Cowley 47521 Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 3 hours ago, DavidB-AU said: In the original caption. "Officer's Saloon DM45029 is shunted clear of the Main Line at Aberystwyth by 2-Car Parcels Unit formed of Class 116 DMBS 53072 and Class 120 DMBC 51785. "Due to a ban on locomotives working along the Cambrian Coast, special workings like this were carried out by Class 128 DPUs or converted Parcel Units." I should have clicked on it. Sorry, thanks though. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianmacc Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 4 hours ago, Cowley 47521 said: I should have clicked on it. Sorry, thanks though. I had wondered too before I clicked as they both had brake compartments and resembled the old Lima Class 117! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 It was the extra large van on the 120 that caught my eye. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
montyburns56 Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 Westhouses 1964 by David Christie 15 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted August 31, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 31, 2021 5 hours ago, Wickham Green too said: It was the extra large van on the 120 that caught my eye. IIRC these were DMBC vehicles which lost the two second class seating bays in order to make a larger van area with a second set of double doors. The first class seats were retained, so they became DMBF. I think this was done when used in the north of Scotland, inc. Aberdeen-Inverness 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 1 hour ago, montyburns56 said: Westhouses 1964 by David Christie Two brake tenders? Greedy pig! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mol_PMB Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 As if a Peak didn't have enough wheels and tons already. Those Sulzer horses must have been ready for the glue factory after shifting all that lot AND a long train of iron ore! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted August 31, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 31, 2021 2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said: As if a Peak didn't have enough wheels and tons already. Those Sulzer horses must have been ready for the glue factory after shifting all that lot AND a long train of iron ore! Wikipedia states that they were needed due to the lighter weight of the diesel locos compared to the steam they replaced. Really? The Peak has way more weight on it's driving wheels than an 8F or 9F. Crappy brakes more like 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowley 47521 Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 3 hours ago, keefer said: IIRC these were DMBC vehicles which lost the two second class seating bays in order to make a larger van area with a second set of double doors. The first class seats were retained, so they became DMBF. I think this was done when used in the north of Scotland, inc. Aberdeen-Inverness Very interesting, thanks for that. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 9 hours ago, Cowley 47521 said: Very interesting, thanks for that. Pretty sure they were renumbered; the DMBCs on the ones used west of Swansea were 507xx, not 517 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted September 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2021 Peaks with two brake tenders were common on the Toton-Brent coal trains in the mid '60s, but ISTR the tenders were usually coupled together. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted September 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Cowley 47521 said: Very interesting, thanks for that. 4 hours ago, Fat Controller said: Pretty sure they were renumbered; the DMBCs on the ones used west of Swansea were 507xx, not 517 Had a chance to look up railcar.co.uk for the details: https://railcar.co.uk/type/class-120/modifications Numbering: https://railcar.co.uk/type/class-120/numbering Edited September 1, 2021 by keefer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianmacc Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 25 minutes ago, keefer said: Had a chance to look up railcar.co.uk for the details: https://railcar.co.uk/type/class-120/modifications Numbering: https://railcar.co.uk/type/class-120/numbering Shame no 120 driving vehicle survives as they were very distinctive. We have a similar looking 126 at least, which has family resemblance. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted September 1, 2021 Author Share Posted September 1, 2021 15 hours ago, melmerby said: Wikipedia states that they were needed due to the lighter weight of the diesel locos compared to the steam they replaced. Really? The Peak has way more weight on it's driving wheels than an 8F or 9F. Crappy brakes more like Or, it could be that the Peak was capable of pulling far more tipplers than an 8F or 9F. As an example, the change to diesel traction on the GN&GE meant that the only limit on the length of loaded coal trains was the capacity of the sidings at Whitemoor yards. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 The limits on load for goods trains in steam days were always: 1. What the engine could brake 2. What the lay-by sidings could hold. High speeds were not desirable due to the limited braking ability so the steam engines weren't built to achieve it. What the engine could pull at low speed was never really a problem, they had the low speed torque but not the high speed power - different things. Unfortunately, the diesels did have the high speed power and some previously sane drivers took advantage of this, then found that stopping again was a bit more of a challenge than just pulling the controller around had been. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 2 hours ago, jonny777 said: .... As an example, the change to diesel traction on the GN&GE meant that the only limit on the length of loaded coal trains was the capacity of the sidings at Whitemoor yards. Siding / loop capacity scuppered the P1s many years before that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
montyburns56 Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 Birkenhead Docks 1981 by John Law 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2021 What's that on the front step of the shunter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexagon789 Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 Just now, melmerby said: What's that on the front step of the shunter? Looks like a lamp? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, hexagon789 said: Looks like a lamp? Is the shiny cap normal? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2021 On 29/08/2021 at 19:05, montyburns56 said: GNR 0-4-4 CT by John Law The GWR type was based on a standard pannier tank with an extension. But the dome just had to go: 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianmacc Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 15 hours ago, melmerby said: What's that on the front step of the shunter? Looks like a lamp… Assume the grain hopper is a barrier vehicle of some type? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickham Green too Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 Shouldn't need a barrier - the Liverpool-Southport stock had conventional buffers & couplings unlike the Wirral-Mersey stock .................................... unless it's a question of weight distribution over one of the lift bridges ? 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted September 2, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 2, 2021 Extra brake power? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
montyburns56 Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 On 31/08/2021 at 15:27, Wickham Green too said: It was the extra large van on the 120 that caught my eye. I've found a better picture of it. I wonder if anyone has ever modelled it? By Graeme Phillips 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now