LNER Gresley 61ft 6in carriage body width

[Keith Mayall]

Please help! I have many drawings of 61ft 6in coaching stock but the dimension I cannot find anywhere is the width of the carriage body at the base of the tumblehome above the solebar. I have the dimension of 8ft 10.5in at cantrail level, 9ft at waist level, but after scaling drawings and photographs I get conflicting dimensions. I should be grateful if anyone can supply this dimension for both the inset brake end and the standard coach end.

[Dave]

The turn under was 3 inches (75mm) so you should be able to calculate the dims you want.

[John Palmer]

I'm sorry not to be able to tell you of a drawing that confirms the dimension you seek, but you might find it helpful to refer to Mike Trice's paper 'MJT Generic Conversion Sides Instructions', to be found at http://www.dartcastings.co.uk/resources.htm. Mike suggests that the upper part of the side, in profile, tapers in by about 3" to the roofline, and that the tuck/turn-under in the lower part of the side is about 6" on each side. That's not necessarily inconsistent with your dimensions at waist and cantrail level (a difference of only 1.5") since the cantrail stands proud of the side, perhaps by as much as 1.5".

[Dave]

Keith
You might like to look at these drawings if you ever get to the NRM,
4146N Section of 1st compartment 1923
4147N Section of 3rd comp 1923
4934N section of 1st restaurant car 1924
9364N Body side below waist 1933
10174 Section open 3rd 1934
10204D Section of 3rd comp 1934
10254D Section of 1st comp 1934
There are many more at the NRM.
I've dug out a few pics that may be of help to you.
John have you combined the 2 sets of 3" turn under to get 6" or has Mike got it wrong???, I've not looked at his generic side info for a bit.

[Keith Mayall]

Thanks Dave and John for your speedy response. The drawings are very helpful thankyou Dave. My confusion stems from looking at some end elevation drawings on page 125 of "Historic Carriage Drawings vol. 1 LNER and Constituents by Nick Campling. It seems from info you have kindly forwarded that the tumblehome is indeed 3 inches either side, making body width at solebar level 8ft 6in. However, although this dimension is not shown in the book, other dimensions of 8ft 6in. are shown in other areas on the same page. When I set my dividers to this dimension and place it on the base of the body, instead of 34mm in 4mm/ft scale, it measures 33mm! I know there can be discrepancies in the printing process, but there are many dimensions of 8ft 6in. annotated on the same page

[john coffin]

Seems that Gresley followed standard GNR practice, but it is important to understand that the tumblehone is not to the actual floor width, rather the beading under the doors, there is another inch on each side needs to be deducted if you are looking for the actual floor width, without that beading/ door reveal.

The whole problem with tumblehone is that in 4mm it is only 1mm each side, which is a tiny amount really, and sometimes can appear as nothing at all, which is why there are so many complaints about the product of many bigger manufacturers.

Paul

[John Palmer]

Dave,

In the instructions I cited Mike clearly distinguishes between an upper taper of 3" (?tumblehome) and a turnunder of 6".

If I'm reading drawing 4146N correctly, it is showing a tumblehome of 2.75" (8' 11.25" over pillars minus 8' 8.5" over cant rails): only a quarter inch difference, but the turnunder is more pronounced because it is over a shorter part of the side profile.

There's no mistaking the turnunder figure of 3" on dwg 4146N, so I think there must be two possibilities: either Mike has given a wrong dimension of 6" for the turnunder on one side, or he has given a value for the combined turnunder of both sides, whilst not doing so for the tumblehome on the upper part of the side.

Looking at the NRM's catalogue for Doncaster C&W drawings, I see that dwg. 4146N is dated 21 January 1921, and I inferred at first that this is a section for a GNR First to Diag. 87 of that year. That would be consistent with the presence of the toplight shown in section. But in that case why is the internal door edge aligned almost to the vehicle’s centreline unless this is either (a) an open carriage or (b) a two-a-side First to Diag. 86? And if the latter, did the side corridor really occupy half the carriage’s width?

In any case, I assume that the profile of Gresley vehicles in LNER days remained identical to those of GNR design – is that right?

Whatever the answer, those are really useful drawings, thanks for posting them.

Keith,

I too was looking at the Campling end elevations in Historic Carriage Drawings, but in my case the original 1969 edition, and the conclusion I reached was that these showed a turnunder of at least 4.5" (1.5mm in 4mm scale). Not easy to derive accurate values from so small scale a drawing as this, so the drawings Dave posted are all the more useful.

[Bill Bedford]

Looking at the NRM's catalogue for Doncaster C&W drawings, I see that dwg. 4146N is dated 21 January 1921, and I inferred at first that this is a section for a GNR First to Diag. 87 of that year. That would be consistent with the presence of the toplight shown in section. But in that case why is the internal door edge aligned almost to the vehicle’s centreline unless this is either (a) an open carriage or (b) a two-a-side First to Diag. 86? And if the latter, did the side corridor really occupy half the carriage’s width?

This drawing is of a part section of a non-corridor compartment, which given the date, would be from one of the twins 218RR or 218QQ

In any case, I assume that the profile of Gresley vehicles in LNER days remained identical to those of GNR design – is that right?

I believe so, but the LNER built coaches with widths of 9 ft and 9ft 3 in, making the floor width either 8 ft 6 in or 8 ft 9 in. And of course the floor under brake end was 6 inches narrower than the rest of the coach.

[John Palmer]

This drawing is of a part section of a non-corridor compartment, which given the date, would be from one of the twins 218RR or 218QQ

Ah, that makes sense - so the door is one of those leading to one of the pairs of lavatories in the composite section. Thanks Bill.

[MikeTrice]

In the instructions I cited Mike clearly distinguishes between an upper taper of 3" (?tumblehome) and a turnunder of 6".

I don't recall putting any of that information in the instructions and wonder if it was added by Dart. Their current 2807 instructions certainly quote those dimensions.

[John Palmer]

In the instructions I cited Mike clearly distinguishes between an upper taper of 3" (?tumblehome) and a turnunder of 6".

I don't recall putting any of that information in the instructions and wonder if it was added by Dart. Their current 2807 instructions certainly quote those dimensions.

As does the document "MJT Conversion sides instructions - Hornby addendum" on the Dart Castings web site, with the difference that in this document the upper tumblehome is described as "less than 2" in real life (<1 mm in model terms)"!

Mike, I may have been naive to do so, but I simply assumed that you were the author of these documents, and if that is not the case then I apologise for any offence I gave - it was not my intention to do so.

[MikeTrice]

No problem.

[MikeTrice]

The most common dimensions appear to be:

8' 9 1/2" over cant rails
8' 11 1/4" over pillers (at widest part of coach)
9' 0" over mouldings (at widest part of coach)
8' 5 1/4" at the bottom

As stated previously turnunder appears to be consistent at 3"

[john coffin]

important to note where the dimensions actually are, ie the 3 inch is at the bottom, not where the door hits the strike plate at the bottom. The other thing is that there is a 6in plank at that edge of the floor panel.

paul

[sawdust]

important to note where the dimensions actually are, ie the 3 inch is at the bottom, not where the door hits the strike plate at the bottom. The other thing is that there is a 6in plank at that edge of the floor panel.

paul

Do you mean the bottomside rail? Also don't confuse the cant rail with the muck cornice (which I have heard some people do). The cant rail is a big lump of 4"x3" and is not visible being behind the cornice. The cornices are thicker on GN Gresley's than LNER ones. Also, although I don't have the drawings to hand I know that 3087 is taller than the standard LNER body profile. (I admit 3087 is shorter than 61'-6)

Sawdust.