Jump to content
 

Scalecraft Roadrailer


Recommended Posts

That second one looks very like the PSF prototypes, albeit a tad longer.

 

Even down to the underpinnings and Pivot/ suspension units being painted a different colour. I assume that's to limit corrosion between dissimilar metals? Wonder if it helped?

 

post-508-0-67860500-1535453116.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I scaled up the dimensions of my built up production RoadRailers and the basic stuff is below:-

 

Length along the body shell : 24 ft 8 ins

 

Width across the body shell at the cantrail : 8 ft 3ins (the body shell is 3 ins narrower

 

Height of the bodyshell from the bottom of the underframe to the peak of the roof : 8 ft 11 ins

 

Height of the bodyshell from the sills to the peak of the roof : 8 ft 6 ins

 

Height of the bodyshell from the sills to the cantrails ; 7 ft 3 ins

 

Road wheel dia across tyres : 3 ft 

 

Road wheel dia : 1 ft 6 ins

 

Rail wheel dia : 2 ft 4 ins

 

Bogie wheelbase : 4 ft 1 ins

 

Hope that's enough to get you going anyway. 

That must be the wheelbase of the rail/road unit under the rear of the body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even down to the underpinnings and Pivot/ suspension units being painted a different colour. I assume that's to limit corrosion between dissimilar metals? Wonder if it helped?

 

attachicon.gif CandO-Orig-Rrailer3a.jpg

 

The underframe on the C&O version doesn't look as deep as the PSF ones, and I can't recall the colour of the two prototype's bogies. 

 

 

That must be the wheelbase of the rail/road unit under the rear of the body.

 

Yes, we called them 'bogies' even though they didn't pivot.

 

 

And the curved roof, (to fit within the UK loading gauge?).

 

The two prototypes had flat roofs, but all the production RoadRailers had the curved ones, as depicted in the model.

Edited by Mr_Tilt
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two prototypes had flat roofs, but all the production RoadRailers had the curved ones, as depicted in the model.

 

A different roof profile but definitely not flat.

 

https://www.eastanglianrailwayarchive.co.uk/Railways/Abandoned-Lines-and-Stations/i-SbRfHfZ

 

The two prototypes were distinctive when in the train of production R/Rs as seen In David Fords pics in this post.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/54465-scalecraft-roadrailer/page-3&do=findComment&comment=2141812

 

Best example pic shewing the different profiles I've seen is a BR Official print of a Class 31 hauling a demonstration train but i can't find a link to that at the moment. It has regularly been published. 

 

The Scalecraft model has the roof profile of the prototypes with the sharper curve at cantrail level.

 

P

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the photographs, I think the road wheels were recessed into the van floor when the rail wheels were lowered.  This was not catered for on the Scalecraft model, and the angle of the bogie was therefore wrong in rail mode-do correct me if I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the photographs, I think the road wheels were recessed into the van floor when the rail wheels were lowered.  This was not catered for on the Scalecraft model, and the angle of the bogie was therefore wrong in rail mode-do correct me if I am wrong.

 

My recollection is that the prototype, and the model, had an underfloor chassis structure, with the bodysides extending to the bottom of the chassis structure.

 

Thus, although the wheels appeared to be recessed, they actually sat within the chassis structure and behind the extended sides.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the photographs, I think the road wheels were recessed into the van floor when the rail wheels were lowered.  This was not catered for on the Scalecraft model, and the angle of the bogie was therefore wrong in rail mode-do correct me if I am wrong.

 

Back a couple of pages:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/54465-scalecraft-roadrailer/page-3&do=findComment&comment=2847112

 

or take a look at this:

 

p2700915583-4.jpg

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have a pair of the Peco trailer unit kits [only] unbuilt. The packaging got smoke damaged a few years back but the contents are fine. So they can be built but not sold on as collectors items. If anyone wishes to acquire them for a tenner ONO just PM me.

 

Dava

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a pair of the Peco trailer unit kits [only] unbuilt. The packaging got smoke damaged a few years back but the contents are fine. So they can be built but not sold on as collectors items. If anyone wishes to acquire them for a tenner ONO just PM me.

 

Dava

 

I'll take them if no-one has got there before me.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also interested in any information on how the actual coupler worked, I have not seen that type before ?

 

I believe that it was a combined buffer / coupler.

 

On the model, it fitted into a keyhole shaped recess in the rear of the van chassis - I'd guess that the prototype had something similar, but with a locking device.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that it was a combined buffer / coupler.

 

As well as the plug/socket coupler their was also an additional large horse shaped safety device incorporated into the coupling mechanism.

 

The two ends of the open "horseshoe" loosely entered corresponding holes either side and slightly above the coupling socket on the vehicle in front. Theory was if the coupling failed the front of the vehicle would be supported and not fall to rail level causing a summersault.

 

p2700911233-4.jpg

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A different roof profile but definitely not flat.

 

 

When I was working with them at Cowley in '61 - 62 (?) they were flat. They were probably updated during the umpteen changes that were made to strengthen them, and that process went on for ages

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As well as the plug/socket coupler their was also an additional large horse shaped safety device incorporated into the coupling mechanism.

 

 

 

 

... thanks, I can see that now in a picture I have, but still no idea how the rotating wedge shaped piece is retained in the female part of the coupler yet ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been studying the information I have, and I am seeing two types of road wheels - concave hubs and convex hubs, am I right in saying the prototypes have the sign board, and the production ones have the red lettering direct on the wagon side ? - I think the convex ones are earlier, like the C&O version has, although there are pictures of the prototypes with the convex hubs ?   :scratchhead:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have been studying the information I have, and I am seeing two types of road wheels - concave hubs and convex hubs, am I right in saying the prototypes have the sign board, and the production ones have the red lettering direct on the wagon side ? - I think the convex ones are earlier, like the C&O version has, although there are pictures of the prototypes with the convex hubs ?   :scratchhead:

They're the same type of wheel but reversed. Lorry wheel centres are offset so that dual tyres can be used on carrying axles. Some of the trailers are 'four-in-line', basically two axles side by side instead of one behind the other. These are fitted with single tyres as there's insufficient width for dual tyres. These are probably the wheels that appear to be convex from the side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're the same type of wheel but reversed.

