1956 ER 1500v DC 4-Car EMU

[Ray H]

I didn't realise that the LT&S was originally DC. I thought that was confined to the Shenfield lines. I was under the impression that the LT&S was AC from the start, possibly with 6.25KV throughout.

 

I also recall than some of the GE units were referred to as Shenford stock.

 

Again, it is a long time since I travelled on these units - I had season ticket to go courting at one time! However, I certainly recall that some of the stock was 6-aside closed compartment stock towards the end of the 60s but following some attacks and other anti-sociable behaviour the partitions were removed and the seating converted to 3+2.

 

I may be miles off course now but I also seem to recollect that some units were subsequently provided with inter-car connections although only within the units.

 

The AM4s were, if memory serves me right ultimately intended for local services to/from Manchester/Liverpool and purely on short term loan to the GE.

 

I might have my knickers in a complete twist!

[ADEN]

The LTS was AC 6.25KV from the beginning and only the GE was DC .

If you to find out a bit more with regard to This try Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 183 which covers first generation electric multiple units on the GE.

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Ray,

   We're firmly on the rival GE route to Southend Victoria with this project. Okay everyone, it's film show time with a Youtube copy of the classic 1956 BTF film on the very subject. Enjoy.      BK

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Brian Kirby

[Clive Mortimore]

I didn't realise that the LT&S was originally DC. I thought that was confined to the Shenfield lines. I was under the impression that the LT&S was AC from the start, possibly with 6.25KV throughout.

 

I also recall than some of the GE units were referred to as Shenford stock.

 

Again, it is a long time since I travelled on these units - I had season ticket to go courting at one time! However, I certainly recall that some of the stock was 6-aside closed compartment stock towards the end of the 60s but following some attacks and other anti-sociable behaviour the partitions were removed and the seating converted to 3+2.

 

I may be miles off course now but I also seem to recollect that some units were subsequently provided with inter-car connections although only within the units.

 

The AM4s were, if memory serves me right ultimately intended for local services to/from Manchester/Liverpool and purely on short term loan to the GE.

 

I might have my knickers in a complete twist!

Hi Ray

 

Too add to ADEN's post, The LNER started to electrocute the line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield, BR finished it off with what was the then standard overhead voltage of 1500v DC. They used some very nice designed Thompson sliding door EMUs. In the late fifties the wires were extended to Chelmsford and Southend Victoria (the GER station). To provide extra stock BR got Eastleigh to make some more units (the subject of Brian's models), in my mind a retrograde step as they followed SR doctoring of a door to each seating bay or compartment, in many ways they were electric versions of the Victorian designs the commuters had lived with for years. These units were always called Southend Stock and even after being rebuilt tended to stay on the Southend Victoria route.

 

With the 1955 Modernisation Plan there was a change to the overhead electrics, the new voltage was 25KV AC. In some areas where it would have been too much work in altering the infrastructure the voltage was dropped down to 6.25KV AC. This was fine on lines that were going to have their first electric trains but the GER was already under wires and it was planned to extend the miles of overhead. The simple solution was to use the 1500V DC gear but bung AC through it, at 6.25KV as this would mean no change to the insulators etc. The plan was to progressively renew the insulators, this did not get finished until the early 1980s.

 

As part of the new build were the lines out to Enfield, Chingford, Hertford and Bishops Stortford. This was called Chenford scheme. Other extensions included Chelmsford to Clacton and Walton, and the LTSR lines. Oddly these schemes excluded many of the branchlines for many years. Stock wise the BR standard EMU slam door was the norm, despite the lovely Thompson sliding door units being more suitable for suburban work. In the 1980s work started on eliminating compartment stock and adding gangways between the coaches, it was around this time the press started to make a fuss, and rightly so, about the dangers to mainly ladies when trapped in one of these compartments. The cynic in me thinks the railways allowed this hue and cry, to cover up that they were now able to catch the fare dodgers.

[Brian Kirby]

Here's some progress with the Motor Brake Second, the bogies are DC Kits BR/SR sideframes attached to Southern Pride nylon plain bogies, with Hornby 12.5mm wheels, to reflect the smaller 3'3" size of those on power bogies, well 12.5mm is actually 3ft 1.5inches, but it's near enough and shows the difference from the trailer cars running on Replica BR bogies, with Jackson Romford 14mm wheels (3ft 6in representing the real 3ft 7.5in, which no doubt wore down to 3ft 6in? The sideframes are the correct wheelbase of 35mm (8'9"), although the SP bogies are 34mm (8'6"), the difference hardly shows.

