Prototype for everything corner.

[montyburns56]

5 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

This is still my favourite HST 'substitution' ! ...

 

08.930 + ADB975999 + NL48 (?) + M92213 ..................... OK, it's only ECS - arrived behind 47.124 : Kings Cross, 7/1/89

 

Shouldn't that coach be marked InterCity 5?

[nigb55009]

That's not a sleeper, it's TGS, Trailer Guard Second. It's got InterCity 125 on the side. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by nigb55009
Correction

[The Stationmaster]

On 18/12/2023 at 14:52, Wickham Green too said:

Well, that's what Platform 5's Departmental Coaching Stock book calls it !

 

To be quite honest, why would an HST set need a dedicated barrier coach as it, too, has standard buckeyes ( fixed head ) ? ..................... M92213 hadn't been modified in any way.

 

HST Mk3s had Alliance couplers - not standard buckeyes.  Thus they required a barrier vehicle which had an ordinary drop head buckeye to enable it to be coupled to a loco

 

When teh genvan first came in it gad to be manned by. a Driver because it didn;t have an automatic fire suppression system.  Accordingly staff reps wanted to ensure that it was a suitable vehicle in which a Driver could ride so we had a trial run in everyday suervice riding friom Padd to Bristol and back in the Gen Van.  And having to use mess room chairs because the thing pnly had one seat!.  (And yes - a bucket was considered sufficient for the purpose someone is bound to ask about.)

[Wickham Green too]

Are you saying that Alliance couplers wouldn't couple to standard ( drophead ) buckeyes - in which case M92213 wasn't really used between 47.124 and NL48 - or a barrier was needed between the HST set and a loco 'cos the latter wouldn't couple to any ( non-buckeye-fitted ) loco ..... which I hope we all knew ??!? 😕

 

( I don't know how ADB975999 had been modified ....... I suspect the extra ventilation is irrelevant.)

[45125]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Are you saying that Alliance couplers wouldn't couple to standard ( drophead ) buckeyes - in which case M92213 wasn't really used between 47.124 and NL48 - or a barrier was needed between the HST set and a loco 'cos the latter wouldn't couple to any ( non-buckeye-fitted ) loco ..... which I hope we all knew ??!? 😕

 

( I don't know how ADB975999 had been modified ....... I suspect the extra ventilation is irrelevant.)

A standard buckeye couples to the an alliance coupler. But as yo need to move things with a loco that has a draw hook and screw shackle you need a barrier vehicle.

 

Al Taylor

[F-UnitMad]

On 18/12/2023 at 17:36, nigb55009 said:

That's not a sleeper, it's TGS, Trailer Guard Second. It's got Internet City 125 on the side. 

"Internet City 125"...??!! 🤷‍♂️😁🤣🤦‍♂️

[Wickham Green too]

54 minutes ago, 45125 said:

A standard buckeye couples to the an alliance coupler. But as yo need to move things with a loco that has a draw hook and screw shackle you need a barrier vehicle.

I wasn't questioning the need for a barrier vehicle, per se, but the need for a vehicle to be dedicated to that use when any old coach - such as M92213 - could be used ....................... in fact I edited my post ( last page ) to add the word 'dedicated' so as to avoid any confusion - failed again - DOH ! ☹️

[eastwestdivide]

11 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

"Internet City 125"...??!! 🤷‍♂️😁🤣🤦‍♂️

A very advanced passenger train?

[Wickham Green too]

Obviously the first HST set to get Free WiFi.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I wasn't questioning the need for a barrier vehicle, per se, but the need for a vehicle to be dedicated to that use when any old coach - such as M92213 - could be used ....................... in fact I edited my post ( last page ) to add the word 'dedicated' so as to avoid any confusion - failed again - DOH ! ☹️

There is no need to have a dedicated vehocle as any ordinary buckeye fitted. vehicle (capable of the required maximum speed) can be used - as you say.  for traffic purpose this would be the normal course.  But for transfer m0ves and things like that there is sense in keeping a departmental vehicle which then needn't be maintained for teh sort of maximum speed required in passenger service.

 

But another  advantage of using a vehicle which isn't in the normal passenger fleet is that it won't be swipred for anything else but then the departmental numbered vehicle would have to be fit for passenger service speeds.  On the WR we ran the locoa hauled HST set at a maximum speed of 100 MPH and there were other 100MPH vehicles around that could be used as barriers including one set occasionally used for London Division commuter trains.

