1956 ER 1500v DC 4-Car EMU

[Clive Mortimore]

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

AM was for Ac Multiple unit. I think the simplicity of the nomenclature was due to engineers having to name them.

 

When the AM6 and AM7s were renumbered  they were part of the "new" GER numbering system. After the units were given their TOPS numbers 307105 etc. The ER operating department had a hard fight with the higher authorities who wanted to renumber them 307 005, 308 005 etc luckily they kept their old last three numbers just gaining the class number on the front. They were always know by their last three numbers by the train crews.

[crompton 33]

Brian. Just a idea how about use'ing a model bus destination blind . Victoria station with the station cut off.

[cheesysmith]

Bit late this, and i know its a 304, but it is a photo of a inner end of a non gangwayed mk1 emu.

 

http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p1000871027

[Titan]

Bit late this, and i know its a 304, but it is a photo of a inner end of a non gangwayed mk1 emu.

 

http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p1000871027

 

Direct link:

 

http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p1000871027/e33eeabda

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Cheesysmith and Titan,

      That's certainly the regular AC emu inner end arrangement, however i'm modelling what later became Class AM7 and 307, but in original DC condition. They may differ, or they may still be the same, I don't know for certain? The outer/cab end arrangement was changed on rebuilding in 1960/1. A friend of mine suggested the cables and sockets may have been similar to Class 501, also DC and also built at SR Eastleigh around the same time? This photo link shows a 501 inner end, to the left of the loco.    BK

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21602076@N05/5091047302

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks Cheesysmith and Titan,

      That's certainly the regular AC emu inner end arrangement, however i'm modelling what later became Class AM7 and 307, but in original DC condition. They may differ, or they may still be the same, I don't know for certain? The outer/cab end arrangement was changed on rebuilding in 1960/1. A friend of mine suggested the cables and sockets may have been similar to Class 501, also DC and also built at SR Eastleigh around the same time? This photo link shows a 501 inner end, to the left of the loco.    BK

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21602076@N05/5091047302

Hi Brian

 

If you look at the 501 and the 304 photos the arrangement is the same , the 304 hasn't got its cables plugged into the dummy sockets as on the 501. The end of the coach coupled to it would have live sockets only, no cables. http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p889769850

 

The jumper cables were control only not power.

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Clive,

    Yes, there certainly are similarities, and control functions would also be similar. However, regarding Class 501 units, as well as the four conductor shoes on the power cars, they also a pair of pick-ups on the leading Driving Trailer bogie, so there must have been a line voltage power cable between all three cars? If so, you'd expect any connections to be in the middle of the vehicles, well away from any passenger fingers. 

     As you will already know, when Classes 306 and 307 were rebuilt to AC, with the new pantograph and rectifier-transformer now located on the next car along from the motor coach, again there must have been a DC power jumper between the two vehicles.    BK

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive,

    Yes, there certainly are similarities, and control functions would also be similar. However, regarding Class 501 units, as well as the four conductor shoes on the power cars, they also a pair of pick-ups on the leading Driving Trailer bogie, so there must have been a line voltage power cable between all three cars? If so, you'd expect any connections to be in the middle of the vehicles, well away from any passenger fingers. 

     As you will already know, when Classes 306 and 307 were rebuilt to AC, with the new pantograph and rectifier-transformer now located on the next car along from the motor coach, again there must have been a DC power jumper between the two vehicles.    BK

Hi Brian

 

The 501s must have had power jumpers.

 

The AM6s and AM7s had additional jumpers between the patograph-transformer coach and the power car. I have downloaded some photos of the DTS at the Electric Railway Museum. These clearly show the addtuional jumper, but they are of the refurbished-rebuilt DTS with a gangway connector and the sockets and jumpers had been repositioned.  The photos are not mine I cannot post them on here......................and I cannot find the links to them

[Kelly]

Hi Brian

 

The 501s must have had power jumpers.

 

The AM6s and AM7s had additional jumpers between the patograph-transformer coach and the power car. I have downloaded some photos of the DTS at the Electric Railway Museum. These clearly show the addtuional jumper, but they are of the refurbished-rebuilt DTS with a gangway connector and the sockets and jumpers had been repositioned. The photos are not mine I cannot post them on here......................and I cannot find the links to them

If any of those photos were mine feel free to post them here.

[Brian Kirby]

Clive M has come up trumps, and found a photo of the pantograph end of the Motor Brake Second in original DC condition. Clive has very kindly shared this with me, but sadly we can't show the image here, due to copyright. It shows a cable arrangement similar to a Class 501, plus a strange roof level conduit, which i'm not sure what's for, plus the panto well end is not flat-topped ( AC units are flat-ended ), instead it is elliptical, but only half the height of the main roof. Here's my latest (3rd) interpretation with long curved handrails either side, I had done all the inner ends in body green, but now i'm wondering if they should be black, like on a conventional coach, it's not that clear on the latest image?    

