The Siphon G, by Accurascale - From Milk To Mail!

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Thanks, TBH, tension-lock users will be better off with a NEM pocket in the bogie as will I as a Kadee user.

 

Tension-locks don't work at all well in any form of kinetic link and Kadees don't fare much better when coupled to similarly equipped stock.

 

John

Indeed, which is why, for effective close-coupling, couplers which form rigid links when coupled must be used, e.g. Roco, Fleischmann, Hornby-Roco, Hornby-Scharfenberg, Märklin and others. I use Roco couplers which come in standard versions, long versions (Hornby), with NEM362 pockets and NEM363 vertical dove-tails.

 

It is unfortunate that OO manufacturers in general have often messed up with kinetic mounts - wrong height, wrong distance, too loose, too wobbly, wrong kinetcs for OO etc. There has also been a great lack of information on the subject in the modelling press and in manufacturers catalogues. Reviews of models, and descriptions in catalogues, rarely bother to say if kinetic close-coupling mounts are fitted. The result is that many modellers in the UK do not understand them properly, and/or have bad experience with them (derailments, especially when propelling).

 

This is a great pity. Close-couplers have been around in the HO world since the early eighties. Catalogues and magazines devoted pages to explaining them properly. Brands fitted the kinetic mounts according to NEM standards. And they work, and work well, and look really good.

[spamcan61]

21 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

It's pretending to be a 'Tavern Car' ............... nobody wanted to dine in them either !

<thread drift alert> I recall reading 'somewhere' that the Tavern cars achieved their objective, takings increased because people didn't linger after finishing their meal hence more people got to eat. However there was such a hoo-ha in the press that they were modified.

[Graham108]

53 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

We'll be very happy to show it when we return to work on January 6th.

 

What's that - a 5-day hangover!

[Dunsignalling]

41 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

Indeed, which is why, for effective close-coupling, couplers which form rigid links when coupled must be used, e.g. Roco, Fleischmann, Hornby-Roco, Hornby-Scharfenberg, Märklin and others. I use Roco couplers which come in standard versions, long versions (Hornby), with NEM362 pockets and NEM363 vertical dove-tails.

 

It is unfortunate that OO manufacturers in general have often messed up with kinetic mounts - wrong height, wrong distance, too loose, too wobbly, wrong kinetcs for OO etc. There has also been a great lack of information on the subject in the modelling press and in manufacturers catalogues. Reviews of models, and descriptions in catalogues, rarely bother to say if kinetic close-coupling mounts are fitted. The result is that many modellers in the UK do not understand them properly, and/or have bad experience with them (derailments, especially when propelling).

 

This is a great pity. Close-couplers have been around in the HO world since the early eighties. Catalogues and magazines devoted pages to explaining them properly. Brands fitted the kinetic mounts according to NEM standards. And they work, and work well, and look really good.

Unfortunately, the first UK OO adopter got both the height and the reach wrong, which rather blighted them for many UK modellers. If all else fails, read the instructions.....

 

All my coaching sets have inverted Rocos (with the uncoupling loops removed)  "inside" and Kadees on the ends, but I like to attach/detach vans so they get 2 x Kadee. I couldn't get on with Rocos on wagons, and I have far too many to consider converting them anyway.

 

John

Edited December 24, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Karhedron]

On 16/12/2021 at 16:47, Dunsignalling said:

Whatever their official designation as milk vans, most milk previously transported by rail in churns was rapidly going over to tank wagons fairly early in BR days, though I'm not sure when BR moved its last churn-full.

 

I confidently expect to learn the exact date within the next ten posts. 

 

I have been looking for a cut-off date to no avail. Most churn traffic ceased in the mid-60s with the implementation of the "Western Agreement". This was the agreement between BR and the Milk Marketing Board to concentrate milk flows into London on the South Wales and West Country routes. The LMS and LNER milk flows stopped around this time. Churn traffic had been in steady decline since the ASLEF strike in 1955 as churns were much more vulnerable to perishing if delayed than milk in tankers. The last report I have read of churn traffic into London was 1961. If it lasted beyond this date, I feel certain it would have finished with the implementation of the Western Agreement.

