Have your say with Rapido

[The Johnster]

GW, LMS, and LNER long wheelbase vans were also allowed 60mph, and the BR standard design was a development of the LNER van.  Never rode in a GW van in anger, and had to take the word of the old hands that these were the perfect brake van in all respects, which they very obviously weren't, but I'll allow that they were probably cosy.  Otherwise they were dark, had no upholstery (guard brought his own cushions), you had to go out on the veranda sometimes into a 60mph headwind to use the brake, and you couldn't see out of them because there were no duckets or side windows. 

 

The LMS vans had duckets, which let draughts in, and gaps in the planking did as well.  The first half-hour of the journey would be spent working ripped up bits of last night's newspaper to stop the howling gales, and the cabin doors opened inwards.  This was a bad idea, because the pressure of headwind increased the draughts.

 

LNER/BR standard vans were just as draughty and the sheet steel duckets just as draught, but had a smaller cabin for the stove to keep warm, and the doors opened outward on to the veranda, meaning that the headwind sealed them shut.  They were the overwhelming majority of vans still running in traffic in my days on the railway in the 70s. 

 

I once had the misfortune to have a Southern (SECR design) 'matchbox' van, and vowed if I ever had one again I would immediately torch it for everyone's benefit.  It rocked better than Elvis, well, all vans with ballast outboard of the axles did, and was shaking loose so that the planks were working and letting draughts in even after I'd sealed them up with newspaper, and the ride was appalling (and we were used to rough vans in the 70s).  It was a freezing night, and the rocking kept extinguishing the lamps, so that I spent a lot of time out on the veranda, not that it was much warmer inside the cabin despite the stove glowing orange hot.  After two hours running from Cardiff to Hereford I was exhausted from bracing myself against the rocking, the lights were out because by this time I'd gone through my box of matches and my backup box of matches, and the box of matches the signalman at Pontrilas gave me, and I was borderline hypothermic and utterly miserable. 

 

I also had a ride once in a Queen Mary, early doors learing the road through the Severn Tunnel, and one could forgive the Southern a lot when one experinced one of these.  Rode like a Pullman, good for 75mph, cosy, outward opening doors, properly sealed duckets; why couldn't it be like that all the time?  The Southern understandably chased down any that escaped their jurisdiction.

 

One of the first things one did on climbing aboard a van was to waggle the lamp brackets.  If they were loose, it was because they had been shaken loose and you knew you were in for a bad ride.  At Margam they used to stuff bits of splintered wood behind them to give the illusion of the van being a steady rider, but Margam were a law unto themselves, sneaky unprincipled self-serving 'stards.

Edited June 23 by The Johnster

[Wickham Green too]

17 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Pretty sure it's only piped as there's no visible sign of a cylinder! ...

There's a very good reason you can't see the vac cylinder on an SECR/SR/BR* plough brake ...... it's tucked away in a box in the corner of the cabin where it won't get covered in Meldon stone dust !

 

* 1/3/8 built

[Steamport Southport]

On 23/06/2024 at 15:33, The Johnster said:

If the pipe is correctly painted, this is a rarity, a vacuum fitted brake van.  They were mostly blow throughs (which should have been 'suck throughs'), piped only, because there was no need for the brakes to be vacuum-operated in service, there being a sentient (supposedly) brake operating device inside the van.

 

I think you must have missed the vacuum fitted GWR Toads!

 

It was mostly AA21, the one similar to Rapido make, that were fully fitted. The vacuum dome is between the sandboxes at the veranda end. We had one in Southport, now at Didcot.

 

http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9045

 

Quote

Vacuum-fitting   Some of the members of the following diagrams were fitted with through pipes (and thus becoming telegraphic code 'Toad A'): AA2, AA5, AA6, AA11, AA15, AA20. All of AA7, AA9 and AA10 were so fitted. These vehicles did not have a vacuum cylinder, although AA5s were fitted with a cylinder in the 1900s. AA21 was fitted with full vacuum brake gear, with a cylinder, and had screw couplings. A few of the AA23 vans became fully-fitted in BR days.

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nobrakes.html

 

You could probably bash one from a Rapido one or a good excuse to use up an old Ratio kit.

