W&U Tramcar

[Pint of Adnams]

On 06/11/2023 at 11:29, PhilJ W said:

I understand that the composite was converted to all third when on the Tollesbury branch. Whether or not the partition was removed I don't know.

If you look at and compare the two lower two photographs on p118 and the two on p122 of PP's book, it does seem that the partition was removed. Certainly the entry in the official GER Carriage Register states that it was removed in 1928 along with the other modifications.

 

The partition would have been about the location of the division between the passenger seating and the bar though, so I wonder if that contributed to the studio's ideas for construction of the interior...?

[PaulG]

1 hour ago, Chris116 said:

So we have one coach that it took three depots to scrap! Must have been very well built.

 

Looking for something completely different,  I turned up this photograph and caption from the book on the LTSR.

 

 

The photograph was taken by my late friend Peter Paton, for many years Hon Secretary of the South East Essex Railway Society.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, Pint of Adnams said:

If you look at and compare the two lower two photographs on p118 and the two on p122 of PP's book, it does seem that the partition was removed. Certainly the entry in the official GER Carriage Register states that it was removed in 1928 along with the other modifications.

 

The partition would have been about the location of the division between the passenger seating and the bar though, so I wonder if that contributed to the studio's ideas for construction of the interior...?

This picture of the preserved carriage clearly shows the partition. The partition is at the correct end on the model only the buffet isn't. (See the earlier comments on this thread.)

 

[PaulG]

1 hour ago, Pint of Adnams said:

If you look at and compare the two lower two photographs on p118 and the two on p122 of PP's book, it does seem that the partition was removed. Certainly the entry in the official GER Carriage Register states that it was removed in 1928 along with the other modifications.

 

The partition would have been about the location of the division between the passenger seating and the bar though, so I wonder if that contributed to the studio's ideas for construction of the interior...?

 

This from Chris Hawkins and George Reeve W&U book

 

[PhilJ W]

Also the brake wheel just visible is quite accurate up until grouping as they ran initially on the W&U without a brake vehicle as depicted in the Wild Swan book on the W&U. This is also depicted on the model.

[Pint of Adnams]

24 minutes ago, PaulG said:

 

This from Chris Hawkins and George Reeve W&U book

 

That's the JH Meredith photograph that we were discussing on Sunday in the other thread: 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The close coupling links will be ineffective if you keep the tension-lock couplers between the pair anyway. They only function properly if coupled together with no side-play, and once any has been eliminated no buffer-to--buffer gap should be needed when on straight track. 

 

I recommend substituting a pair of Roco heads if you want to be able to uncouple them "on stage", or a pair of short magnetic couplers if you will only need to separate them in the fiddle yard.

 

John

Thanks for that John.

I use Roco, or the Hornby version on my mainline stock. A suitable combination usually does the job. I then use a home made version of the paper concertina Modellers Mecca type to fill any gaps. As the amount of stock on the branch will be very small I will probably revert to scale couplings.  I do have a few wagons with scale couplings on one end and tension locks on the other, so I can use most of my other stock if I feel the urge.

Bernard 

[Bishdurham]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

This picture of the preserved carriage clearly shows the partition. The partition is at the correct end on the model only the buffet isn't. (See the earlier comments on this thread.)

 

Maybe they need a Snob Screen so that those in First may be served their G&T away from those in Third?

[Pint of Adnams]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Also the brake wheel just visible is quite accurate up until grouping as they ran initially on the W&U without a brake vehicle as depicted in the Wild Swan book on the W&U. This is also depicted on the model.

 

The hand brake with its handle was removed in September 1928, at the same time as incandescent gas lighting and steam heating were fitted - all part of the conversions for transfer to the K&T.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Bishdurham said:

Maybe they need a Snob Screen so that those in First may be served their G&T away from those in Third?

Does one charge the toffs in 1st class more for a drink than the riff-raff?

Or does one sell them wines and spirits while the lower orders only get to swill beer?

[Bernard Lamb]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Does one charge the toffs in 1st class more for a drink than the riff-raff?

Or does one sell them wines and spirits while the lower orders only get to swill beer?

That is how it was when I were a  lad.

Saloon bar for the toffs and public bar for the plebs. With a hefty price difference.

A lot of pubs were beer houses and did not have a license for spirits.

London was quite civilised, but on my first visit to Wolverhampton  I happened to be with a young lady. On entering the public door we were instructed very firmly to move to the saloon.

Bernard

[Bishdurham]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Does one charge the toffs in 1st class more for a drink than the riff-raff?

Or does one sell them wines and spirits while the lower orders only get to swill beer?

Depends whether it is in a straight glass or not!

[stewartingram]

2 hours ago, Pint of Adnams said:

 

The hand brake with its handle was removed in September 1928, at the same time as incandescent gas lighting and steam heating were fitted - all part of the conversions for transfer to the K&T.

So does this answer my question many moons ago about operation on the W&U?

Basically was the brake coach ALWAYS at the rear of the train (what we would normally call conventional practice?), which would involve shunting at both ends of the line?

