Jump to content
 

LNER Banana Van announced!!


Garethp8873
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, wainwright1 said:

 

I wonder if Oxford may now do this variation ?

All the best

Ray

That is assuming Oxford Rail are going to produce anything new, otherthan that previously announced, now Scott Rhodes OR Brand Developer, has left the Company and they are now 100% owned by Hornby. 

 

Paul

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 minutes ago, PaulG said:

That is assuming Oxford Rail are going to produce anything new, other than that previously announced,

 

 

Now that would be a shame as they are a Godsend to the cash strapped modeller.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

Now that would be a shame as they are a Godsend to the cash strapped modeller.

And they've picked a few things that can't be had in kit form.

 

I'd like to see some more of the 12T tanks, renumbers and new liveries. It'd be nice if they sorted out the LNER cattle wagon, too.

 

John 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, markw said:

But haven't you changed the wrong brake lever, the Morton clutch should be on the same side as the brake cylinder.

Doh!  I looked at it twice too and talked myself out of it... now corrected both on the model and my blog post. (it's why I usually stick to SR prototypes).

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Even a few S,R, prototypes had Morton brakes, though ............................ yer can't win !


It was not the use of  Morton clutch itself that was the actual  issue. In this  instance 

Edited by Graham_Muz
Wording amended to prevent confusing anyone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

S.R. Wagons Vol.4, plate 22 for example !


I am not stating that the SR didn't use a Morton Clutch, it was not the clutch itself that was the issue relevant to my earlier pos re the GER wagon, just give it a rest. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a post in the GER 10T Van thread that say the following - though of course there may be a difference between the two.

 

The GE van has headstocks as part of the body.

The chassis is held in place by small projections inside the body engaging in recesses in the edge of the floor. These can just be seen above the axleguard.

 

A knife blade or thin screwdriver blade worked in between the chassis and the inside edge of the side can be used to lever the side away and ease the chassis out.

 

The buffers don't need removing, they appear to be glued in.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

There is a post in the GER 10T Van thread that say the following - though of course there may be a difference between the two.

 

The GE van has headstocks as part of the body.

The chassis is held in place by small projections inside the body engaging in recesses in the edge of the floor. These can just be seen above the axleguard.

 

A knife blade or thin screwdriver blade worked in between the chassis and the inside edge of the side can be used to lever the side away and ease the chassis out.

 

The buffers don't need removing, they appear to be glued in.

 

Thanks - I will investigate in due course.

 

CJI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Jonathan, what is your reasoning for wanting to turn the brake cross shaft around ?

 

When I tried to introduce a representation of a Morton clutch on one side I at first thought the central rods were push rods. However Compound pointed out clasp brake normally had pull rods, not push. (Pg5 of this topic)

I looked at a GE fitted van in Tatlow Volume1 pg. 205. (Not banana but fitted). That shows no Morton clutch when the vacuum cylinder is on the left. So I switched my Morton representation to the other side. The crank on the Oxford model would then be consistent with them being pull rods.

The problem is I cant see the crank or the rods in that picture. Have you ever seen a set up where the crank could act above the cross shaft for both ends ? e.g. in pull mode to one set of clasp brakes and push mode to the other ?

The drawing in "Yes we have no banana vans" by John Watling of the GERS (that PaulG posted on page 6 of this topic) looks like that may be how it worked if I am interpreting it correctly.

Tom, (now perhaps more confused than before !)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at gwrrrob's post on 25th Jan, it seems that the pull-rods are correctly orientated for the vac cylinder .... only the Morton cam arrangement is missing from the 'near' side ( as we know ) to confuse matters. Yes the "no bananas" drawing DOES show the brakes pulling one end and pushing t'other and must, therefore be WRONG !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

OK, everyone's been off this topic for a fortnight so let's go properly :offtopic: for a bit !!?!

 

Those of you who've been paying attention will recall that - as Tatlow puts it - "... to assist the Southern Railway, it was arranged for 225 ... banana vans to be hired to the SR". He continues "... the SR in turn loaned the LNER the same number of covered goods vans.". Now, notwithstanding the difference between 'hired' and 'loaned', I can see no advantage to the LNER in having 225 extra Common User vehicles ..... is the advantage actually to the Southern by offsetting responsibility for maintenance of these vis-à-vis that of the banana vans ? - in which case they, too, must have been marked so Wagon Repairs ( or whoever ) knew who to invoice !  Is there any evidence that these vans - whatever they were - carried 'NE' markings or any other indication they weren't just bog standard Southern stock ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 16/03/2022 at 21:36, Wickham Green too said:

He continues "... the SR in turn loaned the LNER the same number of covered goods vans.". Now, notwithstanding the difference between 'hired' and 'loaned', I can see no advantage to the LNER in having 225 extra Common User vehicles ....

 

Were the covered goods vans fitted or unfitted?  Whilst unfitted covered goods vans had been common user vehicles since 1919, I thought it was the late 1930s before fitted vans also became common user, so at the date of agreement, they may not have been common user vehicles.

 

Obviously since these banana vans entered traffic in 1923, they are not suitable for the pre-grouping period, but did the Great Eastern railway have any unfitted non-ventilated vans similar to the Diagram 72 ventilated vans that this vehicle could be backdated to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Dungrange said:

Whilst unfitted covered goods vans had been common user vehicles since 1919, I thought it was the late 1930s before fitted vans also became common user, so at the date of agreement, they may not have been common user vehicles.

 

All companies, covered vans (unfitted), 3 June 1919

LMS, LNER, SR & Met, covered vans (fitted with vacuum brake), 9 Oct 1936

GWR ditto, 5 Sept 1939

All companies, banana vans, insulated meat vans, etc., 11 Nov 1940

 

[Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 4A]

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Must say I'm intrigued by the implication that the MET had some 'covered vans (fitted with vacuum brake)' ............... but that's way off topic.

 

I expect it just means that the Met could use other companies' fitted vans without by-your-leave (GW excepted).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...