The LNER Encyclopedia

In these Pathe out takes mainly devoted to signalling in and around Liverpool Street towards the end streamlined B17 East Anglian is seen in a shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3r70sxzsbg

There is some interesting coaching stock in that clip

Fascinating, but really interesting to see the smokebox front door moving around as if it was not properly fixed down.

thanks

silverfox wrote:There is some interesting coaching stock in that clip

Variously Tourist Twin Open Thirds (at 5.00, 5.33 and 7.27), possibly an ex-NE or NE design for the GE Section (5.31), a GCR Barnum (7.12), a pair of GER carriages (7.13) and another I think (7.31) and finally a pair of GNR carriages (7.32), apart from the generally mucky (as expected for 1946) Gresley vestibuled stock. Every train seemed to be made up from what was available at the time, and the Tourist Twin type seemed rather popular.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, Mike. Interesting to see the way the plywood has bellied out on the TTOs - they can't have been very old. At 5:31 that's definitely an ex-NER coach or design, the beading is a dead giveaway. The coaches are also so filthy the numbers can't be seen while the loco is relatively clean.

At 7:11 the second coach seems to have the same swelling/bellying effect in some of the panelling. Cheap timber used for a repair?

The very last train at 7:37, with the very shiny EV coach leading: is the seventh vehicle an SFO? The pattern of windows changes markedly so far along.

Having returned for a further viewing, the NER design carriage is on Gresley pattern bogies so probably built for the LNER GE Section, unless of course the bogies had been replaced at some time. If the former then it's apparent, for this example at least, that the end windows were replaced by blank panels rather than the end redesigned/constructed with full height flush panelling.

Also well spotted Jonathan with the Semi-FO at 7.42. One to Dia. 219 was built for the GE section Boat Train in 1936 and was still in use in BR days on the GE section.

I don't know about the bogies off the top of my head, but end windows seem to have been blanked off progressively, either by boarding up where the pane of glass was or reboarding the whole end such that there was no indication there had been a window there. Ex-GN and ECJS carriages were similarly treated.

Doing some more checking, it does appear that the NE design carriages built post-Grouping for the GE Section (and SSA and NSA) did not have any end windows but plain full panelling and the Gresley pattern bogies were fitted from the time of construction. The GE Section vehicles had BS gangways for coupling to GER coaching stock.

On that basis the carriage seen in the film is likely to be an NER carriage cascaded to the GE Section between 1936 and 1938 and fitted at some time with replacement bogies to Gresley pattern.

What an interesting bit of film.
Agree Jonathan that coach has 2 blown panels (at 7.11), when the glue blocks fail they pop like that, also at 7.28 a nice BG with turnbuckle underframe and fox bogies. Well done for spotting the SFO.

Thanks 65447 for the info on transfered NER stuff.

The plywood failing was I believe quite common in those days due to the glue used...same thing helped in the demise of the Mosquito.

I am wondering whether the vehicle at 5.31 might be a GN and NE Joint Stock Open Third to Diag.9. Quite a lot of similarities with E43134E, pictured at Stratford in 1957 and appearing as Plate 64 in Harris' "GNR and ECJS Carriages from 1905". I get the impression that some of these JS vehicles either received entirely different underframes at some stage in their career, or that the original form of turnbuckle trussing underwent some alterations. The carriage at 5.31 seems to be of the original design, in which each section of 'diagonal' trussing comprises a pair of truss rods, the single turnbuckle on each side then being located in the 'centre' section the trussing, in which the truss rods are not doubled up.

Harris records the Diag. 9 vehicles as receiving compound bolster bogies in 1923-4.

I wasn't aware of any fundamental problem with the Aerolite used to glue together components of the Mosquito. I recall reading that the trapping of dampness in voids within the airframes did give rise to problems (de-lamination of the ply?), but I thought this was a problem caused by the introduction of such voids into the design rather than a shortcoming of the glue itself. Is that wrong?