jim.snowdon

6 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

Can't be many places where you can have a 90 on 3rd rail lines :)

And that wasn't for very long either, as the North London Line went purely AC except for the last section between Acton Central and Richmond.

8 hours ago, Engineer said:

Picture for interest, Eastbound in the vicinity of Hanger Lane. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/51319326649/in/photolist-2mbUXSH-8qKSHx-rpRnST-xeqZcY-wZgVX6-wZ9zW7

 

If testing, either this was part of the one-way trip from Ruislip to Ealing Broadway and onwards, or a return to Ruislip Depot was to be wrong-road with appropriate protection.  The previous turnback site was Northolt and the next turnback site, North Acton, would allow return to the Westbound for Ealing Broadway but surface stock would be out of gauge on the Ruislip route where the WB passes under the 'Ealing and Shepherd's Bush' tracks.

Until the 'back door' connection was built between Ruislip Depot and the turnback siding on the Met west of Ruislip, the only route for stock to reach the rest of the system was via White City (reverse) and Ealing Broadway, crossing over onto the District. The westbound Central line was in gauge for surface stock for a long time, only eventually becoming out of gauge through the track being lifted where it passes under the Ealing branch. That was only discovered after an empty stock move involving, I think, a Q stock car revealed that it had scraped the underside of the bridge. I think that was during the 1970s/80s, when I worked for LU, and well after the direct connection to the Metropolitan had been opened, when its importance as a surface stock transfer route had disappeared.

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

All LT stock was moved undern 'Conditions of Passage' restrictions but the exact code applied would have depended entirely on the measurements of the vehicles involved.  Most likely bell signalled as 2-6-1 and the. restrictions that usually appeared on FTNs for LT stock transits were simply OGLO CARSID LACER  i..e out-of-gauge or exceptional load where there was no need to keep adjacent running lines or sidngs clear; subject to careful working when crossing from main lines ro loops or sidings etc; not to use crossovers between platforms.  which meant that an out-of-Gauge or exceotional Load form would be required.

 

If there were any 'tight spots' on the route they would be lsted on the FTN and the form together with the necessary instructions - usually reduction to a very low speed

It's worth remembering that although they were wider across the bodies than most stock, they were also shorter, at a tad over 53', which would have reduced the centre and end throws significantly by comparison with, say, a BR Mark 1. They may not have presented as much of a problem as their width might suggest.

Those were the days when LT rolling stock was delivered uncommissioned, normally without shoebeams and, for tube stock, without traction motors. Final installation work was done at the receiving depot before each unit got its test runs on LT metals. Neither Cravens nor Metro-Cammell were equipped to test run electric stock on the premises. It obviously made sense to bring the A stock in through Neasden, but as far as I am aware, everything up to the 1990 stock came in via West Ruislip and commissioning at Ruislip depot.

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Would you say that a ship born boiler was stationary? And I don't think the navy have had any steam powered ships since the early 2000s, I left in '94.

 

 

Oddly, no. And they’re excluded from the Regulations too.

57 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I don't have any dates,  but when I worked in Devonport Dockyard as a boilermaker, boilers required a visual inspection and cold working pressure test at NOT more than 14 months and a wear and waste * examination every 5 years.  Followed by a 1and1/2 times working pressure test followed by a full working pressure steam test to check the safety valves.

Beware of differences in regulations for stationary steam plant and locomotives. Even the current regulations ( The Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000) exempt locomotives and other rail borne vehicles.

It might help if we knew where you heard about this 'slot signalling'.

7 hours ago, Aire Head said:

We know that Morton Brakes and bottom doors was an option and some wagons were built as such. However the overwhelming majority wasn't built as such.

That, basically, sums it up. The 2-shoe Morton brake was an option, just a very rarely used one. We have found a few wagons fitted with the Morton brake, and without the actual records of the companies that built and/or owned them, we will never know why that option was selected. Thank you everyone, especially those who found the photographs.

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, yes, of course there are always going to be exceptions, but they remain exceptional.

 

Equally there were plenty of mineral wagons around that didn't have bottom doors but had independent eitherside brakes rather than any variation of the Morton brake.

 

As an illustration of the general principle in action, here's Midland Railway Traffic Committee minute 33750 of 19 January 1905:

 

Wagon brakes.

                              The General Manager recommended that, instead of the Company’s goods & coal wagons being fitted with a brake having a lever on one side of the vehicle only, in future the ordinary goods & coal wagons be fitted with the “Morton” brake, (which has a lever on each side by means of either of which the brake can be applied, but can only be released from the side on which it is put on,) and that coal wagons with bottom doors be fitted with the present type of brake on each side, instead of one side only; the work to be carried out gradually.

