Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I spent the last couple of evenings adding Crownline brake gear to this old Hornby Battle-of-Britain:

 

bulleid.jpg.a0a14a6ca29f043a527eb484c23c2a2c.jpg

 

Although it might seem a bit daft when there are better RTR models available, not to mention the possibility of a Comet chassis under the existing body, I wanted to preserve as much of the works of the model as possible. It was a 40-year old Christmas present, its X04 motor still ran, and I felt that the nature of the Bulleid brake gear would go some way to disguising the crude wheels, even if the coupling and connecting rods are still very much Triang-Hornby. The Crownline detailing parts also include slidebars and crosshead bits, missing on the Hornby model.

 

Although the brake gear is soldered up, it still needs to be glued to the chassis block. I first glued thin acetate sheet to the chassis, to prevent any chance of shorting, then epoxied the brake gear onto these sheets. It all seems to work so far, although I've still got the opposite slide bar to do. Once the chassis is done, I'll move onto the body improvements.

 

Al

 

That's splendid Al,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

I don't own any of my original Tri-ang Christmas presents now (mind you, it was between 60 and 70 years ago). I wonder where they are, because I did 'improve' them.

 

Carving off handrails (and bleeding), making things like Jubilees and Black Fives from Tri-ang Princesses and repainting/renumbering/renaming things. All part of the modelling 'journey' I suppose.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

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

13 hours ago, micklner said:

The correct Hornby Tender for Wolf  60503 , was fitted to Hornby A3's The White Knight and Ladas , there maybe others as well.

Are you sure Mick?

 

By 'Wolf', I assume you mean 60506?

 

Hornby's THE WHITE KNIGHT and LADAS were (correctly) attached to new-type, high-sided, non-corridor tenders. They had beading and a turn-in to the tanks at the front. As such (in the main) they'd suit 60501 and 60502, but not 60503-6, which had A4-style streamlined non-corridor tenders with no beading and no turn-in at the front. This latter tender is one Hornby made for its A4 and (possibly) some of its A3s. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

I don't claim to be better informed than anyone else. The tender for 60501 was already there (potentially) from the Hornby A3, wasn't it?

 

Yes the tender tank from the A3 would sort of do but not the godawful standing on tiptoe chassis. It is also available on the original Cock 'o' the North model. However, neither have the streamlined fairing in conjunction with the low bulkhead. Wouldn't that require new tooling?

 

I also think you'll find that the smokebox/boiler/firebox/footplate is exactly the same series of mouldings (with slight alterations at the cab front) for the Hornby A2/2 and A2/3 (hence the choice of 60501/02/05/06 - 60501 and 60505 having been the first, with the other two on the horizon). 

 

Having had the A2/3 in lots of bits, I assumed that the cab front on any version of the A2/2 would require new tooling for the footplate.

 

I'm not really RTR-dependent, but I'd never use the word 'genius' about it in my case. 

 

I still exploit RTR where it can serve me well (though not with locomotives). The notion of having to build over 90 BR Mk.1s would have meant very few of Bytham's express passenger trains completed by now; not without modifying at least that number of Bachmann ones. 

 

I'm perfectly happy to exploit RTR when it meets my needs. The genius bit is that I don't care about it. If that was all I had to rely on, it could be quite panic inducing.

 

90 MK1s, Ughh. It's enough to make you want to take up flower arranging. Have you tried crashing them? That sounds like a lot of fun.

 

I also don't know what the percentage is of those who don't know or don't care is. Except, I'm sure it's a large majority. 

 

I don't think that anybody does know what this percentage is, if it's true. What is more important to me is '' wont know, don't care'' will never be a part of my model railway experience. If that is what most people think, I wouldn't even know how to communicate with them.

Good morning Andrew,

 

I'm surprised at your antipathy towards BR Mk.1s. If length of time in front-line service is anything to go by, the type is one of the most-successful passenger-carrying vehicles ever made. 

