Bachmann LMS "porthole" coaches

[SRyan]

Hi all,

 

I’m quite keen on picking a couple of these coaches up and searching for the usual, prototypical justifications. 

 

I’ve got limited knowledge of LMS coaching stock but to me the two coaches at the front of this formation look like corridor second Portholes. Would anyone be able to confirm this?

 

https://flic.kr/p/7ptzb7

 

[5 C]

13 minutes ago, SRyan said:

Hi all,

 

I’m quite keen on picking a couple of these coaches up and searching for the usual, prototypical justifications. 

 

I’ve got limited knowledge of LMS coaching stock but to me the two coaches at the front of this formation look like corridor second Portholes. Would anyone be able to confirm this?

 

https://flic.kr/p/7ptzb7

 

Almost certainly yes.

 

The drawing in Jenkinson & Essery (Vol. II P.137) of D2170 only shows the compartment side and overhead plan view, whereas the Flickr picture appears to show the corridor side. The layout of the windows and doors would seem to correspond with the positions on the overhead plan.

[TheSignalEngineer]

The first one looks like a Porthole SK. There was often a good assortment of stock on trains to the South Coast especially in holiday times when it  would be possible to see Maunsells with Staniers, Gresleys and Thompsons as strengtheners. 

[trevor7598]

2 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The first one looks like a Porthole SK. There was often a good assortment of stock on trains to the South Coast especially in holiday times when it  would be possible to see Maunsells with Staniers, Gresleys and Thompsons as strengtheners. 

The third coach in an all steel ' Porthole ' composite, also modelled by Bachmann.

[Ian J.]

Do 'we' know why the FKs aren't in the initial batch, and seem to be around a month or more away from being available?

[robertcwp]

20 hours ago, Ian J. said:

Do 'we' know why the FKs aren't in the initial batch, and seem to be around a month or more away from being available?

Perhaps they missed the boat?

 

There were only 12 of the real things by the maroon era anyway. There had only ever been 15 but two were lost at Weedon in 1951 (along with a porthole BFK) and another at Harrow the following year.

[Market65]

Hello everyone. I required a maroon Porthole BSK, so bought one from Monk Bar Models in York today. The first example had a rogue battery box where the rear was loose in the packing. The second example was perfect in every way. So it pays to inspect at first hand all purchases if it is possible.

The model is, as noted earlier, basically the same as the first batch but for that bogie modification. The modified bogies are much more firm, and they run better. Also, unless it’s my eyes playing tricks, this example seems to ride a fraction higher up than the earlier Portholes.  Perhaps the modified bogies are helping in that respect too.

 

Anyway, here’s a couple of photo’s to help things along. 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note, Bachmann have put the lettering BTK on the ends of the carriage instead of BSK. 

 

Best regards,

 

Rob.

[Leander]

23 hours ago, Market65 said:

Please note, Bachmann have put the lettering BTK on the ends of the carriage instead of BSK. 

 

They would, wouldn't they!

[robertcwp]

Putting BTK is a silly mistake but I don't think I would have noticed had it not been pointed out here.

 

I have now completed the tedious task of raising my 10 maroon ones up a bit and breaking the electrical connection between the wheels on each side of the bogies, otherwise they could bridge section gaps. That's 20 bogies dismantled, modified and reassembled. 

[robertcwp]

On 15/06/2019 at 22:14, Market65 said:

Hello everyone. I required a maroon Porthole BSK, so bought one from Monk Bar Models in York today. The first example had a rogue battery box where the rear was loose in the packing.

I had the rear of one battery box fall off too but fixed it in seconds. It does suggest an assembly problem though.

[cctransuk]

5 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I have now completed the tedious task of raising my 10 maroon ones up a bit and breaking the electrical connection between the wheels on each side of the bogies, otherwise they could bridge section gaps.

 

Now I am probably missing something here, but why are connected axle pick-ups on coaches any different from connected wheel pick-ups on locos and tenders?

 

.... and what adverse consequences would arise if they were left connected and bridged section gaps?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I had the rear of one battery box fall off too but fixed it in seconds. It does suggest an assembly problem though.

 

I'm not sure that any of my 100+ coaches have backs to their battery boxes - and I certainly couldn't tell either way, provided that they were running on the track and not derailed.

 

How times and priorities change!!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[31A]

39 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Now I am probably missing something here, but why are connected axle pick-ups on coaches any different from connected wheel pick-ups on locos and tenders?

 

.... and what adverse consequences would arise if they were left connected and bridged section gaps?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I had to do that with the one (new issue) Bachmann Thompson that I possess, I did it by swapping the wheels for hub insulated ones, but I only had one coach to do - it would get expensive for a fleet.  The problem is that my layout is wired for cab control 'straight' DC  with common return wiring, and only the inner rail has insulated joints at section breaks.  SO a bogie of the Bachmann coach could bridge the gap and connect both sections together, or if one section is switched to Controller A and the other to Controller B, cause a short circuit.  This particularly happened on the terminal platform roads which are split into two sections roughly half way along, so that a pilot, or another train engine, can take out a set of stock whilst the loco that brought the train in remains at the stops, or can indeed follow its train out under the control of the other controller.  The same thing happens if you inadvertently use wheels which are insulated on one side only in metal bogies ....

