1938 Tube Stock

[4railsman]

On 05/02/2022 at 14:40, I.C.L. 11 said:

Anyone wanting to run them purely as "hauled stock" behind a powered loco may be better off getting the original EFE Gilbow models and changing the wheels or bogies so they're free running. A set going for scrap has been created this way using old wooden open wagons as barriers. Part way down the page - http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/model_omwb40.html

 

Thanks for that link. That photo shows exactly the type of working I was thinking about but unfortunately Kier Hardy doesn't show or explain how he managed to couple the match wagon to the old Gilbow/EFE tubestock.

 

IIRC the Driving Motor A&D ends on these earlier models didn't have a NEM box fitted, so it would be interesting to know what conversion work was needed in order to get the coupling fitted.

 

4railsman

[Chris116]

On the link it does say that rigid bar couplings were used on the tube stock and the converter wagon. It is a pity there are no details on how the rigid couplings were fitted.

[I.C.L. 11]

12 hours ago, 4railsman said:

That photo shows exactly the type of working I was thinking about but unfortunately Kier Hardy doesn't show or explain how he managed to couple the match wagon to the old Gilbow/EFE tubestock.

  

12 hours ago, Chris116 said:

On the link it does say that rigid bar couplings were used on the tube stock and the converter wagon. It is a pity there are no details on how the rigid couplings were fitted.

The leading bogies on the Gilbow DMs incorporate an extension and peg to fit the supplied coupling bar just like the intermediate couplings. Certainly no NEMs. The Wedgelock coupler detail is clipped into place and looks like they can be removed to allow two Gilbow units to couple via the supplied bar. Any converter wagon just needs original buffers & couplings removed one end and replaced by a low level central buffer block with a peg to fit the hole in the coupling bar. Example of convertor wagon in use - https://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/27614406615/

 

Some excellent closeups of the underside of a Gilbow DM in the linked thread showing the buffer/coupling moulding which is absent from the EFE Rail release. It's a poor show that Bachmann have left out completely this front end feature but I guess the hole in the chassis has been enlarged to clear the NEMs and the old detail may no longer fit.

[Tref67]

Anyone know why we haven't seen a review of these in the usual magazines? I was expecting to see them as front-page news, and... nothing! I have received mine, so I guess I could take it out of the box and have a look, but just surprised not to have seen them in print... I would have thought they were a significant new model.

[No Decorum]

4 minutes ago, Tref67 said:

Anyone know why we haven't seen a review of these in the usual magazines? I was expecting to see them as front-page news, and... nothing! I have received mine, so I guess I could take it out of the box and have a look, but just surprised not to have seen them in print... I would have thought they were a significant new model.

Highly significant, in more ways than one. I have an unpowered one and whilst it is a nice model, it has been built with a different approach – that of a maker of free-running die-cast models. I judge from the delays that it was as difficult as I thought it would be to motorise. A fascinating project. Then there is the shortage of London Underground models too.

 

Two things strike me about my model: the exquisite internal detail and, in contrast, the car numbers applied using transfers with highly visible carrier film.

[4630]

17 minutes ago, Tref67 said:

Anyone know why we haven't seen a review of these in the usual magazines? I was expecting to see them as front-page news, and... nothing! I have received mine, so I guess I could take it out of the box and have a look, but just surprised not to have seen them in print... I would have thought they were a significant new model.

The current issue of Model Rail (May 2022) has a full review by Chris Leigh @dibber25 on pages 92-95.

 

 

[PhilJ W]

On 07/02/2022 at 09:54, Chris116 said:

On the link it does say that rigid bar couplings were used on the tube stock and the converter wagon. It is a pity there are no details on how the rigid couplings were fitted.

I think he meant the rigid bar couplings supplied with the EFE/Gilbow stock. The two pairs of ex BR brake vans used as match wagons had the buffers removed from one end and a tube type coupling fitted. 

[dibber25]

15 hours ago, 4630 said:

The current issue of Model Rail (May 2022) has a full review by Chris Leigh @dibber25 on pages 92-95.

 

 

When I enquired, I was told there were no review samples. I spotted one, by chance, in a display in Trains4U and bought it, as I thought it was something different that should be reviewed. (CJL)

[andyman7]

The Bakerloo EHO bus red ones are here! This is just lovely for me, I'm not going to nitpick at all because to get something of this standard 'out of the box' that represents one of the trains of my childhood is just amazing.

[metadyneman]

It is undoubtedly a good move in the RTR tube train market and i have one of the earlier release models in train red which is how I remember the 15 trains of '38 stock on the Piccadilly line up to the mid 1970s. I will wait and see if EFE do a 59/62 stock unit before I make another purchase as I grew up with these on the Piccadilly line and the Central line and they are my real childhood favorites.

[31A]

Did they really use "Watford LMR" as a destination display?  Seems odd to me; I would have thought "Watford Jn" would have been more likely, but presumably the manufacturers have a reason for doing it like this:

 

https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/category/626/london-underground-1938-tube-stock%2c-1970s-bakerloo-line-eho-set/e99940

[Oldddudders]

Watford Jn would seem more likely - but any suffix would help avoid confusion w Watford Met station out at Cassiobury Park. And it can't have been too long before the Bakerloo terminated all trains at Harrow & Wealdstone. In the last few years of the Watford Jn service I think it was peak hours only. 

