Hornby AA15 Toad Brake Van

[Miss Prism]

I brought a Hornby toad not thinking they got to Aylesbury in the 1950/60 but then found the attached from  clip from a DVD showing one behind a J37. It has the diaginal bracing to the sides so I am not sure if this is feasibe.

 

It is probably an AA19 or AA20 or AA21 with added bracing on the cabin. Some examples:

 

http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9581

http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=10354

http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e2c309083

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Miss Prism

[The Johnster]

RU and 'Not In Common Use' branding, with the depot name (not readable on the Aylesbury photo) are the result of the GW, and later WR's, working methods in which toads were allocated to specific depots or yards and to individual guards who had the keys to them.  'Pool' working of brake vans had been introduced during WW2 and continued thereafter, but the GW retained it's working practice and branded the toads where they were allocated to depots or yards; some unbranded toads worked in the general pool and carried no branding.

 

The GW held that the guard, in order to see the train properly when he was using the brake or operating the sanding gear in association with it, should be outside the cabin on the verandah, and hence never built toads with lookout duckets as the other railways did.  Couldn't have been much fun going out there on a cold wet night with the verandah leading, but they made guards out of tough stuff in them days!  The vans were not turned to face cabin end leading, so could appear either way around, but the usual arrangement in the South Wales valleys, where the norm was to have the loco facing smokebox first up the valley and bunker/tender first coming down, was for the toads to be orientated with the verandah end facing down the valley.

 

I do not know if the single ended nature of GW toads made them unpopular on other railways, but they were popular with their guards on the WR and this was still a common attitude in my own time as a freight guard at Canton in the 70s a decade after the demise of the single ended toads.  They were very well built, and compared to other vans rode well and were not as draughty.  The reason for their withdrawal was the idea that, in the event of an accident in which the guard could not get out of the van at the verandah end, he would be trapped in the cabin ( a slimly built man could have escaped through the hatch by which the tail lamp was accessed at the cabin end, which opened inwards, but most guards would have had difficulty doing this), and they were thus withdrawn en masse from normal traffic, in 1963 I think.  Many survived after this in departmental use.

 

As to the pooling arrangements, the very good Southern Queen Mary vans were assiduously chased up by that region if any got out, and recovered as soon as possible, general use notwithstanding!

Edited August 28, 2017 by The Johnster

[Coach bogie]

 

It is probably an AA19 or AA20 or AA21 with added bracing on the cabin. Some examples:

 

http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9581

http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=10354

http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e2c309083

 

There is one on the BlueBell. Could not get to the other side.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Miss Prism]

The Bluebell Toad is an AA13 (17908). It has braces across all four cabin side panels. The one in David's Aylesbury pic has got braces only on the middle two panels, which I think ties it down to a late-modified AA19, 20 or 21.

[coachmann]

I photographed a GW Toad behind a Class 40 in the early 1980's. They lasted well even if in departmental use. 

[The Stationmaster]

Restricted Use NOT IN COMMON USE

 

Paul

 

No.

 

R.U. meant 'Restricted User' and not 'restricted use'.  There is a grammatical and practical difference between the two terms.  In the GWR R.U. sense it meant that the depot named (and or particular workings detailed in painted form) was the Restricted User for that vehicle. The branding first appeared during WWII (c.1942 as far as I can trace) when the use of freight brakevans changed from being allocated to a single guard to more general usage.

 

'Not In Common Use' meant something else - simply that the van was, literally, not in common use and therefore was outwith the overall brakevan pool and not to be counted or worked and used as a part of that pool, i.e. it couldn't just go anywhere (and in that context had to remain in WR use).  Incidentally the term 'Not In Common Use' was also used by other BR Regions on specialised freight brakevans so therefore didn't necessarily have anything to do with a van being single ended.

 

The above information is taken from official GWR and BR WR documentary sources (as is that below).

 

To add a PS  in view of the Johnster's comments the practice of individual Guards holding the keys for their own brakeans officially ceased at the time of the introduction of the R.U. branding when the vans passed from individually allocated to specific Guards into what might best be termed more general use (on the GWR) with certain vans being nominated as R.U. for specific duties or from specific yards and depots.  Guards ceased at that time to be responsible for the equipping of the van specifically allocated to them (to which only they had the keys although no doubt a spare key was kept somewhere) and the old situation was never restored after the war.

Edited August 29, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[Siberian Snooper]

On the subject of brake van allocations, is there a list of places to which vans were allocated, not just the AA15s.

 

Thanks

[81C]

Try this website  there is a list of allocations click on "this Microsoft word file" part way down the page.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nobrakes.html 

Edited August 29, 2017 by 81C

[hmrspaul]

The Bluebell Toad is an AA13 (17908). It has braces across all four cabin side panels. The one in David's Aylesbury pic has got braces only on the middle two panels, which I think ties it down to a late-modified AA19, 20 or 21.

