Gresley suburbans

[Pint of Adnams]

So I was comparing my Ian Kirk Gresley articulated's next to my Hornby Gresley suburbans...

 

Apart from removing a bogie, and drilling pinions for both coaches to sit on the other repositioned bogie, I really couldn't see much difference..looking at the body / roof etc these seemed identical, it didn't look like much more than removing buffers ?

 

Anyone else looked / considered what looks to be an easy conversion to get Gresley articulateds, or is the Ian Kirk kit inaccurate ?

Ian's kits were always a little fat around the waist compared to the prototype profile and rather more basic (for these days) in the underframe department but nevertheless perfectly acceptable, especially in the absence of alternatives. They could also be 'cut & shut' to extend the number of different types of carriages that could be modelled. Now, if only they were still in production - see Coopercraft thread:http://http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112011-coopercraft/?hl=coopercraft

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Ian (Kirk's) kits ... if only they were still in production ...

 Thankfully, the habit of folks acquiring - but never quite getting around to building - them, means that appeals in 'wanted' sections here and elsewhere will usually spring examples from Mt. Kitpile.

[Dunsignalling]

Further to my posting about Gresley end vestibule coaches, where I mentioned the third open.

Why have TO's not been part of Hornby's range ?. We had a Maunsell TO, but so far no LMS

example.

These coaches were ubiquitous , everyday ' bread and butter ' vehicles, which unlike the corridor

first, would probably be purchased in multiples. I have noticed that the FK is always the one that

sits on the shop's shelves. Hornby even introduced a Hawkesworth FK retrospectively.

True, the GWR only used side corridor stock for general use, but then there is always the

excursion sets, if it was felt that GW modellers should not be left out.

 

Hornby: Produce a range of these common coach types, and make some much needed cash !.and tooling

The Hornby Maunsell TO is a by-product of the adapted version produced for the 1959 Pull-push set. The changes weren't great and it would have been a bit daft not to tool up for the original form, too. 

 

The prototypes often feature prominently in photos of expresses, with one or two added immediately behind the tender for strengthening purposes. The window layout also makes them  instantly distinguishable from the assorted Mk1's, Bulleids or side-corridor Maunsells forming the rest of the train. 

 

Were TOs on other regions, perhaps, just less noticeable?

 

John

[trevor7598]

The Hornby Maunsell TO is a by-product of the adapted version produced for the 1959 Pull-push set. The changes weren't great and it would have been a bit daft not to tool up for the original form, too. 

 

The prototypes often feature prominently in photos of expresses, with one or two added immediately behind the tender for strengthening purposes. The window layout also makes them  instantly distinguishable from the assorted Mk1's, Bulleids or side-corridor Maunsells forming the rest of the train. 

 

Were TOs on other regions, perhaps, just less noticeable?

 

John

 

To many, all coaches look the same, but I hope all on RMWEB are a bit more discerning !.

[adb968008]

The Hornby Maunsell TO is a by-product of the adapted version produced for the 1959 Pull-push set. The changes weren't great and it would have been a bit daft not to tool up for the original form, too. 

 

The prototypes often feature prominently in photos of expresses, with one or two added immediately behind the tender for strengthening purposes. The window layout also makes them  instantly distinguishable from the assorted Mk1's, Bulleids or side-corridor Maunsells forming the rest of the train. 

 

Were TOs on other regions, perhaps, just less noticeable?

 

John

Every time I goto colour rails website I see a nice blood and custard example of just this scenario on their home page and think that would be nice to recreate...

http://colourrail.co.uk

[Pint of Adnams]

Further to my posting about Gresley end vestibule coaches, where I mentioned the third open.

Why have TO's not been part of Hornby's range ?. We had a Maunsell TO, but so far no LMS

example.

These coaches were ubiquitous , everyday ' bread and butter ' vehicles, which unlike the corridor

first, would probably be purchased in multiples. I have noticed that the FK is always the one that

sits on the shop's shelves. Hornby even introduced a Hawkesworth FK retrospectively.

True, the GWR only used side corridor stock for general use, but then there is always the

excursion sets, if it was felt that GW modellers should not be left out.

 

Hornby: Produce a range of these common coach types, and make some much needed cash !.

Going rather OT from LNER non-gangwayed stock here but...

 

Despite the NER and other constituents companies of the LNER having built open saloons, the LNER superintendents and passenger managers were very wedded to the notion that their passengers preferred to travel in compartments, except when dining, which is why it was not until the 1930s and (1) the introduction of the open seating layout in the streamlined sets and (2) the special Tourist trains, that open seating layouts become more acceptable. Nevertheless, whilst the LNER then built open carriages in substantial numbers, they were still intended primarily for excursion use. It was only post-WW2 that trends changed towards more open types; BR continued building compartment stock for a number of years.

[keefer]

a legacy that was continued by BR - the use of the code TSO (Tourist Second Open) to mean a 64-seat 2+2 open, as opposed to SO which meant a 48-seat 2+1 coach.

