"Things "Southern" For a Newcomer"

[Nick Holliday]

On 26/01/2024 at 08:05, Nearholmer said:

After WW1, LSWR coach livery was green anyway, wasn’t it? Certainly their electrics were always green (straight copy of US practice). My point being that a lot of stock was green from the start, which is why the colour was adopted.

Although the electric stock was green from the start, only a few suburban coaches followed suit, until in March 1921 the board agreed that all future painting was to be in green. Given that the LSWR apparently anticipated repainting stock every five years or so, and with the uncertainties of the pending grouping, I would have thought that only about 20% of their carriages would be in green by 1923.

[Nearholmer]

Maybe, then, it was simply that, having been through the “what colour is best?” debate once, Sir Herbert (had he been knighted by then?) didn’t see the point in sitting through it again.

[Typeapproval]

Hello,

 

Once again my ignorance is showing🫣. The GWR had various 'Syphons' for the carnage of milk, the Great Eastern mostly used four or six wheeled vans as did many other companies that made up the LNER. Did the Southern Railway have anything similar to the Syphons? did any of the constituent companies have anything that was carried over to the SR? I do appreciate that four and six wheel tank wagons eventually took over from churns on trains,

 

As I understand it milk in churns were delivered to Dairies at Halesworth and Bungay in the 1950s, in standard vans, having been picked up at local stations along the way.

 

The GWR seems to have specialist equipment for most goods.

 

Kind regards

David.

[Nearholmer]

The constituent companies had lots of different 6W ventilate, passenger-rated vans for milk and fruit, some even got fitted with through-piping so that they could be used within PP trains as general PMVs.

 

Late in its existence, the SECR came up with a truly brilliant LWB 4W PLV design, based on continental construction practices, so a steel underframe, light steel body frame, inside timbering, and good ventilation. The SR picked-up that design and built multiple variants, both 4W and bogie, known colloquially as ‘utility vans’ (although that isn’t the proper designation for many of them) all passenger-rated, some with guard’s accommodation, some with end doors. That huge family of vans progressively replaced the old 6W vans, of which few if any were left in revenue service by WW2, and BR continued to build them into the 1950s. Vast numbers were still in service into the 1980s, and every preserved railway in the country seems to have at least a couple, some being stripped to the under frames to create running-gear for historic 4W wooden coaches.

 

So….. latterly, milk in churns went in those, but by WW2 there wasn’t much churn traffic left, and the last probably ceased c1950.

 

Have a look at the Bluebell Railway rolling stock collection, and the IoWSR, because they have a good selection of typical ones preserved, including a LBSCR 6W milk/fruit van at the Bluebell. The KESR has the SECR original PLV https://kesr.org.uk/the-cavell-van/

 

 

Edited February 2 by Nearholmer

[Typeapproval]

Hi,

 

So the "Utility van" was the equivalent of the GWR syphon, based on a SECR design. On the LNER it ended up with various Gresley designs (The CCT etc.) based on GNER and NE vehicles.

 

The fact that some SR vehicles continued into production by BR says a lot about the quality of the design. 

 

Kind Regards

David.

[Nearholmer]

The family of vans under discussion covered-off more than the Syphons, because it included ones with end-doors (CCT in BR talk), and ones with guard’s compartments - it even included a few that were able to carry elephants!

 

If you look at pictures of many ex-SR branches and cross-country lines, you will see that nearly every train had one, sometimes several, because they carried railway parcels, Mail, bikes, newspapers, and on the holiday lines lots of passengers’ luggage in advance, and perambulators. The bogie versions were used on main-line services too, because there was a lot of luggage to and from the holiday areas and the ports, plus things like cut-flowers and new-potatoes from the Channel Islands. Sir Winston Churchill went to his final resting place in one, and I find it hard to imagine a Syphon being used for that!

 

By the 1950s, this family of vans was ubiquitous on the southern, and they’d escaped all over the rest of BR too.

 

The “secret” I think was that while the other companies persisted in building vehicles that were based on carriage design philosophy for most duties that involved them being attached to passenger trains, the SECR design was unashamedly “modern goods wagon technology”, which meant that they were cheap to build, very robust, and cheap maintain/repair, even if they looked a bit unsophisticated. The LMS, GWR and LNER vans looked posher, but the whole-life cost of them must have been substantially greater.

 

 

[Oldddudders]

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The family of vans under discussion covered-off more than the Syphons, because it included ones with end-doors (CCT in BR talk), and ones with guard’s compartments - it even included a few that were able to carry elephants!