                                                             Cheers, Brian.

 

 

[Kelly]

If you look on my Flickr there are a few albums featuring the ERM items, if anyone wants higher resolution copies for their research for building units feel free to drop me a message and I'll be happy to send full size images (they're limited to 1024x on Flickr).

[Brian Kirby]

Another change, we've now got black inner ends, I can't really prove it either way, it's more of a gut feeling, and at least a safer bet.

 

 

Having lettered, and then varnished the bodies, i've now added the Replica plug-in compartment windows, which are very nice. Need to do all the other size windows next.    BK

 

[SRman]

I'm only guessing, but the ends probably started out black, then in the mid-1960s any repaints would most likely have had green ends. In either case, once they weathered a bit, they would be like the old Southern vans, just a nondescript dirty grey-brown.

I'm enjoying this build of yours, Brian.

Edited November 18, 2017 by SRman

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks SRman, we're nearly there now.

Photos of these units in original 1956 condition, are few and far between, and so far all black-and-white images, so the inner end colour has been hard to define. This same confusion also occurs with the various DMU classes, although thankfully colour pics can be found for most of them. Black is a traditional inner end colour, so it was a conservative bet, to be the more likely here.   

                                                                                                      Cheers, Brian.

[roythebus]

I don't see that the DC units would have a power jumper between the units as the voltage would be too high to risk coupling with the pantographs up. 

 

Early SR stock pre-EP series and possibly the 501s has power jumpers between units. LT Q and standard stock had line voltage jumpers (known as bus line jumpers) between cars. Were the original DC units you are modelling have motor generators fitted I wonder? They would be required to "convert" 1500v dc to 650v or less for train heating, lighting and control circuits, typically 120v dc. There would be 2 air pipes on each end of each coach, one main air the other train line air.

[cheesysmith]

The end photo of the motor coach, would it be the picture on page 12 of MLI no-183?

 

Looking at different photos of mk1 EMUs, all have twin air pipes between coaches, just lke you`ve done, and twin jumpers cables/sockets. But one of them appears to be larger than the other (te one with the connection to the box at the top of the coach end). As a guess, i would say there is one jumper for MU controls, and one for electrical supply along the train for less than traction voltages, as a suply would be needed for ETH and the batteries are fitted to a different coach to the pantograph and motor gear.

[Brian Kirby]

I don't see that the DC units would have a power jumper between the units as the voltage would be too high to risk coupling with the pantographs up. 

 

 

Hi Roy and Cheesysmith,

     Nope,nobody suggested traction power was jumped from car-to-car on these Southend units in original DC condition, there would be no point, all traction current was contained within the motor coach. However, on rebuilding to AC in 1960/1, on these units the arrangement was split between two adjacent cars, either because of space limitation or overall weight? The rebuilds had a new pantograph and transformer-rectifier added to a re-marshalled driving trailer and the reduced voltage DC would have to be cabled across to the motor coach next-door. I don't know whether this reduced voltage was 630v, 750v, or more likely the 1500v DC that the motor coach was already designed to receive? The later Class 302 units had already been designed and built with a self-contained panto-trans-rec AC motor coach, these paved the way for Classes 304, 305 and 308, the Southend units became AM7 and then Class 307, and were always the odd ones out. It's quite interesting if you look up the individual vehicle weights and compare between classes. 

       On my models above, i've only modelled cables one side, the other side just with sockets, but of course in reality the cables would normally reach across to these corresponding sockets, but that's too complicated for me! The LNER Class 306 units were converted in a similar way, also gaining a new panto in a new position. The history books tell us that many were half-converted then sent back into DC operation until the changeover date. I always assumed that they would then be running with their new AC pantos, but no, a new image on Robert Carroll's Flickr site (Robertcwp) shows one rebuilt, but with the old DC panto re-positioned. Maybe an AC panto would get badly pitted by the heavy DC current? 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/38432126476/

                                                                            

Cheers, Brian.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Brian Kirby

[Enterprisingwestern]

With reference to the wheel sizes in post #30, and apologies for not paying attention.

I have some Hornby coach wheels, from underneath what I can't remember, that are 14.2mm diameter, a tad closer to the required dimension, I don't know if current offerings are the same.

 

Mike.

