4 COR

[Colin parks]

Colin: I don't know if this is of any use but I just purchased the book Pioneer Diesels Around London by Pat Avery (Noodle Books, 2012). There are no page numbers but towards the back of the book, in the Southern Region section, there is a large picture of a blue Warship at Waterloo in June 1967, side by side with two 4 COR units, one in blue syp (3147) and the other blue with fye (3131), showing the driving end gangways (clearly hanging at a forward-leaning angle) and other details. Bogie detail is visible but indistinct on 3147 and hidden by a platform on 3131.

Thanks SR man,

 

I have some hi-res shots of the cab fronts kindly sent by 4630.  They show all the parts that I could imagine modelling very clearly.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Colin parks]

Exactly, the relation motor and weight explains why the COR etc were sluggish.

Yes Tigermoth,

 

The model will prototypically struggle a little with its load.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Ceptic]

Whilst we all veer gloriously off-topic, can i just add, that only half of a 4REP was secondhand, the RB catering car and the Brake First, the latter converted from a loco-hauled CK Composite. The REP power cars were all brand new, doubtless because of the equipment carried and squeezed in, the second batch power cars thus possibly being the last new Mk1s built c.1974/5. I've got a 4REP to do, but how to power it? I'm thinking of a Bachmann CEP mechanism in the TBFK, will it shift 12 coaches?

Don't forget that part of the 4REPs are still with us and still in service, namely the traction motors, which were re-used in the Class 442 Wessex Electrics, another good example of SR re-using serviceable equipment. Another example is 4SUB armatures re-used in Class 455 suburban units, a classic case of mutton dressed as lamb, which explains their sluggish acceleration.

 

Cheers, Brian.

 I think this option / way to go,was mentioned on your 4-TC / 2-HAP thread, Brian,  http://www.replicarailways.co.uk/die-cast-chassis   

 Power to both bogies, sufficient for a 12 car formation. A tad expensive at 65 notes tho'. Some retailers are offering the Bachmann 4-CEP for approx. £75-£85.

[Colin parks]

Thanks for all the interest in what is, as yet, a slow burning project.

 

This will probably be the last of the practical work on the COR for a week or so, due to preparing the layout for the Tonbridge show next Saturday.

 

I had toyed with the idea of  the end plates on the cab gangways being made of brass sheet.  Quite quickly,  it became clear this was not really possible by hand-cutting, what is, a very complicated shape- neatly.  So, the brass 'end' turned into a template for cutting these parts out of 10 thou. plasticard.  The l/h end has been tidied up with a needle file and the bottom corners radiused, the r/h is 'as cut'.  As can be seen, the the two flanges on either side are integral to the end.  The doorway has yet to be cut out, but that is the easy bit: on the l/h side of the end plates, all the locking mechanism has to be attached.

 

 

 

 

It has been decided not to go for moving parts on the cab fronts and just concentrate on modelling it all as accurately as I can.  Sorry to disappoint !

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[bazza.]

Thanks for all the interest in what is, as yet, a slow burning project.

 

This will probably be the last of the practical work on the COR for a week or so, due to preparing the layout for the Tonbridge show next Saturday.

 

I had toyed with the idea of  the end plates on the cab gangways being made of brass sheet.  Quite quickly,  it became clear this was not really possible by hand-cutting, what is, a very complicated shape- neatly.  So, the brass 'end' turned into a template for cutting these parts out of 10 thou. plasticard.  The l/h end has been tidied up with a needle file and the bottom corners radiused, the r/h is 'as cut'.  As can be seen, the the two flanges on either side are integral to the end.  The doorway has yet to be cut out, but that is the easy bit: on the l/h side of the end plates, all the locking mechanism has to be attached.

 

 

IMG_5810.JPG

 

 

It has been decided not to go for moving parts on the cab fronts and just concentrate on modelling it all as accurately as I can.  Sorry to disappoint !

