Steamport Southport Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 I quite like the Terrier and now have four with one to come. Two new Hornby, two old Dapol and the Hornby GWR version on order. But a class that is popular because BR sold them off cheap to the early preservationists. The same goes for the P Class. However they pale into insignificance when you consider what else is available RTR. There are about a dozen GWR pre grouping RTR locomotives out there. I don't just mean the Holden 101 0-4-0T and Dean Single. For some reason people forget the GWR was a pre grouping company formed in the 1830s... Dean Goods, City, County, Star, 2721, 28XX, 45XX, 42XX, 43XX, 47XX, 30XX ROD, just off the top of my head. Midland has the 1P, 1F, 3F, 4F, 4P. That's thousands of locomotives. Before anyone points it out I'm not suggesting all those locomotives pulled small carriages. But they would have been seen alongside each other. So why not the more typical GWR 4 wheelers or MR 6 wheelers? Both built in their hundreds, if not thousands. That's before we consider the other railways such as the LNWR, NER, GNR and GCR. I can see these filling the gap. But we really need proper coaches as well. Jason 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 As for the buffers. Try Wizard Models. They do coach and wagon buffer heads in a variety of sizes. As an example. https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/wagons/loc416/ Jason 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Mikkel Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2021 8 hours ago, Londontram said: For any one that's got one and might know - being metal how receptive do you think the buffers would be to taking solder. I was wondering if the concave section could be in filled and then reprofiled with sand paper? Nile has filed the concave buffers with a mini-drill, and also fitted sprung ones - see: 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BlueLightning Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2021 8 hours ago, The Johnster said: Hornby, Hatton's Genesis, and Dapol 0 gauge have all gone for models of them or something fairly close to them. Nowt wrong with the Brighton of course, or Stroudley, but a bit more variety might be appreciated in some quarters, at least to the extent of a different shape of brake third, one with the ducket away from the end Other than the fact that many railways had duckets at the end, and the Hattons one is nothing like a Brighton one you could be right. The Hattons Ducket is much more like an LCDR or GNR one to name 2 companies, and it could well be more. The Caley, LSWR, and even the GWR, to name another 3, all also had end duckets in a not overly dissimilar manner to Stroudley, and the fact that the end is a separate piece in the Hornby's makes them reasonably easy to modify to closer match the style. Those are just a few examples, there are many more, but I'm not sitting here checking through every single pre-grouping railway to make sure. So just to be clear end ducket ≠ LBSC, does that help with your issue about end duckets? 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 Also, as a thought - there's a good reason for end duckets, and not just visibility through the carriage end! Brake carriages need a hand brake, and the simplest method of installing one (bearing in mind that the Regulation of Railways Act requiring the use of continuous brakes on passenger stock didn't come in until 1889) is to have one brake shoe per wheel, with both sets of shoes being pulled in the same direction by the rodding, as below: This is most easily done with the handbrake at the end of the carriage - if the standard is much further in, you either need to *push* the brake rodding on the right-hand wheel to apply the brakes (big no-no, as pushing narrow rods tends to lead to bending and reduced brake force, plus eventual fatigue) or you need more levers in order to reverse the direction of the pull, and put your right-hand brake shoes on the other side of the wheel, adding cost and more potential points of failure. It then makes sense for the guard to need access to the end of the carriage, without parcels/luggage etc getting in the way of applying the brakes. As such, I would expect the guard's compartment to be at the end of the carriage, with the brake standard, and thus the duckets to be in a similar place. 6 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 21, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Skinnylinny said: Brake carriages need a hand brake, and the simplest method of installing one (bearing in mind that the Regulation of Railways Act requiring the use of continuous brakes on passenger stock didn't come in until 1889) is to have one brake shoe per wheel, with both sets of shoes being pulled in the same direction by the rodding, The Brighton was an early adopter of the Westinghouse brake. Were Stroudley's block trains of 1872/3 built with it? Edited February 21, 2021 by Compound2632 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Skinnylinny said: Also, as a thought - there's a good reason for end duckets, and not just visibility through the carriage end! Brake carriages need a hand brake, and the simplest method of installing one (bearing in mind that the Regulation of Railways Act requiring the use of continuous brakes on passenger stock didn't come in until 1889) is to have one brake shoe per wheel, with both sets of shoes being pulled in the same direction by the rodding, as below: This is most easily done with the handbrake at the end of the carriage - if the standard is much further in, you either need to *push* the brake rodding on the right-hand wheel to apply the brakes (big no-no, as pushing narrow rods tends to lead to bending and reduced brake force, plus eventual fatigue) or you need more levers in order to reverse the direction of the pull, and put your right-hand brake shoes on the other side of the wheel, adding cost and more potential points of failure. It then makes sense for the guard to need access to the end of the carriage, without parcels/luggage etc getting in the way of applying the brakes. As such, I would expect the guard's compartment to be at the end of the carriage, with the brake standard, and thus the duckets to be in a similar place. Carriage brakes, unlike wagons, usually operated on both sides of the wheels in a "clasp" arrangement. Brake rodding was invariably of the "pull" type, simple lever mechanisms providing the required change of direction and compensation in the rodding. The LNWR had a large number of centre brake compartment carriages, both six wheel and bogie types. The handbrake and vacuum brakes were linked and shared the same brake rodding.. