Were the Hawksworth coaches as big a step away from previous GWR practices as the County locos were?

[OnTheBranchline]

The 1000 County Class of the 1945 vintage had taken a number of steps away from the standard GWR practices such as: High boiler pressure, Non standard driving wheel size, Non standard slabsided tender of a non standard size to the rest of the type built for other locos, continuous splashers, straight nameplates. etc).

 

Were the Hawksworth coaches as big a change/development from the previous Collett coaches (particularly the later "Sunshine" stock) or were they a little more organic from their predecessors? 

[Hal Nail]

The coaches were longer and roof curve and ends noticeably different but window layout was similar to sunshine stock, same bogies etc.

 

We've both largely highlighted styling differences whereas I'd have thought underlying construction was the more significant aspect in relation to your question. I don't know if that was broadly the same for the coaches or not.

[Miss Prism]

Hawksworth corridor stock was very traditional in approach to interior layout and styling. The increased length (64') allowed slight increases in vestibule and compartment size.

 

With the exception of his autocoaches (which continued a traditional autocoach layout), Hawksworth failed to recognise the desirability of open layouts for his non-corridor stock, and the non-corridor stock met a premature demise as soon as DMUs hit the scene.

 

[Nearholmer]

I think, but am not totally sure, that these coaches had a timber-framed body, skinned with steel, bolted to a steel under-frame. If I’m right about that: very much established practice.

[adb968008]

9 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think, but am not totally sure, that these coaches had a timber-framed body, skinned with steel, bolted to a steel under-frame. If I’m right about that: very much established practice.

Built like a bus then.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, and like most British railway carriages of the time. If you wanted radical at the time Mister Bulleid was your man, with all-steel welded construction.
 

As Miss Prism hints, the trend in interior layouts was away from compartments for 3rd class at least, to a much airier open layout, which when coupled with big windows and comfy sofas gives a totally different feel; Bulleid was ‘on trend’ with this too for mainline stock (suburban EMUs were even more sardine-tin like that the previous ones, the southern opting out of the move to powered doors and open interiors that was already well underway for another thirty years!).

[Wickham Green too]

3 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

... Hawksworth failed to recognise the desirability of open layouts for his non-corridor stock, ...

I'm sure Mr.Hawksworth had his team draw up exactly what the powers that be requested of him.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

... the southern opting out of the move to powered doors and open interiors that was already well underway for another thirty years!).

The Southern ( and their customers ) knew exactly the most efficient way to offload a train during a twenty-second station stop - and waiting for sliding doors to power-up wasn't part of it !

[Steamport Southport]

Yet Bulleid was years behind what the LMS was doing in the 1930s.

 

LMS Electrics (502/503), DE shunters, air conditioned Coronation Scot and the new all welded Coronation Scot that went to America. All designed before Bulleid even got the SR job. 

 

 Light, high-tensile steel has been used throughout the construction in order to provide great strength with light weight, the same object being helped by the large-scale use of welding. Each coach of the two-coach units weighs about 30 tons, compared with 32 to 35 tons of a standard coach.

 

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Coronation_Scot_1939

 

 

Jason

 

[Wickham Green too]

17 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

... All designed before Bulleid even got the SR job. ...

He was busy designing welded underframes for the LNER ..................................... unfortunately the powers that be persisted with teak bodies - which resisted his attempts at welding.

[stewartingram]

They should have put lots of nails into the wood, then the nails could have been welded together....

[bécasse]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I'm sure Mr.Hawksworth had his team draw up exactly what the powers that be requested of him.

The Southern ( and their customers ) knew exactly the most efficient way to offload a train during a twenty-second station stop - and waiting for sliding doors to power-up wasn't part of it !

In the mid-1960s the standard station dwell time for SR electric trains was actually reduced from 20 seconds to 15 including during the rush hours.

[Rugd1022]

Slightly off topic, but no doubt due to their relatively construction, several Hawksworths lasted into 1966 / 67 in mainline service and three of them managed to gain blue and grey livery in '67 for attachment to the down Cornish Riviera express at Plymouth. During this period you could also still see Stanier, Gresley and Thompson stock in the south west on inter-regional services which must have been quite a visual feast.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Rugd1022

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 minutes ago, bécasse said:

In the mid-1960s the standard station dwell time for SR electric trains was actually reduced from 20 seconds to 15 including during the rush hours.