                              Approved, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

Initially, the Midland used the simple version of the Morton clutch on both sides, so both levers were at the same end of the wagon, but from 1907 switched to the more familiar arrangement with the reversing cam on one side - the no-brake-block side; this pre-empted the 1911 BoT rule that the lever should always be at the right hand end of the wagon, from the point of view of someone looking at it side on.

Interestingly, I went and looked at the 1907 series RCH drawings, and they too provide for the use of the Morton brake (albeit titled as 'Alternative hand brake' - no mention of Morton), and as with the 1923 drawings, no suggestion that it should not be used with bottom doors. You would think that if there was a real issue with damage to the brake gear they would have put a note on the drawings. It was not in their professional interests to advocate a brake that could easily sustain damage.

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Bottom doors and a brake cross-shaft aren't a good combination.

Yet, through the efforts of petethemole (for which, thank you) not one but two examples of Morton braked bottom door fitted wagons have turned up. I'm not totally convinced by the argument that the brake gear is in the way of the descending coal. It isn't that delicate.

6 hours ago, JimC said:

Wasn't there a patent fee to pay on the Morton clutch? I had a vague memory that was why the GWR built wagons with a slotted link clutch instead. Also there were all the wagons built with single side brakes and then a second set added. But I share the general opinion that cross shafts and bottom doors wouldn't mix. Not just the shaft itself but also the general deterioration of the rest of the mechanism and fastenings from having all the tons of mineral hammering on the shaft. And wouldn't there be a possibility of large lumps of coal snagging on the shaft? An inconvenient and even dangerous task to clear that. 

Morton's 1902 patent would have expired in 1923, and I would agree that it would have exposed the brake gear to a modest deluge of coal descending from about two feet. Given that these wagons were not hoppers, and that the doors were only 3' 6" by 1' 10", I doubt that they were actually that much use for larger coal, as it wouldn't flow well. Most of the coal still had to be shovelled out anyway.

6 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

It was explained to me that some rch drawings were more this is what you can have rather than what was actually built! Mix and match the fittings and parts you require to suit your needs and what the builder was offering!

That is true. They never specified what you must build, only that if you build to this design you will not have to seek specific approval from the RCH wagons committee in order to get it accepted for registration.

2 minutes ago, petethemole said:

From my opening post on the "Wooden bodied mineral wagons" thread:

 

http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/p210252395/h754CB76#ha081543

 

"P344560, a steel underframe RCH 1923 type with open spoke wheels. The metalwork is painted grey but the planks are a mix of weathered wood, remnants of a PO livery with the lettering almost worn off, and black patches, probably applied during WW2 for the small lettering of the period, subsequently painted over by BR. It has markings for bottom doors but has Morton brakes with a cross-shaft, theoretically a no-no."

 

Now that is interesting, as it is indeed an example of a bottom doored wagon (that is confirmed by the presence of the monkey tail release catch to the left of the V hanger) with Morton brakes. That's the first time I have seen one.

30 minutes ago, magmouse said:

@jim.snowdon - which RCH specifications were you looking at, when you commented about the Morton brakes? Although I haven't examined the specs in detail, as I understand it they became progressively more specific through the 1887, 1903/04/07 and 1923 specifications, the 1887 being fairly 'broad brush' in terms of what was allowed.

 

Nick.

I'm using the 1923 spec drawings. As regards the Morton patent on the reversing clutch, that dated to 1902, and as the life of a British patent is normally 21 years, would have expired, rather neatly, in 1923.

I too suspect modeller's folklore, but I was curious as to why that form of brake never seemed to have been adopted.

True, but it is a piece of 2 1/2" diameter steel bar, and it is reasonable to expect that the engineers of the RCH wagons committee had thought of that when including the option in the standard designs. The drawings do not include any cautions as to not using Morton brakes on wagons with bottom doors.

Normal, if not universal, practice with PO coal wagons was for them to be equipped with independent brakes on either side. Yet, the RCH drawings show a wagon equipped with Morton brakes, with a note that independent brakes may be fitted as an alternative. The common explanation from modellers was that the bottom doors would foul the cross-shaft of the Morton brake, yet drawing out the relevant parts of a wagon using the RCH drawings show this not to be the case.

Brake shaft.pdf

You would think that the Morton brake would be a little cheaper, as it requires fewer parts, and thus more attractive on cost grounds. They don't even appear on the 16T steel mineral wagons until after BR started building them without bottom doors.