It wasn't until the mk2 designs that corridor stock fell out of favour (except for 1st class) and the TSO became rather ubiquitous - the SO was usually used for dining, until full-meal dining started to wane.

iirc the GWR and LMS used SO with the number of seats specified i.e. SO(64) or SO(48), but these too were for 'special' use - i found out on another thread that the early WR didn't have many TSO and as such tended to be used for extra dining accommodation

[MartinTrucks]

a legacy that was continued by BR - the use of the code TSO (Tourist Second Open) to mean a 64-seat 2+2 open, as opposed to SO which meant a 48-seat 2+1 coach.

It wasn't until the mk2 designs that corridor stock fell out of favour (except for 1st class) and the TSO became rather ubiquitous - the SO was usually used for dining, until full-meal dining started to wane.

iirc the GWR and LMS used SO with the number of seats specified i.e. SO(64) or SO(48), but these too were for 'special' use - i found out on another thread that the early WR didn't have many TSO and as such tended to be used for extra dining accommodation

 

The TSO/SO designation has been a source of confusion for many years. The TTO code was used in early BR days to denote ex-LNER stock with bucket seats. Everything else was a TO, irrespective of the number of seats.

 

The London Midland Region had no problem coping with this and called up stock as "TO(xx)", where "xx" was the seating capacity. The LMS had built open thirds with several different seating capacities for general use and when the new 64 and 48 seat BR Mk1 TOs arrived, there was no problem. BTW, the Mk1 48 seat TO was ONLY built for the LMR, although some may have been transferred to the ER in later years. In 1956, TO became SO and TTO, TSO.

 

Only in early 1967 did BR start to redesignate 64-seat SO vehicles as TSO, the 48-seat vehicles remaining SO.

 

However, the confusion arises because the Eastern Region (only) seems to have redesignated its older Diagram 93 64-seat SO vehicles as TSO when they received the more spacious Diagram 89 vehicles in about 1959!

 

Although TO vehicles were used as restaurant seating when necessary (some of the SR vehicles were originally fitted with attendant's buttons in each seating bay), most restaurant cars (RSO) were designed specifically for that purpose. I believe that the BR RUO was not fitted with luggage racks, for example.

 

The WR favoured compartment stock for its main-line trains until about 1957. At this time, a 64-seat Mk1 SO vehicles was often marshalled next to a RU to provide additional second class dining.

 

I hope this has not thoroughly confused you!

Martin

[Pint of Adnams]

The TSO/SO designation has been a source of confusion for many years. The TTO code was used in early BR days to denote ex-LNER stock with bucket seats. Everything else was a TO, irrespective of the number of seats.

 

...

 

I hope this has not thoroughly confused you!

Martin

No - the TTO code designated stock with 64 seats rather than 48; by this time most if not all of the original bucket seating fitted in some former LNER Gresley coaching stock (whether teak-panelled or flush-sided) had been replaced but the different codes were also used to distinguish between the LNER Thompson post-war Third Opens, also built with 48 (TO) or 64 (TTO) seats. It was continued in use by those BR Regions formerly within the LNER grouping and in time was also similarly applied to the equivalent BR standard (later known as Mk1) coaches.

 

Your post certainly does not aid understanding nor clarification and may well have confused those less well versed in coaching stock nomenclature.

[MartinTrucks]

No - the TTO code designated stock with 64 seats rather than 48; by this time most if not all of the original bucket seating fitted in some former LNER Gresley coaching stock (whether teak-panelled or flush-sided) had been replaced but the different codes were also used to distinguish between the LNER Thompson post-war Third Opens, also built with 48 (TO) or 64 (TTO) seats. It was continued in use by those BR Regions formerly within the LNER grouping and in time was also similarly applied to the equivalent BR standard (later known as Mk1) coaches.

 

Your post certainly does not aid understanding nor clarification and may well have confused those less well versed in coaching stock nomenclature.

 

If you took the trouble to look at contemporary carriage workings from other regions of BR, you would see that what I wrote was correct. The SR (despite having Bulleid-designed 64-seaters), WR and LMR DID NOT use the TTO or TSO designation until BR adopted it in early 1967. PERIOD - End of.

 

The confusion arises over the practices of the Eastern Region(s) and what you have stated or inferred differs from what I have seen in print and been told by someone who worked in rolling stock control on the ER (I never worked on the ER during my BR career so do not have first-hand experience). I reiterate, the BR Mk1 48-seat open carriages were ONLY BUILT for the LMR and thus would not be a problem for the ER as I do not believe any transfers occurred prior to 1967. However, my informant in ER stock control was adamant that they used the TSO designation (in the period 1959-'67 I assume) to distinguish the older Mark 1 open stock (which was directed to secondary work) from the then new Diagram 89 stock with Commonwealth bogies.

[robertcwp]

In the early 1970s, the ER used SO in carriage workings for the 62-seat Mark IId open seconds, but TSO for a 64-seat one, such as a Mark I or Mark IIa.

[GWR8700]

Were these ever found on any services in and around Sheffield Victoria?

[31A]

Yes.

[GWR8700]

That's great, thank you.