[robertcwp]

10 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Now I am probably missing something here, but why are connected axle pick-ups on coaches any different from connected wheel pick-ups on locos and tenders?

 

.... and what adverse consequences would arise if they were left connected and bridged section gaps?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

They are not but the issues are firstly having to avoid leaving a bogie straddling a break (easier with a loco than a whole train) and secondly with a conventional DC layout there would otherwise be a problem with the engine that brought the train into the terminus following out as the train departs. I can do this as the long platform roads are in three sections but it would not work properly if the train itself bridged the breaks as it departed. It's also a problem in fiddleyard roads that accommodate two trains. The breaks are arranged to suit units but could be a nuisance with carriages. 

 

This is also a reason for not having coaching stock with lights. Such carriages are worse as the bogies are also linked electrically. 

 

My layout was designed in 1996, before these features became widespread. It doesn't matter on a DCC layout.

[cctransuk]

30 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

They are not but the issues are firstly having to avoid leaving a bogie straddling a break (easier with a loco than a whole train) and secondly with a conventional DC layout there would otherwise be a problem with the engine that brought the train into the terminus following out as the train departs. I can do this as the long platform roads are in three sections but it would not work properly if the train itself bridged the breaks as it departed. It's also a problem in fiddleyard roads that accommodate two trains. The breaks are arranged to suit units but could be a nuisance with carriages. 

 

This is also a reason for not having coaching stock with lights. Such carriages are worse as the bogies are also linked electrically. 

 

My layout was designed in 1996, before these features became widespread. It doesn't matter on a DCC layout.

 

So - and this is very relevant to my future plans - I understand (correctly?) that this only becomes an issue with DC layouts if adjacent sections are switched to opposing polarities, or if an electrically isolated section occupied by a powered vehicle is 'bridged' to the adjacent powered section by a bogie with power collectors.

 

I plan on having centre-off, two way single pole switches supplying each section from two alternative controllers, with a common return bus wire; only those sections required to power a train movement would be switched on. I will be adding and removing pilot locos from trains, and the fiddle yard roads will be split into at least four sections.

 

Is there any danger that such an arrangement will lead to unplanned loco / train movements, provided that I am disciplined about only switching on sections required for a train movement?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[robertcwp]

14 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

So - and this is very relevant to my future plans - I understand (correctly?) that this only becomes an issue with DC layouts if adjacent sections are switched to opposing polarities, or if an electrically isolated section occupied by a powered vehicle is 'bridged' to the adjacent powered section by a bogie with power collectors.

 

I plan on having centre-off, two way single pole switches supplying each section from two alternative controllers, with a common return bus wire; only those sections required to power a train movement would be switched on. I will be adding and removing pilot locos from trains, and the fiddle yard roads will be split into at least four sections.

 

Is there any danger that such an arrangement will lead to unplanned loco / train movements, provided that I am disciplined about only switching on sections required for a train movement?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Hard to know for sure. One thing you probably want to avoid is relying on points to isolate lines such as sidings. That can cause more problems and is something I would do differently if I were designing my layout wiring now. Having a bogie bridge a break is not as big an issue as a carriage with lighting. Modern units with end-to-end pickup and electrical connection will be a bigger issue. I already have this with my 4TC units and the forthcoming Bachmann 117 will be the same. Fortunately, various isolating sections are already designed to accommodate a whole 117 unit.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Hard to know for sure. One thing you probably want to avoid is relying on points to isolate lines such as sidings. That can cause more problems and is something I would do differently if I were designing my layout wiring now. Having a bogie bridge a break is not as big an issue as a carriage with lighting. Modern units with end-to-end pickup and electrical connection will be a bigger issue. I already have this with my 4TC units and the forthcoming Bachmann 117 will be the same. Fortunately, various isolating sections are already designed to accommodate a whole 117 unit.

 

We are talking Evercreech Junction S&DJR circa 1961, with no electrical interconnection between vehicles other than locos / tenders; I intend to use separate micro-switches to switch point polarity.

 

Hopefully, I should be OK.

 

Regards,

John isherwood.

[31A]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Is there any danger that such an arrangement will lead to unplanned loco / train movements, provided that I am disciplined about only switching on sections required for a train movement?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Yes John, I would say there is!  It sounds as though the control system you plan to use is similar to the one I use.

 

Say a train arrives, and you isolate the loco (Loco A), and uncouple it.  Then another loco (Loco B) couples to the other end of the train, and starts to draw the coaches away.  As each bogie spans the insulating joint between the live section which you are using to drive Loco B and the dead section on which Loco A is standing, that section becomes live and Loco A will start to move again, in the same direction as Loco B, until the bridging bogie has cleared the section break.  If instead of isolating Loco A on arrival, you have left it 'live' on the other controller than the one you are using to drive Loco B, a short circuit will result as each bogie spans the section break.