Can anyone venture an opinion as to why Morton brakes appear to have never been used on these coal wagons?

On 21/04/2023 at 23:13, Morello Cherry said:

 

Interestingly I came across this plan for Portsmouth and Southsea on @Natalie's flickr which shows something similar. If I am reading it right, it looks like platforms 3-5 are electrified and 1-2 aren't. (I am not sure when it dates from).

 

 

I believe all five platforms were electrified, as well as some of the sidings.

2 hours ago, ikcdab said:

this is one of mine...

 

 

If anything, possibly a bit slow and exaggerated. At least you have a straight pull to the off position, not the two-stage pull that many modellers seem to think is necessary.

9 hours ago, bécasse said:

Those are the Brighton-side WLL platforms at Clapham Junction, presumably the LSW-side WLL platforms were "narrow" gauge only.

I have never seen any pictures of the other side of Clapham Junction station in that era, but you are more likely to be right than wrong.

The buffers in Pics 3 & 4 are the old fashioned RCH pattern spring buffers. Originally the buffer spindles bore on the ends of a large leaf spring that was mounted across the underframe behind the headstocks, but the 1923 spec underframes allowed for each buffer to have its own coil or rubber spring. The 4-rib buffer guide is the standard pattern, but the 2-rib variant was common, more usually on railway owned merchandise vehicles.

The buffer in Pic 5 has, I think, its origins with the LMS, but it is also really only a variant of the Turton-Platt self-contained buffer used, predominantly, by the Great Western.

14 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

Weren't the non-gangwayed Mark 1s specifically called "suburban", like the DMUs with doors to every seating bay (classes 115, 116, 117, 118, 125 and 127)? I can see why some people might then apply the term to all other non-gangwayed stock, but in pre-Mark 1 days, non-gangwayed stock was used for all sorts of trains, and not just suburban workings.

Arguably, by the time BR built them, they were destined for suburban use, with gangwayed ex-main line stock having cascaded its way down onto cross-country services.

14 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

I see from my Ian Allen spotting books from the 1970s that the "suburban" label was also used for SUB and EPB units on the Southern, but not for HAPs or SAPs, which also had a door to every seating bay, and certainly the VEPs weren't suburban, for they were painted in blue and grey. The term wasn't used for other regions' EMUs at all.

The VEPs certainly weren't suburban, but everything on the Southern was plain blue until quite late on, even the REP+TC sets, despite Portsmouth and Bournemouth/Weymouth being definitely not suburban. I suspect the change only came about when someone finally accepted that the fast Waterloo - Bournemouth/Weymouth services were on a par with other region's InterCity services.

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

A general merchandise open will have side doors that extend to the full height of the side, a mineral won't.

True of the later 12T 7-8plank minerals, but not of the older 10T 5 plank types, and ignoring the 12T minerals with top doors or lifting flaps.

On 13/04/2023 at 13:42, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so - the name goes back to the time when trains to Crystal Palace were run from Paddington although the service only lasted a couple of years or so.  it was presumably also used by the Paddington = Brighton train which ran from 1906 to 1907.

 

The broad gauge never got to Clapham Jcn - it only went to Latchmere Jcn/Longhedge Jcn (and a to Victoria at one tiem although that bit was never used if I remember rightly.   It had all been converted to narrow gauge (GWR definition) by the ned of 1875.

There are published photographs showing the West London Line platforms at Clapham Junction with mixed gauge track.

On 16/04/2023 at 14:05, Compound2632 said:

I expect this system went to pot once the railways started being operated as a single unit in 1939, as there was no longer any incentive to keep track of wagons going "foreign" since there were no longer any "foreign" lines. I'm not sure when the RCH number-taking operation was disbanded but certainly at nationalisation if not earlier, though some of that activity may have been taken on by the railway itself.

Commercially the railways were still four independent businesses and would have been paid their share of the revenues as goods travelled across company boundaries.

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think you'll find most of the LMS was and still is suburban or main line. Not many sleepy branchlines around here.

 

Suburban railways? We invented them! The first proper railway was a suburban railway going from Liverpool to Manchester with stations to stop off at for commuters. Stations such as Rainhill and Huyton were built entirely for that reason with next to no goods facilities. Most stations in places like Liverpool and Manchester never had any.

 

So Suburban is a valid term.

 

BTW BR even called them that!

 

As did the SR with titles such as 4 Sub. Guess what the sub stands for.....

 

 

Jason

Many cross-country stopping services were formed of non-gangwayed/non-corridor stock.

I think we can blame their being labelled 'suburban' on the model railway manufacturers, ie Hornby/Triang/Farish.