LNER Diagram 120 'Pigeon' Passenger Brake Van Electrical Connections

[SP Steve]

After inspecting the various available pictures of LNER Diagram 120 Pigeon Passenger Brake Vans I've found I'm non the wiser when it comes down to the electrical connecting leads found on the van ends.

 

Some images show no such connectors when viewing either the ducket or non-ducket side whereas others show them fitted. It wouldn't make sense that they would be fitted to one end only so logically I'm guessing that if one end carries them / doesn't carry them then the other end would follow suit.

 

I believe that such vans were done for both the GE and GN sections - was it only vans specific to one of the areas that carried them? (also what was the purpose of them?)

 

The preserved 6843 (ex 70246) has images on line showing both ends without them but as it's a preserved example then it may simply be that it has been altered during restoration.

 

The reason for the query is that I've invested in one of the newly re-released Chivers kits and it comes with one end with connectors and one end without as seen below:

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[A Murphy]

Might I ask where you found out about and bought said Chivers kit? Does one have to be a Facebook subscriber?

 

Regards,

 

Alastair M

[SP Steve]

8 minutes ago, A Murphy said:

Might I ask where you found out about and bought said Chivers kit? Does one have to be a Facebook subscriber?

 

 

You don't need to be on Facebook to order - details can be found on line at:

 

https://www.five79.co.uk/

 

Also there is a thread with details:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/156612-chivers-finelines-is-back-by-five79-new-items-page-2/

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by SP Steve

[A Murphy]

Thanks Steve, I've just ordered one. It's a lovely kit - I used to have one!

 

Alastair

[Ken.W]

Don't know why some would be with and others without, but, as Passenger Brakes, what they'll will be is the standard RCH through train lighting control cables

Edited July 24, 2020 by Ken.W

[Wickham Green too]

.............. which will either be on BOTH ends of a vehicle or on NEITHER ! 

As a self-contained non-passenger carrying vehicle the onboard lighting is for the guard's use alone and through controls to the rest of the train - which would often be carrying only parcels - might not have been fitted. When I built my Chivers kit a few years ago I had your conundrum : photos in Michael Harris' Gresley Coaches book ( Mallard Books version ) seems to show that provision was made for through lighting control on these vans - but no jumper cables were fitted ........... but a contemporary 51' bogie van appears to have no provision at all : Mr.Chivers may have been hedging his bets !

[31A]

4 hours ago, SP Steve said:

After inspecting the various available pictures of LNER Diagram 120 Pigeon Passenger Brake Vans I've found I'm non the wiser when it comes down to the electrical connecting leads found on the van ends.

 

Some images show no such connectors when viewing either the ducket or non-ducket side whereas others show them fitted. It wouldn't make sense that they would be fitted to one end only so logically I'm guessing that if one end carries them / doesn't carry them then the other end would follow suit.

 

I believe that such vans were done for both the GE and GN sections - was it only vans specific to one of the areas that carried them? (also what was the purpose of them?)

 

The preserved 6843 (ex 70246) has images on line showing both ends without them but as it's a preserved example then it may simply be that it has been altered during restoration.

 

The reason for the query is that I've invested in one of the newly re-released Chivers kits and it comes with one end with connectors and one end without as seen below:

 

 

 

I've made a couple of these kits and the lack of jumper cables on one end has always bemused me; I had wondered whether they copied a preserved one that only has jumpers at one end for some reason - perhaps it's only ever coupled at one end of the train?  But your references to the preserved one suggest otherwise.  I'm pretty sure they would have had them at both ends in reality, but have also seen pictures of them in normal service with none fitted at all.

 

I added jumper cable sockets at the missing end, I think I found some plastic rod about 1mm dia. and some tube that it slid into, probably Evergreen, and also added the receptacles at the top of the headstocks and the cables themselves from black thread (or any colour would do as I painted the ends black anyway).

 

[trevor7598]

Slightly off topic, but the Hornby model of the Southern BY van incorrectly has through

lighting jumper cables on the ends. The reason, Hornby copied an example on the

Bluebell Railway, which was wired by the Bluebell when the line was extended, because

of Sharpthorne tunnel. At the time there was no suitable coach with a brake compt.

for the SR non corridor set.

[Fat Controller]

Might I suggest that the arrangement is so that the light switches are accessible from both sides of the vehicle. There are four photos of the type in Volume One of Larkin's album of NPCCS photos. Three show the switches (?), whilst they are absent on the fourth. What is also visible is a smaller, rectangular box on each side, just above floor level. In one photo there is an S-shaped cable connecting the round 'switch' and the box below. Later in the book is a selection of photos of a Thompson BZ with the same arrangement.

[SP Steve]

Thanks for the replies, they seem to confirm my suspicions that both ends should either have them or not.

 

My picture references are a little limited but I have seen only one showing them fitted (one end), that being E70213E at Stratford works in 1957 as seen in Dave Larkin's "BR Parcels & Passenger Rated Stock Vol 1". Only the bases are fitted and as they are a different colour then it wouldn't be too much to suggest that some vehicles had the cables fitted at a later date.