I was scouring many pictures months back, and noticed that tram engines were always chimney leasdng in one direction only (I think without checking, towards Upwell). Also I checked the passenger brake, and this I believed changed ends in different pics, not sure if it was in different years though. Something I may have to return too!

If they never shunted it, it makes fitting different couplings easier....

[Jammy2305]

9 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

This picture of the preserved carriage clearly shows the partition. The partition is at the correct end on the model only the buffet isn't. (See the earlier comments on this thread.)

 

 

Not quite. On the real thing there is still a partition for the bar, which is correctly modelled (irrespective of which end is lettered First or Third Class). However, the First Class partition is missing from the model (which is using No.8s interior as the basis for the bar fitted vehicles).

 

For a model of No.7 to be accurate to the preserved vehicle, a partition needs adding here:

 

 

I can only presume that when they restored No.7 (and reinstated the partition) that they specifically chose to add the bar to the Third Class end as it was larger and wouldn't detract from the historical representation of the First and Third Class compartments as per the original vehicle.

 

- James

[Pint of Adnams]

11 hours ago, stewartingram said:

So does this answer my question many moons ago about operation on the W&U?

Basically was the brake coach ALWAYS at the rear of the train (what we would normally call conventional practice?), which would involve shunting at both ends of the line?

I was scouring many pictures months back, and noticed that tram engines were always chimney leasdng in one direction only (I think without checking, towards Upwell). Also I checked the passenger brake, and this I believed changed ends in different pics, not sure if it was in different years though. Something I may have to return too!

If they never shunted it, it makes fitting different couplings easier....

 

You prompted me to have a look through my copy of Peter Paye's book. A quick conclusion is that the brake and certain tramcars (typically one bogie and one four-wheeler) remained coupled together in a fixed formation (which may have varied slightly over time) with additional cars as required to suit the particular traffic, plus of course the goods stock as tail traffic which necessitated the use of a goods brake. The tram locomotives do seem to be generally running the same way round, such that 'chimney first' matches generally with 'brake next to locomotive'. So - no turntable, no turning, and no reversal of formation on a direction change.

 

Don't forget that the GE was not fixated on the rule of having a guard's brake at each end (a la GWR B Set for example) but simply of having one in the train.

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Pint of Adnams said:

A quick conclusion is that the brake and certain tramcars (typically one bogie and one four-wheeler) remained coupled together in a fixed formation (which may have varied slightly over time) with additional cars as required to suit the particular traffic

 

I'm not sure that there was a fixed formation.  On page 212 Peter lists mileage of each tramcar in 1914 as follows:

 

Total passenger tram miles - 23,136

 

Tramcar no 1 -    4,620

Tramcar no 2 -    4,168

Tramcar no 3 -    3,420

Tramcar no 4 -    6,576

Tramcar no 5 -    9,672

Tramcar no 6 -  14,560

Tramcar no 7 -  10,444

Tramcar no 8 -    8,020

Brake no 16 -    19,976

Ordinary brake - 3,180

 

This indicates that in 1914 bogie tramcar no 7 was used more than bogie tramcar no 8, but nonetheless was included in less than half of services and there was clearly quite a few services that didn't include either no 7 or no 8.  The mileage figures for the Brake no 16 and an ordinary goods brake equate to almost the same figure as total miles, so it appears that one or other was used on all trains.  I think it's just that the baseline level of demand probably equated to either three four wheelers or a four wheeler and a bogie tramcar and then others were added to that as required.  I suspect that what you're interpreting as a fixed formation is just one four wheel and one bogie coach but that which four wheeler and which bogie coach many have changed day to day or certainly week to week.

 

1 hour ago, Pint of Adnams said:

plus of course the goods stock as tail traffic which necessitated the use of a goods brake.

 

I suspect that all tail traffic was fitted, in which case there may not have been a need for a goods brake van as well as no 16.

 

1 hour ago, Pint of Adnams said:

The tram locomotives do seem to be generally running the same way round, such that 'chimney first' matches generally with 'brake next to locomotive'. So - no turntable, no turning, and no reversal of formation on a direction change.

 

That's my conclusion as well.  I think Brake no 16 was always at the Upwell end of the train.

[PhilJ W]

9 hours ago, Jammy2305 said:

 

Not quite. On the real thing there is still a partition for the bar, which is correctly modelled (irrespective of which end is lettered First or Third Class). However, the First Class partition is missing from the model (which is using No.8s interior as the basis for the bar fitted vehicles).

 

For a model of No.7 to be accurate to the preserved vehicle, a partition needs adding here:

 

 

I can only presume that when they restored No.7 (and reinstated the partition) that they specifically chose to add the bar to the Third Class end as it was larger and wouldn't detract from the historical representation of the First and Third Class compartments as per the original vehicle.

 

- James

The bar on the model is fitted at the wrong end, on the prototype the bar is in the larger third class compartment. This was only discovered recently. 

[Jammy2305]

53 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The bar on the model is fitted at the wrong end, on the prototype the bar is in the larger third class compartment. This was only discovered recently. 