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 The first Stroudley block trains were built without continuous brakes, and with the 4-shoe design as shown in my previous post. In fact, the unbraked carriages had Mansell wheels, while the braked ones had the unusual fitting of *nine*-spoked wheels, with the brake shoes being wooden. Note, also, the single lamp shared between three "compartments", and the lack of full-height partitions, indicating (as well as the close-coupling!) that this is a D34 suburban brake third rather than the D45 mainline brake third (outwardly very similar except for the number of lamps and the provision of buffers at the non-guard end. 8 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 21, 2021 Note the rippling of the guard's lookout panelling. That's presumably not a wood panel but sheet metal? Or even canvas? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 It's sheet metal, a single sheet to form the curved top, the side and the ogee bottom. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Note the rippling of the guard's lookout panelling. That's presumably not a wood panel but sheet metal? Or even canvas? 2 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: It's sheet metal, a single sheet to form the curved top, the side and the ogee bottom. It looks like a continuation of the roof covering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, PhilJ W said: It looks like a continuation of the roof covering. Which is why I thought it might be canvas (over boards). But I think the joint line can be seen quite clearly. @Skinnylinny's response will be based on reference to the drawings, so can be taken as authoritative. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 18 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said: Carriage brakes, unlike wagons, usually operated on both sides of the wheels in a "clasp" arrangement. Brake rodding was invariably of the "pull" type, simple lever mechanisms providing the required change of direction and compensation in the rodding. The LNWR had a large number of centre brake compartment carriages, both six wheel and bogie types. The handbrake and vacuum brakes were linked and shared the same brake rodding.. Perhaps after the introduction of continuous braking, yes - certainly there are examples of other arrangements. The NLR had carriages fitted with a chain brake, which pulled two brake blocks (acting on the outer face of the wheels) inwards, while the LB&SCR had the above system, but on earlier Craven carriages had wagon-style pushrod brakes, pushing the wheels outwards (and then with a hefty support to keep the axles the correct distance apart - no tie-bars here!). 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 30 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: Perhaps after the introduction of continuous braking, yes - certainly there are examples of other arrangements. The NLR had carriages fitted with a chain brake, which pulled two brake blocks (acting on the outer face of the wheels) inwards, while the LB&SCR had the above system, but on earlier Craven carriages had wagon-style pushrod brakes, pushing the wheels outwards (and then with a hefty support to keep the axles the correct distance apart - no tie-bars here!). Some very early LNWR 4 wheel carriages (built in the mid 1800s) didn't have continuous brakes but the brake thirds with a centre brake/luggage compartment had "clasp" brakes on all four wheels. The other matching carriages were un-braked. It is difficult to generalise about these very early carriages. As train speeds and length increased, more efficient braking became necessary, For the LNWR that appears to be the case from the 1870s when the Clarke Chain Brake was introduced although there had been the Fay linked rod system before that. There was a discussion on this topic in March 2015 on RMweb under "Early Coach brakes ? - Pre-Grouping - Modelling & Prototype " (I can't get the link to copy and paste). 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainwright1 Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Skinnylinny said: The first Stroudley block trains were built without continuous brakes, and with the 4-shoe design as shown in my previous post. In fact, the unbraked carriages had Mansell wheels, while the braked ones had the unusual fitting of *nine*-spoked wheels, with the brake shoes being wooden. Note, also, the single lamp shared between three "compartments", and the lack of full-height partitions, indicating (as well as the close-coupling!) that this is a D34 suburban brake third rather than the D45 mainline brake third (outwardly very similar except for the number of lamps and the provision of buffers at the non-guard end. That is a fascinating picture. Including the safety chains and the very close coupling. Was there a central buffer or pads between the coaches ? I note the coach board for the South London Line service. Is this picture part of a publicity shot taken showing all or most of the train, which I think has been published in Southern Way magazine ? I believe on the South London Line the trains consisted of 14 of these 4 wheeled coaches. In the aforementioned picture, I think that some of the coaches had long roof boards, but not sure if they actually carried them in service, or not for very long. Perhaps just for the publicity shot ? I wonder how the ducket got wrinkled ? All the best Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 21, 2021 Certain railways, and their CMEs, were somewhat resistant to the Board of Trade's campaign for 'lock, block, and brakes' which was a feature of the mid Victorian period and, as far as brakes were concerned, ended when the government