 

Like you, I'm a 'prototype' modeller, making models depicting a scenario (and place) which actually happened. My chosen time (with flexibility, of course) is the summer of 1958 and the place (naturally) the Eastern Region end of the ECML. 

 

If one is to model 'accurately' a time and place in question, particularly with regard to the make-up of trains, then BR's own official documents must be consulted, along with cross-referencing of contemporary photographs. In the summer of 1958, many of the principal ECML trains had BR Mk.1s in their formations. In fact, trains like the morning 'Talisman', 'Flying Scotsman' and 'Heart of Midlothian' were almost exclusively made up of Mk.1s. I assume you don't model the same period because of your dislike of the Mk.1? 

 

With regard to your last statement, how would you get on if you were a demonstrator at shows? With your skills, you should be.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Are you sure Mick?

 

By 'Wolf', I assume you mean 60506?

 

Hornby's THE WHITE KNIGHT and LADAS were (correctly) attached to new-type, high-sided, non-corridor tenders. They had beading and a turn-in to the tanks at the front. As such (in the main) they'd suit 60501 and 60502, but not 60503-6, which had A4-style streamlined non-corridor tenders with no beading and no turn-in at the front. This latter tender is one Hornby made for its A4 and (possibly) some of its A3s. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I know they are a bit of a nightmare, strangely there a not that many photos of them either . Only a handful in RCTS and even less in Yeadon. Luckily the only A2/2 Wolf of Badenoch I have converted from a Bachmann A2 has a Hornby A4 Tender, and is ok !!

 

722678412_1a22.jpg.b73cd60d91c5fb0aa33e8ff0131164c3.jpg

 

I believe Cock O the North had a unique Welded Tender ?. The Hornby one is noticeably smaller, than the others I possess.     

 

cheers              

Edited by micklner
  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

I'm surprised at your antipathy towards BR Mk.1s. If length of time in front-line service is anything to go by, the type is one of the most-successful passenger-carrying vehicles ever made. 

 

Like you, I'm a 'prototype' modeller, making models depicting a scenario (and place) which actually happened. My chosen time (with flexibility, of course) is the summer of 1958 and the place (naturally) the Eastern Region end of the ECML. 

 

If one is to model 'accurately' a time and place in question, particularly with regard to the make-up of trains, then BR's own official documents must be consulted, along with cross-referencing of contemporary photographs. In the summer of 1958, many of the principal ECML trains had BR Mk.1s in their formations. In fact, trains like the morning 'Talisman', 'Flying Scotsman' and 'Heart of Midlothian' were almost exclusively made up of Mk.1s. I assume you don't model the same period because of your dislike of the Mk.1? 

 

With regard to your last statement, how would you get on if you were a demonstrator at shows? With your skills, you should be.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I don't like Mk.1s. Though I recognise their necessity and place in history, though the latter is rather over egged. I would also note that some individual vehicles do have some merit.

 

I could go on for pages about the individual offensive details of the MK.1 but here is a quick run down.

 

A couple of reasons not to like the MK.1.

 

1. They are ugly, not interestingly ugly, just blandly ugly. The proportions are all wrong and everything that is esthetical pleasing about traditional railway carriages has been in some way corrupted.

2. They spread like a virus. A virus that destroyed more beautiful, elegant and quirky carriages. They ushered in time of repressed uniformity, were individuality was crushed under a boot of MK.1 tyranny.

3. The Bachmann MK.1 has done the same thing to railway modeling. boxes and boxes of ugly uniformity. In addition, its not that good a model, it looks very dated next to your more proficient A1s for example. The two placed in close proximity is very esthetical jarring to my eye. I would add, the negative effect it has had on making things and the impact on diversity at exhibitions.