 

One way round it would be to make the isolating sections at the end of the platform only a locomotive's length long (say about a foot) then the coaches wouldn't run onto it, but I split the platforms roughly half way along so that the 'incoming' loco can follow its coaches out when they are drawn off with each loco on separate controllers.  It also means each platform can accommodate two DMUs, and in fact they can be coupled up and divided in the platforms if stopped with the adjoining driving cars either side of the section break.

 

As I said, I've so far only got one Bachmann coach with these bogies, but it is towards the middle of the rake so it happened every time the set was used.  I can only imagine how frustrating it must be if each coach is like that!  In the end (as I have no intention of having lights in my coaches) I swapped the Bachmann wheels with Hornby hub insulated coach wheels.  I have also got an Airfix Syphon G to which I fitted white metal bogies with the type of Hornby coach wheels which are insulated on one side only (intended for the Pullman cars I believe) before I anticipated the problem, so this does also sometimes cause the same issue but I try to remember to avoid putting it towards the front of the train.

 

Sympathies to Robert, it sounds as though he has the same difficulties, but glad to find I'm not the only one as I thought I was going mad!

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, 31A said:

One way round it would be to make the isolating sections at the end of the platform only a locomotive's length long (say about a foot) then the coaches wouldn't run onto it,

 

This is the way that I have designed the layout within the station area. For both up and down tracks,there will be a loco-length section where the train loco can be isolated whilst a pilot loco is attached or detached. These lengths of track will be where the watering facilities are located, so that the train loco can be 'watered' during the pilot loco manoeuvres, as per the prototype.

 

In the fiddle yards, each section will accommodate a full length train, so bridging of the (clearly marked) rail gaps by stock wheels should not occur.

 

I guess I won't be certain until track is laid and test running can be undertaken!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

Yes John, I would say there is!  It sounds as though the control system you plan to use is similar to the one I use.

 

Say a train arrives, and you isolate the loco (Loco A), and uncouple it.  Then another loco (Loco B) couples to the other end of the train, and starts to draw the coaches away.  As each bogie spans the insulating joint between the live section which you are using to drive Loco B and the dead section on which Loco A is standing, that section becomes live and Loco A will start to move again, in the same direction as Loco B, until the bridging bogie has cleared the section break.  If instead of isolating Loco A on arrival, you have left it 'live' on the other controller than the one you are using to drive Loco B, a short circuit will result as each bogie spans the section break.

 

One way round it would be to make the isolating sections at the end of the platform only a locomotive's length long (say about a foot) then the coaches wouldn't run onto it, but I split the platforms roughly half way along so that the 'incoming' loco can follow its coaches out when they are drawn off with each loco on separate controllers.  It also means each platform can accommodate two DMUs, and in fact they can be coupled up and divided in the platforms if stopped with the adjoining driving cars either side of the section break.

 

As I said, I've so far only got one Bachmann coach with these bogies, but it is towards the middle of the rake so it happened every time the set was used.  I can only imagine how frustrating it must be if each coach is like that!  In the end (as I have no intention of having lights in my coaches) I swapped the Bachmann wheels with Hornby hub insulated coach wheels.  I have also got an Airfix Syphon G to which I fitted white metal bogies with the type of Hornby coach wheels which are insulated on one side only (intended for the Pullman cars I believe) before I anticipated the problem, so this does also sometimes cause the same issue but I try to remember to avoid putting it towards the front of the train.

 

Sympathies to Robert, it sounds as though he has the same difficulties, but glad to find I'm not the only one as I thought I was going mad!

19 porthole coaches, 7 Thompson and 8 Mark 2f modified so far!

[31A]

44 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

19 porthole coaches, 7 Thompson and 8 Mark 2f modified so far!

 

That's a lot!  Obviously re-wheeling would be expensive - how do you modify the bogies?  Can you just cut through the metal inserts somewhere?

 

[robertcwp]

3 hours ago, 31A said:

 

That's a lot!  Obviously re-wheeling would be expensive - how do you modify the bogies?  Can you just cut through the metal inserts somewhere?

 

Dismantle bogie by taking out wheels and unscrewing the offending metal. Cut through and make sure to leave a gap. One end will then need to be glued back in. The other end can be screwed back where it came from. 

[31A]

10 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Dismantle bogie by taking out wheels and unscrewing the offending metal. Cut through and make sure to leave a gap. One end will then need to be glued back in. The other end can be screwed back where it came from. 

 

Thank you, I will bear that in mind for the future!

[Pteremy]

On 16/06/2019 at 22:14, robertcwp said:

Putting BTK is a silly mistake but I don't think I would have noticed had it not been pointed out here.

 

I have now completed the tedious task of raising my 10 maroon ones up a bit and breaking the electrical connection between the wheels on each side of the bogies, otherwise they could bridge section gaps. That's 20 bogies dismantled, modified and reassembled. 

 

Robert - how much did you raise them by? 

[robertcwp]

3 hours ago, Pteremy said:

 

Robert - how much did you raise them by? 

Only 0.5 mm on the maroon ones. I think I raised the crimson and cream ones by 1 mm.