 

All the best,

 

Colin

Hi Colin,

 

A wise decision.

 

It depends on your minimum radious courves, but have you considered Keen Systems sprung corridor connections ?

 

Regards

 

Bazza

[SRman]

Agreed: a wise decision ... and you stole the words from my mouth (or keyboard!) Bazza!!  

 

I do like the intra-unit gangway design Colin has come up with. It looks very effective.

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin,

 

A wise decision.

 

It depends on your minimum radious courves, but have you considered Keen Systems sprung corridor connections ?

 

Regards

 

Bazza

No Bazza,

 

I hadn't looked at the Keen system.  But I have now and it looks like the same principles are used on the Keen system as on my 4 CIG gangways, except Keen use a spring and I use foam (although originally I had used springs with the spigot passing through the carriage end).  Unfortunately, none of the Keen products look like a 4 COR connection.  As mentioned in an earlier post, the SR loco-hauled stock had a different design of gangway to the SR first generation express EMUs.  A pity, as the CORs have more of the suspension exposed, thus more parts to make!  The  recent pictures of the inner gangways I have made show that with double bellows and the foam 'core', the end plates should: move from side to side independently of the coach end, move in and out, tilt left and right, the end plates will remain aligned (not sliding across each other) and stay in contact.  All this has yet to be proven on a pair of coaches, so it might end up in disaster.  Worth a try though, at the risk of public embarassment if it goes wrong.

 

What I am aiming for is a very discrete fixed coupling between the coaches with sprung buffers and floating gangways which remain in contact on 36" radius curves.  This is do-able with the fixed link and gangways.  The distance between coaches could need to be set a bit wider than on the prototype to allow the buffers enough compression on the curves not to de-rail the train.   I can live with a small gap between buffers when the unit is on straight track if I have to.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[bazza.]

No Bazza,

 

I hadn't looked at the Keen system.  But I have now and it looks like the same principles are used on the Keen system as on my 4 CIG gangways, except Keen use a spring and I use foam (although originally I had used springs with the spigot passing through the carriage end).  Unfortunately, none of the Keen products look like a 4 COR connection.  As mentioned in an earlier post, the SR loco-hauled stock had a different design of gangway to the SR first generation express EMUs.  A pity, as the CORs have more of the suspension exposed, thus more parts to make!  The  recent pictures of the inner gangways I have made show that with double bellows and the foam 'core', the end plates should: move from side to side independently of the coach end, move in and out, tilt left and right, the end plates will remain aligned (not sliding across each other) and stay in contact.  All this has yet to be proven on a pair of coaches, so it might end up in disaster.  Worth a try though, at the risk of public embarassment if it goes wrong.

 

What I am aiming for is a very discrete fixed coupling between the coaches with sprung buffers and floating gangways which remain in contact on 36" radius curves.  This is do-able with the fixed link and gangways.  The distance between coaches could need to be set a bit wider than on the prototype to allow the buffers enough compression on the curves not to de-rail the train.   I can live with a small gap between buffers when the unit is on straight track if I have to.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

Hi Colin,

 

Don't know if this helps. When I made my 4COR and 4BUF models out of the BSL kits, the white metal end casting for the power car front ends were in two parts, the front and a sparate casting fro the gangway connection. If the current SRG listing for Phoenix/BSL spare parts are the same or similar to the parts that I used (over 40 years ago) The white metal gangway connection is strong enough to connect the front gangway connections of my 4COR model to my 4BUF model by using a removable flexable paper connection attached four small sproggets (whatever they are called) convernently provided by the Southern Railway on the sides of front of the gangway connection.

 

Yes you are right, because the cars of the 4COR/4BUF/4RES set were permantly screw coupled together using side buffers, they did not have the common Pullman type gangway connections and drop-buckeye couplings that were used on the Maunsell and Bulleid coaches that were being built at that time.