 

As per my previous reply, the bar as modelled in relation to the coach is physically correct (the bar and the handbrake are fitted to the same end of the vehicle). The error you keep highlighting is simply mis-lettering on the exterior of the vehicle. The physical error is the lack of the additional partition between the First and Third Class sections.

 

I hope this helps clarify.

 

- James

[PhilJ W]

There is only one partition on the prototype as in this photograph.

As you can see the bar is at the end furthest away from the partition. The Titfield version quite correctly doesn't have any partition.

[Jammy2305]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

There is only one partition on the prototype as in this photograph.

As you can see the bar is at the end furthest away from the partition. The Titfield version quite correctly doesn't have any partition.

 

From a quick Google search:

 

 

The Titfield version is indeed correct as that coach is No.8 which never had a class partition. 

 

- James

[Pint of Adnams]

On 08/11/2023 at 09:34, Dungrange said:

I'm not sure that there was a fixed formation.  I suspect that what you're interpreting as a fixed formation is just one four wheel and one bogie coach but that which four wheeler and which bogie coach many have changed day to day or certainly week to week.

 

I suspect that all tail traffic was fitted, in which case there may not have been a need for a goods brake van as well as no 16.

 

You are over-interpreting 'fixed formation' to imply that it was exactly the same vehicles all the time, which clearly is a nonsense as it makes no allowance for routine maintenance, repairs and repainting, etc. Hawkins and Reeve use the term 'regular configuration' which may be more acceptable to you.

 

Reading the detail of working instructions, no more than two through trucks from Wisbech to Upwell or vice versa must be attached to passenger workings, whilst mixed trams were originally limited to ten vehicles, of which four may be loaded goods trucks - these are equally likely to be unfitted. Coal and dead-buffered wagons to be conveyed other than by a special train run during the night.

 

Reverting to the discussion of the interior of the tram car (JH Meredith photograph), Middleton Press Branch Line to Upwell includes reproductions of the LNER notice above the door regarding use of the balcony and a combined time and fare table effective October 1922 until further notice. Overlooking that the first part of the book relates the history of the canal, the remainder includes a goodly number of photographs not reproduced elsewhere.

[Dungrange]

41 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

Reading the detail of working instructions, no more than two through trucks from Wisbech to Upwell or vice versa must be attached to passenger workings, whilst mixed trams were originally limited to ten vehicles, of which four may be loaded goods trucks - these are equally likely to be unfitted. Coal and dead-buffered wagons to be conveyed other than by a special train run during the night.

 

Yes, I'm aware of these Working Instructions, but only the very early Working Timetables in the 1880s differentiate the various services as Passenger, Mixed and Goods Trams.  In later Working Timetables the services are defined as either Passenger or Goods (even if the loading instructions for Mixed Trams was retained in the notes at the bottom until passenger services ceased in 1927).  The only photograph that I recall seeing with a caption referring to a Mixed Tram on the W&U (it's late pre-grouping) appears to have four fitted vehicles in the rake (a couple of Sundry Vans and what looks like a horsebox or similar) with the passenger accommodation at the rear.  I cant say that unfitted goods wagons weren't conveyed alongside the passenger coaches, but I've seen no evidence that this was the case after the initial years.  If there are any photographs of such a service, I'd love to see them.

[Pint of Adnams]

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

The only photograph that I recall seeing with a caption referring to a Mixed Tram on the W&U (it's late pre-grouping) appears to have four fitted vehicles in the rake (a couple of Sundry Vans and what looks like a horsebox or similar) with the passenger accommodation at the rear.  I cant say that unfitted goods wagons weren't conveyed alongside the passenger coaches, but I've seen no evidence that this was the case after the initial years.  If there are any photographs of such a service, I'd love to see them.

 

Photograph 42 in the Middleton Press book is of a train described as a mixed tram comprising a GN horsebox and an NE horsebox followed by the brake and two 4-wheel tram cars hauled by Y6 7133 in the mid-1920s. Strictly speaking the horseboxes and sundry vans are NPCS rather than goods.

[SteveyDee68]

It’s very interesting to read that these exquisite models have errors; it will be even more interesting to see who will be the first to take a scalpel to their model in order to correct them!

 

Personally, I’ve purchased the ‘fake’ BR maroon versions (a) because I really liked the livery on them (b) because I am not modelling an accurate representation of the W&U (despite having a couple of the Model Rail tram locos) but simply love the look of the trains on that railway (c) because these are beautifully manufactured and far beyond anything I could attempt to make myself (d) because Rule #1

 

I think it made commercial sense for Rapido to make use of the mouldings created for the Titfield model to produce various other liveries, but a round of applause to them bothering to model the other tramcar! Personally, in my miniature world, I can ignore the bar being at the wrong end of the coach etc, and simply enjoy them for the gems they are*

 

Steve S
 

 

* Not being critical of those pointing out the inaccuracies, simply suggesting let’s not forget how good these are!

[Bucoops]

Opened my Titfield coach this morning. Another "knocked out the park" level model - well done!

 

One query - the lifting plates for accessing the next coach - just checking both ends should lift? One is flat whilst the other lifts - don't want to force it although it looks like it should lift from the exploded diagram.