Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches

[6990WitherslackHall]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

 

 

Quite a nice rake of coaches you got there. 

[friscopete]

3 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  

 

3 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  

very nice buildings indeed .

[Compound2632]

52 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 ?

 

I have a scan of a G.R. Weddell article on the block trains from the Model Railway Constructor (issue/date not known). This states the original two block trains of 1872 were formed of eight carriages (the price keeps coming down!) formed of two brake thirds, three thirds, one second and two firsts. Four similar trains were built in 1873 along with two that had one more second in place of one of the thirds. These original trains were surplus in 1896 and broken up by 1900. Unfortunately of the drawings I only have a page with the third and brake third, so I can't say if the seconds had full-height partitions and separate quarter-lights.

 

Others with access to fuller information will be along shortly, I'm sure.

[melmerby]

The GWR had some tri-composites.

[burgundy]

2 hours 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

Ray 

This set was built from K's 4 wheelers and was described in this thread. It consists of Bk/3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, Bk/3rd. The thirds have half lights between the "compartments", while the second has a full height partition and quarterlights. Later thirds had more traditional quarterlights. 

Given the build period of about 20 years, there is a progressive evolution and later thirds with quarterlights were externally similar to suburban seconds. Main line seconds looked like a suburban first, with more legroom and better upholstery.

If you really need to get into the detail, the bible is LB&SCR Carriages Vol 1 by White, Turner and Ffoulkes, published by the HMRS.  

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

The GWR had some tri-composites.

 

Many and various. As long as a line had all three classes, it had tricomposites - ideal for through working. I'm not sure about the Great Western, but on some lines one could find first/second, second/third, first/third, and tricomposites.

[Nick Holliday]

21 hours ago, The Johnster said:

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 passenger 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.

Although going rather off-topic, I cannot let this slur upon the LBSCR and John Chester Craven stand unchallenged.  Rather than being a “resistor to change” the Brighton was very much in the fore-front of changes and improvements in safety, although the financial climate of the 1860’s meant that money wasn’t always there to put ideas into practice immediately. 

Craven may have had several failings, but a failure to take on board new ideas was not one of his. His propensity to create new loco designs was driven by his quest for improvements, in 1862 he said, “I believe in constantly reviewing the traffic requirements of this company and building accordingly.” He can hardly be blamed for not introducing continuous braking, as none of the systems that we are familiar with now had been invented before he was forced to resign from his post at Brighton; although Westinghouse had applied for his US patent in April 1869, Craven left the south in January 1870, probably before the idea had crossed the Atlantic.  The Smith Vacuum brake system dated from 1870 and the infamous LNWR chain brake was even later.

The government didn’t really grasp the ‘lock, block and brake’ principle until after the Newark brake trials of 1875, and the Railways Act of 1889 was the one which forced the adoption of continuous brakes, by which time Craven was dead, but the LBSC, once the decision to adopt the Westinghouse automatic air brake had been made in 1877, had fitted these brakes to all of its passenger stock, apart from 444 old relics, by 1883, and any survivors were suitably equipped by 1890, well within the moratorium period. It was the LNWR that, for various reasons, mostly parsimony, was reluctant to make the change from their ineffectual chain brake system to the automatic vacuum brake, taking several years to meet the Act’s conditions.

As for signalling, the LBSCR was a  pioneer in many areas, in both innovation and adoption.  Saxby and Farmer were established in 1863 on Brighton premises at New Cross, and the two companies worked closely for a number of years.  It is unfair to blame the Clayton Tunnel accident of 1861 on the use of permissive block system, as that represented state of the art equipment – the rest of the main line still operated under the time-interval system.  The cause of the accident was primarily the reckless behaviour of the Assistant Stationmaster at Brighton, combined with communication errors, compounded by a mechanical failure of a Whitworth automatic signal.  The LBSC subsequently equipped all its lines with the Block System by 1874, initially using Tyer’s or Harper’s instruments, and later Sykes’ Lock and Block. In contrast, across the UK in 1872 only 44% of lines used block systems, rising to 75% by 1880, so the Brighton was well ahead of the rest.

 

[Compound2632]

Yes, the Brighton was well run, but not to time...