 

.... upon further investigation they are not the same, the convex are six stud, the concave are eight stud, so different wheels and hubs - the 6 stud wheels have an external sprung bead side lock ring (like an old Bedford) and the eight stud have an internal spung bead retention ring (like an old Scammell) - both are seen on the prototypes - not sure about the production version - I do not have any closeup production pictures where it is clear which is fitted, yet.

Edited by rowehillmaster
Link to post
Share on other sites

.... upon further investigation they are not the same, the convex are six stud, the concave are eight stud, so different wheels and hubs - the 6 stud wheels have an external sprung bead side lock ring (like an old Bedford) and the eight stud have an internal spung bead retention ring (like an old Scammell) - both are seen on the prototypes - not sure about the production version - I do not have any closeup production pictures where it is clear which is fitted, yet.

 

Correct.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/54465-scalecraft-roadrailer/page-1&do=findComment&comment=656938

 

More later.

 

P

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was working with them at Cowley in '61 - 62 (?) they were flat. They were probably updated during the umpteen changes that were made to strengthen them, and that process went on for ages

 

There is nothing better than hearing from those with firsthand experience of being involved at the sharp end.

 

Your information of the existence of a flat top Roadrailer at PSC (Cowley) in 1961-2 adds another mystery to the Roadrailer story.

 

Let's look at a basic chronology of Roadrailer happenings for the year of 1960.

 

The earliest published photograph of the 1st prototype Roadrailer was published week Ending 22 January 1960. (There may have been earlier photographs that I haven't come across). The photograph was one of a series taken after construction at PSC Linwood on the concrete apron behind the main office block & North Western gatehouse. The photograph was then used in original and re-touched form in various publications and promotional literature throughout 1960 and beyond.

 

It shows the prototype with curved roof, The Cor-Ten steel components including door frame surrounds along with the rest of the underpinnings are painted Black. There is also no strengthening components yet added  to the upright body ribs directly above the Pivot frame V and the twin 15" wheels and hub assemblies are still of the original inset six bolt C& O Style.

The same photograph was also printed in the 1960 March issue  (available in February) Trains Illustrated with a basic listing of Roadrailer events to take place the immediate near future.

 

post-508-0-36806100-1535641767.jpg

 

We then move on the photographs of the wear and damage that appeared to both the wheel studs and hubs along with associated body cracking at the ribs above the V supports. This wear occurred to the original R/R trailer when being driven from Linwood to Oxford. The instability due to High C of G was also noted and photographed whilst being driven round the normal cambered streets of Oxford.

Sorry I can't reproduce the phots due to restrictions.

 

After the Tests at MIRA (Lindley) and by the time of the first rail tests centred on Takerley Station on the Braintree branch, the original trailer had been joined by the second prototype along with the Pressed Steel built version of the adaptor bogie which differed from the six 1962 York built adaptors by being painted all over grey and having the additional central platform with hand rails.  (As modelled by Scalecraft).

At this time the bodies had been strengthened around the bottom of the body ribs directly above the pivot V's but still had the original road wheels and hubs.

 

We've had this before:

 

Zip forward to 1' 39"

 

Then in the summer of 1960  (I have the dates but can't access my hard copies  of Roadrailer material at the mo) we have in Marylebone Goods yard, the showing of the prototypes etc to the Mandarins at 222 combined with the press unveiling as linked to in post #123  with the related Stilltime photographs.

At this unveiling the Trailers were still in essentially the same condition than that of the Braintree branch trials but had been fitted with the first tri colour version of the branding boards.

 

For the 1960 Commercial Motor Show, (opened on 23rd Sept 1960) a single Roadrailer combination was on show. By this time the 8 bolt offset wheels and hubs had been fitted, metal components had been painted grey and the 2nd version of the blue branding board (with the BRS reference dropped) fitted.

 

 

Following the Earles Courts show, the pair of Roadrailer Trailers and PSC adaptor bogie started a promotional nationwide tour of railway goods yards. The programme for that 1960/61 tour is in my hard copy file but I have photos at various locations. The RCTS photo's of Jan. 1961 taken at Southampton are good examples.

 

p2703389252-4.jpg

 

So in addition to the two curved roof prototypes, we now have evidence of an additional flat topped Roadrailer in existence at PSC Cowley during 1961/62. I wonder what it could be? Did Pressed Steel have a C&O trailer shipped across the Atlantic for reverse engineering? Maybe it was the elusive Curtain Sided Prototype? (I have the Artwork) or a Prescold refrigerated/Insulated version? Was it one of the original prototypes undergoing modification that never publicly saw the light of day or something else, roadrailer related altogether?

 

It certainly raises another question and adds to the mystique. Let's hope we can get to the bottom of it.

 

Just for interest this PDF shows the BR official photograph that I mentioned in an earlier post. Taken in May 1962 it shows well, how the prototype containers stood out from the production versions. The original non cropped print shows the second prototype (Still with curved roof) further back in the rake.

 

_Road railer.pdf

 

P

 

Ps Like your pic of the Prestcold flat-top. You just needed the Airfix Basset Beagle flying over them to complete the Pressed Steel story. Maybe you could have also added the BUDD jet car but with Budd removing themselves from the PSC story at an early junction.....

Edited by Porcy Mane
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...