of the day took the opportunity to impose a requirement for automatic brakes that could be applied from the locomotive on passeneger trains in the aftermath of the Armagh tragedy, which stirred public opinion in the Board of Trade's favour. The Brighton was such a resistor to change in Cravens' day, as was the LNW to some extent. The argument, when it wasn't reduced to the companies being unwilling to spend the money, was that reliance on an automatic brakes would lead to complacency and speeding by drivers and lack of attention from guards. Lock and block referred to the Board's perception of the need for facing point locks and full interlocking of points and signals to prevent conflicting movements, and block referring to full absolute block signalling where only one train can occupy a section and must clear it before another can be admitted, again resisted by the Brighton as removing responsibility from signalmen despite a very bad rear end collision and fire in the Clayton Tunnel which was being worked on a permissive block system. Stroudley was a moderniser on the Brighton, introducing standardisation, and promoting the Board of Trade's approach to brakes. I would imagine that the bulk of his passenger stock had automatic brakes, but am no expert on this subject. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 21, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 21, 2021 7 hours ago, wainwright1 said: I believe on the South London Line the trains consisted of 14 of these 4 wheeled coaches. ... £420. That starts to make the Coronation Scot set look like a bargain at £432! 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted February 22, 2021 Share Posted February 22, 2021 9 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said: >Snipped... There was a discussion on this topic in March 2015 on RMweb under "Early Coach brakes ? - Pre-Grouping - Modelling & Prototype " (I can't get the link to copy and paste). Here it is... 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundy Posted February 22, 2021 Share Posted February 22, 2021 16 hours ago, wainwright1 said: That is a fascinating picture. Including the safety chains and the very close coupling. Was there a central buffer or pads between the coaches ? I note the coach board for the South London Line service. Is this picture part of a publicity shot taken showing all or most of the train, which I think has been published in Southern Way magazine ? I believe on the South London Line the trains consisted of 14 of these 4 wheeled coaches. In the aforementioned picture, I think that some of the coaches had long roof boards, but not sure if they actually carried them in service, or not for very long. Perhaps just for the publicity shot ? I wonder how the ducket got wrinkled ? All the best Ray I understand that, when originally built, the Stroudley 4 wheelers for suburban use were close coupled with a central coupling and braking only through the guards' vehicles. Westinghouse brakes became the standard fit on the Brighton from the late 1870s following the Newark brake trials. At some point, suburban block sets had the centre buffer replaced by two short side buffers. I have no evidence, but I have wondered whether the buffer replacement was connected to the improved braking. The original South London sets were only 8 coaches long, so, in 4mm scale, a Terrier plus 8 will fit into just over 3 feet. Best wishes Eric 9 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Nile Posted February 22, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 22, 2021 That photo you've posted raises another question, should the solebars also be painted mahogany? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 22, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 22, 2021 5 minutes ago, Nile said: That photo you've posted raises another question, should the solebars also be painted mahogany? Headstocks too, I should think. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainwright1 Posted February 22, 2021 Share Posted February 22, 2021 2 hours ago, burgundy said: I understand that, when originally built, the Stroudley 4 wheelers for suburban use were close coupled with a central coupling and braking only through the guards' vehicles. Westinghouse brakes became the standard fit on the Brighton from the late 1870s following the Newark brake trials. At some point, suburban block sets had the centre buffer replaced by two short side buffers. I have no evidence, but I have wondered whether the buffer replacement was connected to the improved braking. The original South London sets were only 8 coaches long, so, in 4mm scale, a Terrier plus 8 will fit into just over 3 feet. Best wishes Eric Thanks Mr G. That's useful information. So looking at your picture, I think we have two 1st class, 2 Brake Third and four all Third. That makes for a useful and manageable train. So we need to persuade Hornby to run another set of coaches with different numbers. That would be £216 at our local model railway dealers rates for club members. All the best Ray 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 22, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, wainwright1 said: I think we have two 1st class, 2 Brake Third and four all Third. Surely some second class? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainwright1 Posted February 22, 2021 Share Posted February 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Surely some second class? Should I presume that the 2nd and 3rd would have the same body profile, similar to the LC & DR 6 wheelers ? Hornby have not done a 2nd class, yet. Hopefully Mr G can advise. All the best Ray 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainwright1 Posted February 22, 2021 Share Posted February 22, 2021 10 minutes ago, wainwright1 said: Should I presume that the 2nd and 3rd would have the same body profile, similar to the LC & DR 6 wheelers ? Hornby have not done a 2nd class, yet. Hopefully Mr G can advise. All the best Ray Just had a look at what Roxey Mouldings do in their range. They do not do a 2nd, but do do a composite. It does not say what the classes are in the composite. Ray 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now