 

... not that the Midland was any better in that respect.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Compound2632

[Nile]

7 hours ago, wainwright1 said:

Should I presume that the 2nd and 3rd would have the same body profile, similar to the LC & DR 6 wheelers ?

Eventually yes, the thirds originally had half lights. On the suburban coaches the seconds had 3 oil lamps, the thirds had 2. The Hornby third resembles a main line coach, which had 3 lamps.

[burgundy]

On 22/02/2021 at 07:46, 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 following extract comes from the Brailsford Diaries, transcribed by Simon Turner and published in the Brighton Circular some years ago. 

"Stroudley's suburban trains were made up entirely of 4 wheeled vehicles of standard dimensions, the great majority of trains consisting of ten coaches and in later years,  sometimes eleven. All were close coupled by means of a link passing through a specially designed central "floating" buffer block of square section.  

As there were no small "steel" side buffers between coaches, which were of four wheeled type, as has been noted and were comparatively short wheelbase, the running became far from steady as wheels, tyres, etc., became a bit worn."

[The author mentions the use of this stock on excursions]  

"A fast trip up from Brighton to East Croydon, quite possibly behind a D tank, stands out vividly in memory. Looking out of the rear coach towards the engine  on the left hand side, the whole length of the train forward appeared to be proceeding like a snake, individual carriages hunting from side to side and all out of harmony. With windows rattling and the continuous high chinking sound of loose fillings, caused by the shuddering of the loose lids of the grease axle boxes, such journey were both rough and noisy."     

I trust that this will be faithfully replicated on everyone's models?

Best wishes 
Eric 

Edited February 23, 2021 by burgundy

[Dave Searle]

The following information is taken from pages 149-150 of Railway Appliances. A description of details of railway construction by J. Wolfe Barry, 1884 (4th edition) [Ottley 2415].

"Some carriages are made without any spring buffers, and are coupled together tightly at the centre of the head-stock without any slack in the draw-bars. This arrangement is common in the United States and in other countries where the long American carriages are adopted. Tight coupling has also been used for some time past in England on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway for the ordinary description of passenger carriages, and fig. 178 (see next page) shows the arrangement of the tight centre coupling adopted on that railway. A hard wood block (a) surrounded on all sides but on its rear with iron, is placed at the centre of every head-stock; a flat coupling-bar (f) runs through the centre of the block, and is attached at either end by a pin (c) to a short draw-bar (d) which transfers the tractive pull to the frame of the carriage. At the other end of the draw-bar there is a screw (c) with a nut on it, which is turned to tighten up or slacken the coupling by a ratchet spanner (f) hanging vertically below the carriage. This adjusting nut presses by a ball and socket joint against the frame of the carriage, and allows of a small amount of necessary horizontal or vertical play of the coupling. To couple up two of these carriages a man goes beneath the carriage, and puts the pin through the holes in the links of the draw-bar and in the coupling-bar. A few turns of the nut by means of the ratchet spanner then tighten up the coupling, and the carriage is rigidly connected with its neighbour. The arrangement shown is used for short traffic trains which are not uncoupled for months together. If it were necessary to couple and uncouple frequently the pin might be put in from above, through the floor of the carriage."

 

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[Compound2632]

Did any other British railway use this system? The only other close coupling arrangement I'm familiar with is that used by the Midland, which was just short buffers in the conventional locations and short couplings.

[PhilJ W]

The early Metropolitan 4 wheelers were close coupled in pairs.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

The early Metropolitan 4 wheelers were close coupled in pairs.

 

Yes, but using what method?

[wainwright1]

14 hours ago, burgundy said:

The following extract comes from the Brailsford Diaries, transcribed by Simon Turner and published in the Brighton Circular some years ago. 

"Stroudley's suburban trains were made up entirely of 4 wheeled vehicles of standard dimensions, the great majority of trains consisting of ten coaches and in later years,  sometimes eleven. All were close coupled by means of a link passing through a specially designed central "floating" buffer block of square section.  

As there were no small "steel" side buffers between coaches, which were of four wheeled type, as has been noted and were comparatively short wheelbase, the running became far from steady as wheels, tyres, etc., became a bit worn."