 

I would agree that MK.1s are required in some numbers for many prototypes. However, as far as the ECML is concerned in the 1950s, layouts tend to be skewed towards the principal named trains. As a result, a false impression can be generated. I have come across people who didn't realise that Gresley carriages were a thing in the 1950's on the ECML, '' I thought they were all replaced by MK.1s'', is the usual cry. This kind of opinion comes from a familiarity with model railways, not with a familiarity with the real railway. They are usually astounded to find out there were hundreds of trains running on the ECML, beyond the ones usually modeled, some of these were even 100% Gresley, some were even pre Gresley!

 

4. Finally, from the above. MK. 1s in model railway land, are not contextualised enough in terms of the over all picture, leading to a distortion of history, a lack of variety, creativity and ultimately dull layouts. 

 

With regard to your own problem of requiring 90 MK.1s. I would not want to purchase 90 MK1's. Nor would I wish to build 90 MK. 1s. Though the now almost extinct hobby of building MK.1s has its merits. My solution would be, if trapped in 1958, to parcel out the trains more broadly, beyond the principal named expresses, thus reducing the number of MK.1s required. Alternatively, by using your existing timetable, I would consider building a limited number of MK.1's, to run immediately behind your Pacific's as required. As a result, a much improved and believable aesthetic match between the two would be achieved. Left to my own devices, I would just model prior to the introduction of the MK. 1s, problem solved. The latter has the advantage that many other BR aesthetic disasters are no longer required.

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I don't like Mk.1s.

 

From a modelling point of view, given the restricted space many have, they're also rather long. (The same could of course be said of East Coat pacifics...) Not also do they take up so much length but they also stick out more on curves than shorter vehicles, forcing excessive deviation from the prototype in such dimensions as double track spacing and platform clearances. (Of course modellers of later periods than the 1950s/60s are stuck with even longer vehicles.)

 

In the flesh, they're all rather samey on heritage lines which is one reason I prefer the narrow gauge lines!

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

From a modelling point of view, given the restricted space many have, they're also rather long. (The same could of course be said of East Coat pacifics...) Not also do they take up so much length but they also stick out more on curves than shorter vehicles, forcing excessive deviation from the prototype in such dimensions as double track spacing and platform clearances. (Of course modellers of later periods than the 1950s/60s are stuck with even longer vehicles.)

 

In the flesh, they're all rather samey on heritage lines which is one reason I prefer the narrow gauge lines!

 

Are they much longer than the LNER standard of 61'6"?

 

SR coaches were a similar length at 59 feet. Bulleids were the same as Mark Ones, apart from one batch.

 

Or the GWR that had many 70 footers? Particularly in the 1900 to 1930s era, all those Toplights and Dreadnoughts people are asking for were nearly all 70 foot long I'm afraid, as were the autotrailers. Hawksworth were likewise 64 foot long.

 

The extra length is negligible. You are talking about a few millimetres extra.

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Are they much longer than the LNER standard of 61'6"?

 

SR coaches were a similar length at 59 feet. Bulleids were the same as Mark Ones, apart from one batch.

 

Or the GWR that had many 70 footers? Particularly in the 1900 to 1930s era, all those Toplights and Dreadnoughts people are asking for were nearly all 70 foot long I'm afraid, as were the autotrailers. Hawksworth were likewise 64 foot long.

 

The extra length is negligible. You are talking about a few millimetres extra.

 

Jason

 

Jason, all those carriages are long!

 

(Mk 1 is 63'5" over the frame and 64'6" over body.) 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
56 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I don't like Mk.1s. Though I recognise their necessity and place in history, though the latter is rather over egged. I would also note that some individual vehicles do have some merit.

 

I could go on for pages about the individual offensive details of the MK.1 but here is a quick run down.

 

A couple of reasons not to like the MK.1.

 

1. They are ugly, not interestingly ugly, just blandly ugly. The proportions are all wrong and everything that is esthetical pleasing about traditional railway carriages has been in some way corrupted.

2. They spread like a virus. A virus that destroyed more beautiful, elegant and quirky carriages. They ushered in time of repressed uniformity, were individuality was crushed under a boot of MK.1 tyranny.

