 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / April 20084mm Mark 1s
Been thinking about this recently, staying with 4mm not Trix or early Triang The Triang Hornby ones were actually not too bad, the roofs were correct but the ends were not good. Mainline had a good stab - they actually produced a corridor second! But the windows looke funny. Lima - well a right mixed bag, they offered up the option of B4 bogies, but all had the roof of the corridor composite and chassis was as crude as Triangs offering. I think about half of mine are Lima or Lima based with etched sides. The TSO and SK were again welcome. But they had holes (see later) Now Mainline brought out the first high detail Mark 1s with the RBR, a lovely model. I manged to find some similar rubber gangways to detail most of my Lima fleet. My memory merges here with Replica. This was also the first RTR Commonwealth bogie. All around this period there were quite a few etched sides, I shortened a Triang chassis for a BG, used the sides with a new chassis better suited to LNER. (Flying Scotsman coach), resided a Lima RBR as a RU and used a kt chassis with BCK sides. There were some quite nice kits as well. Used them for parts too - Cooper Craft I think SK FK CK BCK and I think the FK was a first. Now Replica had the Mainline moulds and we then got a good RTR BCK and the first scale length BG and then an Open First, all nice models looking so much better than the Lima stuff. Now the market remains like this until Bachmann produce their models. They are similar to the Mainline Replica models but with flush glazing. They also have lots of bogie options, I own a few and have replaced the Commonwealths on a BG with B4s as almost all air braked BGs (NEAs) had B4 bogies. Now all these different models can be scarey, but luckily the paints are all similar colours and super detailing helps Lima*. * BR1 - 14mm wheels, close coupled, B4 rotate 180 deg and close couple. Fit better roof vents, fit rubber gangways found a lot in a box at a model shop and cleaned them out!! Also flush glaze. The only odd lookers really are the original Mainline models. It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People may knock the Mark 1 but it has been on our railways now for over 50 years, and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) >It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People >may knock the Mark 1 but it has been on our railways now for over 50 years, >and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including >prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) From a passenger comfort point of view the Mark 1s were the best of the BR designs. Compartment stock was always better than open, because it was more personal and private. And the Mark 1 compartments were far better sound insulated than the Mark 2. Crying children in the next compartment were noisier in Mark 2 than Mark 1. The operators didn't like third (later second) class compartments because even though they were officially four-a-side they were effectively three when the arm rests were down. >>From a passenger comfort point of view the Mark 1s were the best of >>the BR designs. Especially with B4 or Commonwealth >>Compartment stock was always better than open, because it was more >>personal and private. And the Mark 1 compartments were far better >>sound insulated than the Mark 2. Crying children in the next >>compartment were noisier in Mark 2 than Mark 1. Done some distance in them! >>The operators didn't like third (later second) class compartments >>because even though they were officially four-a-side they were >>effectively three when the arm rests were down. haha However TSOs are better for spotting from >>>From a passenger comfort point of view the Mark 1s were the best of >>>the BR designs. > >Especially with B4 or Commonwealth I agree, but the original bogies were OK until they got worn. Which nobody has ever really explained, because the GWR bogies they were based on didn't have this problem. I rode Mark 1s at 110 behind ECML Deltics and WCML electrics in the 1960s. These would (should) have had B4 or Commonwealth bogies. My first trip on the WCML electric accelerated schedules, was Euston to Stafford to look at the place before I went to college there, and the trip back had a very rough ride, probably on Mark 1s but that was the only bad one. >>>Compartment stock was always better than open, because it was more >>>personal and private. And the Mark 1 compartments were far better [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >However TSOs are better for spotting from True. I used to stand in the end vestibule for spotting. You mentioned TSOs - Tourist Second Open. The original open seconds (originally thirds) were 2+1 like the firsts, but with close seat spacing. Supporting my contention that the compartments were really three a side not four. >> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I wonder how they compare with mk3 compartments, soon to be removed from the Wessex units. Chris >>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I wonder how they compare with mk3 compartments, soon to be removed from >the Wessex units. I never rode those. I did once ride the REP/TC units - and they were *fast*. Hardly surprising when the 4-REP was more that 3000 hp. With a pair of 4-TCs it meant a 12-coach train with almost the power of a Deltic, less the weight of the engine so an even better power to weight ration. I heard stories of them doing the ton, and it didn't surprise me. But the current drawn must have been phenomenal. >Chris <snip> > I never rode those. I did once ride the REP/TC units - and they were > *fast*. Hardly surprising when the 4-REP was more that 3000 hp. With [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But > the current drawn must have been phenomenal. Not as bad as the replacements to the Cep's etc. though, how long did they sit around in sidings all over the place until Fail-track had updated all the sub-stations & TP huts?... :Jerry: wrote: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > they sit around in sidings all