jwealleans wrote:Wasn't there an explicit decision to standardise on vacuum braking except for the 'Jazz' services? I can't remember when it was but I'd have imagined it was relatively soon after 1923.
There was, but it was a phased process, with status quo on certain lines, and then building with or a conversion to dual-braking on the air-braked lines, with the final conversion to vacuum braking save for GE Section London Area suburban stock c1930.
And then around 5 years later Gresley was in need of brakes that would work faster, more efficiently, and on all vehicles in the formation at the same time
The only logical reason for reverting to vacuum brake, apart from a marginal difference in first cost of the equipment, were the royalties payable to Westinghouse Brake and Signal Co. In fact it was that company which provided the quick-service valves used on the streamlined trains to improve the operation of the vacuum brakes.
65447 wrote:Curious how the world changed after the GNR took over at Grouping. In the pre-Grouping NER code list the vehicles were Westinghouse-braked by default, i.e. no 'W' in the code, whereas those fitted with the vacuum brake had 'V' appended to their codes.
...There was also interesting correspondence between Gresley (ex GNR) and Stamer (ex NER) about coach constructional details. In some details NER practice was more advanced, although (like round cornered windows) not always followed...
The GNR/Gresley had already imposed most of the GNR carriage design standards on the ECJS, including vacuum brakes despite the NE being a Westinghouse line. Domed ends, clipper-built teak-panelled rather than flat matchboarded sides, no open saloons with end doors only, square corners to windows, Pullman vestibules and buckeye couplers, Gresley bogies... need I go on?
drmditch wrote:...However, if the GNR took over engineering design, why was the GNR wagon length of 19' with a wheelbase of 10' or 10'6" discarded for the inferior RCH standards?
Something to do with Raven gearing up the NE workshops for mass-production of timber underframes to those dimensions? Don't feel too bad about the GNR, the GER had already advanced to steel underframes with longer wheelbases and longer bodies still about 25 years previously
drmditch wrote:...However, if the GNR took over engineering design, why was the GNR wagon length of 19' with a wheelbase of 10' or 10'6" discarded for the inferior RCH standards?
Something to do with Raven gearing up the NE workshops for mass-production of timber underframes to those dimensions? Don't feel too bad about the GNR, the GER had already advanced to steel underframes with longer wheelbases and longer bodies still about 25 years previously
NER standard wheelbase (as in the G2 vans) was 9'6" not 9'. Costs of timber vs steel changed radically during the first third of the century. Wasn't some ECJS dual fitted? Must read Harris's book on ECJS again.
drmditch wrote:...However, if the GNR took over engineering design, why was the GNR wagon length of 19' with a wheelbase of 10' or 10'6" discarded for the inferior RCH standards?
Something to do with Raven gearing up the NE workshops for mass-production of timber underframes to those dimensions? Don't feel too bad about the GNR, the GER had already advanced to steel underframes with longer wheelbases and longer bodies still about 25 years previously
The GN, GC and GE produced standardised 19' long vans with 10'6". They were the product of an (unlawful) collaboration following the failed merger of the three companies in around 1910
65447 wrote:[The GNR/Gresley had already imposed most of the GNR carriage design standards on the ECJS, including vacuum brakes despite the NE being a Westinghouse line. Domed ends, clipper-built teak-panelled rather than flat matchboarded sides, no open saloons with end doors only, square corners to windows, Pullman vestibules and buckeye couplers, Gresley bogies... need I go on?
The wide beading and round panel corners were a direct result of building coaches in mahogany, while teak built coaches, in general, had narrow beading and square panel corners.
65447 wrote:Curious how the world changed after the GNR took over at Grouping. In the pre-Grouping NER code list the vehicles were Westinghouse-braked by default, i.e. no 'W' in the code, whereas those fitted with the vacuum brake had 'V' appended to their codes.
Not at all curious. The LNER made the decision to change to a almost completely vacuumed line as part of the 1928 economy measures, which also saw the simplification of loco liveries.
jwealleans wrote:Wasn't there an explicit decision to standardise on vacuum braking except for the 'Jazz' services? I can't remember when it was but I'd have imagined it was relatively soon after 1923.