      It's been difficult working out the underframe equipment, but by studying the few photos and the above film, i've cobbled up the arrangement the best I can. The re-positioned guard's van doors also needed some alteration, the blank doors needed new windows, which also became the inward-opening doors with droplights. EMUs don't just have jumper cables on the outer ends, i've added a representation of the inner end sockets and connections, plus dummy buffing plates in place of buffers. The pantograph is Sommerfeldt, borrowed from a DC Class 76 kit!   BK

 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Brian Kirby

[Brian Kirby]

Well actually the section of the LTS from Fenchurch St. as far as Stepney East, and then on to Stratford, was energized at 1500v DC as part of the GE 1949 scheme. The idea was to operate a new service between FS and the GE, but it never happened, although presumably it could still be a handy diversion route. The route beyond Stepney to Shoeburyness and Tilbury has only ever been an AC electrified route. All the GE 1949 and 1956 DC schemes were converted to AC operation in the early 60s, along with the FS to GE section through Bow, with the addition of AC between Barking and Forest Gate, which enabled either London termini to be reached from either GE or LTS routes. The Bow route was mostly used for stock transfers between FS and Ilford depot, I believe some of the 1949 DC gantries still stand on this route, with possibly even some approaching FS?     BK 

[Titan]

 

 

The simple solution was to use the 1500V DC gear but bung AC through it, at 6.25KV as this would mean no change to the insulators etc. The plan was to progressively renew the insulators, this did not get finished until the early 1980s.

 

 

That's not quite what happened. All the insulators had to be changed to 6.25kV standard prior to the voltage change over. Subjecting an insulator designed for 1500V to over four times its rated voltage would have had pretty dire consequences, particularly when you remember that the 6.25kV is RMS voltage, and so the actual peak voltage that the insulator would have to withstand would be even higher.

 

What was kept the same were the electrical clearances to bridges etc, so that there was no need to raise bridges or change wire heights to cope with the higher voltages.

 

The insulators all had to be replaced over again for the change to 25kV, which had to be done in time for the introduction of the 25kV only class 315.

[Clive Mortimore]

That's not quite what happened. All the insulators had to be changed to 6.25kV standard prior to the voltage change over. Subjecting an insulator designed for 1500V to over four times its rated voltage would have had pretty dire consequences, particularly when you remember that the 6.25kV is RMS voltage, and so the actual peak voltage that the insulator would have to withstand would be even higher.

 

What was kept the same were the electrical clearances to bridges etc, so that there was no need to raise bridges or change wire heights to cope with the higher voltages.

 

The insulators all had to be replaced over again for the change to 25kV, which had to be done in time for the introduction of the 25kV only class 315.

Hi Ian

 

I know you are in the railway engineering business and know more than me but have a look at these photos. 

 

Startford 1500V DC

Stratford 6.25 kV AC

Stratford 25kV AC

 

The insulators in the third photo are different but those in photos 1 and 2 are the same.

[Ray H]

I was under the impression that the 6.25KV supply was because technology at the time couldn't prevent (the risk of) flashovers under bridges where the clearance was limited.

 

For the life of me I can remember where the changeover between 6.25 & 25KV was but I believe it was automatic.

[Titan]

Hi Ian

 

I know you are in the railway engineering business and know more than me but have a look at these photos. 

 

Startford 1500V DC

Stratford 6.25 kV AC

Stratford 25kV AC

 

The insulators in the third photo are different but those in photos 1 and 2 are the same.

 

The insulators in 1 and 2 are not the same. The 6.25kV ones are only slightly different, especially the catenary support as they were designed to be as far as possible a like for like replacement, so that there was a minimum amount of work to do.  The registration support insulator changed from single disc to multiple disc as can be seen more clearly in these photos;

 

 

 

Apologies for using a Woodhead example, but it is the same design and finding clear photographs from the GE on 1500Vdc was proving somewhat tricky...

 

And it has to be said that the catenary insulators look so similar it is even is starting to make me wonder! 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Titan

[Clive Mortimore]

The insulators in 1 and 2 are not the same. The 6.25kV ones are only slightly different, especially the catenary support as they were designed to be as far as possible a like for like replacement, so that there was a minimum amount of work to do.  The registration support insulator changed from single disc to multiple disc as can be seen more clearly in these photos;

 

 

 

Apologies for using a Woodhead example, but it is the same design and finding clear photographs from the GE on 1500Vdc was proving somewhat tricky...