over the place until Fail-track had > updated all the sub-stations & TP huts?... As I recall a lot went into service with power reduced so that they did not trip out the sub-stations so longer journey times for a time. One of the first big projects for Network Rail as well. As you say fancy ordering trains then not thinking about the infrastructure needs one of the many benefits of the flawed privatisation. Chris >:Jerry: wrote: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >ordering trains then not thinking about the infrastructure needs one of >the many benefits of the flawed privatisation. I heard of other problems with out of gauge DMUs elsewhere. One of the more doubtful features was independent sub-contractors not supervised properly, and not making sure the loading gauge was correct after working on the track. >Chris >> :Jerry: wrote: >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >> Chris Interesting story about when the Networkers were introduced was that they were designed as wide as possible with mm clearances in some tunnels so BR solved this by gluing the ballast. In later years maintenance wasn't so great so some of the units got some scrapes on them. Chris <snip> > One of the more doubtful features was independent sub-contractors > not > supervised properly, and not making sure the loading gauge was > correct > after working on the track. The problem was with the TOCs, using main designers and contractors who had f*ck all experience of building stock to the UK loading gauge, whilst those workshops that did (over a 150 years in some cases...) sat idle or closed... As you say, the price for a botched privatisation. :Jerry: wrote: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sat idle or closed... As you say, the price for a botched > privatisation. I would not call Bombardier (inheritor of BREL at Derby) and Alstom (inheritor of Metro Cammell) companies with no experience of UK train design. The problems for Bombardier was getting the GTO power system in their electric trains passed for safety and some problems with engines that power the turbo stars. For Alstom the new French owners ignored the UK designers and insisted on using continental bogies under their Cordias and some poor design of the placement of engines. Ironically they did not experience many problems with the GTO power system on their electric trains but still had it with the bogies. The TOCs don't directly specify the trains as they are not the owners this is down to the ROSCOs who finance and order the trains. The DfT rail seems to be going back to the BR way of ordering trains but trying to keep them in the private sector, have a look at May's Modern Railways Informed Sources article. You can also visit http://home.ezezine.com/759/759-2008.04.21.00.01.archive.html for a presay of May's article. Chris > :Jerry: wrote: <snip> >> The problem was with the TOCs, using main designers and contractors >> who had f*ck all experience of building stock to the UK loading [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (inheritor of Metro Cammell) companies with no experience of UK > train design. The parent company was the problem, not the workshops, they were non UK companies - another part of the botched privatisation, BREL should have been kept intact. The problems for Bombardier was getting the GTO power system in > their electric trains passed for safety and some problems with > engines that power the turbo stars. For Alstom the new French owners > ignored the UK designers and insisted on using continental bogies > under their Cordias and some poor design of the placement of > engines. Exactly, they didn't understand the UK railway system, it's safety regime, and it's 'culture'. Ironically > they did not experience many problems with the GTO power system on > their electric trains but still had it with the bogies. The TOCs > don't They order the stock, if they refused to order from non UK owned railway workshops / companies... > directly specify the trains as they are not the owners this is down > to the ROSCOs who finance and order the trains. As I said, the botched privatisation... The DfT rail seems to be > going back to the BR way of ordering trains but trying to keep them > in the private sector, They have to, there is no public sector!... :Jerry: wrote: >> :Jerry: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > UK companies - another part of the botched privatisation, BREL should > have been kept intact. It could never have stayed as BREL for a number of good reasons: 1 Not large enough compared with international competitors. 2 Only strong in coaching stock with no in-house expertise in power systems. Anyone remember the international train BRELs attempt to break into the international market. No presence in locomotive construction or wagon construction. The ownership changed in the late 80's before the railways themselves were semi-privatised. Before that the UK market was distorted with the quasi subsidisation of BREL which resulted in cost cutting in competitors products notably the 156 and mk4 coaches. > The problems for Bombardier was getting the GTO power system in >> their electric trains passed for safety and some problems with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Exactly, they didn't understand the UK railway system, it's safety > regime, and it's 'culture'. All the UK companies had the same problems when the Networkers were introduced and the Dutch when the 323's were introduced. The only peculiarity was the third rail DC AC track circuits. > Ironically >> they did not experience many problems with the GTO power system on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They order the stock, if they refused to order from non UK owned > railway workshops / companies... Part of this was the order delay introduced by privatisation, York works closed because of this, and then the failure of Alstom to make their EMUs and DMus to work reliably quickly so we got German trains that compared with UK trains worked out of the box with no major problems. >> directly specify the trains as they are not the owners this is down >> to the ROSCOs who finance and order the trains. