal Navy was still ordering wooden ships, minesweepers, though these were superceded by GRP in the 70s. 
 

Outside of BR use, industrial systems often used wooden framed wagons, and the Festiniog (period spelling) and Talyllyn both had wooden framed passenger vehicles in service.  

[hexagon789]

Were the surviving Gresley buffets wooden-framed or simply wood-panelled?

 

As a matter of intetest, if the latter, what was the last wooden-framed passenger stock in revenue service?

 

I know the CIÉ had timber-framed stock in service 'til the mid-80s, did BR manage earlier than the 1970s or not?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, hexagon789 said:

Were the surviving Gresley buffets wooden-framed or simply wood-panelled?

 

 

Certainly steel underframes, which seems to be what the OP is asking about.

[TheSignalEngineer]

We regularly had a wooden framed tar tank, rectangular PO one registered with the L&YR in 1917, in Curzon Street yard when we were building the PCD in 1966. 

[PatB]

I've always been under the impression that Gresley passenger stock was steel framed, which contributed to its good (by inter-War standards) crash worthiness. This was noted in LTC Rolt's Red for Danger in his account of the Bo'ness(?) crash. 

[Compound2632]

Rather the opposite of LMS coaches, which remained wood-framed when steel panelling was adopted.

[PatB]

4 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

We regularly had a wooden framed tar tank, rectangular PO one registered with the L&YR in 1917, in Curzon Street yard when we were building the PCD in 1966. 

I would imagine that, due to the nature of its intended load, its wooden frames would have been pretty well preserved against rot by spillages/leakage. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

We regularly had a wooden framed tar tank, rectangular PO one registered with the L&YR in 1917, in Curzon Street yard when we were building the PCD in 1966. 

There was a previous thread where Paul Bartlett showed a picture of two still in traffic with Associated Chemical Companies in 1968. There were some still around as internal users in the 1980s.

[hexagon789]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Certainly steel underframes, which seems to be what the OP is asking about.

 

I would hope steel underframes! I think the last coaches constructed without such were built at the turn of the 20th century ISTR reading.

 

[Wickham Green]

The advantage of Gresley coaches ( & Maunsell/Bulleid ) over Stanier vehicles ( & GWR ) was the use of buckeye couplings and Pullman gangways which prevented over-riding in the event of a smash.

 

Until the advent of the BR Mk1 ( much lambastred after Clapham, of course ) only a handful of coaches in Britain had steel framed bodies - mainly electric stock.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Wickham Green
clarification

[The Johnster]

Mk1s were as strong as was possible at the time they were built, but the aircraft-inspired Mk2 were an improvement, without any frames at all.  What is perhaps surprising, given the focus on telescoping following the Harrow and Lewisham accidents, is that Stanier and Hawksworth stock, with conventional buffers and screw couplings, was still being constructed for fast main line work well into the mid 50s!

[Wickham Green]

Ironically, the Southern were putting new all-steel electric unit bodies onto second-hand frames with only a single buffer and three-link coupling at this period ................... an error that was pointed out at Blackfriars.

[Joseph_Pestell]

20 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Mk1s were as strong as was possible at the time they were built, 

 

In terms of the materials used, perhaps. But a vehicle with doors at the ends is never going to be optimal in terms of crash resistance.

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

In terms of the materials used, perhaps. But a vehicle with doors at the ends is never going to be optimal in terms of crash resistance.

@Wickham Green referenced the Clapham accident, where the lack of structural integrity due to the number of "compartment" doors was fundamental - especially as many of them were open. An end vestibule provides a crumple zone, allowing the rest of the vehicle to be more robust. In this respect, North American practice was ahead of British practice from at least the 1860s.

[Joseph_Pestell]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@Wickham Green referenced the Clapham accident, where the lack of structural integrity due to the number of "compartment" doors was fundamental - especially as many of them were open. An end vestibule provides a crumple zone, allowing the rest of the vehicle to be more robust. In this respect, North American practice was ahead of British practice from at least the 1860s.

 

One can see it as a crumple zone. But with doors placed at 1/3 and 2/3 (as Thompson did), one can put in some serious strengthening.

 

Having numerous doors from compartment to the exterior is always going to be a serious weakness. Class 310/312 and 4-CIG/4VEP seem like oddities for their era.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Class 310/312 and 4-CIG/4VEP seem like oddities for their era.

 

They were designed for speed of ingress and egress. In the 90s, I commuted from Reading on trains normally made up of a pair of 4VEPs. From time to time, a 4CEP (?) would be substituted for on of the 4VEPs. We would inevitably lose time so that my 7 minute connection at Twickenham to the Kingston line would become a dash across the platform, at best...

[keefer]

I think the 310/312s may have fared better as they were of mk2-style integral construction as opposed to the mk1-based build of pretty much every other EMU (until the 313 and after)

Edited February 5, 2020 by keefer

[jim.snowdon]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

@Wickham Green referenced the Clapham accident, where the lack of structural integrity due to the number of "compartment" doors was fundamental - especially as many of them were open. An end vestibule provides a crumple zone, allowing the rest of the vehicle to be more robust. In this respect, North American practice was ahead of British practice from at least the 1860s.

The Clapham accident is in many ways atypical in that the vehicles involved in the actual collision on the up line were trapped between a solid object (the retaining wall) and a train on the down line moving in the opposite direction. Had it not been there the outcome would have been very different. Even then, most of the stock involved emerged pretty well unscathed.

Railway rolling stock is generally designed for a direct end loading, if only because the basic principles of a railway keep vehicles in line with each other, The problems come about when they get out of line and either one overrides the other (telescoping) or the impact is corner to corner. In both cases the ability of the knuckle coupler and the Pullman gangway are instrumental in keeping the vehicles in line.

 

Jim

[Wickham Green]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

They were designed for speed of ingress and egress. In the 90s, I commuted from Reading on trains normally made up of a pair of 4VEPs. From time to time, a 4CEP (?) would be substituted for on of the 4VEPs. We would inevitably lose time so that my 7 minute connection at Twickenham to the Kingston line would become a dash across the platform, at best...

Until the Networkers came along my commuting - if the word had been invented in those days - was in EPB stock and a twenty second station stop was quite normal ........... nowadays you'll not even get the doors released in that time !

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

a twenty second station stop was quite normal ........... nowadays you'll not even get the doors released in that time !

The standard time allowed was usually 30 seconds, as that was the unit for putting together timetables. On my patch when the Sprinters replaced suburban DMUs the times were increased to 60 seconds for alternate stations to give a 45 second average and allow for opening and closing doors. On my present line it is quite common to lose 3 minutes on a half hour journey due to overtime at stations.