 

And because railway history has to have an exception to every rule, here is one for churns. Most milk traffic was bound for London but there were other flows. One was a flow of cream for cakes and the like in the Isle of Thanet resorts. This flow was dispatched from from the CWS dairy at Stewarts Lane (which I have still not managed to find a decent photo of) and was conveyed in churns carried in the brake compartments of EMUs. This churn flow was still running in 1966. CWS Stewarts Lane closed later in the 60s so I guess the flow finished then but that is the absolute last record of churns on the rails that I can find.

[Dunsignalling]

I must confess that my interest in Siphons rather excludes their use in milk traffic, simply because I don't model the Western Region. My local dairies at Seaton Junction (Express) and Chard Junction (UD) on the Southern Region were already tank wagon operations by the time I became aware of their existence! Churns came in by road, but they didn't (evidently) go out by rail unless a few odd ones were conveyed in the brake vans.

 

Where my need for a couple of Siphons comes in is that some were among the varied selection of vehicles "acquired" to replace the SR Gangwayed Luggage Vans as they were withdrawn in 1958-60. Mine will therefore run singly, attached to local passenger trains rather than in groups performing their original intended function. 

 

John

Edited December 31, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[HillsideDepot]

On 30/12/2021 at 23:20, Karhedron said:

 

I have been looking for a cut-off date to no avail. Most churn traffic ceased in the mid-60s with the implementation of the "Western Agreement". This was the agreement between BR and the Milk Marketing Board to concentrate milk flows into London on the South Wales and West Country routes. The LMS and LNER milk flows stopped around this time. Churn traffic had been in steady decline since the ASLEF strike in 1955 as churns were much more vulnerable to perishing if delayed than milk in tankers. The last report I have read of churn traffic into London was 1961. If it lasted beyond this date, I feel certain it would have finished with the implementation of the Western Agreement.

 

And because railway history has to have an exception to every rule, here is one for churns. Most milk traffic was bound for London but there were other flows. One was a flow of cream for cakes and the like in the Isle of Thanet resorts. This flow was dispatched from from the CWS dairy at Stewarts Lane (which I have still not managed to find a decent photo of) and was conveyed in churns carried in the brake compartments of EMUs. This churn flow was still running in 1966. CWS Stewarts Lane closed later in the 60s so I guess the flow finished then but that is the absolute last record of churns on the rails that I can find.

Hopefully not too far off topic, as the examples I've found aren't conveyed in Siphon G's, but the BR WR  Marshalling and Loading Instructions Parcels Trains and Freight Trains Conveying Parcels Vans book commencing 5 May 1969 (available on the BR Coaching Stock IO Group) has a couple of mentions of churn traffic. 

 

The footnotes here mention cream traffic, in a GUV

and the churns appear to return in a BG here

 

Whilst empty milk churns are mentioned here

 

Overall the Marshalling and Loading book is a fascinating document, if a few years too early for my layout researches. It gives a great insight into the scope of items carried in "parcel vans" and opens a window on a very different way of railway life. 

 

And now back to the Siphons.

Edited April 4, 2022 by HillsideDepot
Spelling

[Bulwell Hall]

On 16/12/2021 at 12:04, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi everyone,

 

From the transportation of milk, to mail and newspapers for over 50 years, the GWR designed diagram 0.33 Siphon G was a widely travelled stalwart of the network. A high quality model in 00/4mm scale covering the detail differences and long lives of these characterful vans is long overdue. 

 

Welcome to the Accurascale Siphon G, covering the 0.33 diagram, the BR(W) 0.62, the O.59 and M.34 conversions, as well as the BR Newspaper Van conversions of the O.62 (NNV) in 00/4mm scale. 

 

History

The history of these vans is varied and very interesting, venturing from providing transport for milk for the GWR, to serving as ambulance coaches during World War II, to nationalisation and parcels workings, and into the BR blue era on parcels and newspaper trains as well as departmental duties into the mid 1980s.

Our Project Manager Paul Isles has written a comprehensive history on these vans, which you can read in a dedicated blog by clicking here: https://accurascale.co.uk/blogs/news/from-milk-to-the-mail-the-history-of-the-siphon-g

 

The Model

 

 

 

As is the Accurascale way, we have produced a wide ranging, comprehensive tooling suite to cover 15 different versions of these ubiquitous vans, once again leading the way in detail and prototypical variation in the model railway market.