This is a much later build with the bracing in the center http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e2c309083

 

ISn't it more likely that for a period one type of bracing was in standard use whenever a van required such assistance, and at another time another type of bracing was used. Or, that the type of bracing to be used was on the assessment of the workshop, or differed between workshops. Much less likely seems to association with particular diagrams.

 

Paul

[Miss Prism]

Cabin bracing was introduced on AA11, of a particular style, but was apparently dropped from AA13, when cabin-plating was introduced, although some AA13s did appear with bracing or acquired it later on an ad hoc basis (the Bluebell AA13 may be a case of post-preservation bracing or modification of its previous bracing structure).  No doubt there were exceptions, but generally, where bracing was applied on 24'-bodied non-AA13s later on in life, it was on the middle two panels.

[tomparryharry]

I haven't seen a van diagram with diagonal bracing.

 

However...

 

Most diagonal bracing became required at the corner posts, where the metal came down to headstock level. Most, but not all, were rebuilt at C&W shop level. However, if a diagram for the repair be came a 'standard repair', then the chances are that the repair itself had it's own diagram number.

 

Confusing, or what?

 

A lot of older vans would come into a C&W shop, and it would be assessed. Prior to this , such things as cost, etc, would be applied as criteria. To keep costs down, the minimal requirements would be applied. A buckled headstock, for instance, would be taken off, as it's 'quicker' than trying to faff about. It's not unusual to see a early toad, with different W irons, sporting a set of 10x5" boxes, and 3-hole wheels under the solebar. It became a policy to condemn a vehicle, rather than repair, especially at the end of steam, and the introduction of the standard, 20 ton van.

 

It's also quite common to see both AA21 & 23 vans together, both with 16' wheelbase. However, the 23 van is normally 27' over buffers, the 21 van is 27'6" over buffers. You'll see a 21 van with a 3" collar welded on the buffer shank.

 

Ian.

Edited August 29, 2017 by tomparryharry

[hmrspaul]

I haven't seen a van diagram with diagonal bracing.

 

However...

 

Most diagonal bracing became required at the corner posts, where the metal came down to headstock level. Most, but not all, were rebuilt at C&W shop level. However, if a diagram for the repair be came a 'standard repair', then the chances are that the repair itself had it's own diagram number.

 

Confusing, or what?

 

A lot of older vans would come into a C&W shop, and it would be assessed. Prior to this , such things as cost, etc, would be applied as criteria. To keep costs down, the minimal requirements would be applied. A buckled headstock, for instance, would be taken off, as it's 'quicker' than trying to faff about. It's not unusual to see a early toad, with different W irons, sporting a set of 10x5" boxes, and 3-hole wheels under the solebar. It became a policy to condemn a vehicle, rather than repair, especially at the end of steam, and the introduction of the standard, 20 ton van.

 

It's also quite common to see both AA21 & 23 vans together, both with 16' wheelbase. However, the 23 van is normally 27' over buffers, the 21 van is 27'6" over buffers. You'll see a 21 van with a 3" collar welded on the buffer shank.

 

Ian.

Ian

 

Thanks, As you say none of the original diagrams (which being GWR are very good miniature GAs) show bracing. Yes, this is in contrast to most of the permanent way vans which do have various styles of bracing. The earlier MR/LMS vans also acquired similar bracing.

 

Paul

[Miss Prism]

The AA11 diagram does show bracing.

[Clive Mark]

This is an incredibly good product just like the Southern Cattle wagon. I have, so far, bought 11 of the BR versions with a view to renumbering and reallocating etc. I do not care if the colour is a bit "off". It beats the Ratio kit by miles.

 

Hornby have an incredible cheek to ask the price which they do for their older Airfix Toad (tooled 30 years ago approx.?) which has the stansions going down to the bottom of the solebar making it AA23 or BR built. The underframe is disgusting by todays standards. The body is ok if you want to carve off the moulded handrails.

[hmrspaul]

The AA11 diagram does show bracing.

Ok, i hadn't noticed my 1940s diag book was missing AA11, but accepting Atkins et al diagram it shows a completely different style of bracing to those we are discussing, as illustrated by Lewis on AA2 56831. and nothing to do with the BR era brake van we are discussing.

 

Paul

Edited August 29, 2017 by hmrspaul

[The Johnster]

This is an incredibly good product just like the Southern Cattle wagon. I have, so far, bought 11 of the BR versions with a view to renumbering and reallocating etc. I do not care if the colour is a bit "off". It beats the Ratio kit by miles.

 

Hornby have an incredible cheek to ask the price which they do for their older Airfix Toad (tooled 30 years ago approx.?) which has the stansions going down to the bottom of the solebar making it AA23 or BR built. The underframe is disgusting by todays standards. The body is ok if you want to carve off the moulded handrails.

