The LNER Encyclopedia

Good evening,

I've started building a GNR D236 Clerestory Open Third from Bill's etches and I've got a query about couplers and gangways.

I've read that Howlden introduced the Gould centre coupling and Pullman gangway to the GNR and ECJS but I'm not sure to what extent. The received wisdom is that SNG took this up as a major improvement and rolled it out as a standard in his time. So, were Howlden's GNR clerestories fitted with the more modern buffing arrangements from the outset? Certainly, photos of the 12 wheelers seems to show Gould couplings on all but those brake ends where there were no gangways. Were those arrangements rolled out to the 8 wheelers (like my D236) from build?

Can anyone add some detail to my scant knowledge please? My 4mm models are set in the period 1905 to 1914.

Fingers crossed.

Regards,

Vernon

There has already been a thread which covered a lot of ground on this, although not about your specific inquiry.
It was called "Pullman gangways and buckeye couplings"(...)

Thanks for that. As you say my query is rather specific. There's plenty of info in books about buckeyes and Pullman gangways, but working out how quickly the GNR rolled that system out is rather more tricky!

Cheers,

Vernon

Pullman gangways and Gould couplings were fitted from about 1895. Previously to their introduction Doncaster had fitted some carriages with side corridor gangways. To tell which coaches had Pullman gangways is relatively easy, if they had bow ends they had Pullman gangways*.

The difference between the Gould couplings and the Buckeyes was primarily to do with the way the knuckle was released.

*This doesn't apply to GWR coaches.

Thanks Bill

And to follow on from Bill's post newer carriages with side gangways were later converted to have Pullman ones. This necessitated the addition of wooden blocks on the flat end of the carriage to bring the gangway out to the required distance. This assimilated the bow end.
ECJS 189 on the NYMR was converted in that way. It was built in 1894 with side gangways and later converted (we are not sure when but might have been when the pantry was added although that was not until 1909).
Some photos here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lnerca/se ... 937776648/

And somewhat confusingly ECJS Sleeper 236 which is under restoration near York has flat ends (but sloping roof) and built in 1896 appears to have had Pullman gangways from new again with wooden blocks to bring the gangway out to correct length:
http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org ... p?Ref=2453

Mention of side gangways has reminded me of a recent puzzle of the "the more you find out, the less you know" variety. I had always assumed (but not ever seen it written down) that offset gangways were for security reasons. However, I read recently that the Post Office used some sort of storage hamper which was too wide to pass through a standard gangway. If the gangway was widened, the sliding door would obviously be wider, too, and there wouldn't be room for it to open fully before reaching the side; so the solution was to offset the gangway. Certainly offset type gangways look wider, but, because of the roof curvature they have to be shallower so maybe that's an optical illusion. Does anyone know if this is true?
On the other thread, I think I posted a picture of a (? rebuilt ex GE)P.O. van at GC Quorn with flat ends and a buckeye.

A slightly more modern oddity of a Pullman gangwayed and buckeye coupled carriage with a flat end is the blunt end of the Coronation beavertail observation car.

Sawdust.

Thanks for your replies to my query, I think it's well covered. However, I now have an ancillary question - SNG used restractable buffers with Pullman gangwaya and centre couplers. However, photos seem to show that the GNR/ECJS kept there full length buffers with Gould couplers etc. Is that correct and, if so, why did SNG go for the retractable ones?

I feel this query is on the Mastermind specialised subject level!

Regards,

Vernon

Certainly the 1896 12 wheelers had retractable buffers and I am sure that any others with buckeye couplers would have had as well even if retro fitted.

1H was 2E wrote:Mention of side gangways has reminded me of a recent puzzle of the "the more you find out, the less you know" variety. I had always assumed (but not ever seen it written down) that offset gangways were for security reasons. However, I read recently that the Post Office used some sort of storage hamper which was too wide to pass through a standard gangway. If the gangway was widened, the sliding door would obviously be wider, too, and there wouldn't be room for it to open fully before reaching the side; so the solution was to offset the gangway. Certainly offset type gangways look wider, but, because of the roof curvature they have to be shallower so maybe that's an optical illusion. Does anyone know if this is true?
On the other thread, I think I posted a picture of a (? rebuilt ex GE)P.O. van at GC Quorn with flat ends and a buckeye.

It was actually the Midland Company that introduced a means of communication between vehicles at the behest of the GPO so that the sorting staff could access the stowage vans. This first form of corridor connection was in operational use in 1859 - 10 years before the presumed and widely quoted first use of corridor connections in the LNWR Royal train built for Queen Victoria in 1869.

The corridor connections were placed offset merely to maximise the interior space in what were then rather small carriages.

Source: An Illustrated History of the Travelling Post Office, Peter Johnson, OPC 2009 p56 - highly recommended.

I think that the answer is provided on p130 of Ken Hoole's The Illustrated History of East Coast Joint Stock, OPC 1993.

Pullman vestibules with Gould automatic couplers introduced from 1895; the retractable side buffer being an essential component of the arrangement since the vestibule and coupling arrangement provided for managing the buffing forces. The Buckeye automatic coupler was substituted for the Gould type soon after but change was gradual and it appears that the Gould type did not disappear until about 1909 - the last mention of them in ECS Instructions being in 1908. Ken Hoole usefully includes the 1st January 1898 Instructions which also refer to the need to retract the side buffers before coupling.

There were a substantial number of older carriages with flat ends, or slight bows, that required blocking to extend the reach of the Pullman vestibule to the correct distance, but essentially the bow-end was a sensible design solution to the need to extend the reach of the vestibule arrangement to the correct distance.

Thanks very much for that. I think I'm on the right page now!

Regards,

Vernon

65447 wrote:-----snipped-----.

Pullman vestibules with Gould automatic couplers introduced from 1895; the retractable side buffer being an essential component of the arrangement since the vestibule and coupling arrangement provided for managing the buffing forces. The Buckeye automatic coupler was substituted for the Gould type soon after but change was gradual and it appears that the Gould type did not disappear until about 1909 - the last mention of them in ECS Instructions being in 1908. Ken Hoole usefully includes the 1st January 1898 Instructions which also refer to the need to retract the side buffers before coupling.

----snipped----.

Interesting.

In 1907 George Drury, the Works Manager at Heaton Car Sheds had an unknown number of the Tyneside electric stock experimentally fitted with Gould couplings. It would appear that the Cowhead couplers were prone to lugs breaking off if subjected to a heavy shunt. The experiment didn't run for very long, presumably on the grounds the operating people complained of difficulties keeping the stock separated - the two couplings were completely incompatible. Certainly Drury was a very capable engineer and I wonder if he had come across these Gould couplings in the adjacent Walker Gate Carriage Works after their removal from main-line passenger stock. Maybe one day some evidence will emerge.

Bill Donald
Dublin, Ireland.