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

On 23/06/2024 at 15:33, The Johnster said:

If the pipe is correctly painted, this is a rarity, a vacuum fitted brake van.  They were mostly blow throughs (which should have been 'suck throughs'), piped only, because there was no need for the brakes to be vacuum-operated in service, there being a sentient (supposedly) brake operating device inside the van.

 

On 23/06/2024 at 22:44, Dunsignalling said:

Pretty sure it's only piped as there's no visible sign of a cylinder!

 

As well as ploughing, these vans were usual on the trains of fully-fitted LSWR/SR/BR 40T hoppers that distributed Meldon's finest granite over the Southern region, and the odd 20 tons of brake force would have been neither here nor there.

 

Those trains travelled at up to 60 mph (officially) and the guards would have been thankful for the ride quality provided by the long wheelbase!  

 

 

On 24/06/2024 at 16:31, Wickham Green too said:

There's a very good reason you can't see the vac cylinder on an SECR/SR/BR* plough brake ...... it's tucked away in a box in the corner of the cabin where it won't get covered in Meldon stone dust !

 

* 1/3/8 built

 

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think you must have missed the vacuum fitted GWR Toads!

 

It was mostly AA21, the one similar to Rapido make, that were fully fitted. The vacuum dome is between the sandboxes at the veranda end. We had one in Southport, now at Didcot.

 

http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9045

 

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nobrakes.html

 

You could probably bash one from a Rapido one or a good excuse to use up an old Ratio kit.

 

 

Jason

 

Johnster's comment related to the SECR/SR Ballast brake I pictured a few posts back. 

[phil gollin]

.

 

Considering Rapido's excellence at liveries, I suggest that they look at producing the many variations of liveries of the Bulleid Tavern Car sets.

 

See here for Graham 'Muz' Muspratt's review of a fascinating book on them ;

 

https://southern-railway.com/2024/06/25/mr-bulleids-tavern-cars-a-new-book/

 

Certainly an eye-catching addition in their original livery, and with enough livery changes to help encourage multiple sales.

 

.

[Wickham Green too]

 

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Johnster's comment related to the SECR/SR Ballast brake I pictured a few posts back. 

.... as in http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9275 ...................... type ZUV into the database you'll find four of these and forty four BR Sharks.

 

8 minutes ago, phil gollin said:

Considering Rapido's excellence ... I suggest that they look at producing ... Bulleid Tavern Car sets. ...

More likely Less unlikely to come from someone who's already producing Bulleid 63' coaches.

 

[BMacdermott]

7 hours ago, phil gollin said:

Considering Rapido's excellence at liveries, I suggest that they look at producing the many variations of liveries of the Bulleid Tavern Car sets.

 

See here for Graham 'Muz' Muspratt's review of a fascinating book on them ;

 

https://southern-railway.com/2024/06/25/mr-bulleids-tavern-cars-a-new-book/

 

Certainly an eye-catching addition in their original livery, and with enough livery changes to help encourage multiple sales.

 

Hello Phil

 

I agree there!

 

Within The Results of The 00 Wishlist Poll, the sets have been consistently High Polling.

 

in 2022 (the last Poll to run before we run again near Christmas this year), the cars went into The Top 50.

 

They were overall position equal 31st.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

[No Decorum]

The latest Rapido Newsletter hints that a U Class loco might be on the cards. It’s too soon to start a thread but I hope Rapido goes ahead with it – it’s one of the obvious steam classes missing RTR. There was mention in the Newsletter of wibbling; I’m trying not to wibble! There were variations within the class, capture those and I can feel the financial strain already.

 

Might it be possible to include a River Class tank in the package? Too obscure? 

[Phil Bullock]

2 hours ago, No Decorum said:

The latest Rapido Newsletter hints that a U Class loco might be on the cards. It’s too soon to start a thread but I hope Rapido goes ahead with it – it’s one of the obvious steam classes missing RTR. There was mention in the Newsletter of wibbling; I’m trying not to wibble! There were variations within the class, capture those and I can feel the financial strain already.

 

Might it be possible to include a River Class tank in the package? Too obscure? 

Will it stay on the track???? 

[John Isherwood]

29 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Will it stay on the track???? 