With 15 different versions available, the first run of our Siphon G models covers examples from the entire operational period of the prototypes; from July 1930 through to the early 1980s and feature a selection of liveries carried by these versatile and distinctive vans.

 

 

The Siphons are now available to pre-order via your local stockist or direct via our website with a price of £54.95 each and 10% off when you buy two or more direct from Accurascale. Delivery will be in Q1 2023. Browse the full range and learn more about all the variants we plan to produce by clicking here: https://accurascale.co.uk/blogs/news/new-announcement-welcome-to-the-accurascale-siphon-g-on-00-4mm

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

 

Just looking at these photos again - to remind myself of what we have to look forward to - and I cannot see the vacuum pipe that runs along the outside of the sole bar and behind the footsteps.  It could be on the opposite side of course but I mention it just in case it has been overlooked.

 

Gerry

[Accurascale Fran]

Hi Gerry,

 

Many thanks for your interest! Can confirm it is there. Please see pics below.

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

[Mark]

1 hour ago, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi Gerry,

 

Many thanks for your interest! Can confirm it is there. Please see pics below.

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

Probably a bit pedantic but would it be possible to extend the brake pull rod so that the split is behind the wheels rather than in front of the safety loop. I doubt it will affect the swing on the bogies much.

 

Mark

[Accurascale Fran]

Hi @Mark,

 

The bracket where the split takes place is there for support, so is required to break here. There would also be a greater chance of the pull-rod catching on the bogie. As it stands, the split moves in relation to the body, and is a ‘safe bet’. Durability always needs to be a consideration on our models too and this strikes a balance between both detail and durability. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

[Mark]

3 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi @Mark,

 

The bracket where the split takes place is there for support, so is required to break here. There would also be a greater chance of the pull-rod catching on the bogie. As it stands, the split moves in relation to the body, and is a ‘safe bet’. Durability always needs to be a consideration on our models too and this strikes a balance between both detail and durability. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

Mark

[bubbles2]

I very much like the look of your Siphons and will certainly be putting an order in for some, but there is one detail which to me stands out as not quite like the prototype, more often than not the lower part of the corridor connection would be pulled into the end, when the corridor connection was not in use which was most of the time as I rember them in BR blue days and as most of us I guess will be running them with the corridor connections disconnected I wonder if this is something that could be replicated, maybe with a straight or pulled in  connection that could be changed over.

   

 

 

This is something I have attempted to model on my Lima detailed Siphons.

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by bubbles2

[TrevorP1]

2 minutes ago, bubbles2 said:

I very much like the look of your Siphons and will certainly be putting an order in for some, but there is one detail which to me stands out as not quite like the prototype, more often than not the lower part of the corridor connection would be pulled into the end, when the corridor connection was not in use which was most of the time as I them in BR blue days and as most of us I guess will be running them with the corridor connections disconnected I wonder if this is something that could be replicated, maybe with a straight or pulled in  connection that could be changed over.

   

 

 

This is something I have attempted to model on my Lima detailed Siphons.

 

 

That sounds an excellent idea if it could be done. It's characteristic feature of this type of gangway connection. As you say, something that could be changed over if not required.

[Zunnan]

4 hours ago, bubbles2 said:

I very much like the look of your Siphons and will certainly be putting an order in for some, but there is one detail which to me stands out as not quite like the prototype, more often than not the lower part of the corridor connection would be pulled into the end, when the corridor connection was not in use which was most of the time as I rember them in BR blue days and as most of us I guess will be running them with the corridor connections disconnected I wonder if this is something that could be replicated, maybe with a straight or pulled in  connection that could be changed over. 

 

Oh yes please! An alternative gangway done in this manner would go down very well in these parts. Though don't replicate Hornbys execution with the Staniers, it was a nice idea rather poorly done. Done properly, its not just the Siphons which I'd be using them on, so provision as a separate spare would also be a cracking idea.