 

The SR first generation express EMU's had a gangway connection that was suspended from the coach ends and did not form part of the coach to coach buffing arrangememt, while in the Maunsell and Bulleid coaches the lower part of the Pullman type of gangway connection was part of the underframe of the coach and formed an essential part of buffing connection between coaches when buckeyed connected.

 

I used flexable paper connections between coaches and made dummy suspension units above each gangway connection. I try to work to the k.i.s.s principal, It was crude, but it looks ok and it worked, and has for forty years.

 

Happy modelling

 

Regards

 

Bazza

[SRman]

The irony of that EMU gangway arrangement was that the BEL and PUL unit Pullman cars did not have Pullman gangways!

[MJI]

Why did they use Pullman gangways on loco hauled stock and screw coupling suspended ganways on EMUs?

[Oldddudders]

Why did they use Pullman gangways on loco hauled stock and screw coupling suspended ganways on EMUs?

Wasn't it about compatibilty with other railways? SR could be confident their EMUs would not be gracing GWR or LMS metals, nor have to couple to steam-hauled coaches.

[Brian Kirby]

 

Why did they use Pullman gangways on loco hauled stock and screw coupling suspended ganways on EMUs?

It is an odd paradox that whilst the SR were hell bent on fitting buckeyes and Pullman gangways

to all loco-hauled corridor stock from the 1920s onwards, they didn't seem so keen to fit them to EMUs. I don't think it was so much a traffic and usage problem, more likely to be because of the distribution of motor bogies throughout a multi-unit train, which could lead to jolting. By using screw links and sprung buffers, and coupling tightly, they could probably reduce the amount of jolting and buffering. Of course BR used buckeyes on their main-line EMUs, but most of us have experienced the inherent slop in the buckeye couplings, causing snatching and crunching. It's quite apparent on HSTs, the front power car is pulling so many coaches, the rear one is pushing the rest, somewhere in the middle the couplings will snatch. I suppose a lot of it is down to driving technique?

 

Cheers, Brian.

[bazza.]

 

It is an odd paradox that whilst the SR were hell bent on fitting buckeyes and Pullman gangways

to all loco-hauled corridor stock from the 1920s onwards, they didn't seem so keen to fit them to EMUs. I don't think it was so much a traffic and usage problem, more likely to be because of the distribution of motor bogies throughout a multi-unit train, which could lead to jolting. By using screw links and sprung buffers, and coupling tightly, they could probably reduce the amount of jolting and buffering. Of course BR used buckeyes on their main-line EMUs, but most of us have experienced the inherent slop in the buckeye couplings, causing snatching and crunching. It's quite apparent on HSTs, the front power car is pulling so many coaches, the rear one is pushing the rest, somewhere in the middle the couplings will snatch. I suppose a lot of it is down to driving technique?

 

Cheers, Brian.

Hi Brian,

 

Correct, you get a more comfortable ride in loco-hauled coaches when they are buffered up tight with screw couplings, and the coach buffers are taking all the buffing shocks.

 

Thanks to SR man, I did'nt realise the the Southern Railway did't fit Pullman type gangway connections to Pullman cars in EMU units.

 

So I suppose that when the Pullman cars from the 6PUL units were reused with other loco-hauled Pullman cars, they would need to be heavly modified to enable them to couple up to other loco-hauled Pullman cars. Does that sound right?

 

Regards

 

Bazza

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Bazza,

     On loco-hauled coaches i believe the technique for coupling a British Standard gangway to a Pullman type, was to use an "adaptor plate" and separate "clips", which would clamp it all together like a sandwich. Pullman gangways don't attach to eachother and are held together by the buckeye. BS gangways are looser and have to be attached together with their own type clips, in addition to the screw coupling. Some BS-fitted coaches had the additional Pullman clips permanently attached, to make inter-coupling easier and the additional Pullman clips would clamp around the outside flange of the Pullman gangway. Presumably they kept spare loose clips and adaptors at strategic stations and depots, to cover every eventuality? At least i think that's right?  :-)    

 

                                         Cheers, Brian.