[The author mentions the use of this stock on excursions]  

"A fast trip up from Brighton to East Croydon, quite possibly behind a D tank, stands out vividly in memory. Looking out of the rear coach towards the engine  on the left hand side, the whole length of the train forward appeared to be proceeding like a snake, individual carriages hunting from side to side and all out of harmony. With windows rattling and the continuous high chinking sound of loose fillings, caused by the shuddering of the loose lids of the grease axle boxes, such journey were both rough and noisy."     

I trust that this will be faithfully replicated on everyone's models?

Best wishes 
Eric 

Thanks Eric.

 

That is fascinating, but difficult to show on a model, other than the basics. Perhaps a simple clip in bar coupling.

I can just imagine the noise and vibration from the fast Brighton train !

Were the sets used on the South London Line the same as these 10 coach ones ?

Many thanks

Ray

[Bucoops]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Did any other British railway use this system? The only other close coupling arrangement I'm familiar with is that used by the Midland, which was just short buffers in the conventional locations and short couplings.

 

The Midland sounds similar to the GER method.

[turbos]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Did any other British railway use this system? The only other close coupling arrangement I'm familiar with is that used by the Midland, which was just short buffers in the conventional locations and short couplings.

The Caledonian Railway had close coupled 4 wheel coaches on the Cathcart Circle, using a centre buffer coupler (see pic of the Plan Drawing). The coaches were 1ft 6 3/4 inches between headstocks and were semi-permanently coupled in 8 coach sets, composed of three Firsts, three Thirds and a Brake Third at each end.

 

Brian.

[Dunsignalling]

On 15/02/2021 at 18:15, The Johnster said:

The 'pointless' axles are a throwback to the design clever era, when they featured on the Southern BY and LNER long CCT models (and probably others but I have these two).  The BY is a fine runner but I've had nothing but trouble with the CCT; derailments, buffer locking, couplings overriding, wheelsets refusing to run freely, and have withdrawn if from service pending replacement with a Parkside one, or at least the Hornby body on a Parky chassis.  Drilling recesses for bearings to replace these axles with pointed end ones is not an option as one cannot get a square angle on the drill because of the axlebox detail on the opposite side; design not very clever if you have to replace the wheelsets.  Hope Hattons' 6 wheelers aren't like this!

 

Glueing stryene to the flat inside surface of the axleboxes will control sideplay, but act as a brake on the wheel face; I would mount and glue a short length slit plastic tube over the axle between the rear face of the wheel and the carrying tube to control sideplay.  Haven't tried it, but the tubes that hold cotton buds are probably about the right size!  Cut several sizes and try them 'cold' before you glue the one that allows the correct sideplay for your purposes, not forgetting that the same size must be tried on both ends of the axle or your coach will run 'off centre'.  Let the centre axle have as much sideplay as it has as supplied, it's the outer axles that you need to control, but ensure that the centre wheelset's back to backs are spot on to avoid trouble at turnouts.

If you wish to add outside bearings, the way to get them square and consistent is to mark and drill the axle boxes from outside. Add flanged bearings from inside with some of  those little Peco fibre washers if necessary to eliminate excess side play.

 

Only drawback is the need to make good the axlebox covers. 

 

John

Edited February 24, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

This is a sensible way to go about the job, John.  But the easy way is to institute a policy of not buying such models in the first place; the BY and LNER CCT were bought before I was aware of the 'inside bearing cosmetic axlebox' construction.  As I've said, the BY is a lovely little thing that has never caused any problem, but the CCT, built in the same way, never caused anything but problems.  Your suggestion has encouraged me to get it out of the 'doesn't run properly might do something about it one day' drawer, and have a go at Bachmann/Hornby wheels (layout standard) by attacking the axleboxes from the outside as you suggest; this will save me a Parkside kit, as I'm happy enough with the appearance of the bodyshell and the underframe apart from those wheelsets.

 

As for 6 wheel generic coaches, my view is that Hatton's method of sideways moving axleboxes is the better cheat.  Academic for me as I'll only be buying 4 wheelers anyway, and using Ratio/Parkside bodies for the brake 3rds.  Ok, next wee projectette, attack the LNER CCT Dunsignalling stylee...

