RMweb Premium newbryford Posted April 17, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 17, 2013 The conversion is a simple one, Cav As Cav says, it's a fairly easy job to scratchbuild. Here's mine from about 15 years ago! Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 Could you not do a repaint of the Grand Central Hornby HST ? or is it too far off the prototype? As my other 2 HSTs are Lima I'm just running with it. Plus Lima Class 43s can be had for about £10 so less risk ruining it. Plus one of my models has some damage to the front skirt anyway so is the perfect candidate to be a donor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted April 17, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 17, 2013 I also remember a set of 5 or so mk3 sleepers used for tests in about 1988, with a 91 at one and and a HST DVT at the other. I saw it go through Grantham many times. This makes me suspect that the HST DVT and class 91 combo could be used with any air braked/buckeye coupler fitted coaches. couple of pics courtesy of cabsaab900: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24041160@N02/3501203307/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/24041160@N02/3502014466/in/photostream/ and a few others. first 'leccy hauled train to leeds, 91+lab coach+sleepers+43014 re: the genny van mentioned, 6310. formerly ADB 975325, first saw major use in the early 80s when late delivery of WR power cars meant it was used so normal locos could haul a rake of HST coaches. of the many ex-BG genny vans around, it was the only one to provide the HST's 415v 3-phase ETH, but also acted as a match vehicle between the non-buffered HST stock and the loco http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5836528753/in/set-72157626969809416 (notice the tail-lamp, indicating it's on the back of this set. something i'd not thought of before is that there must've been another standard coach on the other end to provide a coupling for the loco?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5836528753/in/set-72157626969809416 (notice the tail-lamp, indicating it's on the back of this set. something i'd not thought of before is that there must've been another standard coach on the other end to provide a coupling for the loco?) That has got me thinking as I remember seeing a Loco & Genny combo near Plymouth in 1987, then the rake on the HST part of Laira the next day. I seem to recall the 47 hauling the set was on the opposite end to the Genny Coach, which means there must have been a coupling converter vehicle (a BG..?) next to the loco, unless the set had one of the buffer fitted TGS coaches in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted April 17, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 17, 2013 as far as i know, the WR rakes were standard HST rakes, loco-hauled to cover some short-term need the 'converted' TGS only came in for the ECML cl.91 trains, as they were a longer-term fixed rake operation, hence it was worthwhile to convert them presumably each HST depot would have its own HST barrier/match coaches but in reality, any standard air-braked coach would do (retracted buffers/buckeye used one end and extended buffers/drawhook at the other) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 (notice the tail-lamp, indicating it's on the back of this set. something i'd not thought of before is that there must've been another standard coach on the other end to provide a coupling for the loco?) Loco haulage could be possible by using any coach with a buckeye coupling, connected to either the TGS or TF on the HST set, with the buffers in the retracted position Preference would be to use a BG (such as a NEA) Later two spare Mark 2 TSO (ex-FO) coaches were converted and were regularly used to move HST sets between depots and works visits Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45125 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 The idling of the engines caused excessive build of lub oil in the turbo and silencer, not fuel, this when the power cars was used for normal duties then used to catch fire. The TDM signals were transmitted via two methods, several power cars had RCH jumpers fitted at the van end, they also had a connection to the 36 way jumper and using spare wires this was transmitted to the other end(TGS) and the via another RCH jumper to the 91. A 91 could be coupled to the nose end of a HST DVT and via a UIC jumper could communicate with the HST..... The TDM cabinet was located in the former luggage area of the HST this took all the normal control signals from the HST and converted them in to a TDM signal, it also had an imput from the power handel which had a potentiometer fitted to generate a power demand signal for the 91. THe TDM also changed the signal to analouge singnals so that the HST could understand what the 91 was aking for. Some of the relays in the cabinet still worked after the TDM equipment was isolated. The first two power cars converted 43014 and 43123 were used on trials between Euston and Wolves, thes both had *ucked* power units and also had standard ETH jumpers fitted along with a motor alternator set. Al Taylor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted April 21, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 21, 2013 Yes 123 was one of the locos to be converted while still in executive intercity at which point it gained a full yellow end. I assume that by the time it gained swallow the powers that be decided that there was actually enough yellow still visible with a standard livery application. All conjecture of course. Cav IIRC the rule on having a full yellow end was relaxed for those locomotives fitted with a high intensity headlight - a welcome measure bought about to improve trackworkers safety (train 'headlights' even those on modern stock are not there for the same reason as your car headlights) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted April 21, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 21, 2013 Nope, it was the coach lighting circuit (via the RCH connectors) which was the original intention. There would be way more noise even than that on the ETS. Ok I got the system wrong (but the reason still stands ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted April 21, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 21, 2013 Hi , I recall being late to school (-err several times) at Chipenham waiting to see if the gen car was out . Strangely always 47 hauled - so often 15 late by Chippenham on the down run. Gen and TGS always led west and beyond the TF and out of use was a Mk2 non air con BFK - never took the number - sorry ! Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR(S) Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 Another couple of videos to add to this thread: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted April 28, 2013 Author Share Posted April 28, 2013 Just a follow on question: is anyone able to tell me the running numbers of those HSTs that were converted? ok so I know about 43123 (seems to be the most famous and photographed example for some reason) but which other ones were? I will be modelling 43123 as I know this had the Swallow livery without the full yellow front) but I am renaming some other ECML HSTs and want to make sure I don't pick a numbers for HSTs that should have had buffers. Thanks Edit: never mind, I found the answer in a previous thread. For those interested it was 13/14/65/67/68/80/84/123. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 just a quick bump to this due to a related question - did the Class 89 ever haul Mk3s in the same manner as the 91s did? and if so what did their rake consist of? same as the 91s? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the penguin of doom Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I'm pretty sure I saw her at the cross heading a rake of Mk3s but no longer have the picture. I definately recall seeing her at Leeds shortly after she was painted in the Swallow livery and named Avocet. On this occasion, she was hauling a charter consisting of the white roofed Mk1s and she spent the rest of the day stabled in Doncaster station having ran light from Leeds. Not much help, but my only two sightings of this one. Cheers. Sean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 yeah i've seen some videos and pictures of 91s hauling similar rakes to what you describe - no 89s with Mk3s though. surely it must have happened, as the 89 and 91 were designed at the same time for exactly the same role? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ess1uk Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 ive got some poor quality pictures taken with a very cheap camera of the HST Clas 91 and 89 combinations passing through Peterborough just after the knitting was energised. trust me there is a 91 running blunt end first on the far left of the first picture! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 yeah i've seen some videos and pictures of 91s hauling similar rakes to what you describe - no 89s with Mk3s though. surely it must have happened, as the 89 and 91 were designed at the same time for exactly the same role? It's been on the same HST rake as used with various 91's- from the Traintesting site: http://www.traintesting.com/images/89001%20Ally%20Pally%2015-7-88-1.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 It's been on the same HST rake as used with various 91's- from the Traintesting site: http://www.traintesting.com/images/89001%20Ally%20Pally%2015-7-88-1.jpg that seems to have a Mk1 BG (or is it a generator?) though. can't see a 43 surrogate DVT at the back, but 91s that ran like this (with the Mk1) didn't have it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 that seems to have a Mk1 BG (or is it a generator?) though. can't see a 43 surrogate DVT at the back, but 91s that ran like this (with the Mk1) didn't have it The BG seems to have been in use as a dedicated barrier vehicle, and is easily identifiable by the yellow waist stripe. It's definitely HST stock that the 89 can't supply ETS for, so there must be a power car or genny on the back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 The BG seems to have been in use as a dedicated barrier vehicle, and is easily identifiable by the yellow waist stripe. It's definitely HST stock that the 89 can't supply ETS for, so there must be a power car or genny on the back. i was gonna ask how you knew it was HST stock, but it seems to have a TGS at the front of the rake so that would answer that! but then if it had a TGS, why did it need a barrier coach? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted June 20, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 20, 2013 i was gonna ask how you knew it was HST stock, but it seems to have a TGS at the front of the rake so that would answer that! but then if it had a TGS, why did it need a barrier coach? The 89 would be able to couple to the TGS using the buckeye, but in the event of any other loco being required (other than a 91), then buffers and drawgear would be needed. So it probably made sense to keep the BG in place. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Shunters (the people, not 08's) seemed reluctant to initially use the buckeye couplings on the 89 and 90's when new, as keeping it down would save time raising or dropping the buckeye and retracting the buffers on the coach every time a different loco was attached. I can't say for sure whether this was from an official instruction, just an observation of photos from around this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 298, on 20 Jun 2013 - 16:37, said: Shunters (the people, not 08's) seemed reluctant to initially use the buckeye couplings on the 89 and 90's when new, as keeping it down would save time raising or dropping the buckeye and retracting the buffers on the coach every time a different loco was attached. I can't say for sure whether this was from an official instruction, just an observation of photos from around this time. It could be resistance to change and unfamiliarity of course. I think if they'd be Southern Region men they'd have not thought twice about it. I seem to recall it was about 50-50 for whether a 33/1 or 73 had its leading coupling drooped or not when running about, and I almost never recall seeing SR EMU stock with drooped couplings in service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 20, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 20, 2013 Shunters (the people, not 08's) seemed reluctant to initially use the buckeye couplings on the 89 and 90's when new, as keeping it down would save time raising or dropping the buckeye and retracting the buffers on the coach every time a different loco was attached. I can't say for sure whether this was from an official instruction, just an observation of photos from around this time. Maybe all the Shunters from the steam age had retired by then - would have been meat & drink, and back to 'the old days' of pacifics with corridor tenders for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGJ Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I have recently been going through my prints and came across 91009 with TGS, using buffers and ETS / TDM to a cl43 power car Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.