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin,

 

Don't know if this helps. When I made my 4COR and 4BUF models out of the BSL kits, the white metal end casting for the power car front ends were in two parts, the front and a sparate casting fro the gangway connection. If the current SRG listing for Phoenix/BSL spare parts are the same or similar to the parts that I used (over 40 years ago) The white metal gangway connection is strong enough to connect the front gangway connections of my 4COR model to my 4BUF model by using a removable flexable paper connection attached four small sproggets (whatever they are called) convernently provided by the Southern Railway on the sides of front of the gangway connection.

 

Yes you are right, because the cars of the 4COR/4BUF/4RES set were permantly screw coupled together using side buffers, they did not have the common Pullman type gangway connections and drop-buckeye couplings that were used on the Maunsell and Bulleid coaches that were being built at that time.

 

The SR first generation express EMU's had a gangway connection that was suspended from the coach ends and did not form part of the coach to coach buffing arrangememt, while in the Maunsell and Bulleid coaches the lower part of the Pullman type of gangway connection was part of the underframe of the coach and formed an essential part of buffing connection between coaches when buckeyed connected.

 

I used flexable paper connections between coaches and made dummy suspension units above each gangway connection. I try to work to the k.i.s.s principal, It was crude, but it looks ok and it worked, and has for forty years.

 

Happy modelling

 

Regards

 

Bazza

Hi Bazza,

 

Thanks for sharing your experience re. corridor connections.  I am glad to hear that your method has proved itself over those forty years - I had wondered how durable the folded paper might be.

 

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Colin parks]

The irony of that EMU gangway arrangement was that the BEL and PUL unit Pullman cars did not have Pullman gangways!

YesSRman,

 

All the gangways appear to be compatible between the SR express stock mentioned in the above posts.  There is a very clear image of the 5 BEL Pullman gangways in the David Brown book.  This shows that they are just like the 4 COR ones apart from a different design of suspension link.

 

All the best,

 

Colin 

[bazza.]

Well, another Southern Electric EMU is under way. 

 

This one is going to be a challenge in several respects:  a 35mm w.b. Black Beetle motor bogie will need to be stretched a little ( x 1mm);  the 'Alpax' and 'Airstream' type window frames will need to be etched (Pete Harvey is working on this) and fitted to the plastic bodyshells; the intermediate sprung buffers will be converted Hornby ones;  the intermediate corridor connections will be flexible and connected.   Some of the above is going to be reasonably easy (buffers and windows), with the other parts still, let's say, in the 'design stage'.  Added to the list might be flexible jumper cables between vehicles connected with small magnetic ends.

 

The Bogies are to come from SRG's Phoenix coach kit range, various etchings from Roxey, lamp tops from Southern Pride, roof ventilators from Branchlines, buffers and screw couplings from Hornby and the etched windows from Pete Harvey as I said above.  The windows will not have the originally fitted glass baffles on the Airstream sliding panes of the motor coaches as this model will be in very late condition.

 

The brass trusses have been made and this time the vertical 'posts' are prototypically overlapping the horizontals.  It was a false economy of time to try and just fit square-ended posts, as they are harder to keep in place whist soldering.  The picture shows the Parks workmat with a scene well outside my comfort zone: a hot soldering iron, sticky flux (freshly washed off the trusses, which are shown still wet here), solder and metal filings!

 

IMG_5750.JPG

 

Just for once, this EMU will be built from the chassis upwards -what could possibly go wrong?!

 

For anyone who hasn't seen it - and there can't be many, here is how to make a 4 COR properly!:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NgQUABj3GQ

 

(I hope the preview image is not breaching copyright.  There didn't seem to be any way of just posting the link.)

 

 

Colin

Hi Colin,

 

I must be the only one, but I havn't seen this movie before.

 

If a small railway company like the Southern Railway could build up to date, high tech (for those days) electrict rolling stock, why do British railway operating companies today, not build their own rolling stock anymore.

