The LNER Encyclopedia

When would be the earliest date that 61FT 6INCH (D113/D245) FULL BRAKE's would have started to have their bogies swapped from 8ft to 8ft6" .
Is their a record of this anywhere at all?

Thanks

Do you mean from 8'0" to 8'6" or from 8'0" Fox bogies ex-GNR to 8'0" Gresley single bolster?

Sources suggest Dia. 113 built originally with the Fox bogies, except maybe the 1934 lot, whilst Dia.245 built with Gresley bogies. Main difference, apart from visually, was that the former were rated 8T payload and the latter 10T. The Diagrams show 113 as Fox and 245 as Gresley, but there's a photo of a Dia. 113 van built in 1934 with the Gresley bogies in the first Harris book, it's numbered 70171 and there were only 3 built that year 70169-71.

Dia. 113 built 1929-1934,Dia. 245 built 1938-1943.

Nope, the change from 8'0" to 8'6" in later life please...
I want to do a couple in BR days and would like to "mix" the pot a bit...

Where did you get your information that bogies were changed to 8'6" wb in later life? The cinema conversion included, inter alia, the exchange of bogies to 8'6" wb ones (because the vehicle changed from a brake van to a passenger carriage - for which the standard was 8'6" wb), but AFAIK the LNER standard for bogie vans was 8'0" all the way through - including those to Thompson designs.

You can still "mix" the pot with no ducket/ducket, truss rods/angle trusses, oval/clipped buffers (not all mutually compatible of course), and crimson, maroon or even blue liveries in BR days, and if you want to be really finicky, you could represent the pigeon basket racking in appropriate vans.

Edit: to explain reason for change of bogie wb on vehicle converted to Cinema carriage.

I have had a chance to look through my records over the weekend. I would agree that 8' 0" was the norm changing from Fox to Gresley gradually from Dia 245 onwards. I have some original diagram books which are well anotated with changes and they give the impression that the heavier wartime traffic was the reason for Fox bogies being replaced. There is no mention of the use of 8' 6" bogies on other than special vehicles, but that is not to say that it did not happen in BR days when 8' 6" bogies were being recycled from scrapped Gresley stock.

On a model from a normal viewing distance, it would be difficult to tell!

And I delved into my box files and dug out my collection of Isinglass drawings (dyeline prints no less, from c1965). John Edgson was meticulous in recording known changes and, whilst he states which specific Dia. 113 vehicles were fitted with the GN Fox bogies, he is silent on any other changes to the subsequent Gresley 8'0" variety.

2512silverfox wrote:I have had a chance to look through my records over the weekend. I would agree that 8' 0" was the norm changing from Fox to Gresley gradually from Dia 245 onwards. I have some original diagram books which are well anotated with changes and they give the impression that the heavier wartime traffic was the reason for Fox bogies being replaced. There is no mention of the use of 8' 6" bogies on other than special vehicles, but that is not to say that it did not happen in BR days when 8' 6" bogies were being recycled from scrapped Gresley stock.

On a model from a normal viewing distance, it would be difficult to tell!

This is what I'm on about...
Probably didn't make it clear what I was on about.
When did BR start this recycling or is this one of those vagaries?

IAK wrote:

2512silverfox wrote:There is no mention of the use of 8' 6" bogies on other than special vehicles, but that is not to say that it did not happen in BR days when 8' 6" bogies were being recycled from scrapped Gresley stock.

This is what I'm on about...
Probably didn't make it clear what I was on about.
When did BR start this recycling or is this one of those vagaries?

Pure speculation, no proof, and the bogie types had other differences (not just wheelbase) - so I suggest you adopt the Chaz Harrison approach of "it's my train set..."

John Edgson and I (who were both producing carriage drawings at the time and swapped information up until 2007) discussed this issue several times in the 70's and 80's and I suspect that he was not specific because insufficient evidence of a policy was available. Unfortunately I cannot help further but would be interested if anyone can come up with a definitive answer.

2512silverfox wrote:John Edgson and I (who were both producing carriage drawings at the time and swapped information up until 2007) discussed this issue several times in the 70's and 80's and I suspect that he was not specific because insufficient evidence of a policy was available. Unfortunately I cannot help further but would be interested if anyone can come up with a definitive answer.

Thanks for this...
And I want my train set right thank you.
Speculation is to derive facts without truth. The fact the question was raised ventures to suggest the need for examination?
To postulate there is a lack of viable confirmation is to accept the need for further examination - that seems an avenue of opportunity.....

IAK wrote:Thanks for this...
And I want my train set right thank you.
Speculation is to derive facts without truth. The fact the question was raised ventures to suggest the need for examination?
To postulate there is a lack of viable confirmation is to accept the need for further examination - that seems an avenue of opportunity.....

If you have access to reasonably good photos it shouldn't be difficult to tell the two bogies apart. The 8's had single bolsters and so the bolster support bar was shorter, a different shape and did not have the two spring supports visible on the 8'6" bogie

Thanks Bill - top tip