 

And it has to be said that the catenary insulators look so similar it is even is starting to make me wonder! 

Ian, please have a second look at the insulators on the registration arms in the Britannia photo, they are not the same as the Woodhead ones. They look the same as the ones in the AM9 photo.

[Brian Kirby]

I've added the dummy end detail to the remaining inner ends, then a slight puzzle dawned on me? On a typical AC Class 302-308 unit cab front, the two air-brake multiple unit pipes are prominently mounted in the middle, but where are they on the front of a 1956 DC unit? They certainly could run as 8-car formations, so either the flexible pipes were added separately each time they were coupled, or they didn't have any connecting pipes, relying on each unit generating it's own pressure, and the brakes being applied through the control system? When I added my inner end detail, I actually cheated and copied an AC unit end, finding a DC inner end pic proved impossible, but the DC unit would still require brake pipes and jumper cables between each of the four cars, so there's a chance they were to the same arrangement? Surely the DC units must have had some air-brake provision between units, otherwise how would a working unit assist a failed one, and release the brakes?     BK

 

[ADEN]

I've added the dummy end detail to the remaining inner ends, then a slight puzzle dawned on me? On a typical AC Class 302-308 unit cab front, the two air-brake multiple unit pipes are prominently mounted in the middle, but where are they on the front of a 1956 DC unit? They certainly could run as 8-car formations, so either the flexible pipes were added separately each time they were coupled, or they didn't have any connecting pipes, relying on each unit generating it's own pressure, and the brakes being applied through the control system? When I added my inner end detail, I actually cheated and copied an AC unit end, finding a DC inner end pic proved impossible, but the DC unit would still require brake pipes and jumper cables between each of the four cars, so there's a chance they were to the same arrangement? Surely the DC units must have had some air-brake provision between units, otherwise how would a working unit assist a failed one, and release the brakes?     BK

 

20171026_160003.jpg

 

On the DC version the two air pipes are below the pusher plate on the buffer beam on the second mans side of the cab, if that makes sense and diagonally opposite on the inner ends. The air pipes at the fronts did not get changed until they were converted to AC traction with the addition of the numeric headcode boxes.

[Clive Mortimore]

I've added the dummy end detail to the remaining inner ends, then a slight puzzle dawned on me? On a typical AC Class 302-308 unit cab front, the two air-brake multiple unit pipes are prominently mounted in the middle, but where are they on the front of a 1956 DC unit? They certainly could run as 8-car formations, so either the flexible pipes were added separately each time they were coupled, or they didn't have any connecting pipes, relying on each unit generating it's own pressure, and the brakes being applied through the control system? When I added my inner end detail, I actually cheated and copied an AC unit end, finding a DC inner end pic proved impossible, but the DC unit would still require brake pipes and jumper cables between each of the four cars, so there's a chance they were to the same arrangement? Surely the DC units must have had some air-brake provision between units, otherwise how would a working unit assist a failed one, and release the brakes?     BK

 

20171026_160003.jpg

Hi Brian

 

The brake pipes between the set were under the buck-eye coupling.

 

The arrangement of the jumper cables between the coaches was one coach would have the cables mounted centrally, and dummy housings as you are modelling, and the other coach would have the two sockets for the plug end of the jumper cable mounted in the middle. http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p889769850/h2ddeeaf4#h2ddeeaf4

I know the photo isn't of a Southend unit but I can only find 307s after refurbishment number 2 with a gangway in the middle and sockets, and jumpers in different positions.

Modern Locomotives Illustrated no. 183 has a photo of the brake end of the MBS and this end has the jumper cables and dummy sockets. So my guess is the TCL has just the sockets at second class end, and jumpers and dummy housings at the first class end, the DTS has just sockets. Going the other way the compartment end of the MBS (and this where the big guess comes in but looking at other ER units I could be right) would have the sockets, and the DTSO(L) have jumpers and dummy sockets.

 

The photo also shows the roof under the pantograph to have a slight radius to it not flat like on the later units or when they were rebuilt. I have only just noticed this.