 

Regards

 

Bazza.

[phil-b259]

Wasn't it about compatibilty with other railways? SR could be confident their EMUs would not be gracing GWR or LMS metals, nor have to couple to steam-hauled coaches.

 

I don't think so as while the LNER, like the Southern went for buckeyes and 'Pullman' gangways, the LMS & GWR (which had far more interfaces with the SR) both went for screw coupling & 'British Standard' gangways.

[phil-b259]

Hi Colin,

 

I must be the only one, but I havn't seen this movie before.

 

If a small railway company like the Southern Railway could build up to date, high tech (for those days) electrict rolling stock, why do British railway operating companies today, not build their own rolling stock anymore.

 

Regards

 

Bazza.

 

Because they are not empowered to do so. Basically what happens with most TOCs is they get a large subsidy from government, most of which then immediatley gets paid straight out to the train leasing companies (for the trains) and Network rail (for track access). If the company leases more trains then the Government have to give the company more money, i.e. a grater subsidy (The owners of the francise are not going to reduce their profits just for the sake of travellers - They are in the business to make money out of it). Furthermore because each francise is short by railway standards (12ish years) and rolling stock has a life of about 50 years or so, this higher cost is transfered to subsiquent franchises costing the treasuary even more. Therefore any roling stock increases have to get Government aproval and needless to say this normally only happens off the back of enhancement schemes such as Thameslink or the Chiltern upgrades.

[BernardTPM]

If a small railway company like the Southern Railway could build up to date, high tech (for those days) electrict rolling stock, why do British railway operating companies today, not build their own rolling stock anymore.

Because they're not railway companies. Small railway companies do build their own rolling stock; indeed the Ffestiniog Railway builds coaches for other lines too!

[Ceptic]

Hi Bazza,

     On loco-hauled coaches i believe the technique for coupling a British Standard gangway to a Pullman type, was to use an "adaptor plate" and separate "clips", which would clamp it all together like a sandwich. Pullman gangways don't attach to eachother and are held together by the buckeye. BS gangways are looser and have to be attached together with their own type clips, in addition to the screw coupling. Some BS-fitted coaches had the additional Pullman clips permanently attached, to make inter-coupling easier and the additional Pullman clips would clamp around the outside flange of the Pullman gangway. Presumably they kept spare loose clips and adaptors at strategic stations and depots, to cover every eventuality? At least i think that's right?  :-)    

 

                                         Cheers, Brian.

Just to add to your post, Brian.

 

There's illustrated instructions regarding the coupling of of buckeye fitted coaches on pages 86 & 88 of David Gould's excellent "Maunsell SR Steam Carriage Stock". A screw-link coupling, appropriately numbered, was hung on a special hook inside the end of each coach. This is referred to as being an 'Emergency screw coupling'. (No mention of other types of gangways)

I could never figure out why the S.R. never fitted their locos with 'Automatic couplings' (drop-head buckeyes). Too expensive ?, Too much hassle ?, i.e. reluctance from conservative operating staff ?. Who knows ?

 

Interesting detail shown in one of the book's illustrations. It shows 'Saddles' being used on the 'Pullman' type gangway's lower buffer stems. I understand these were used when the side buffers were retracted. 

 

All the best,  Frank.

[bazza.]

Because they are not empowered to do so. Basically what happens woith most TOCs is they get a large subsidy from government, most of which then immediatley gets paid straight out to the train leasing companies (for the trains) and Network rail (for track access). If the company leases more trains then the Government have to give the company more money, i.e. a grater subsidy (The owners of the francise are not going to reduce their profits just for the sake of travellers - They are in the business to make money out of it). Furthermore because each francise is short by railway standards (12ish years) and rolling stock has a life of about 50 years or so, this higher cost is transfered to subsiquent franchises costing the treasuary even more. Therefore any roling stock increases have to get Government aproval and needless to say this normally only happens off the back of enhancement schemes such as Thameslink or the Chiltern upgrades.