There were three exemptions to the vacuum only decisions, The GE suburbans, the NE electrics and the Aberdeen suburbans. All of these were self contained services.
There was, but it was a phased process, with status quo on certain lines, and then building with or a conversion to dual-braking on the air-braked lines, with the final conversion to vacuum braking save for GE Section London Area suburban stock c1930.
Both the Tyneside electrics and the Aberdeen subbies retained westinghouse brake until the services were withdrawn.
The only logical reason for reverting to vacuum brake, apart from a marginal difference in first cost of the equipment, were the royalties payable to Westinghouse Brake and Signal Co. In fact it was that company which provided the quick-service valves used on the streamlined trains to improve the operation of the vacuum brakes.
The measure was introduced as an economy, in that with a unified braking system there were savings to be made with not having to build, maintain and organise dual fitted stock for inter area services.
Bill Bedford wrote:
The wide beading and round panel corners were a direct result of building coaches in mahogany, while teak built coaches, in general, had narrow beading and square panel corners.
I would be very interested in why this was so, is it a function of the timber grain, or of the natural oil of the teak being better at resisting water ingress?
65447 wrote:
The GNR/Gresley had already imposed most of the GNR carriage design standards on the ECJS, including vacuum brakes despite the NE being a Westinghouse line. Domed ends, clipper-built teak-panelled rather than flat matchboarded sides, no open saloons with end doors only, square corners to windows, Pullman vestibules and buckeye couplers, Gresley bogies... need I go on?
The matchboard sides were not highly regarded in some circles. Comments like 'products of an American Lumber yard' were made.
I have seen two accounts of the York-built matchboarded stock for the Tyneside Electrics. One that they were not well built, and another that they lasted very well. I must delve into my library to find them. Certainly Mr Harris in his book on ECJS has pictures of cascaded ECJS vehicles which lasted will in to the 1940's. He suggests that they were well and strongly built.
Changing tack slightly. It's interesting how "things" have come full circle so to speak, as modern stock across the board both passenger and frieght is air braked. I believe the decision was taken in the sixties to convert. Which in turn ment that for about 20-30 years passenger stock had to be dual braked into the late eighties early nineties. When with the exception of the likes of the VSOE Pullmans I think, [there is a small selection of vacuum fitted coaches that still run on the national network the NYMR fleet being a case] all stock was air braked only. Hence more and more "approved" steam locomotive "pant" with the sound of the air pump. Again life coming full circle on the North Eastern at least with them as has been stated being an air braked outfit.
for bill bedford.
hello bill
just spotted that may 1928 list of coaching stock codes which makes fascinating reading.
one more query if you can help.
north eastern area excursions in the early/mid 1920s were mostly composed of thirds and brakes, whereas those that i know of from 1929 onwards were mostly thirds and brake thirds. was the phasing out of brake coaches a gradual process and if so what year did it start?
regards
booklad
booklad wrote:for bill bedford.
hello bill
just spotted that may 1928 list of coaching stock codes which makes fascinating reading.
one more query if you can help.
north eastern area excursions in the early/mid 1920s were mostly composed of thirds and brakes, whereas those that i know of from 1929 onwards were mostly thirds and brake thirds. was the phasing out of brake coaches a gradual process and if so what year did it start?
It was more a process of replacing six wheelers with bogie stock. A process that had started around 1900. There seems to have been a decision in the late 20s of the wholesale replacement of ex NER six wheelers with modern stock. This was completed in the early 30s and enough new stock provided that it was possible to cascade older NER non gangwayed stock to other areas.
Bill Bedford wrote:
The wide beading and round panel corners were a direct result of building coaches in mahogany, while teak built coaches, in general, had narrow beading and square panel corners.
I would be very interested in why this was so, is it a function of the timber grain, or of the natural oil of the teak being better at resisting water ingress?
It was that mahogany was a much softer timber with a more open grain. While the open grain was good for holding paint it was less good for holding nails and pins. One group of carriages was designed for teak but built with mahogany, how ever within five years they were all rebuilt with the fine beading replace by the more usual 1 1/2 in wide beading.