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They have to, there is no public sector!... The last is more of an accounting trick to keep the cost off of the public account than anything else. Chris >>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >> Chris I heard that as well from someone I worked with on BR in 1980's he thought it went faster south of Micheldever I think. The 6-REP was an interesting variation a mix of REP and TC trailers saw them at Portsmouth in the 80's. They had a spare REP after they had used the others to power the Wessex units. Chris Chris >>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >> Chris That's one of the reason 3rd rail voltage was increased from 660V to 750V for the Bournemouth electrification. Chris >>>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >>>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >That's one of the reason 3rd rail voltage was increased from 660V to >750V for the Bournemouth electrification. I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars doing that. And BR were vindicated. >>>>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally >>>>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars > doing that. And BR were vindicated. The Thameslink units have also managed a few 100mph runs on the Brighton line back before privatisation. Chris > I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of > 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars > doing that. And BR were vindicated. SR surely?  SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped. http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway >>> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of >>> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars >>> doing that. And BR were vindicated. >> >>SR surely? 4REPs Southern Region >>>>I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of >>>>100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars >>>>doing that. And BR were vindicated. >>>SR surely? > > 4REPs Southern Region Presumably the BR people were thinking more of the 442 (and possibly 319, I'm less sure of that), which has a design speed of 100mph on 3rd rail; the mk1 stuff was never meant for more than 90. Robin >>Presumably the BR people were thinking more of the 442 (and possibly 319, >>I'm less sure of that), which has a design speed of 100mph on 3rd rail; >>the mk1 stuff was never meant for more than 90. Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds >>>Presumably the BR people were thinking more of the 442 (and possibly 319, >>>I'm less sure of that), which has a design speed of 100mph on 3rd rail; >>>the mk1 stuff was never meant for more than 90. > > Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means they can do that in regular service. Thing is the 442s can do (have done) 100mph day in day out in regular service, and were doing so at the time the Eurostar was being built. Robin >>> Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds >> >>And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means they >>can do that in regular service. Thing is the 442s can do (have done) >>100mph day in day out in regular service, and were doing so at the time >>the Eurostar was being built. Same traction gear between them, and the high speed tests were done by 4TC less REPs by all accounts. >>>>Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds >>>And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Same traction gear between them, and the high speed tests were done by 4TC > less REPs by all accounts. The issue of running on third rail at high speed is not one of power, but one of maintaining reliable electrical contact with the third rail. After all, were it simply an issue of running gear, Mk1s were good for 100, and Mk3s for 125. What mattered for building the 100mph capacity on 3rd rail into Eurostar (and 442 and 319) was providing an adequate set of shoegear and shoe suspension. For a one off test, I'm sure a REP would do it (and then some, they were powerful beasts), but in the same way that 300mph in a TGV is possible as a once off, it is not reliable day-to-day, and such a REP would be eating through shoegear from arcing and mechanical damage at an unsustainable rate. Robin >>>>> Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds >>>> And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Robin It is one of power as well as was found when heavy power hungry electro stars and desiros arrived requiring new substations and upgraded TP huts. As the power goes up so does the losses, much higher on DC third rail than high voltage OHLE. Also once the REP hit balancing speed the continuous power requirements would drop a bit. Chris >>For a one off test, I'm sure a REP would do it (and then some, they were >>powerful beasts), but in the same way that 300mph in a TGV is possible as >>a once off, it is not reliable day-to-day, and such a REP would be eating >>through shoegear from arcing and mechanical damage at an unsustainable >>rate. Done a search - rumours of over 130! "Martin" <nospam@spam.spam> wrote in news:fv425l$dq1$1$8300dec7 @news.demon.co.uk: >>>> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of >>>> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 4REPs Southern Region You miss my point, SR in that they set up a system that has in essence kept pace with changes in demand and technology over the last 80 years or so without needing any real fundamental change. Yes, I accept that 600V became 660V and then 750V etc but the basic underlying technology that they put in place all those years ago has stood the test of time. Nowadays getting something to last 8 years is somewhat of an achievement. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped. http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway >>>> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of >>>> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars >>>> doing that. And BR were vindicated. >>> SR surely? > > 4REPs Southern Region LSWR if we are being pedantic. The Thameslink units and Wessex units have also reached the ton on third rail well before Eurostar design. Chris If you rotate a B$ bogie through 180 degrees, the torsion bar will be pointing the wrong way! i.e. outwards. :-)) >Been thinking about this recently, staying with 4mm not Trix or early Triang > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including >prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) Sorry, that should have read 'B4' >If you rotate a B$ bogie through 180 degrees, the torsion bar will be >pointing the wrong way! i.e. outwards. :-)) [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including >>prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) >>If you rotate a B$ bogie through 180 degrees, the torsion bar will be >>pointing the wrong way! i.e. outwards. :-)) Look at an Airfix Mk2D - correct Look at a Lima B4 - wrong way round - bar points out!!!! >>>If you rotate a B$ bogie through 180 degrees, the torsion bar will be >>>pointing the wrong way! i.e. outwards. :-)) > > Look at an Airfix Mk2D - correct > Look at a Lima B4 - wrong way round - bar points out!!!! To be pedantic, it's the traction rod, not a torsion bar. SignatureRegards John >>>>If you rotate a B$ bogie through 180 degrees, the torsion bar will >>>>be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > To be pedantic, it's the traction rod, not a torsion bar. Indeed, it's a reaction control device [1] and not a spring (torsion bar) whilst to be even more pedantic, it's the traction bar, not a traction rod. :~) [1] to stop fore and aft movement between bogie frame and bolster. > >>>If you rotate a B$ bogie through 180 degrees, the torsion bar will be > >>>pointing the wrong way! i.e. outwards. :-)) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > To be pedantic, it's the traction rod, not a torsion bar. If you tried a barrel roll with a Mk2D it would become a torsion bar! ;-) > Been thinking about this recently, staying with 4mm not Trix or early > Triang > The Triang Hornby ones were actually not too bad, the roofs were > correct but the ends were not good. This doesn't matter now as I've moved on but when Bachman first introduced their Mk1 I assumed (wrongly) there would be a flood of cheap second-hand 'Hornby' Mk1's to go with my older locos. That doesn't appear to have happened and prices for the 'Hornby' have held up quite well. (kim) For anybody who wishes to know what is probably the "full" Mark 1 story, I can recommend "British Railways Mark 1 Coaches" by Keith Parkin, published by the Historical Model Railway Society, ISBN No 0-902835-22-X. There is also a supplement to the main volume, with all the things which have come to light since the first book was published. Very readable text, stacks of drawings and photographs. Hope this is of help, David Costigan > > Been thinking about this recently, staying with 4mm not Trix or early > > Triang [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (kim) > For anybody who wishes to know what is probably the "full" Mark 1 story, I > can recommend "British Railways Mark 1 Coaches" by Keith Parkin, published [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > David Costigan Hi David, Do you have a reference for the supplement please? I have the above book, so I presume the supplement would be worth having also. Regards, Greg.P. Hello Greg, Yes, the ISBN Reference is: 0-902835-18-1. David C > > For anybody who wishes to know what is probably the "full" Mark 1 story, I > > can recommend "British Railways Mark 1 Coaches" by Keith Parkin, published [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. Thanks David! Greg.P. > Hello Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Regards, > > Greg.P. > Thanks David! Now f*ck off. > > Thanks David! > > Now f*ck off. Jerry, My apologies if I have upset you; I understand that this News Group is for the friendly interchange of information and ideas. I put into the discussion on Mk 1 coaches the details of a book which is, in my view, a good reference source. Greg asked me if I had the ISBN number of the supplement, which I provided - not only to Greg but also to anybody else who might be interested. Clearly you have read the Emails, and your response is an (electronic) expletive. I think this is totally unreasonable behaviour, and I really do fail to see why you - alone of all the users of this group - have clearly been offended and felt it necessary to respond in such a manner. David Costigan >>This doesn't matter now as I've moved on but when Bachman first introduced >>their Mk1 I assumed (wrongly) there would be a flood of cheap second-hand >>'Hornby' Mk1's to go with my older locos. That doesn't appear to have >>happened and prices for the 'Hornby' have held up quite well. Has a long look [B]achmann [H]ornby/Triang Hornby [L]ima [R]eplica [M]ainline [C]oopercraft [E]tched sides - various makes ### Not blue grey ** Will be donors when more Bachmann BGs purchased B RFO E 1106 - awaiting donor coach - see Lima BG - bought by mistake meant to get 1883 M RBR Com H RMB BR1 E BAR - awaiting donor coach - see Lima BG E RU B4 H SLC BR! R FO Com L TSO B4 L TSO ? B TSO Com B TSO ? C FK BR1 H FK ex CK BR1 (fitted with fluch glazing from [C]### B FK ? L CK ? C CK BR1 not sure if I have a Bachmann CK R BCK C E BCK BR1 (under const - bought pre Replica) C BCK BRI### M SK BR1 L SK ? B SK C C SK BR1 M BSK BR1 M BSK BR1 B BSK L BG (NEA) B4** L BG (NEA) B4** L all blue - can't remember which EH BG (NDV) BR1 B BG (NEA) B4 poor kit BG body 3 GUVs 1 CCT As to Airfix/Mainline/Hornby Mk2ds 4 2D TSO 4 2E TSO (moved toilets) 1 2F FO (replaced air con kit) (pre Lima) 1 2D FK 2 2D BSO - one to be conv to BFK Don't start on 2B 2C and my Horby 2s well - some have been given to the boys due to poor bogies - olders ones kept - but those Bachmanns are so nice. Put it this way Triang Hornby from when I was a child and I bought the Mainlines when I was still at school, most recent were the Bachmanns from introduction to last year (BG). Most purchased pre marriage. I know I have too many!!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.