Have I got this correct! The poor travelling public won't get new stock to travel in until the old stock is refurbished and repainted, two or three times, then after 50 years when the stock is finally life expired, then and only then, will the train operating companies need to get Government approval for new stock. Sounds like your government has taken over the running of the railways ?

 

What happened to years of good railway practices that BR and the big four had built up, gone forever !

 

 

Bazza

[bazza.]

I don't think so as while the LNER, like the Southern went for buckeyes and 'Pullman' gangways, the LMS & GWR (which had far more interfaces with the SR) both went for scre coupling & 'British Standard' gangways.

I understand that three railway companies decided to standardise on Pullman type gangways and drop head coupling in January 1924. The Southern and the LNER readily agreed and so did the GWR initially, but later changed their mind and continued to use the British Standard type of gangway connection and screw coupling along with the LMSR

 

Bazza

[Colin parks]

Just to add to your post, Brian.

 

There's illustrated instructions regarding the coupling of of buckeye fitted coaches on pages 86 & 88 of David Gould's excellent "Maunsell SR Steam Carriage Stock". A screw-link coupling, appropriately numbered, was hung on a special hook inside the end of each coach. This is referred to as being an 'Emergency screw coupling'. (No mention of other types of gangways)

I could never figure out why the S.R. never fitted their locos with 'Automatic couplings' (drop-head buckeyes). Too expensive ?, Too much hassle ?, i.e. reluctance from conservative operating staff ?. Who knows ?

 

Interesting detail shown in one of the book's illustrations. It shows 'Saddles' being used on the 'Pullman' type gangway's lower buffer stems. I understand these were used when the side buffers were retracted. 

 

All the best,  Frank.

Hi Frank,

 

I can add a little to the buck-eye discussion.  Not exactly related to locos, but the SR tried MCB buck-eye couplings in 1925 on 1285 and 1496 EMU units plus some others: 1401-95 & 1525-34. David Brown describes the problems in Southern Electric vol.II p. 123.  There were some break-aways due to fracture of the couplings.  This was apparently due to snatching of the units due to unsynchonised motors at each end. (A bit like some of my models then!)    The couplings were all changed  for three-link ones with a centre buffer by June 1926 and that was the end of that - no more buck-eyes on the Southern without side buffers too - to absorb any jolts. 

 

It has been debated before as to whether Pullman type gangway buffing plates bore/bear any of the buffing force of the train.  Some say the buck-eye takes/took it all the force.  Whatever the reality, the EPB stock and so on, which followed post-nationalisation, didn't suffer the same problems using the buck-eye/Pullman gangway or buffing plate combination.  Ironically, the surviving 4 COR, 2 BIL and 4 SUB could not run on today's mainline railways due to the lack of buck-eye couplings (amongst other issues of course).

 

What I can say from experience, although limited to one model, is that functional corridor connections do make the train run more smoothly as there is no slack movement.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[SRman]

<p>If you look at Mike King's book on Southern Coaching Stock, he details some loco-hauled coaches that had one or both Pullman gangways replaced by British Standard (BS) gangways for interoperability with inter-railway/inter-regional trains. There were special adapters for joining the BS ones with Pullman gangways.<br />

<br />

Having hijacked Colin's great thread here (apologies, Colin <img class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/public/style_emoticons/default/smile3.gif" title=":)" /> ), all of the pre-nationalisation SR EMUs had BS type gangways, for whatever reason. While that seems retrograde to me, that's the way it was! The EPBs were the first to get away from that and, even then, they were given screw couplings (EDIT: correction: three-link couplings) and single buffers for the couplings within a unit (after initial experience showed that the Pullman rubbing plates within units took up too much space to allow longer trains to fit into platforms).<br />

<br />

EDIT: I was still typing when Colin posted above. I don't think I have contradicted or duplicated too much.</p>