A Nod To Brent - a friendly thread, filled with frivolity, cream teas and pasties. Longing for the happy days in the South Hams 1947.

[1466]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

A mighty can of worms has been opened.  I'll start with 1960 as that was very straightforward-ish

1. Engine/tender to passenger stock or fitted freight stock - engine/tender coupling to be used.  

On ex-LNER  tender locos with a buckeye coupling on the tender the buckeye coupling was to be used to couple to buckeye fitted passenger carrying stock and (I don't have the ER Instructions) but I presume  the LNER link coupling (on ex LNER vehicles) or the Emergency Screw Coupling on Mk1 vehicles coupling was  to be used to couple to a bucye equipped tender if there was a buckeye defect

2. Engine/tender coupled to loose coupled freight vehicles - the coupling of the wagon must be used. (Note *)

3. Coupling wagons with 3 link coupling to wagons with screw couplings - the 3 link coupling must be used.

4  Attaching fitted freight vehicles to passenger trains and the adjacent couplings  are of different lengths - the shorter coupling must be used.

5. Vehicles with Instanter Couplings -

A. Attached to a train conveying passengers - a screw coupling must be used and only one vehicle fitted with instanter couplings may be conveyed. (Partially revised in October) 1971

B. Arttached to coaching stock train not conveying passengers - screw couplings must mst be used

C. in freight trains - coupling to be in the long position in unfitted trains except when conveying cattle when it must be in teh short position.  Coupling to be in the short position when the vehicle is marshalled ina fitted train or portion.

 

WR Instruction 1950 where freight vehicles have couplings at differenmt heights the shackle of the lower coupling is to be placed over the hook of the higher coupling 

 

Note * - This was most likely done that way round for coupling strength reasons as freight trains could load much more heavily than passenger trains so a screw coupling would be subject to considerable added stress on the threads and shackle fixings.  (eg. re loads - Didcot - Banbury 78XX allowed 392tons on a passenger train, 1,000 tons on a freight).

 It all changed in later years when 35 ton and then 50 ton (drawbar pull strength) screw couplings became available.  Our experience on a test on the WR showed they would take a trailing load of 12,000. tonnes (with a mid train helper) but the drawhook wouldn't - one sheered.

 

GWR passenger vehicles fitted with buckeye couplings were - obviously - rather different from everybody else's ideas and did not have extendable buffers - instead the buffers were folded downwards, out of use, when the buckeye couplings were in use and folded upwards to act as buffers in the normal manner when a screw coupling had to be used in an emergency (illustrations available). 

Thanks for a comprehensive reply .

[toboldlygo]

L22

[BMacdermott]

Thanks

Brian ()

[Mallard60022]

Pardon?

[toboldlygo]

49 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Pardon?

What did you say...

[Mallard60022]

6 minutes ago, toboldlygo said:

What did you say...

Screw Couplings are naughty.

P

[toboldlygo]

3 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Screw Couplings are naughty.

P

Yes they are

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

My late (and great) teacher of typography when I was studying at the London College of Printing would now be having apoplexy at how many type sizes one can get on one page!

 

Brian

[Dunsignalling]

At least nobody has resorted to italics (until now)

 

John

[Mallard60022]

2 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone

 

My late (and great) teacher of typography when I was studying at the London College of Printing would now be having apoplexy at how many type sizes one can get on one page!

 

Brian

Sorry Brian. I know it is infantile but after 18 months of my life beyond model railways almost wasted,  I have just lost it. Usually Mr Rob is very tolerant  and understanding as he knows I am an Argyle supporter.

Looking forward to the next Poll, which must be "SR stuff that would have appeared at Brent" (intentionally or in emergencies).

Thank you and good morning.

A. Wretch.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mallard60022

[BMacdermott]

Hello Phil

 

No problem at all. This thread is entitled as being 'filled with frivolity' so the different sizes were indeed good fun and your contributions are always light hearted and interesting (to say the least!) as well as often informative. We all need a little bit of fun here and there!

 

My old teacher was a stickler for 'correctness' but that was back in the mid-60s and we had to work to what was known as The Style of the House. Lots of typographical conventions have gone out of the window since then with the advent of word processing and now keyboard access for all.

 

Not 'right or wrong' - just different.

 

Keep it coming, Phil!

 

There will some items in future Mini-Polls that can be used on the SR - but I do have to keep to predominantly GWR as  we are running them on Rob's behalf.

 

While writing, are you aware of the report in Railway Observer December 1960 concerning diversions at Exeter?

 

Brian

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Screw Couplings are naughty.

P

The 'modern' ones are a right s*dding nuisance as they are somewhat on the heavy side which can make adjusting them a right game with the heavier 'D' shackles and the ruddy great weight that nowadays (and for a few decades past) works the screw thread.  After a 12 hour shift  dealing with those things it makes you appreciate how clever the GWR were when they invented the Instanter Coupling and what a handy thing BR did when it came up with the HST.

[BMacdermott]

Note about the TPO Mini-Poll

 

Hello everyone

 

Back on page 1647, we said we would run a TPO Mini-Poll if we got at least 15 'likes' for the idea, which would make it worthwhile for the effort.

 

There were 17 'likes' and 1 'agree' - 18 total.

 

We currently have 14 entries...but only six of the 18 above have voted. If 'the missing 12' care to vote, it will give us a more rounded result. Polling closes at 1700 tomorrow, Saturday 3 July.