[Clive Mortimore]

I have been reading through a 1960 conference paper on British Railways Ac Electrification. Between units there was one jumper cable this being the train line and was used for controlling more than one unit. Between the coaches was the unit line, which appears to be come the train line at the ends, not very technically savvy. The other jumper cable was the unit auxiliaries circuits, I think that is the thinner one. With the Southend Stock this was 52 volts when DC but raised to 110 volts on conversion so they could run with other units. On the Shenfield Slippery Door stock this was not changed because of their air operated doors they would not run in multiple with the newer Ac stock. 

A typical Ac units auxiliary circuits. I would imagine when new the Southend stock would have been similar but working on a lower voltage. 

The auxiliary equipment ran off a separate winding on the main transformer. As Brian has stated the traction currents were kept within the motor coach. Unfortunately the conference paper does not go into detail about the conversion of the DC stock to Ac, so what voltage the electrons jumped from the pantograph car to the motor coach on rebuilding is still an unknown. The traction motors were rated at 750 v DC so there was a step-down in the original form so may be the pantograph coach converted 25 kVa Ac to the traction motor voltage and rectified it at the same time.  

 

 

Edit, To add to a conversation regarding the change from 1500v Dc to 6.25kv Ac, the conference paper states that the OLE DC insulators were satisfactory for use with 6.25Kv Ac without need to change them. I knew I had read it somewhere.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Brian Kirby]

With reference to the wheel sizes in post #30, and apologies for not paying attention.

I have some Hornby coach wheels, from underneath what I can't remember, that are 14.2mm diameter, a tad closer to the required dimension, I don't know if current offerings are the same.

 

Mike.

Hi Mike,

       For the unpowered trailer wheels on this or similar units you need 14mm wheels, which is near enough to the original of 3'7", which of course would have worn down, or be re-turned down to 3'6" anyway, so the Hornby 14.1mm disc wheels will be spot on. However motor bogies often seem to have 3'3" wheels (13mm), and luckily before Hornby produced their 14.1mm, they produced a 12.7mm disc, which is near enough right for 3'3". I believe both are still available?   BK

 

P.S.  Forgot to mention to Roy, that i've already added the inner and outer end air-pipes, we discovered that in DC condition they were tucked in low, below the buffer beams, whereas the AC versions had them above the buffer beam, in the middle of the cab front. I modelled truncated versions, as if connected below the upturned buckeye.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Brian Kirby

[robertcwp]

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.

Fenchurch Street was originally 1,500 v DC as there were plans to run electric services there from Stratford as part of the 1949 electrification. They bays were built at Stratford for this, with one later being used by the DLR until more recent rebuilding. Electric services to Fenchurch Street did not happen on a regular basis but the wires remained live and occasional ECS workings ran. When the LTS line was severed by the disastrous East Coast floods in 1953, special steam services ran from Southend Victoria which connected with electric trains at Shenfield. Some of these then ran fast to Fenchurch Street and there are photos to confirm this. So, Fenchurch Street did see DC passenger services, albeit briefly.

[robertcwp]

I always assumed that they would then be running with their new AC pantos, but no, a new image on Robert Carroll's Flickr site (Robertcwp) shows one rebuilt, but with the old DC panto re-positioned. Maybe an AC panto would get badly pitted by the heavy DC current? 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/38432126476/

                                                                            

Cheers, Brian.

This is the image:

056_GideaPark_16-2-59 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

There was another one which I did not buy and which showed one unit in a set still with DC diamond pantograph and the next unit with a single-arm one for AC, but the train was still running on DC.

[crompton 33]

Brian just had a look at this and the inner end's are black.

[Clive Mortimore]

Brian just had a look at this and the inner end's are black.

Hi Crompton

 

Have a second look, they appear green to me 2 mins 20 secs.

 

I never trust persevered colours, normally they are as near as the preservationist can get but some times they are a good guess like we modellers have to do.

 

I am wondering if the Southend stock had green form new. I am not an expert on SR EMUs, but what colour ends did they have in  the 1950s, would Eastleigh painted the ER sock the same? Having said that the painters at Eastleigh did interpret the standard paint schemes with slight variation at times. 

[FPH 603]

Brian just had a look at this and the inner end's are black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MIC4scNbzM

  

Hi Crompton

 

Have a second look, they appear green to me 2 mins 20 secs.

 

I never trust persevered colours, normally they are as near as the preservationist can get but some times they are a good guess like we modellers have to do.

 

I am wondering if the Southend stock had green form new. I am not an expert on SR EMUs, but what colour ends did they have in  the 1950s, would Eastleigh painted the ER sock the same? Having said that the painters at Eastleigh did interpret the standard paint schemes with slight variation at times.

 

Look towards the end of the video: THE ENDS ARE GREEN FOR PETE'S SAKE! Yet again, I agree that some preservation groups don't actually make authentic livery variations, I've seen many unauthentic liveries in many trains, both in England and NSW.