[burgundy]

8 hours ago, wainwright1 said:

That is fascinating, but difficult to show on a model, other than the basics. Perhaps a simple clip in bar coupling.

I can just imagine the noise and vibration from the fast Brighton train !

Were the sets used on the South London Line the same as these 10 coach ones ?

Many thanks

Ray

Ray 

I was assuming that those who use DCC could incorporate a speaker to provide the sound effects!

For the couplings, my own solution is a simple upward pointing hook on one end and a matching recess on the adjacent vehicle. I am currently developing a roundy-roundy layout which will reveal whether I can produce a prototypical "snake" effect.   

The Brighton was an early user of set trains and it would no doubt be possible to find a specific South London set. Sets were tailored quite precisely to particular services and were evidently reinforced when the demand increased. At weekends, suburban sets were pressed into excursion traffic, so it is quite possible that Brailsford's train would have spent the rest of the week trundling around the South London line. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[sb67]

Would an odd LNER teak version 4 or 6 wheel be suitable to represent trains that ran on branch lines around Essex/Suffolk around the 50's60/s? 

I was thinking of photo's I've seen of the Maldon or Thaxted branch with trains made up of older stock

I was thinking of using 2 BR Crimson and 1 LNER teak 

 

Thanks guys

[Dunsignalling]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

This is a sensible way to go about the job, John.  But the easy way is to institute a policy of not buying such models in the first place; the BY and LNER CCT were bought before I was aware of the 'inside bearing cosmetic axlebox' construction.  As I've said, the BY is a lovely little thing that has never caused any problem, but the CCT, built in the same way, never caused anything but problems.  Your suggestion has encouraged me to get it out of the 'doesn't run properly might do something about it one day' drawer, and have a go at Bachmann/Hornby wheels (layout standard) by attacking the axleboxes from the outside as you suggest; this will save me a Parkside kit, as I'm happy enough with the appearance of the bodyshell and the underframe apart from those wheelsets.

 

As for 6 wheel generic coaches, my view is that Hatton's method of sideways moving axleboxes is the better cheat.  Academic for me as I'll only be buying 4 wheelers anyway, and using Ratio/Parkside bodies for the brake 3rds.  Ok, next wee projectette, attack the LNER CCT Dunsignalling stylee...

With a van of this length, it will probably be best to only do it on one end, with a MJT rocking compensation unit at the other. *

 

I've never encountered a problem with mine so it's not high on my to-do list, though I have used the method successfully after filling in worn pinpoint mouldings on some older models. 

 

John

 

EDIT: * Indeed, just do one end initially and see if the running problems disappear. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Dunsignalling
Additional thought

[Nile]

3 hours ago, sb67 said:

Would an odd LNER teak version 4 or 6 wheel be suitable to represent trains that ran on branch lines around Essex/Suffolk around the 50's60/s? 

I was thinking of photo's I've seen of the Maldon or Thaxted branch with trains made up of older stock

I was thinking of using 2 BR Crimson and 1 LNER teak 

 

Thanks guys

More likely these .

[Robin Brasher]

Thank you for the information about Hornby 6 wheel coach axles and mixed trains of BR and LNER stock. During my daily exercise I came across a wooden body coach near the Square and Compass at Worth Matravers.  A hedge obstructs the view of most of the coach but it looks like it is well looked after.  We had plans forty years ago to restore and run our three LSWR six wheel coaches on the Swanage Railway but the plans never materialised and I sometimes wonder if the coaches are better off remaining in people's gardens if the owners look after them.  This one looks like it is in British Railways southern region green livery.

[wainwright1]

Those interested in these old Brighton coaches might like to see an article in the latest issue of Southern Way magazine (Issue 53). 'Down to Earth Part 3A. Ex LBSCR Stock' By Mike King.

This has a good selection of photographs of coaches, grounded bodies and conversions into bungalows. There is at least one really ancient relic and some specifically relevant to the type under discussion here including a nice brake end view of a Third Brake sitting on wooden trestles. Also included, several bogie coach types including a rather exotic Royal Train Clerestory Saloon. Something to whet the appetite for modelling.

 

All the best

Ray