 

If you look at pictures of many ex-SR branches and cross-country lines, you will see that nearly every train had one, sometimes several, because they carried railway parcels, Mail, bikes, newspapers, and on the holiday lines lots of passengers’ luggage in advance, and perambulators. The bogie versions were used on main-line services too, because there was a lot of luggage to and from the holiday areas and the ports, plus things like cut-flowers and new-potatoes from the Channel Islands. Sir Winston Churchill went to his final resting place in one, and I find it hard to imagine a Syphon being used for that!

 

By the 1950s, this family of vans was ubiquitous on the southern, and they’d escaped all over the rest of BR too.

 

The “secret” I think was that while the other companies persisted in building vehicles that were based on carriage design philosophy for most duties that involved them being attached to passenger trains, the SECR design was unashamedly “modern goods wagon technology”, which meant that they were cheap to build, very robust, and cheap maintain/repair, even if they looked a bit unsophisticated. The LMS, GWR and LNER vans looked posher, but the whole-life cost of them must have been substantially greater.

 

 

The Cavell Van prototype PMV from 1919 (nicknamed thus because it was used to repatriate the body of Edith Cavell after WW1, and later the Unknown Warrior) set the standard for all these vans. It is in restored condition on the K&ESR.

[bécasse]

The Southern utility vans were always U-vans (or sometimes "Cavells") to SR staff, no matter what fancy coding might be painted on them. Once pooling came with nationalisation the main difficulty was preventing other regions from poaching them.

 

The principal reason for adding them to local trains, there were even examples specially fitted to work with pull&push stock, was pram traffic, particularly during the immediate post-war baby boom decade when few families possessed cars - electric units could usually cope with prams because most units had more than one brake van.

[Typeapproval]

Hi, many thanks for the information provided in answer to what must be obvious to you.

 

Again it's what must really show my ignorance of things "Southern"!

 

I appreciate that the SR were at the forefront of electrification. Were there ever any "Diesel multipul units" on rural lines that were not suitable for electrification? Or were these steam powered into BR days? I remember reading somewhere that Armstrong Whitworth tried to interest the LMS and LNER in their prototypes. Did they try the SR?

 

The GWR had the AEC "Railcars" including parcel carriers, the LNER had some Petrol railcars (and a couple of diesel electrics) they inherited.

 

Kind Regards

David.

[Nearholmer]

The SR didn’t really get very far into DE before WW2, only the EE 350hp shunters, which were really a byproduct of the very good LMS diesel programme.

 

A few ideas were sketched-out, including a DE conversion of the ‘Milk Van’ power cars from the LBSCR 6.6kV OLE trains, but that was very early (late 1920s iirc), and the power-weight ratio of diesel engines was still very poor at that stage. If it had been built, it would have shared similarities with the BTH bo-bo diesels supplied to Ford Motors.

 

Almost certainly by the late-30s, and definitely during the 40s, they were playing about with ideas for DEMUs and ED locos, so what emerged later under BR had deep roots.

 

The big mainline diesels that became BR Class 16/2 were designed and authorised under the SR of course, although not finished until BR period, and there was the one-off 0-6-0 “road switcher”, but that was DM, rather than DE, probably a bit of a ‘Bulleid Folly’, and not very successful.

 

When the SR made public it’s forward plans in 1946/47  through papers to the engineering institutions,  their stated intent was to electrify everything east of the Bournemouth Line, bar a few sprigs that didn’t justify it, and go diesel west thereof once the mainline diesels were proven and into series-build. For the non-electrified branches they intended using DEMU, and there was to be a diesel loco for non-mainline goods (this is partly where the 0-6-0DM ‘road switcher’ came into the picture). This poses questions about the intended lifespan of the Bulleid Pacifics, and the infamous Leader, which have been much debated in other threads.

 

As regards earlier railcars, the LBSCR tried petrol mechanicals, but at the time they were too weedy/fragile for passenger service, and the SR tried one Drewry railcar, apparently not finding it flexible enough (it was sold to the WC&P).

 

In short, the SR was well clued-up on diesel options, but didn’t focus on them anything like as hard as the LMS did during the 1930s, and for passenger MU always seems to have looked towards DEMU (an EMU with a generator on-board), rather than DMMU, which is what both the LMS and GWR went for.

