stove r

[Marshall5]

Hi Bob, I. too, am a big fan of LMS BGZ's.  They were used to provide guards' accommodation on passenger as well as parcels trains all over the system.  As far as the gangways/corridor connections are concerned they were removed from some BG's and BGZ's but only towards the end of their lives in the B.R. 'blue' era.

Several years ago I built one from the CRT kit which left a lot to be desired at the time but I believe that the kit has now been upgraded.  Photo below.  However, if I was to build one again, I would go for the Sidelines kit (it wasn't available when I built mine).

Actually, John, Steamline have quite a nice one in at the moment http://www.steamline.co.uk/cmcb01

Cheers,

Ray.

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Marshall5

[brossard]

Dang Ray, I missed that.  It is very nice looking but a bit pricey IMO.  Kit by itself plus wheels is 106.00, very much in line with the going rate.  Wrassling less than ideal kits into something good looking and accurate can be quite a job but satisfying.  I don't recall any particular difficulties with the van above except there were no bearings for the wheels and the carriers had holes of axle diameter.  After being built it squeaks like the devil but does work.  I plan to take it in hand and fit bearings at some point.

 

Your Stove R looks very good.

 

John

[Marshall5]

Hi John, I also built a 'Thompson' BZ from the old Wagon & Carriage Works kit before the range went to CRT.  Again, I believe this kit has been upgraded by CRT as mine had the floor and solebars as an aluminium extrusion.  It went together easily (unlike the BGZ).  The W&CW instructions say that no bearings are supplied but recommend using 00 loco axle bearings.  I guess I must've turned some up on the lathe as mine doesn't squeek!

Yours looks good too.

Cheers,

Ray.

 

[brossard]

Yes Ray, I've seen kits using aluminium parts which I don't think much of.  Requires epoxy I think.  Happily my BZ is all brass (with WM castings) so relatively easy to put together.

 

I don't why it is referred to as "Thompson" because he retired years before the van was produced by BR.

 

John

[The Johnster]

On 25/08/2021 at 17:28, Bob Hordern said:

I was wondering about its likely fit with my layout and its operations, where I wish to use it as an occasional brake (BGZ). My pre war branch passenger train - LMS 2P plus two or three Clayton coaches - would have the van attached to the rear.
Would this be OK or were the vans essentially for faster passenger trains - hence them often having corridor connections fitted?

 

Ok, first let me establish that I am not expert in LMS matters or the way they used their stock, but I would say that, as a generalisation, a local or branch pre-war passenger train would consist of non-gangwayed stock formed into sets including at least one brake second.  Practice varied and may have depended on pre-grouping practice at the location concerned, but there are basically two types of formation for branch passenger trains of 2 or 3 coaches.  One is where it is considered desireable to place the guard in the rear of the rear vehicle, so a guard's compartment is provided at the outer end of each set, like a GW B set or the Birmingham/London area 4 coach suburban sets as modelled by Hornby 57 non-gangwayed coaches numbered in sets.

 

The other is to have the brake vehicle in the centre of the train, with the guard's compartment facing inwards so as to be near the mid point.  This has the advantage that the guard is in the middle of the action at stations, and can keep a better eye on the boarding passengers, and that any parcels or mails can be loaded/unloaded under cover close to the station building.  Some LMS built non-gangwayed stock had windows in the brake end end, which suggests that the intention was for them to run facing outwards and at the ends of the trains.

 

How does this relate to Stove Rs?  Well, it suggests that the use of a Stove R on a branch passenger train as the guard's brake is not normally needed, and the gangways are of no use on such a train.  I would expect such a train with a Stove R added would have it as tail traffic, and the guard would not ride in it under normal circumstances, but this is a grey area as the guard should ride in the rearmost brake vehicle. 

 

The speed limit for a Stove R, at least in BR days, was 75mph, which is suitable for secondary main line trains and there is little reason it could not have been used on such trains as the brake vehicle, but the guard would have had to light the coal stove in the steam heating season and no passenger carrying vehicle could have been supplied with heating to the rear of it. 

 

The normal use of a Stove R is on fast parcels or milk trains, where a vehicle capable of the scheduled speed is needed and the capacity to carry parcels, mails, or mik churns is useful.  6-wheeled or long wheelbased 4-wheeled vehicles were traditional on such traffic, and these were probably built as replacements for older vehicles that were gangwayed though no longer used in the gangwayed mode.  The replacements were given gangways, I reckon, for no better reason than that the previous vehicles had them, but perhaps some LMSophile can elucidate?

 

The LNER built 6-wheeled brakes even later than the LMS, but they were not gangwayed and TTBOMK neither were their predecessors.  One might question the building of a type of vehicle that had not produced for general passenger stock use since the very early 1900s, and then only for high density low speed suburban work, bogie or long wheelbase 4-wheelers having been the norm everywhere else for NPCCS duties.  Gangwayed BGs were common and were used on main line passenger trains, while the GW and the Southern build gangwayed bogied vans, Siphon Gs and GLVs, for specific purposes though TTBOMK neither the LMS or LNER did.  The Siphons and GLVs later found work on newspaper sorting trains. 

 

The rationale behind building a brand new 6 wheeled gangwayed van in the 1930s may be obscure to me, but the Stove R's had a niche use, guard's accommodation where steam heating could not be provided, paralleled by some Southern 4-wheeled Van Cs.  This ensured the longevity of both types well into BR days, but the usefulness of the gangways on the LMS Stove Rs is shown by their later removal.