So it was BR(SR) that began the trend of 'disability means rail travel is not for you'...

[The Johnster]

The Hawksworth coaches were a new standard length for the GW, 64’, but were not any great advance in any other respect.  They missed an opportunity that had been taken on the LNER and the Southern, perpetuated by the BR mk1s, to incorporate buckeye couplers despite the bow-ended form being suitable for this type.  Buckeyes offer obvious advantages in coupling performance, but less obviously (in conjunction with steel underframes designed to absorb buffing stresses from buckeyes at the centre of the buffer beam)) gave better resilience in crashes, drastically reducing the  risk of telescoping and holding the coaches apart more effectively. 
 

They looked good, but the flush glazing was prone to leaks and draughts, leading to rot in the wooden body framing and rust in the steel outer skin.  They were still being delivered new in 1954, snd many did not last even a decade in service, though this was due to a number of other factors and not just rot & corrosion. 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, and like most British railway carriages of the time. If you wanted radical at the time Mister Bulleid was your man, with all-steel welded construction.
 

 

Not so!

 

All loco hauled coaching stock produced under his tenure were formed of traditional wood frames clad with steel sheet. The only concession to modernity was that the steel sheets tended to be welded together rather than riveted.

 

On the other hand the 4-SUB EMU did feature a steel frame IIRC

[Nearholmer]

Well, I’d thoroughly misunderstood then.
 

The 4-SUB I was very familiar with, and had clearly misled myself into believing that the mainline stock was of the same form of construction.

[Wickham Green too]

The form of the 4SUB lent itself to jig-building but the many and various types needed for loco haulage didn't !

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

... the GW.... missed an opportunity that had been taken on the LNER and the Southern, perpetuated by the BR mk1s, to incorporate buckeye couplers ...

I'd like to see the GWR's report on their 1922 buckeye trials .............. for some reason bow ends were adopted but not the couplers !

[Right Away]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Not so!

 

All loco hauled coaching stock produced under his tenure were formed of traditional wood frames clad with steel sheet. The only concession to modernity was that the steel sheets tended to be welded together rather than riveted.

 

…. whilst still perpetuating canvas roof covering!

 

[Trestrol]

4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Yet Bulleid was years behind what the LMS was doing in the 1930s.

 

LMS Electrics (502/503), DE shunters, air conditioned Coronation Scot and the new all welded Coronation Scot that went to America. All designed before Bulleid even got the SR job. 

 

 Light, high-tensile steel has been used throughout the construction in order to provide great strength with light weight, the same object being helped by the large-scale use of welding. Each coach of the two-coach units weighs about 30 tons, compared with 32 to 35 tons of a standard coach.

 

https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Coronation_Scot_1939

 

 

Jason

 

Let's not forget that the LNER had all this as well to greater or lesser extent. EMU on Tyneside and the 306/506s. Pressure ventilation (A.C) on many more carriages that one specific train. All steel carriages trialled in the 1920's and also aluminium construction. Diesel electric railcars as well as main line electrification. And also superior buckeye and Pullman Gangways. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Trestrol

[The Johnster]

I'd say that the GW and LMS coaches being produced at Nationalisation were beginning to look a bit outclassed by Bullied's and Thompson's all-steel buckeye stock.  Ivatt was still using flat ends, and we have discussed Hawksworth's efforts.  Bowended stock even without buckeyes had the advantage that the gangway connections could be made shorter and end vestibules a little bigger.  I can remember a time when some passengers were nervous of using gangways while the train was moving, and if you were of that disposition they were scary; dark, noisy, and moving unpredictably under your feet.

 

I'm sure that the GW and the LMS must have investigated buckeyes, which had been in use on ECJ stock for many years, but neither of them took the plunge, and must have had reasons for not doing so.  Bowended stock with conventional couplings and buffers had to have extended buffer shanks to enable the buffers to stick out enough to buff, particularly noticeable on the GW's Steam Railmotors and auto-trailers.  Some dmus had pronounced bow-ends as well, including the 'heavyweight' Derby sets and BRCW units.  Mk1 non-gangwayed, and the various emus and demus based on it, were flat-ended with conventional drawgear and buffers, a somewhat dated approach by the time of their builds.