3. The Bachmann MK.1 has done the same thing to railway modeling. boxes and boxes of ugly uniformity. In addition, its not that good a model, it looks very dated next to your more proficient A1s for example. The two placed in close proximity is very esthetical jarring to my eye. I would add, the negative effect it has had on making things and the impact on diversity at exhibitions.

 

I would agree that MK.1s are required in some numbers for many prototypes. However, as far as the ECML is concerned in the 1950s, layouts tend to be skewed towards the principal named trains. As a result, a false impression can be generated. I have come across people who didn't realise that Gresley carriages were a thing in the 1950's on the ECML, '' I thought they were all replaced by MK.1s'', is the usual cry. This kind of opinion comes from a familiarity with model railways, not with a familiarity with the real railway. They are usually astounded to find out there were hundreds of trains running on the ECML, beyond the ones usually modeled, some of these were even 100% Gresley, some were even pre Gresley!

 

4. Finally, from the above. MK. 1s in model railway land, are not contextualised enough in terms of the over all picture, leading to a distortion of history, a lack of variety, creativity and ultimately dull layouts. 

 

With regard to your own problem of requiring 90 MK.1s. I would not want to purchase 90 MK1's. Nor would I wish to build 90 MK. 1s. Though the now almost extinct hobby of building MK.1s has its merits. My solution would be, if trapped in 1958, to parcel out the trains more broadly, beyond the principal named expresses, thus reducing the number of MK.1s required. Alternatively, by using your existing timetable, I would consider building a limited number of MK.1's, to run immediately behind your Pacific's as required. As a result, a much improved and believable aesthetic match between the two would be achieved. Left to my own devices, I would just model prior to the introduction of the MK. 1s, problem solved. The latter has the advantage that many other BR aesthetic disasters are no longer required.

 

I am totally with you on most of that although I don't find the Mk 1s too unappealing visually. They are better than the trains that we have on the big railway nowadays, which have few redeeming visual features.

 

To me, the Mk 1s signalled the end of the marvellous diversity of the carriage stock of the individual companies. The days when you could tell the origin of the rolling stock on a train just by the shape, the design, the panelling, the roof profile and all sorts of details. Once the Mk 1s were all over the country, you could hardly tell a passenger train in Scotland from one on Cornwall until a loco was attached unless you looked at the prefix on the number.

 

In my trainspotting days, in the 1970s, just seeing something that wasn't a Mk 1 or 2 caused a great excitement. I remember catching sight of one of the last Gresley Buffet Cars at Doncaster in the mid 70s and thinking it was wonderful.

 

If I visit a preserved railway and there is a choice of travelling in a Mk 1 (or later type) or in just about anything else, I will always go for a ride in the anything else!

 

One of my reasons for going pre-grouping was that I much prefer wooden panelled carriages from earlier times. A flush steel sided vehicle will never have the sheer charm of those older types for me.  I had the great pleasure to see a collection of 2mm scale carriages at the weekend, including a superb Midland Railway 12 wheeled dining car. There is no contest between the appeal of that and a Mk 1.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Jason, all those carriages are long!

 

(Mk 1 is 63'5" over the frame and 64'6" over body.) 

 

I know. That is my point. Most coaches built after about 1900 were long, as were the trains. Look at the length of mainline trains, often between 9 and 14 coaches. Using longer coaches meant they needed fewer coaches and needed less maintenance. But they take up about the same length on a layout.

 

But you are really only talking about a few centimetres difference between a 57 foot coach and a 64 foot one. Even my poor maths suggests that's 28 mm. If that extra length is a problem then don't model mainlines and stick to something like Ashburton. But many coaches that turned up at Ashburton were 70 foot long!

 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I know. That is my point. Most coaches built after about 1900 were long, as were the trains. Look at the length of mainline trains, often between 9 and 14 coaches. Using longer coaches meant they needed fewer coaches and needed less maintenance. But they take up about the same length on a layout.