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Aden and Clive,

      I can now see at least one air-brake pipe in my photos (with a magnifying glass!), viewed to the left of the buckeye, presumably the other pipe is hidden behind this? When coupled with the buckeye up, would the corresponding pipes be connected diagonally underneath? Looks like I need to reposition my inner air pipes to the bottom of each bufferbeam, although of course they would normally be seen coupled. I think my mid-height sockets can stay where they are, i'm not modelling the inner control cables, but there would no doubt only be one per pair of coach ends, and the cars would be handed. The radiused, or slightly arched panto roof is probably for water drainage, not obvious from the side, only when viewed from the end, so i'm happy to leave as is.     BK

Edited October 26, 2017 by Brian Kirby

[Brian Kirby]

Is this more accurate for DC operation? I've moved both brake pipes to below the buffer beams, the ones on the cab front hang vertically, but for between cars i've curled them around as if coupled under the buckeye, as viewed from the side, and so that nothing gets tangled up.   BK

 

[Brian Kirby]

Prompted by Clive's comments, i've added the triangular wooden luggage rack supports to the seating, although i'm still omitting the racks themselves, at least for now (never say, never). You'd only see them by looking up through the windows, with your chin on the track! I have also amended the profile of the pantograph well, it is now gently curved, presumably for water run off. That's the joy of discussing projects on these RMweb threads, I would never have known such details, until somebody pointed it out, so thanks everyone. Bodies are now in basic colours of early m.u. green with grey roofs. Note my long-lost red Triang-Hornby wheel-cleaning brush in the background, amongst the junk, found it the other day in the back of a cupboard.  

                                                                 Cheers, Brian.

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

I've been numbering up the four cars, quite a time consuming process, as far as I know made-up numbers for Class 307s are not available, so I have to either add individual numbers, or in the case of the individual car numbers, cut and splice other sets. Here are the cab fronts detailed up, I wondered if buffer beams should be red, you'd think they would be a BoT requirement, but photos suggest not? Learned colleagues have confirmed they were generally just left black. The "Southend" destination should strictly say "Victoria" in brackets, but I haven't got a transfer for that, so far. Next job for the bodies is varnish, and then add the windows. Does anyone know what the small 's' after the set number signifies? Southend unit?  BK

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Brian

 

The small "s" was for Southend as not to confuse them with the Shenfield sliding door stock as both types had numbers 01 to 32, the slippery door stock went up to 92. On conversion to Ac units they became 101-132 and the Shenfield stock became 001-092.

[Brian Kirby]

Silly old me, I never realized that Replica made an open suburban seating interior, until I "discovered" them last week! They've obviously made these for modelling the loco-hauled long underframe Second Opens (SO NG), which were actually few in number, they come with the desired 3+2 seating, which is useful for EMU conversions and kitbuilds. So after a couple of days of deliberation, I decided my 2+2 seating cobble-up wasn't good enough and had to be replaced. A quick call was made to Replica headquarters, and they very kindly arranged for me to collect a quantity of mouldings at this weekend's Tolworth show. Now armed with the new parts, I managed to salvage and re-use my triangular luggage rack supports, adding them back on to my rebuilt open and semi-open interiors. Nothing will be wasted, the 2+2 seating without tables can be re-used in a future Hastings or Oxted unit build, some have been retained here, for either side of the toilets, with the central gangway just there, whereas of course the gangway is now offset elsewhere with the 3+2s.

 

Spot the difference:

 

 

Arrrrgh, that's better!     BK

 

.

[SRman]

Hi Brian

 

The small "s" was for Southend as not to confuse them with the Shenfield sliding door stock as both types had numbers 01 to 32, the slippery door stock went up to 92. On conversion to Ac units they became 101-132 and the Shenfield stock became 001-092.

 

Right. That's not confusing at all: 'S' for Southend, not Shenfield!   

[chrisf]

Perhaps it is S for Standard, because they were BR standard.  Just a guess ...

 

Chris

[Clive Mortimore]

 

Right. That's not confusing at all: 'S' for Southend, not Shenfield!   

Or s is for slam door not sliding door. :dontknow:

 

If you were a driver and your rostered duty was 05s and you had 05 and 05s in front of you you would know which one you were meant to drive, It is no different to 306 005 or 307 105 they are just symbols on the front to distinguish one from the other.

[stewartingram]

Or suburban.

 

Stewart

[Brian Kirby]

Or suburban.

 

Stewart

But the AM6/306 Shenfield units were even more suburban, and didn't carry suffix letters? I still think Clive's suggestion of "S for Southend" is the best bet so far, it was added to distinguish from what went before. Whilst we're on nomenclature and mystery initials, can anyone say what "AM" (as in AM2/AM10 emus, etc.) definitively stood for? Was it literally "A.c. Multiple unit", as we already know them to be? Probably yes, because "AL" stood for A.c Locomotive.      BK