 

I had wondered whether the equipment had been removed at some point but none of the unfitted examples show the small receptacles above the buffer in which cable & connectors were housed when not in use and I can't imagine them going to the trouble of removing them.

 

The same volume shows a Diagram 170 (E70321E) and Diagram 177 (E70339E) with them fitted and another two on-line images of the same diagrams would seem to suggest that the later builds (Diagrams 170. 176 & 177) were all so fitted which may account for the confusion.

 

Seems like the use of a scalpel will be needed.....

[SP Steve]

11 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Might I suggest that the arrangement is so that the light switches are accessible from both sides of the vehicle. There are four photos of the type in Volume One of Larkin's album of NPCCS photos. Three show the switches (?), whilst they are absent on the fourth. What is also visible is a smaller, rectangular box on each side, just above floor level. In one photo there is an S-shaped cable connecting the round 'switch' and the box below. Later in the book is a selection of photos of a Thompson BZ with the same arrangement.

 

I've taken a lot of pictures of the BZ at the Great Central Railway which shows just what you've described with two fitted to each end, one either side. That's why I was a little confused as I expected any other vehicle so fitted / not fitted to follow the same pattern but the Chivers kit has one of each.

 

The little box you describe isn't a switch but simply a bracket into which the cable connectors are inserted to stop them flapping around when not in use whilst the circular items are just junction boxes to connect the interior wiring to the flying leads.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by SP Steve

[31A]

12 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

 

My picture references are a little limited but I have seen only one showing them fitted (one end), that being E70213E at Stratford works in 1957 as seen in Dave Larkin's "BR Parcels & Passenger Rated Stock Vol 1". Only the bases are fitted and as they are a different colour then it wouldn't be too much to suggest that some vehicles had the cables fitted at a later date.

 

 

 

I remembered looking at that picture and thinking it looked a bit odd!  It looks to me as though the van body is newly painted but the actual jumper cables themselves haven't been fitted to the bases yet, which are as you say, a different colour.  Also I wonder whether the body isn't properly fitted to the underframe, or has just been painted and placed temporarily on another underframe, as it seems to be sitting on blocks on top of the solebars - at the left hand end in particular, there's a distinct gap between the bottom of the side and the top of the solebar.

 

[SP Steve]

16 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

I remembered looking at that picture and thinking it looked a bit odd!  It looks to me as though the van body is newly painted but the actual jumper cables themselves haven't been fitted to the bases yet, which are as you say, a different colour.  Also I wonder whether the body isn't properly fitted to the underframe, or has just been painted and placed temporarily on another underframe, as it seems to be sitting on blocks on top of the solebars - at the left hand end in particular, there's a distinct gap between the bottom of the side and the top of the solebar.

 

 

I think it's the correct underframe as the the spring hanger nearest to the camera shows "70213 BYP"  painted on. You also look to be right with the body separation as there seems to be a series of spacers along the length of the sole bars. There should also be two brackets on the ends which I presume where to try and prevent the body being propelled forwards in the event of a rough shunt and these appear to have been removed.

 

It could be my imagination but the sole bar at the far end appears to be drooping downwards whilst the body appears level. As the "spacers" seem to vary in thickness I wonder if they were trying to work out by how much and how far along the sole bar had become deformed?

[cctransuk]

23 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

I remembered looking at that picture and thinking it looked a bit odd!  It looks to me as though the van body is newly painted but the actual jumper cables themselves haven't been fitted to the bases yet, which are as you say, a different colour.  Also I wonder whether the body isn't properly fitted to the underframe, or has just been painted and placed temporarily on another underframe, as it seems to be sitting on blocks on top of the solebars - at the left hand end in particular, there's a distinct gap between the bottom of the side and the top of the solebar.

 

 

Wasn't this gap a common feature? Presumably to avoid rot in the interface between chassis and body?

 

John Isherwood.

[31A]

52 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Wasn't this gap a common feature? Presumably to avoid rot in the interface between chassis and body?

 

John Isherwood.

 

I thought of that, but it seems to be a greater gap than usual, certainly compared with other pictures of the same kind of van.  The blocks or wedges that the body is sitting on don't look usual to me!

 

[31A]

55 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

 

I think it's the correct underframe as the the spring hanger nearest to the camera shows "70213 BYP"  painted on. You also look to be right with the body separation as there seems to be a series of spacers along the length of the sole bars. There should also be two brackets on the ends which I presume where to try and prevent the body being propelled forwards in the event of a rough shunt and these appear to have been removed.

 

It could be my imagination but the sole bar at the far end appears to be drooping downwards whilst the body appears level. As the "spacers" seem to vary in thickness I wonder if they were trying to work out by how much and how far along the sole bar had become deformed?

 

You must have good eyesight to read the number - I hadn't noticed that!  It certainly looks like the right type of underframe.

 

[SP Steve]

On 24/07/2020 at 17:50, cctransuk said:

 

Wasn't this gap a common feature? Presumably to avoid rot in the interface between chassis and body?

 

John Isherwood.

 

As Steve says no other vehicles of this type seem to exhibit the same sort of gap and it is definitely on a gradient. Dave's caption lists it as "recently out-shopped" but I think that it is seen on Stratford undergoing attention that required the body and underframe to be split.