 

But you are really only talking about a few centimetres difference between a 57 foot coach and a 64 foot one. Even my poor maths suggests that's 28 mm. If that extra length is a problem then don't model mainlines and stick to something like Ashburton. But many coaches that turned up at Ashburton were 70 foot long!

 

 

Jason

 

Perfectly true and reasonable. I was just trying to rationalise my dislike of Mk 1s, especially in model form. As a Midland enthusiast, I'm not really on strong ground here:

 

64315.jpg

 

1875: 54 ft. [Embedded link to catalogue image for Midland Railway Study Centre Item 64315.]

 

64286.jpg

 

1893: 60 ft. [Embedded link to catalogue image for Midland Railway Study Centre Item 64286.]

 

64299.jpg

 

1905: 65 ft - longer than a Mk 1! [Embedded link to catalogue image for Midland Railway Study Centre Item 64299.]

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
50 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Or the GWR that had many 70 footers? Particularly in the 1900 to 1930s era, all those Toplights and Dreadnoughts people are asking for were nearly all 70 foot long I'm afraid, as were the autotrailers. Hawksworth were likewise 64 foot long.

 

The extra length is negligible. You are talking about a few millimetres extra.

Jason

Speaking of 70ft GWR coaches.

 

 

16BDCBFD-8F92-4054-9B23-7D754D666CB1.jpeg.fd46b4a4c31de428d06ffc252ab2fa52.jpeg

57ft Collett Bow End Composite 228mm,  60ft6 Sunshine Stock Third (which should be 61ft) 242mm, and a 70ft Dreadnought brake third 280mm.  Its now got me thinking I should swap out the bow end composite with a Large Window or Sunshine Stock version (60ft) and have a train where every coach is a different length).  Seeing as I have a Sunshine composite next to hit the workbench...  I think the extra length was only really noticeable on the 70fters, rather than the Hawksworths and 60/61ft Colletts.

5088036C-0352-4151-9498-1CB00D155255.jpeg.06bdf7e741dc88191eb994b605de29cf.jpeg

A better view of the Dreadnought, a Worsley Works body, MJT roof and Mallard bogies (with the missing battery boxes conveniently hidden by the bridge).  While it was a bit of a pig to build, I think the end result is by far my favourite coach in my fleet.

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am totally with you on most of that although I don't find the Mk 1s too unappealing visually. They are better than the trains that we have on the big railway nowadays, which have few redeeming visual features.

 

To me, the Mk 1s signalled the end of the marvellous diversity of the carriage stock of the individual companies. The days when you could tell the origin of the rolling stock on a train just by the shape, the design, the panelling, the roof profile and all sorts of details. Once the Mk 1s were all over the country, you could hardly tell a passenger train in Scotland from one on Cornwall until a loco was attached unless you looked at the prefix on the number.

 

In my trainspotting days, in the 1970s, just seeing something that wasn't a Mk 1 or 2 caused a great excitement. I remember catching sight of one of the last Gresley Buffet Cars at Doncaster in the mid 70s and thinking it was wonderful.

 

If I visit a preserved railway and there is a choice of travelling in a Mk 1 (or later type) or in just about anything else, I will always go for a ride in the anything else!

 

One of my reasons for going pre-grouping was that I much prefer wooden panelled carriages from earlier times. A flush steel sided vehicle will never have the sheer charm of those older types for me.  I had the great pleasure to see a collection of 2mm scale carriages at the weekend, including a superb Midland Railway 12 wheeled dining car. There is no contest between the appeal of that and a Mk 1.

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

The ugliness is in the detail with a MK.1. For example, the bare sharp edged roof, just hangs of the end of the carriage like a cheap shack with a tin roof. No attempt is made to finish it off, or even end it flush. I bet it could give you a nasty paper cut. Their general proportions of everything and how it relates to its neighbor looks kind of cheap.

