Corridor connections

[Re6/6]

What was the rule in steam days for mixing coaching stock, with regards to the corridor connectors?..i.e. Stanier/Collett/Gresley/BR etc...

 

Thanks

 

John

[coachmann]

I would say symplicity was the rule. Coaches with 'standard' (LNWR) corridor connections would couple together, and coaches with 'Pullman' corridor connections likewise. Mixing the two demanded an adaptor. In BR days it was easy to incorporate BR Mk. I coaches into LNER trains formed of Gresley and Thompson stock. Likewise Southern trains formed of Maunsell (well most anyway) and Bullied stock, because all this stock had Pullman type corridor connections. Adaptors were required on Western Region and London Midland Region stock.

 

The GWR did experiment with Pullman corridor connections and built coaches in the 1920s with the required bow ends. In fact, some oddball 70' coaches had a Pullman type at one end and a flat end and LNWR corridor connection at 'tother. I have referred to it as the LNWR type because this in fact what what it was......A rare case of the GWR adopting someone elses fittings in order to standardise. Unfortunately, Maunsell on the SR decided quite late in the day to go down the Pullman road after building the 'Ironclad' coaches with LNWR type.

[asmay2002]

What was the rule in steam days for mixing coaching stock, with regards to the corridor connectors?..i.e. Stanier/Collett/Gresley/BR etc...

John

 

In general SR, LNER, BR and Pullman stock had pullman gangways whereas LMS, GWR and most pregroup stock had British standard gangways. You could use a gangway adapter to connect a pullman ganway to a British standard one but there weren't a lot of these about. The Fundamental difference is that the gangway itself takes the buffing stresses in the Pullman type whereas in the British standard type the side buffers are used.

 

ASM

[Poor Old Bruce]

'Pullman' gangways use Buckeye couplings and the gangway for buffing. What Coachman calls the 'LNWR' type use a screw coupling with buffers. In order to couple the different types, the Pullman type required the buffers to be retraced (there are removable bits on the buffer shanks) and the Buckeye coupling was designed to be hinged down to reveal a standard hook to take the coupling of the adjacent vehicle or loco. Then there is the problem of getting the gangways to join up but I am not quite sure what form the adaptor takes.

[Bob Reid]

'Pullman' gangways use Buckeye couplings and the gangway for buffing. What Coachman calls the 'LNWR' type use a screw coupling with buffers. In order to couple the different types, the Pullman type required the buffers to be retraced (there are removable bits on the buffer shanks) and the Buckeye coupling was designed to be hinged down to reveal a standard hook to take the coupling of the adjacent vehicle or loco. Then there is the problem of getting the gangways to join up but I am not quite sure what form the adaptor takes.

 

 

Hope you meant extended rather than retracted Bruce!

 

Apart from having the buffers on the Pullman gangway fitted vehicle extended, the British Standard Gangway had to be fitted with as Coachmann says an adaptor - this was a permanent addition to the BS Gangway, and comprised an extended faceplate at the top to cover the gap in the height difference between the (taller) Pullman and the (shorter) BS Gangway - of about 3-4". In addition, the BS 'Adaptor' Gangway was fitted with an additional pair of side clips able to connect the two different thicknesses of Gangway Faceplate. It was of course necessary to use the screw coupling form the BS gangway fitted vehicle to connect the two vehicles.

 

 

[coachmann]

One of the special steam runs in 1968 involved two trains (one from Liverpool) arriving at Manchester Victoria, to be joined for the run to Yorkshire. One set was BR Mk.I's and the other LMS Staniers. No one thought to bring a gangway adaptor and so the Liverpool lads had no access to the refreshment facilites. Luckily this was sorted before the return trip and the refreshement car did a roaring trade!

[SRman]

Mike King, in his book on Southern coaching stock, lists some Maunsell coaches that were fitted with "standard" gangways at one or both ends, usually for use on inter-regional trains. He also describes what could happen if anyone forgot to undo the adaptors for mixed gangways when separating the coaches!

[Bob Reid]

One of the special steam runs in 1968 involved two trains (one from Liverpool) arriving at Manchester Victoria, to be joined for the run to Yorkshire. One set was BR Mk.I's and the other LMS Staniers. No one thought to bring a gangway adaptor and so the Liverpool lads had no access to the refreshment facilites. Luckily this was sorted before the return trip and the refreshement car did a roaring trade!

 

They were a permanent adaptor fitting to the BS gangway Larry - not very portable - guess they swapped the adjacent vehicle. Here's a shot of an adaptor fitted BS Gangway http://www.flickr.co...N06/4370916458/ and one without the adaptor http://www.flickr.co...N06/4370916458/

[10800]

You've linked the same photo twice Bob

[JeremyC]

They were a permanent adaptor fitting to the BS gangway Larry - not very portable - guess they swapped the adjacent vehicle. Here's a shot of an adaptor fitted BS Gangway http://www.flickr.co...N06/4370916458/ and one without the adaptor http://www.flickr.co...N06/4370916458/

 

Bob,

 

You seem to have referred to the same photo twice, I assume this is the one without the gangway adaptor http://www.flickr.com/photos/15523528@N06/4370916432/in/photostream/

 

This is the first photo I've seen of a gangway adaptor. Its something I'd been looking for since I read that the 'Waverley' continued using LMS catering vehicles after the rest of the train became MK1 stock.

 

Jeremy

[Bob Reid]

Bob,

 

You seem to have referred to the same photo twice, I assume this is the one without the gangway adaptor http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

 

This is the first photo I've seen of a gangway adaptor. Its something I'd been looking for since I read that the 'Waverley' continued using LMS catering vehicles after the rest of the train became MK1 stock.