Edited February 4 by Nearholmer

[Typeapproval]

Hi, that's very interesting. If I remember correctly the BR class 73 was a electric and diesel loco. Very useful locos. I believe the Hasting line  multipul units were also. Its funny how things go round. The local trains in my area are combined units, they can run from the overhead or on the diesel generator as required. I always found the SR mainline locos 10201, 10202 and 10203 were great locos, I remember them from their time at Camden shed,  Never heard of the "Road Switcher", was it along the same lines as the Bulled shunters? 

 

Thanks again,

 

David.

[Nearholmer]

I’m using the US term road-switcher to express what the 500hp 0-6-0DM was meant to do, a combination of haulage and shunting. I doubt anyone on the SR used the term.

 

The Hastings units, and the 2 and 3 car versions, were all DEMU, no capability to take juice from the third rail, and were configured so that they couldn’t MU with EMUs because of their different performance characteristics.

[Typeapproval]

Hello,

 

While thinking back I dug out one of my old books, I have always been enthusiastic about Diesel vehicles (Ok I know about the emissions!🫣) and have several on the subject of shunters. A greatly underestimated bunch. I discovered a picture of Mr  Bulleid's 11001, from the description (Brief) it was a diesel mechanical with the jackshaft driving six of Mr Bulleid cast wheels. Top speed over 4omph. I think this must have been the engine you described. 

 

Regards

David

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Yes, that’s the loco, and it wasn’t a pure shunter. IIRC it had a gearing arrangement that allowed one of two sets of ratios to be selected, effectively one for shunting and one for hauling unfitted goods trains over reasonable distances. It seems to have been intended as a successor to the 0-6-0 tender engines that were used on local goods work, the same niche that the various BR Type 1 classes were aimed at, and it was certainly tested on some of the longer circuits (e.g. Norwood to Tunbridge Wells, which including all the shunting at stations on the way out and back was something like a 14 hour trip!), before being used in shorter trips in the suburbs.

 

Personally, I think it was a misguided design, having a mechanical transmission, probably resulting from a combination of theoretical purity and a love of innovation on the part of Bulleid (mechanical transmission offered the possibility of being lighter and more efficient than electrical at that date in time) and prompting by eager designers and salesmen at the gearing manufacturers. A compact diesel-electric in the same sort of power was perfectly feasible at the time, wouldn’t have been prone to all sorts of teething troubles, and would probably have chugged on happily until unfitted pick-up goods trains ceased to exist in the 1960s. Basically, 10800 was the better concept, despite its overly complicated engine, and at the time EE was already selling the predecessors to what became Class 20, with simpler and more rugged engines, overseas.

 

 

Edited February 5 by Nearholmer

[BachelorBoy]

20 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

When the SR made public it’s forward plans in 1946/47  through papers to the engineering institutions,  their stated intent was to electrify everything east of the Bournemouth Line, bar a few sprigs that didn’t justify it, and go diesel west thereof once the mainline diesels were proven and into series-build. For the non-electrified branches they intended using DEMU, and there was to be a diesel loco for non-mainline goods (this is partly where the 0-6-0DM ‘road switcher’ came into the picture). This poses questions about the intended lifespan of the Bulleid Pacifics, and the infamous Leader, which have been much debated in other threads.

 

As regards earlier railcars, the LBSCR tried petrol mechanicals, but at the time they were too weedy/fragile for passenger service, and the SR tried one Drewry railcar, apparently not finding it flexible enough (it was sold to the WC&P).

 

In short, the SR was well clued-up on diesel options, but didn’t focus on them anything like as hard as the LMS did during the 1930s, and for passenger MU always seems to have looked towards DEMU (an EMU with a generator on-board), rather than DMMU, which is what both the LMS and GWR went for.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Interesting variant that, very slightly different from the paper to the IEE that I’ve got, but clearly the same plan at the grand level.

 

Notice that he talks about the 400 to 600hp diesel as having an electric transmission, so it seems that the GM had better loco ideas than the CME!

 

I don’t know whether anyone (Simon Lilley or Kevin Robertson maybe?) has delved into the SR motive power committee minutes in this postwar, pre-nationalisation period, but if they have I’d love to read their summary. I find some of the things that happened quite difficult to ‘square’ with the overall strategy, and I still wonder whether Bulleid was a bit “rogue”. His involvement in the CIE diesel programme is equally mystifying, not well covered in the biography by his son, so the CIE motive power committee minutes would be interesting too.

 

 

 

Edited February 5 by Nearholmer