 

48 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

Speaking of 70ft GWR coaches.

 

 

16BDCBFD-8F92-4054-9B23-7D754D666CB1.jpeg.fd46b4a4c31de428d06ffc252ab2fa52.jpeg

57ft Collett Bow End Composite 228mm,  60ft6 Sunshine Stock Third (which should be 61ft) 242mm, and a 70ft Dreadnought brake third 280mm.  Its now got me thinking I should swap out the bow end composite with a Large Window or Sunshine Stock version (60ft) and have a train where every coach is a different length).  Seeing as I have a Sunshine composite next to hit the workbench...  I think the extra length was only really noticeable on the 70fters, rather than the Hawksworths and 60/61ft Colletts.

5088036C-0352-4151-9498-1CB00D155255.jpeg.06bdf7e741dc88191eb994b605de29cf.jpeg

A better view of the Dreadnought, a Worsley Works body, MJT roof and Mallard bogies (with the missing battery boxes conveniently hidden by the bridge).  While it was a bit of a pig to build, I think the end result is by far my favourite coach in my fleet.

 

Gorgeous and very typically GWR in its diversity, bravo. Why use one type of carriage when you can have six. Also a small eared ,short nosed orange Elephant?

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyway, I'm rather fond of Mk.1s, and I think they have an 'elegance' in their own right.

 

Me too - brought up on the Midland Mainline, and spotting in the early 60s at Rugby, Nuneaton and Birmingham (New Street and Snow Hill), Mk1s were the staple of the principle trains - ie. the one's that attracted most attention, due to the prestige of the locos at the head of the train.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I think there's no doubt that the likes and dislikes with regard to railway carriages is a very personal things.

 

'Crushed under a boot of Mk.1 tyranny'. I'm sure those who were travelling in the few Mk.1 carriages in the northbound train involved in the Harrow disaster of nearly 70 years ago were glad that's what they were in. The 'far more interesting' wooden bodied or wooden-framed pre-Nationalisation carriages were reduced to matchwood and foil. Witness the remains of the 12-wheeled Restaurant Car next to the bookshop in one of the appalling scenes. 

 

Of course, this doesn't relate to our models; I have many metal Gresleys and a large number of plastic Mk.1s. I'm also in agreement that older carriages have a greater appeal to the model-maker than the more-uniform Mk.1. However, despite the fact that there were still many wooden-bodied carriages running on the ECML in 1958, most of the named trains (with the exception of 'The Elizabethan' and the Pullmans) were made up principally of Mk.1s. Thus, if a summer weekday's service is to be replicated, then Mk.1s (and loads of them) there must be. To 'deny' that fact is altering history. In fact, I've even found pictures of Mk.1s running on the M&GN! 

 

All the above said, over half my fleet of carriages are not Mk.1s, but kit-built Gresleys and Thompsons, as well as some pre-Grouping vehicles.

 

Anyway, I do find it a fascinating scene when a principal train bowls by with its mainly Mk.1s fore and aft, with pre-Nationalisation cars in the form of singles, twins or triplets providing the catering. 

 

As for their being too long; unless you have the space, then don't use them (or any other long vehicles, whatever their origins). 

 

Anyway, I'm rather fond of Mk.1s, and I think they have an 'elegance' in their own right. If they offend too much, then they can be legitimately substituted (a common occurrence), as here.................

 

2114990679_60116onNorthumbrian.jpg.5beeb05be1f34a81d5325af6285cea41.jpg

 

In 'The Northumbrian', where a Thompson BSK has replaced the usual Mk.1. Also note the ex-1938 'Flying Scotsman' triplet providing the catering. 

 

652880328_60156onFlyingScotsman01.jpg.5b1cab5f2ddbf5490df1472a5d43940a.jpg

 

Apart from the Thomson SK (with ladies' retiring room) and the BG, this 'Flying Scotsman' set is all Mk.1. That said, I still think it makes a fine train.