 

On 24/07/2020 at 18:46, 31A said:

 

You must have good eyesight to read the number - I hadn't noticed that!  It certainly looks like the right type of underframe.

 

 

I made out the BYP bit and a magnifying glass did the rest! I've done my worst with a blade as can be seen:

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[Wickham Green too]

4 hours ago, Ken.W said:

............ what they'll will be is the standard RCH through train lighting control cables

Begs the question, of course, when did standard become standard ?

The LMS Coaches books are far better illustrated than Harris and show some non-gangwayed passenger carriages with BOTH RCH jumpers AND individual lighting controls on the ends - so the matter must have been in flux at the time ( 1927-30ish ).

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Begs the question, of course, when did standard become standard ?

The LMS Coaches books are far better illustrated than Harris and show some non-gangwayed passenger carriages with BOTH RCH jumpers AND individual lighting controls on the ends - so the matter must have been in flux at the time ( 1927-30ish ).

Most carriages up to even the Mark 3s had lighting controls inside - all the RCH connections did was let the guard, or platform staff, turn the lighting for the whole train on or off from anywhere in the train. I'm fairly certain even the Mark 1 non-gangwayed stock had both external control switches and jumpers.

 

As far as jumper/no jumpers on NPCS is concerned, I would have thought a defining fact would be that in a passenger train the guard would have travelled in the carriages and these NPCS-type vehicles would normally have been outside the passenger section of the train, so would not need to have through lighting controls. Any that were provided with jumpers would have been the exception.

 

Jim

[Wickham Green too]

20 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Most carriages up to even the Mark 3s had lighting controls inside - all the RCH connections did was let the guard, or platform staff, turn the lighting for the whole train on or off from anywhere in the train. I'm fairly certain even the Mark 1 non-gangwayed stock had both external control switches and jumpers.

 

As far as jumper/no jumpers on NPCS is concerned, I would have thought a defining fact would be that in a passenger train the guard would have travelled in the carriages and these NPCS-type vehicles would normally have been outside the passenger section of the train, so would not need to have through lighting controls. Any that were provided with jumpers would have been the exception.

 

Jim

Having checked Parkin, YES, Mk1 non-gangwayed stock DID have external switches as well as jumpers ( did one control override the other ? ) ........ as must have all non-gangwayed passenger-carrying stock since the introduction of the RCH standard ( whenever ).

Provision for the marshalling of non-through-wired NPCS within a passenger train seems to be covered by the General Appendices* ( assuming all passenger-carrying vehicles were through-wired ) : "In cases where there is no through lighting control and Train Ticket Collectors are not travelling on the train, arrangements must be made for the lights to be turned on before leaving starting point or last stopping point, when such trains have to pass through tunnels, and turned off at the first stopping point after passing through the tunnels." ( * Railway Clearing House, 1st October 1960 ) .................. and please note, current day modellers - traditional passenger trains were only lit when necessary, not all day an' everyday as they are nowadays !

[TheSignalEngineer]

18 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

 

As far as jumper/no jumpers on NPCS is concerned, I would have thought a defining fact would be that in a passenger train the guard would have travelled in the carriages and these NPCS-type vehicles would normally have been outside the passenger section of the train, so would not need to have through lighting controls. Any that were provided with jumpers would have been the exception.

I was doing a bit of research on this for my other coaching stock. I don't know when the design originated but fitting seems to have become the norm for passenger stock in the late 1920s which would have coincided with the the demise of gas lighting. There were a few exceptions to provision of jumpers such as some GWR Autocoaches. LMS Pull-Push stock usually had additional jumpers for the driver to give bell signals to the fireman on the loco.

 

Regarding NPCCS, the fitting seemed to have been a bit less clear. As a general comment, four-wheel stock didn't get jumpers in most cases, although there is evidence of at least two of the Diagram 170 LNER 4-wheel brakes being fitted from 1960s pictures. The SR vans don't seem to have been fitted.

The only 6-wheel NPCCS fitted as far as I can see were the Thompson BZ and Stanier Stove R.

Gangwayed bogie brake vans seem to have been fitted as they could be in the middle of a train. On other bogie vans the only ones originally seeming to have been fitted were Post Office vans then later  the Siphon Gs used for newspaper traffic and BR Mk1 GUV Newspaper conversions.

 

For lighting controls, gangwayed stock usually had a control unit in each coach, There had push buttons to control the lights in that vehicle and a switch operated by a carriage key to control the train lights.

Non-gangwayed vehicles without a guard's compartment had a sliding switch on one end operated by a metal bar with a stirrup handle at each side to operate the lights. 

Non gangwayed DMU centre coaches also had a lighting control switch on one end.

 

[Wickham Green too]

Further to your research, I've had a look through my Southern sources and can find no evidence of ANY non-gangwayed S.R. passenger-carrying vehicles being fitted with through lighting controls ( with the possible exception of a few ex LSWR coaches : but NOT the late '30s Maunsell rebuilds ). The only S.R. NPCS to be through-wired seem to be the gangwayed luggage vans.