[Metr0Land]

There seem to be more and more layouts with an industrial theme these days.  Why not have a visit from the Industrial Railway Society? (Corby steel works)

 

[Mol_PMB]

On 30/12/2023 at 13:36, Metr0Land said:

There seem to be more and more layouts with an industrial theme these days.  Why not have a visit from the Industrial Railway Society? (Corby steel works)

I am planning to model a railtour rake for the MSC, there are plenty of different options:

Mostly steel highs:

 

 

Mostly brakevans:

 

Old passenger coach:

 

[Donington Road]

1 hour ago, Mol_PMB said:

I am planning to model a railtour rake for the MSC, there are plenty of different options:

Mostly steel highs:

 

 

Mostly brakevans:

 

Old passenger coach:

 

 

What an interesting set of photos which leads to more of the Manchester Ship Canal Railways.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/50559291@N03/albums/72157717287093953/

 

[Wickham Green too]

That could give one the impression that this was once a proud industrial & trading nation ................. ☹️

[Mol_PMB]

39 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

That could give one the impression that this was once a proud industrial & trading nation ................. ☹️

It was. This album may also be of interest on that theme...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/50559291@N03/albums/72157716707318451/

 

These days, the only thing exported from Manchester by ship canal is scrap...

Sorry for the thread drift!

 

[woodenhead]

Don't want that standard level crossing at the end of the station scenario, want something different.

 

How about a station whose platforms extended over the level crossing and had to move for each train movement.

 

[keefer]

6 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/50559291@N03/albums/72157716707318451/

Love the covered sidecar in the background!

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Don't want that standard level crossing at the end of the station scenario, want something different.

 

How about a station whose platforms extended over the level crossing and had to move for each train movement.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

Platform swing bridge, Brockenhurst ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Platform_swing_bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_3921595.jpg

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275802381029

 

Also at Beccles...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lowestoftremembers/posts/4862576157089161/

 

[Ray M]

If you cant be bothered to put the numbers on straight.

[Stoke West]

21 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Platform swing bridge, Brockenhurst ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Platform_swing_bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_3921595.jpg

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275802381029

 

Also at Beccles...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lowestoftremembers/posts/4862576157089161/

 

Eastleigh had a bridge the same as Brockenhurst

[eastwestdivide]

There was also this at Doncaster platform 1, the main building and road side of the station, "Load limited to One loaded Brute", which I assume was a similar movable bridge. Remains of some sort of pulley system (?) around it.

I photographed it in 2011, but it's not there now.

 

 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, eastwestdivide said:

There was also this at Doncaster platform 1, the main building and road side of the station, "Load limited to One loaded Brute", which I assume was a similar movable bridge. Remains of some sort of pulley system (?) around it.

I photographed it in 2011, but it's not there now.

 

 

Perhaps it's a drawbridge. There'll be a barbican inside where goods porters pour tar over members of the wrong union.

Edited January 3 by Jeremy Cumberland

[Compound2632]

On 01/01/2024 at 12:31, Mol_PMB said:

Old passenger coach:

 

That looks to me like an ex-Midland D556 50 ft x 9 ft wide 5-compartment brake third, 26 of which were built as part of London-Bedford sets in 1909-10 [R.E. Lacy & G. Dow, Midland Railway Carriages (Wild Swan, 1986), Fig, 336 p. 280 and text p. 282].

[Mol_PMB]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That looks to me like an ex-Midland D556 50 ft x 9 ft wide 5-compartment brake third, 26 of which were built as part of London-Bedford sets in 1909-10 [R.E. Lacy & G. Dow, Midland Railway Carriages (Wild Swan, 1986), Fig, 336 p. 280 and text p. 282].

Absolutely correct. The MSC Railways book records its former number as 22209. On the MSC it was 'Dock Labour Coach No.1' usually used for taking dock workers to/from the outlying quays and wharves at the start and end of each shift. Seen also here:

And here, from John Turner on Flickr:

Sadly there's no suitable kit available in 7mm scale, or I would have built a model of it. There's a diagram published online but the scan is rather corrupted. The closest kit I've seen is for the D552 which is shorter and has one fewer compartment, also seems to have much longer wheelbase bogies.

 

It was replaced in 1960 by Dock Labour Coach No.3 which was an LMS Period 2 vehicle which is also a challenge to model as it was one of the steel-bodied ones which have a host of differences to the regular types. Pic here from Ray @Marshall5 of this parish:

Both of these vehicles were well-photographed. The MSC Railway also had several other coaches, including 4-wheel, 6-wheel and bogie types of various parentage.