 

356803255_MorningTalisman.jpg.27a36f134e55a0954c17159da9caad08.jpg

 

As does this all-Mk.1 morning 'Talisman' (in my opinion). 

 

307688337_AfternoonTalisman01.jpg.d7c9430cb8a9170b7c5d7491ca081721.jpg

 

Of course, the afternoon 'Talisman' is more-varied. The Mk.1s complement the Gresley and Thompson stock very well.

 

As for Bachmann Mk.1s being poor models; with the roof ribs removed (x90+!) and a touch of weathering, they meet my needs very well indeed. 

 

 

My introduction to mk1s was like many as a youngster. I clearly remember rake of shiny new blue grey ones coming onto Swansea station. And equally fascinated by the filthy parcels coach in one of the bays. Rubbing my hand on it it was still in maroon. Boy did I get a telling off for rubbing hands in new clothes. 

Funny things we remember......

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
36 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Anyone remember this ? - Proof of the strength of the Mk 1's

 

 

Brit15

 

 

I remember watching that live, somebody found an old TV at work and we all crowded round it. Watching it brings home the sheer violence and energy involved... 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure those who were travelling in the few Mk.1 carriages in the northbound train involved in the Harrow disaster of nearly 70 years ago were glad that's what they were in.

 

With regard to the Harrow accident. The MK.1 that bore the brunt of the collision on the Merseyside bound express, survived in much better condition* than the LM carriages around it. As it was running with LM stock, the Pullman gangway / buckeye system was not deployed, negating a lot of the safety advantages. Unfortunately, the body was completely ripped off from the underframe by the impact and landed relatively intact on top of the wreckage. The carriage avoided any telescoping, though it was now in two parts. This was very unfortunate for the passengers inside, who were literally cut off at the ankles or thrown out of the body shell as it was propelled across the wreckage. 

 

The accident report noted that if the Gresley bogie vans, at the back of the Merseyside express, had been marshaled at the front, with buckeyes deployed, they would have absorbed the shock of the impact more successfully and countless lives would have been saved. The syphon on the front of the Southbound sleeper disintegrated on impact and nothing recognisable of the wooden body could be located, its sacrifice probably saved lives in the carriages behind it.

 

The rear wooden bodied carriages of the local train, were most casualties occurred, was compacted into a very small space by the impact. However, a similar incident on the ECML, were a sleeper ran into the back of a wooden bodied local train, resulted in the wrecking of the tail end brake and sadly the death of a passenger in the rear compartment.  The problem of telescoping was avoided and the rest of the train remained intact. This was due to the set being comprised of vehicles with Pullman gangways with buckeye couplings deployed.

 

One of the conclusions of the Harrow accident report, was that LM stock, running on screw couplings in main line expresses, should be protected by rafts of stock with Pullman gangways and buckeye couplings.

 

The MK.1 was obviously a big step forwards in terms of safety on what had gone before. However, the contribution of the buckeye coupling and Pullman gangway system, that had been in use on the SR and LNER for decades, shouldn't be forgotten.

 

*As far as telescoping was concerned.
 

Edited by Headstock
clarify a point
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 7
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Anyone remember this ? - Proof of the strength of the Mk 1's

 

 

Brit15

 

The apparent "survivability" of the Mk1s in Operation Smash Hit has been commented on ever since the day of the test - because they looked straight and many windows were unbroken - but like crashing a car of the 1960s, you wouldn't have wanted to be in them at the time.  Pictures of the interiors showed most of the internal fittings piled at the leading ends of the carriages, so you might have been protected from the outside world by the bodyshell but probably decapitated by a table top travelling at about 70mph.

One of the big lessons learned after the Cannon St crash was not that trains with doors open will "telescope", but that hard edges on interior fittings can seriously injure or kill.  Most of the huge number of injuries were from people banging shoulders, elbows, knees and heads against the corners of seats, luggage racks and often the passengers' own briefcases.

