The 52' 6" Carriages for the Great Eastern Section

[65447]

Various explanations as to why 52’6” Gresley stock was built for the GE have been offered in print, including limitations of the platform lengths at Liverpool Street and trains requiring several portions, when the Cromer expresses are offered as an example, but then going on to say that there was not any restriction on the through services to other Areas and foreign companies from other points in the GE Section.

The observations about platform lengths and trains with several portions were relevant factors. Before the reconstruction, there were only 2 long platforms in Liverpool Street - 9 (originally departures) & 10 (originally arrivals) - which disappeared under the Great Eastern Hotel and passengers had to dive around the back of them to get from the West to the East side or vice-versa, or to access the Metropolitan & Circle lines. There were release roads between platforms 9 and 10 for the station pilots and there was wagon storage at the buffer stop end for coal for and refuse from the hotel. Platform 10 was later used for parcels traffic whilst platform 9 was for the most important trains - the Norwich and Cromer expresses, the Continental Boat Trains and so on and, occasionally, the through Lowestoft/Yarmouth via East Suffolk Line services.

Platforms 9 & 10 were the only ones long enough to take the number of carriages needed for the various portions to Norwich, Cromer, etc., and in the boat trains, so that is the reason for that statement. Platform 9 was favoured as it was also open to the booking hall, taxi rank, and so on with plenty of circulating space and ease of loading and unloading passengers’ luggage and the supplies for the restaurant car(s).

But the real reason was that the GE had standardised on 54’ length carriages and, coupled with all the work that went into revised platform and track layouts in connection with the introduction of the ‘Jazz’ services’, the locking and fouling bars that were installed were of a length suitable for 54’ stock, but would sit between the bogies of longer stock and so would not operate, thereby leading to non-detection and potential collisions. Part of the change to operation for flexibility and efficiency for these intensive services was that incoming trains could be sent to any vacant platform on the appropriate side of the station, i.e. West for Enfield and Hertford local, Cambridge and King’s Lynn, East for Southend, Colchester and Clacton (platforms 9 and 10 were the dividing point between these sides) but may have had to wait for a path.

So it was necessary for general services using the normal length platforms to have the shorter stock, until such time as the signalling issues could be dealt with, but specific trains working into and out of nominated platforms (i.e. platform 9 normally) could be accommodated.

These limitations were not sufficiently constraining elsewhere so the new 61’ 6” stock was acceptable in workings out of locations other than Liverpool Street.

It took a long while to confirm my original thoughts as to the underlying reason, but I finally found it in an article by Cecil J. Allen.

Gresley could have allowed Stratford to construct further carriages to GER designs, which were perfectly acceptable, but decided for whatever reason - possibly because of a greater similarity to the GN and East Coast style that was to become the LNER style - to use instead some NER designs until the new 'short' LNER designs were approved and ordered. Details of the NER carriages appeared in BRJ 34 in an article by Clive Carter.

Had Hornby based their original 'short' Gresley carriages on the GE Section types, then they would have been ideal for modellers of that line, but that was an opportunity missed.

[CVR1865]

This is a really interesting subject and something I have always wondered about. Kirk do of course make the 52' corridors and they are very much the spit of the longer carriages. The Great Eastern Railway Association have a lot of information and publications about the Jazz service and the re-modelling of the layout of Liverpool Street to accommodate the new service.

Hornby's decision for the 57' underframe was of course a very Great Eastern thing all to do with standardisation of parts using a common chassis to make LMS, LNER and GWR carriages.

Thanks for posting this.
Simon

[robertcwp]

Useful to have an authoritative explanation.

These carriages roamed far and wide. The third carriage in this train approaching Aller Junction, Newton Abbot, appears to be a 52' 6" third:


1018_Aller by robertcwp, on Flickr

Here is a closer view of the stock:


1018_Aller_stock by robertcwp, on Flickr

The corridor side of the third is very easy to distinguish from the composite as the window arrangement on the third is symmetrical. From left to right, it is:

W, D, WW, D, WW, D, WW, D W (W = large bodylight, ie window, D = door)

By contrast, the composite stands out when viewed from the corridor side as the arrangement is W, D, W (space) W, D, WW, D, WW - note the uneven spacing and two windows at the right-hand end, and only three doors not four. The compartment sides are easy to tell apart too as the composite had a half-compartment (third class) whereas the third had seven full compartments.

Don't be fooled by inaccurate photo captions that misidentify such carriages .

[melton]

When Churchward introduced his 70' stock the GW changed their locking bars to fit - the tail wagging the dog!