 

The mk1s are probably overall the most successful passenger coach design in British railway history, and were very good coaches indeed.  An Achilles heel was added to them when the end steps were removed in the 60s in connection with the 25kv electrification projects, as the steps were welded on and cut out with oxymorons, I mean torches, plates being welded over the holes.  This unintentionally introduced chemical action which attacked the steel end pillars, which were prone to rusting in consequence.

[Forward!]

Hawskworth's carriage designs were more about using the generous length to provide better passenger accomodation. They weren't particularly innovative structurally. He did introduce a method of building the bodies sectionally, directly on to the frames, which saved some material on structural elements (and time) compared to traditional methods. 

 

The most noteworthy of Hawksworth's carriage innovations was his experimentation with aluminium. Several carriages were panelled in it, and one, experimentally, had a complete aluminium underframe, inspired by the work with aluminium he'd seen at Brown-Boveri when he was over there ordering his gas turbine.

 

Other innovations extended to trialing flourescent lighting, and replacing veneers with Formica. 

 

Will

[Forward!]

22 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I'm sure that the GW and the LMS must have investigated buckeyes, which had been in use on ECJ stock for many years, but neither of them took the plunge, and must have had reasons for not doing so.

 

The GW did experiment with buckeyes (and pullman gangways) on the 1925 South Wales sets.  But this was essentially a fixed formation where the inner carriages had buckeyes, and the outer ends of the outer carriages had conventional screw couplers. They kept the buckeyes to around 1933.

 

At around the same time the GW played around with fixed, articulated sets (and contemplated DMUs too). The articulated set was found to be too inflexible for their ordinary mainline expresses and converted to conventional bogies quite quickly. So I suspect the buckeye idea wasn't take any further for similar reasons of operational inflexibility.

 

Will

Edited September 19, 2023 by Forward!

[Wickham Green too]

15 minutes ago, Forward! said:

.... The articulated set was found to be too inflexible for their ordinary mainline expresses ...

Nowadays we get fixed formations whether they suit traffic patterns or not ............................ progress !

[JimC]

There was a joint GWR/LMS buckeye trial in 1945, but the GWR at least considered it didn't justify making a change. 

 

There must have been something fairly different about the Hawksworth coach construction, because there was a lengthy inter-union demarcation dispute on an aspect of the construction which delayed their introduction. Think it may have been getting on for a year. I've seen a letter from Hawksworth to the board claiming it's not that big a deal since instead he'd been able to make excellent progress in refurbishing carriages suffering from war time neglect. 

One shouldn't forget that it was Hawksworth's job to sort out that sort of thing, and to my cynical eyes it read an awful lot as if that was all spin, even if not called that yet. 

 

For the youngsters, a demarcation dispute occurred when there were separate unions for different trades. Each would claim that a particular job came under their trade and therefore should be reserved for their members. They could be long and very disruptive. Now most sites are single union at best such things are very rare. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by JimC

[OnTheBranchline]

20 minutes ago, JimC said:

There was a joint GWR/LMS buckeye trial in 1945, but the GWR at least considered it didn't justify making a change. 

 

There must have been something fairly different about the Hawksworth coach construction, because there was a lengthy inter-union demarcation dispute on an aspect of the construction which delayed their introduction. Think it may have been getting on for a year. I've seen a letter from Hawksworth to the board claiming it's not that big a deal since instead he'd been able to make excellent progress in refurbishing carriages suffering from war time neglect. 

One shouldn't forget that it was Hawksworth's job to sort out that sort of thing, and to my cynical eyes it read an awful lot as if that was all spin, even if not called that yet. 

 

For the youngsters, a demarcation dispute occurred when there were separate unions for different trades. Each would claim that a particular job came under their trade and therefore should be reserved for their members. They could be long and very disruptive. Now most sites are single union at best such things are very rare. 

 

Isn't this what caused BMC/British Leyland so much grief?