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

Good gravy,

 

criticise the ugly MK.1 and RM web implodes for a day! No doubt when I am really, really old, I will also look back dewy eyed and fondly on something unpleasant from my youth, like the Cold war or the Birdy song.

 

An update on the MK. 1s in the Harrow disaster as memory slightly cheats, it was LMS carriage 24683 (5th) that had its body ripped from the underframe and not the MK. 1 as stated upthread. BR MK.1 34108 (4th) had its bogies and underframe equipment sheared off as it rode up over wreckage of the Perth express. However, it was the roof that was ripped off from 34108, rather than the whole body, as it reared up and hit the overbridge. The rear half of the carriage was virtually demolished.

 

The image below shows 34108 as it came to rest on the up fast platform. It is now the most northerly of the carriages in the Liverpool express, despite being number four in the formation.  The people seen standing at the highest level against the sky, are on the roof of the second MK. 1 damaged in the accident, carriage 34287 (6th). Nothing identifiable remains of the LMS steel bodied carriage 24683 (see below), that was marshaled between the two MK.1s. The roof of 34108 was left embedder in the south side of the overbridge, the damaged bridge was then struck by the Kitchen car in the Liverpool train.

 

34108.jpg.cb5012a4c6156e61c2989198ed19fd47.jpg

 

It should be noted that whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the individual carriages. non of the three trains involved in the accident  had buckeye couplings deployed, as used on the carriages in the nuclear flask video. All were using screw link couplings that had no means of stopping one carriage overriding one another, crossing the platforms or bringing down the overbridge. There were four carriages in the Liverpool express with buckeye couplings, though non were in use. Three carriages were brand new MK.1s, the forth was a Gresley full brake built in  1928.


The second MK.1, 34287, was marshaled one carriage back from the leading MK.1. Things did not go well for 24683, mentioned above, it being marshaled between the two mk.1s. The all steel body of 24683 was demolished, as 34287 rode up and over and beyond it, leaving the twisted underframe lying on a pile of bogies near the overbridge.  The body of LMS 22726 (7th) was also ripped from its underframe as it was dragged up over the wreckage by 34287, it is seen to the extrema left in the photo above. 34287 was externally the least damaged of the two MK1's that were marshaled towards the head of the train. The accident report notes, how well both the body and underframe survived the impact and how surprisingly few deaths were recorded in the Liverpool express. It does however concede that 34287 was a shambles inside. 


This accident was never going to go well, which ever way you could theoretically remarshal or re-equip the trains. The increased structural strength of the MK. 1 was ironically, devastating to the older weaker carriages. Whatever the pros and cons of MK.1s vs older carriages, it is bluntly shown in the photo, non of them would be a place were I would wish to be. Sometimes, survivability in a disaster is down to pot luck rather than design. Unbelievably, some passengers escaped the with only light injuries, from the highest casualty's sustained in the crowded wreckage of the local train, that was hit by the Perth express. This was despite the fact that the rear four carriages, were telescoped to approximately the length of a single carriage!
 

Edited by Headstock
clarify a point
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 29/09/2021 at 15:06, t-b-g said:

To me, the Mk 1s signalled the end of the marvellous diversity of the carriage stock of the individual companies. The days when you could tell the origin of the rolling stock on a train just by the shape, the design, the panelling, the roof profile and all sorts of details. Once the Mk 1s were all over the country, you could hardly tell a passenger train in Scotland from one on Cornwall until a loco was attached unless you looked at the prefix on the number.

 

None of which mattered to 99.9% of the fare paying public who just wanted to enjoy nice new coaches rather than the 20+ year old pre-nationalisation types they would still be forced to ride on secondary services for years to come.

 

Did folk grumble about the Thompson's replacing Gresley Stock? Ditto Collett vs Hawksworth?

 

Steven B

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...