[jwealleans]

the arrangement is W, D, W (space) W, D, WW, D, WW - note the uneven spacing and two windows at the right-hand end, and only three doors not four.

Like this:



D9 Composite, cut down from a 61'6" Kirk kit.

I'd be more interested in what the leading coach above is - it has echoes of GN and NE about it - ECJS?

I think the GE Section altered their locking bars to suit longer stock through the life of the LNER as no 52'6" stock was built after the late 1930s and by the time of BR carriages were used interchangeably. I assume there was also a change in the number of portions or through carriages. Would that be right, 65447?

[sawdust]

When would track circuits have come into use?

Sawdust.

[65447]

When Churchward introduced his 70' stock the GW changed their locking bars to fit - the tail wagging the dog!

But Paddington was a very simple station layout by comparison, and the GWR barely ran any suburban services, let alone any with the intensity and frequency of those using Liverpool Street which, by the way, also operated on Saturdays, that being a normal working day.

[Dave]

Like it 65447, I trust you are continuing to delve into this more deeply.

I'm also interested in that first carriage, when I get home I must look out my dia info, sadly at work at the moment.

[65447]

Also this one of an NE design allocated to the GE Secion, scratch-built by Geoff Kent and seen on his layout Blakeney:

Edited to clarify type of carriage...

[CVR1865]

In this months Rail Express Magazine there is an interesting piece about Greater Anglia, which conforms nicely with the majority of the old Great Eastern Railway. It makes particular reference to changes made in the 1920s and 1930s to simplify operations into and out of Liverpool Street for the west and east side commuter services, to the extent that the eastern end exists now as a completely separate system and can be easily moved over to Crossrail when it comes in 2017 or so.

Additionally they mention a 4 minute platform occupancy time for locomotives and trains during the peak.

They do gloss over the financial incentives and I believe this is relevant to the reason the Great Eastern Section of the LNER, the Great Eastern Railway was very fragile in finances and this carried on with the LNER and providing new carriages that fitted into existing infrastructure is the appropriate economic measure when you consider the extent of changes carried out by the Great Eastern in 1920-22 these needed to made use of for a period before more was done. The Great Eastern Railway was in administration (receivership) for a time in around 1877 I think, really must dig out my GER books and papers this has sparked some interest.

Simon
(slightly off topic I realise but still relevant, I hope)

[JASd17]

Like it 65447, I trust you are continuing to delve into this more deeply.

I'm also interested in that first carriage, when I get home I must look out my dia info, sadly at work at the moment.

It as the look of an ex-North Eastern Diagram 174 Van Composite (2-3). Note the large numbers identifying the two firsts.

John

[Dave]

Thanks JASd17 for pointing out the large 1's I had missed that completely.

Another example Mike T & Mike B to add to the growing list.

[jwealleans]

this one, scratch-built by Geoff Kent

Is that one of the NER designs built for the GE area?

[65447]

this one, scratch-built by Geoff Kent

Is that one of the NER designs built for the GE area?

Jonathan,

Yes - sorry - I have edited the post to clarify. I was so struggling to locate the image (taken at that Ely show BTW) I forget to be clear about the details.

'jasd17' has a better close-up, taken on Geoff's Blakeney layout in another place.

[StevieG]

" In this months Rail Express Magazine there is an interesting piece about Greater Anglia, which conforms nicely with the majority of the old Great Eastern Railway. It makes particular reference to changes made in the 1920s and 1930s to simplify operations into and out of Liverpool Street for the west and east side commuter services, to the extent that the eastern end exists now as a completely separate system and can be easily moved over to Crossrail when it comes in 2017 or so. .... "

Hoping not to cause too much OT content in this thread, presumably the quoted 'completely separate system' comment is a considerable generalisation : The Ilford Flyover and the extensive Liv. St. track remodelling, changing the 'Local' and 'Through' lines between those two places to be the 'Main' and 'Electric' lines respectively, probably did improve things for the East side services no end.
But regarding Crossrail, only the suburban ('Electric' [E] lines) services to Shenfield would be involved, while longer distance services would continue using the 'Main' (M) lines. And I'd expect that the current running junction point connections for regulating varying speed services and to cater for engineering possessions and other line blockages/problems etc., between the Ms and the Es at places like Stratford/Maryland, Forest Gate, Ilford Car Sheds/Seven Kings, Romford, Gidea Park, and Shenfield would necessarily remain, though service patterns and flows would probably be regarded and mostly run, as completely separate.

Sorry ; And now, back to 52' 6" carriages ? ....