[Accurascale Fran]

Hi everyone,

 

We did consider doing that as a possibility, but it’s so hard to replicate well (as is a canvas connection anyway) and it only works for solo vans, which would mean alternative gangways which would drive up cost and we were already at the limit of what we could charge, not to mention the hangers etc being separate items and easily broken off if messed with in such a manner. 

 

As it is, the gangway connections are rubber, which makes that aspect of modelling them collapsed easier. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

[bubbles2]

40 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi everyone,

 

We did consider doing that as a possibility, but it’s so hard to replicate well (as is a canvas connection anyway) and it only works for solo vans, which would mean alternative gangways which would drive up cost and we were already at the limit of what we could charge, not to mention the hangers etc being separate items and easily broken off if messed with in such a manner. 

 

As it is, the gangway connections are rubber, which makes that aspect of modelling them collapsed easier. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

Thanks for the reply Fran, it’s very refreshing to have a manufacturer who takes note and responds so rapidly. I totally understand keeping the cost down.

[TrevorP1]

If there is anyone like me out there wondering which Siphon(s) to order, this blog which I found via Western Thunder may help.

 

At the bottom of the page are copies of 'The Siphon Story' articles by John Lewis published in Model Train Magazine. Lots of information on numbers and which ones went for ambulance trains etc.

 

Dave's Model Railway Plans and Articles

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by TrevorP1
Forgot to put the link in! Doh!

[Wickham Green too]

14 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:

....... 'The Siphon Story' articles by John Lewis published in Model Train Magazine. ........

That article was expanded into https://hmrs.org.uk/great-western-railway-siphons-book.html four years later.

[bluedepot]

hoping these make it into n gauge....  

 

 

[Mark]

On 11/01/2022 at 12:54, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi Gerry,

 

Many thanks for your interest! Can confirm it is there. Please see pics below.

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

Going back to the pipe, I was looking at some pictures yesterday in Jack Slinn’s book and the pipe appears to run more in the centre of the sole bar and directly behind the steps. Is this something you are aware of?

 

Mark

[Accurascale Fran]

15 minutes ago, Mark said:

Going back to the pipe, I was looking at some pictures yesterday in Jack Slinn’s book and the pipe appears to run more in the centre of the sole bar and directly behind the steps. Is this something you are aware of?

 

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

Correct. We were faced with the difficult choice of having the pipe run behind the steps but resulting in a very week mounting point for the steps themselves and a high resulting causality rate of broken steps in boxes or models, or a slight bit of trickery in the name for better robustness. Not something we normally like doing, but something we had to do in this case.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

[Mark]

1 hour ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Mark,

 

Correct. We were faced with the difficult choice of having the pipe run behind the steps but resulting in a very week mounting point for the steps themselves and a high resulting causality rate of broken steps in boxes or models, or a slight bit of trickery in the name for better robustness. Not something we normally like doing, but something we had to do in this case.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran 

Thanks Fran. 

[Crepello]

On 16/01/2022 at 17:31, bluedepot said:

hoping these make it into n gauge....  

 

 

They're a must for N. I've contacted Revolution on the matter. Don't the OO ones look great?

[Star-rider]

I’m very much looking forward to the arrival of my Siphon, come the glorious day.

 

Looking at the images provided so far and the exceptional detail that will be coming made me think about the shortcomings of some of the stock that I have been building and I started to wonder if others with an interest in this type of vehicle and era of modelling would be in the market for certain components and if the interest would be sufficient for Accurasale to consider knocking out some extras of some items as spares and to satisfy a kit builder market?

 

I’m particularly thinking about the bogies, the tooling is / will be to hand and I can’t imagine that the cost of injection moulding a few dozen more would be great or interfere much with production schedules in terms of time.

 

I’ve been a frequent purchaser of Bachmann’s spare Collett bogies and would probably have bought a few sets of the seven footers that Hornby fitted to their 57’ stock had they have been separately available.

 

The idea of rubber gangway connections as an alternative to plastic or whitemetal is perhaps also interesting to kit builders.

 

I know that a manufacturer’s main interest will be focused on marketing a range of RTR models, but I wonder if a bit more profit could be squeezed out of tooling and development costs to the advantage of both themselves and the customer?