 

 

I would assume the Airfix-derivate toad to be headed for the 'Railroad' range if it is to stay in production.  Railroad seems to be a curate's egg as far as pricing goes; some real bargains such as the lowmac against what seem to me to full price models like the Crosti 9F.

 

H are not alone in knocking out older mouldings severely sub-standard by modern lights; Dapol are still flogging some ex Hornby Dublo wagons!  Another of H's abominations is the overlength 16ton mineral, surely in need of replacement.

Edited August 30, 2017 by The Johnster

[Mark Saunders]

I would assume the Airfix-derivate toad to be headed for the 'Railroad' range if it is to stay in production.  Railroad seems to be a curate's egg as far as pricing goes; some real bargains such as the lowmac against what seem to me to full price models like the Crosti 9F.

 

H are not alone in knocking out older mouldings severely sub-standard by modern lights; Dapol are still flogging some ex Hornby Dublo wagons!  Another of H's abominations is the overlength 16ton mineral, surely in need of replacement.

 

There are a lot of parts of the major manufacturers ranges that should never be retooled and allowed to die quietly when the tooling is worn out! Personally the rch 21' 6" over headstocks chassis has never been upgraded since Airfix and Dapol have retooled it to a lower standard it must be due to come in for an upgrade especially a separate handbrake lever!

 

 

Mark Saunders

[31A]

There are a lot of parts of the major manufacturers ranges that should never be retooled and allowed to die quietly when the tooling is worn out! Personally the rch 21' 6" over headstocks chassis has never been upgraded since Airfix and Dapol have retooled it to a lower standard it must be due to come in for an upgrade especially a separate handbrake lever!

 

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

Did they not do that (albeit roller bearing fitted) for the 'Tope' model?

[The Johnster]

There are a lot of parts of the major manufacturers ranges that should never be retooled and allowed to die quietly when the tooling is worn out! Personally the rch 21' 6" over headstocks chassis has never been upgraded since Airfix and Dapol have retooled it to a lower standard it must be due to come in for an upgrade especially a separate handbrake lever!

 

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

My view of overlength minerals, the most common type of steam or early diesel era wagon which MUST BE GOT RIGHT, IT'S BASIC STUFF, is that the tooling should not be allowed to die, it should be put out of it's misery, now, completely destroyed so that further wrong models cannot be produced.  Are you listening, Hornby and Dapol?  Moulded brake levers are less unacceptable, but need to be phased out.  With phasers.  Set to kill.

[Porcy Mane]

Did they not do that (albeit roller bearing fitted) for the 'Tope' model?

 

I don't think it could be classed as a re-tool. More of a complete new tooling.

 

Would need mods to the end platforms and a few  other bits such as axle boxes but i think it would sit well under a BR built 21 tonner body. Nice chassis to diecast as they did with the coke hopper.

 

I suspect it would be mightily expensive looking at assembly costs.

 

 

P

[31A]

I was surprised at the time that they didn't go ahead and make the 'traffic' version of the 21 ton hopper, but of course since then they've done a completely different model of the LNER version!  Sorry, rather 

[Mark Saunders]

I was surprised at the time that they didn't go ahead and make the 'traffic' version of the 21 ton hopper, but of course since then they've done a completely different model of the LNER version!  Sorry, rather 

All it needs is the body changing to the BR all welded 1970's style rebody and you have two wagons for the price of one!

 

The Parkside LNER kit was available direct with the rebody as I have some in my to do box, will Peco continue this service?

 

Mark Saunders

[81C]

All it needs is the body changing to the BR all welded 1970's style rebody and you have two wagons for the price of one!

 

The Parkside LNER kit was available direct with the rebody as I have some in my to do box, will Peco continue this service?

 

Mark Saunders

       

[The Johnster]

To get back on topic, I've got a moan about my Hornby AA15, which is a shame because it's a really good model.  It's more of a shame because it's a ship spoiled for a ha'porth of tar and I have other Hornby vehicles that are fine in this particular respect, and a further shame because it's something particularly important on a brake van.

 

The lamp brackets are not strong enough to have a Modelu tail lamp placed on them without breaking off.  I think they are an integral part of the plastic body moulding, which is probably more difficult and expensive to achieve than fitting separate metal brackets!  And the side lamp brackets are moulded to the body; I can live with the side lamps having to be glued on, but the tail lamp has to be removable so that it can be placed on the correct end.  

 

First World problem, easily fixed, and it won't stop me buying more Hornby AA15s at £21.99 a pop, but irritating all the same.  I have no problems placing tail lamps on my Hornby Southern BY, or my Hawksworth BG, so it is not a generic Hornby thing, just applies to this particular model.

Edited September 12, 2017 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Oh Thankyou God !

 

Now I won't have to scrape the handrails off my Ratio Toad kits....which will be disposed of once Hornby have their's for sale.

 

A brilliant move by Hornby....AND LONG OVERDUE. Why have we had to suffer crap toads all these years ?

 

 

I used to have a garden pond that suffered from toad crap...