Jump to content

Hornby 2021 - 4 & 6 wheel period coaches


Recommended Posts

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!). 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.IMG_20180312_0004.jpg.abc4ecd5bbc092d0ce1c6b8961b261c9.jpg

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

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...:)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

1531425936_P1010158(1).jpg.8a6759d7b5cd10c554337719198bcc20.jpg

Best wishes 

Eric  

  • Like 9
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

1531425936_P1010158(1).jpg.8a6759d7b5cd10c554337719198bcc20.jpg

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

1531425936_P1010158(1).jpg.8a6759d7b5cd10c554337719198bcc20.jpg

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. 

1531425936_P1010158(1).jpg.8a6759d7b5cd10c554337719198bcc20.jpg

Best wishes 

Eric  

very nice buildings indeed .

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by burgundy
  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

 

Fig-178.gif.6317a5061e709cbf81b0d8c8e99ee79d.gif

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.