[letterspider]

A great stretch of line as you would be able to see freight, APT and Bakerloo Line trains along it

[Roy Langridge]

3 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Watford Jn would seem more likely - but any suffix would help avoid confusion w Watford Met station out at Cassiobury Park. And it can't have been too long before the Bakerloo terminated all trains at Harrow & Wealdstone. In the last few years of the Watford Jn service I think it was peak hours only. 

 

Watford LMR is quite right for 1938 stock. See https://twitter.com/ianvisits/status/1482993603177848839/photo/1 as an example.

 

Roy

[31A]

10 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Watford LMR is quite right for 1938 stock. See https://twitter.com/ianvisits/status/1482993603177848839/photo/1 as an example.

 

Roy

 

So it is, thank you.  It just seemed odd but I should not have doubted Bachmann / EFE's research!

 

[GoingUnderground]

The destination is absolutely correct. Before nationalisation it was Watford (LMS), and the destination boards were updated using adhesive vinyl stickers. There are plenty of pictures of Bakerloo line stock in the public domain showing the Destinations Watford (LMS) and Watford (LMR), not to mention that was my route to work from 1979. So I doubt that Bachmann had to do much research.

 

The very last Bakerloo line train to Watford sported this headboard.

 

 

[GoingUnderground]

And here's the destination plate and the vinyl sticker.

 

 

[GoingUnderground]

On 19/01/2022 at 11:51, metadyneman said:

There were a few spots where a '38 would bounce along at 45mph... namely on the Piccadilly line between Hammersmith & Acton Town and at the other end near Arnos grove (The picc had 15 trains of '38 stock up to 1975)

A few spots, more than a few. Because of their rapid acceleration, and the increased distances between stations once the lines were on the surface, a considerable amount of running above ground will have been at close to top speed. So think almost the whole of the Bakerloo line north of Queens Park and much of it north of Finchley Road. The same applies to the Northern line north of East Finchley, and north of Golders Green. Also on the Bakerloo Watford branch, and on the Met Uxbridge branch from Rayners Lane westwards, they were sharing running with surface stock capable of more than 25mph, so they'd have needed to keep up and not slow down the other services. For instance on the Uxbridge branch in the morning rush hour there were 3 Met trains and 2 Piccadilly every 15 minutes bwtween Uxbridge and Rayners Lane. The service pattern was in the 1960s:

Baker St - Slow/All stations

City (Aldgate) - Fast

Piccadilly

City (Aldgate) - Slow/All stations

Piccadilly

and then it repeated 4, or was it 5 times between roughly 7:15 and 8:30.

 

The control gear also had a weak field setting that allowed for slower acceleration but a higher top speed, and I don't beieve that would have been provided if it was only needed between Hammersmith and Acton Town when the majority of the '38 Stock was bought for the Bakerloo and Northern lines. There are several pictures of  '38 Stock in Piers Connor's "The 1938 Tube Stock" showing the weak field flag raised meaning it was in the weak field position.  J Graeme Bruce also talks about the provision of the weak field in "Tube Trains Under London".

[Wickham Green too]

On 16/05/2022 at 16:51, GoingUnderground said:

.... Watford (LMS), and the destination boards were updated using adhesive vinyl stickers. ...

Was 'sticky-back plastic' really in use as early as 1948 ? ...... I thought it was invented by/for Blue Peter which didn't start for another ten years !!

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Wickham Green too said:

Was 'sticky-back plastic' really in use as early as 1948 ? ...... I thought it was invented by/for Blue Peter which didn't start for another ten years !!

invented in 1930s as a product to help painters create smooth lines between colours on cars.

 

i.e. it was a form of masking tape and not for sticking items to other things a la Blue Peter.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

invented in 1930s as a product to help painters create smooth lines between colours on cars.

 

i.e. it was a form of masking tape and not for sticking items to other things a la Blue Peter.

 

If we are still talking about sticky-back plastic, and labels used to alter destination boards at Nationalisation - received wisdom on't internet seems to agree that it was first introduced in the 1960s as Fablon; (that's my recollection, too).

 

It is therefore unlikely that labels for use at Nationalisation were sticky-back plastic.

 

CJI.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by cctransuk

[john new]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

invented in 1930s as a product to help painters create smooth lines between colours on cars.

 

i.e. it was a form of masking tape and not for sticking items to other things a la Blue Peter.

On Blue Peter it was always used in the early days as an overlay. Fablon, concur with @cctransuk

[woodenhead]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Tape

[cctransuk]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Tape

 

Scotch tape was cellulose - we are talking about self-adhesive vinyl film.

 

I cannot find any evidence of such a thing prior to Fablon - which was introduced in 1960.

 

..... unless you know differently?

 

CJI.

[woodenhead]

Are we really arguing over specifics of 'sticky tape'?

 

Must be a very slow Saturday 😆