 

Jeremy

 

Many thanks Jeremy - that was the picture intended

[Poor Old Bruce]

Hope you meant extended rather than retracted Bruce!

As Captain Mainwaring would say "I was waiting for someone to spot that"

[Poor Old Bruce]

This is the first photo I've seen of a gangway adaptor. Its something I'd been looking for since I read that the 'Waverley' continued using LMS catering vehicles after the rest of the train became MK1 stock.

So did 'The Palatine' - and a twelve-wheeler to boot!

[JeremyC]

So did 'The Palatine' - and a twelve-wheeler to boot!

 

As were the ones on the Waverley, I believe.

 

To go off topic slightly, does anyone know the reason why, having used Pullman gangways and buckeyes on mainline stock, BR used British Standard gangways and [presumably] screw couplings on most DMUs?

 

Jeremy

[Grovenor]

To go off topic slightly, does anyone know the reason why, having used Pullman gangways and buckeyes on mainline stock, BR used British Standard gangways and [presumably] screw couplings on most DMUs?

They were cheaper (very important), lighter (quite important given the limited power) and in most cases the gangways were not coupled and uncoupled in service.

Regards

Keith

[frobisher]

They were cheaper (very important), lighter (quite important given the limited power) and in most cases the gangways were not coupled and uncoupled in service.

 

Wasn't it also the case that an awful lot of those were refits onto DMU stock that wasn't originally gangwayed, a lot recovered from decommisioned pre-nationalisation coaching stock?

 

Adding standard gangways to screwlink and buffer fitted stock is a less costly exercise than the going down the full pullman plus buckeye route. Stock that was already bar or buckeye coupled (mostly the (D)EMU refits) got pullmans though.

[jamie92208]

I have memories of watching 4 Cor's rattling through Ashford (Middlesex) en route to reading when I lived there in 1971. I was fascinated watching the gangways banging from side to side and I seem tgo remember that they were suspended from 2 outriggers either side of the top of the gangway. Were those the GW type.

 

Jamie

[craigwelsh]

To go off topic slightly, does anyone know the reason why, having used Pullman gangways and buckeyes on mainline stock, BR used British Standard gangways and [presumably] screw couplings on most DMUs?

Jeremy

Class 116 DMU's at least weren't built with them and had recovered ones from GWR Siphons and other coaches added later.

 

The Red Dragon also featured a GWR restaurant pair quite late into its mk1 formation so that too would need the detail shown in that shot. I believe there was a lack of such cars until late into the mk1 build so thats why we see lots of this sort of thing. The strengthening coaches on the Capitals United for certain days and part of the journey are also listed as ex-GWR and fitted with the adapters.

[phil-b259]

I have memories of watching 4 Cor's rattling through Ashford (Middlesex) en route to reading when I lived there in 1971. I was fascinated watching the gangways banging from side to side and I seem tgo remember that they were suspended from 2 outriggers either side of the top of the gangway. Were those the GW type.

 

Jamie

 

The outer ends certanly were although the inter unit ones may well be of the Pullman type given that by the time the COR units were built, all new SR steam stock used Pullman gangways and buckeye couplers.

[chrisf]

Class 116 DMU's at least weren't built with them and had recovered ones from GWR Siphons and other coaches added later.

 

The Red Dragon also featured a GWR restaurant pair quite late into its mk1 formation so that too would need the detail shown in that shot. I believe there was a lack of such cars until late into the mk1 build so thats why we see lots of this sort of thing. The strengthening coaches on the Capitals United for certain days and part of the journey are also listed as ex-GWR and fitted with the adapters.

 

Indeed. The Capitals United was the first titled train to gain a Mk 1 RU in lieu of its GW diners, in August 1957.

 

The 117s and 118s weren't built with gangways either but were retro-fitted.

 

Chris

[Sc59401]

This is the first photo I've seen of a gangway adaptor. Its something I'd been looking for since I read that the 'Waverley' continued using LMS catering vehicles after the rest of the train became MK1 stock.

If you're ever in Bo'ness, LMS design "porthole" CK 24725 has adaptors fitted to its gangways and is currently on view in the workshop area of the museum. You can also see a DMU with Pullman gangways there.

[Thom]

It's funny, I asked about how to connect two different kinds of connections on another thread before I found all this info from a few years ago.

[phil-b259]

The outer ends certanly were although the inter unit ones may well be of the Pullman type given that by the time the COR units were built, all new SR steam stock used Pullman gangways and buckeye couplers.

Interestingly although Maunsell had standardised on Pullman gangways for steam stock, EMUs fitted with corridors used the 'British Standard / LNWR type with screw couplings even within the unit. It's one of the problems those restoring the Brighton Belle units have had to tackle as it wouldn't be allowed out on the mainline if they remained unchanged.

[Thom]

It's funny, I asked about how to connect two different kinds of connections on another thread before I found all this info from a few years ago.

If I had seen this thread before, I would not have had to ask this question on some other forums.

[Judge Dread]

The GWR did experiment with Pullman corridor connections and built coaches in the 1920s with the required bow ends. In fact, some oddball 70' coaches had a Pullman type at one end and a flat end and LNWR corridor connection at 'tother. 

This may explain why, when looking at the "Britain from above" site, in particular the coach sidings across from the Old Oak Common shed, I came upon a turntable there and wondered what was it's purpose for coaching stock.  

You learn something every day, I hope.