 

Brian

[Mallard60022]

3 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Phil

 

No problem at all. This thread is entitled as being 'filled with frivolity' so the different sizes were indeed good fun and your contributions are always light hearted and interesting (to say the least!) as well as often informative. We all need a little bit of fun here and there!

 

My old teacher was a stickler for 'correctness' but that was back in the mid-60s and we had to work to what was known as The Style of the House. Lots of typographical conventions have gone out of the window since then with the advent of word processing and now keyboard access for all.

 

Not 'right or wrong' - just different.

 

Keep it coming, Phil!

 

There will some items in future Mini-Polls that can be used on the SR - but I do have to keep to predominantly GWR as  we are running them on Rob's behalf.

 

While writing, are you aware of the report in Railway Observer December 1960 concerning diversions at Exeter?

 

Brian

I don't think so ref the RO. I do have Trains Illustrated for that year and 61 & 62. That mentions some but little info re loco's or stock. If anyone has that RO article I would love to see it; thank you. It was December I think but there may have been other occasions?

P

[The Stationmaster]

59 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

I don't think so ref the RO. I do have Trains Illustrated for that year and 61 & 62. That mentions some but little info re loco's or stock. If anyone has that RO article I would love to see it; thank you. It was December I think but there may have been other occasions?

P

Alas the most recent copy of the RO which I have to hand is November 1948

[BMacdermott]

1 hour ago, Mallard60022 said:

I don't think so ref the RO. I do have Trains Illustrated for that year and 61 & 62. That mentions some but little info re loco's or stock. If anyone has that RO article I would love to see it; thank you. It was December I think but there may have been other occasions?

P

Hello Phil

 

Will PM you shortly.

 

Brian

[gwrrob]

My eldest daughter has just sent me this stunning shot of 5239 Goliath at Kingswear.

 

[derekc]

My preference is for the L22 please.

[Mallard60022]

2 hours ago, gwrrob said:

My eldest daughter has just sent me this stunning shot of 5239 Goliath at Kingswear.

 

Classic Devon. Lovely.

P

[Ian Hargrave]

9 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Sorry Brian. I know it is infantile but after 18 months of my life beyond model railways almost wasted,  I have just lost it. Usually Mr Rob is very tolerant  and understanding as he knows I am an Argyle supporter.

Looking forward to the next Poll, which must be "SR stuff that would have appeared at Brent" (intentionally or in emergencies).

Thank you and good morning.

A. Wretch.

 
But you know that the only thing that really gets under Robin’s skin is to mention double chimney Castles. We have indeed had a very trying period in all our lives…as have I…..so hope for sunshine tomorrow. Bless all. Your daughter has done you proud Robin.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Ian Hargrave
Adding text

[gwrrob]

13 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
 double chimney Castles. 

 

Single chimney's are much better and here we see 5078 Beaufort heading west.

 

 

 

[mdvle]

I want to vote for the following Diag.L Nos: L22, L23, L25

[Nick Gough]

I would vote for L23 and L13 as both these types would suit my requirements better than the L22.

(In an ideal world I would vote for more - but 2/3 types seems more realistic)

 

The L23 has the bonus that it is the only type preserved. The L13 is significantly different from the Collett types to provide a contrast, coupled with its longevity (1905 - 1959).

 

I realise that the L22 is probably more attractive to most modellers and manufacturers.

 

I assume there is no suggestion of producing an operational version?

[BMacdermott]

Final Call for Votes - GWR 00 Rolling Stock Mini-Poll No.3: TPO Stock

 

Hello everyone

 

Your 'Polling Station' closes at 1700 today with Results expected tomorrow.

 

If you haven't already voted, all you need to do is to respond to either 1 or 2 below:

 

1. I want to vote for just the Diag.L22. (Simply state L22 on your posting)

 

or

 

2. I want to vote for the following L Diagram Nos: (Such as L4, L20, L21 etc including L22 if you didn’t pick Option 1 above).

 

Brian

(Note: These are ‘informal Polls for fun’ on Rob’s thread only and neither RMweb nor The 00 Wishlist Poll Team are specifically involved, apart from me, John, Chris and Ian in our ‘personal capacities’.)

 

 

 

[BMacdermott]

51 minutes ago, Nick Gough said:

I would vote for L23 and L13 as both these types would suit my requirements better than the L22.

(In an ideal world I would vote for more - but 2/3 types seems more realistic)

 

I assume there is no suggestion of producing an operational version?

 

Hello Nick

 

Good to hear from you. Votes duly noted.

 

You say that the L23 and L13 suit your requirements. Is that simply a matter of preference or was there a mail train with just those two in the formation?

 

Speaking personally (and not on behalf of my Mini-Poll colleagues) I wouldn't want to see the TPO apparatus operational as I feel it would add much cost to any project. The recent Bachmann Breakdown Crane 'works' but I wonder on the value of that. But, there again, does the fact that it 'works' actually sell the product to many who wouldn't buy a non-working one?

 

I recently posed the question about whether the L22 in the 3.45pm from Plymouth (Noon train from Penzance) actually picked up on route, but there has been no reply. Looking at my Public Timetable, it ambled up to Bristol, not arriving until 7.00pm.

 

Even so, would that not have made it too early for most pillar box collections and pre-sorting into bags?

 

And, if that is so, why wasn't a 'simple' Stowage Van used?

 

This is partly what I like about our Mini-Polls; they answer a question but open up two more... and so on!

 

Brian