 

Not if you fill the side-tanks with water.

 

CJI.

[GMKAT7]

Good evening No Decorum,

 

If we can have one-off LNER and LMS types, one-off diesel prototypes, etc then surely there is a place for the U/U1 classes and the River tanks too.

 

The Rivers are surely no more obscure than Turbomotive, Big Bertha, the Worsborough beast, The Fell, etc.

A class of 20 locos, only limited in livery application to pre-BR schemes.

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[Wickham Green too]

Yes, the Rivers only carried two liveries : SECR grey ( does that sell well ? ) or early SR Maunsell green ................. in rebuilt form, of course, they carried several more liveries - but they carried innumerable differences - not least 1890 over the years - that hardly any two were the same.

 

Put me down for a U1 IF ........... but I'll not hold my breath.

[No Decorum]

5 hours ago, GMKAT7 said:

Good evening No Decorum,

 

If we can have one-off LNER and LMS types, one-off diesel prototypes, etc then surely there is a place for the U/U1 classes and the River tanks too.

 

The Rivers are surely no more obscure than Turbomotive, Big Bertha, the Worsborough beast, The Fell, etc.

A class of 20 locos, only limited in livery application to pre-BR schemes.

 

Cheers, Nigel.

I take your point and I’d like a River but I’m just wondering if it would be too great a commercial risk for Rapido. Oh heck, gimme a Met K Class too. Part of the family and superb looking machines.

Edited June 28 by No Decorum
Stray finger on keyboard.

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, No Decorum said:

I take your point and I’d like a River but I’m just wondering if it would be too great a commercial risk for Rapido. Oh heck, gimme a Met K Class too. Part of the family and superb looking machines.

 

A W would be a more obvious priority than either IMHO.

 

[No Decorum]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

A W would be a more obvious priority than either IMHO.

 

I have to admit that I have no idea how much commonality there might be in tooling – I suspect there would not be much between a tender loco and tanks. I was thinking more of what could be produced as part of the same project. A W would be pleasing but it would be an entirely separate project.

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

I’ve said this a few times already, but an Illfracombe goods would be a good match for all the upcoming light railway stock Rapido are releasing. 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, No Decorum said:

I have to admit that I have no idea how much commonality there might be in tooling – I suspect there would not be much between a tender loco and tanks. I was thinking more of what could be produced as part of the same project. A W would be pleasing but it would be an entirely separate project.

The W is basically an N1 below footplate level, and the tanks were re-used from the Rivers.

 

The Met tanks were made up from Woolwich 'N' kits by the LNER so that's likely to be more problematic.

Edited June 29 by Dunsignalling
Correction

[Wickham Green too]

22 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The Met tanks were made up from Woolwich 'N' kits by the LNER so that's likely to be more problematic.

Nope - the conversions were kit-bashed by Armstrong Whitworth for the MET - long before transfer to the LNER. ( Great shame they weren't passed to the Southern when no longer wanted ..... would make an interesting What If ??!? )

[Dunsignalling]

21 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Nope - the conversions were kit-bashed by Armstrong Whitworth for the MET - long before transfer to the LNER. ( Great shame they weren't passed to the Southern when no longer wanted ..... would make an interesting What If ??!? )

Either way, the upperworks would have borne little resemblance to the River or W.

 

The Southern developed a phobia about 2-6-4 tanks for passenger work after Sevenoaks, despite evidence emerging that the pebble ballast was mainly to blame and the River behaving satisfactorily on LNER metals.   

 

Even after the success of Fairburn and BR4 tanks in BR days, it was rare to see a W even on ECS work.

[JSpencer]

10 hours ago, Rich Uncle Skeleton said:

I’ve said this a few times already, but an Illfracombe goods would be a good match for all the upcoming light railway stock Rapido are releasing. 

And there was one briefly on the EKR too....

[JSpencer]

On 28/06/2024 at 17:01, No Decorum said:

The latest Rapido Newsletter hints that a U Class loco might be on the cards. It’s too soon to start a thread but I hope Rapido goes ahead with it – it’s one of the obvious steam classes missing RTR. There was mention in the Newsletter of wibbling; I’m trying not to wibble! There were variations within the class, capture those and I can feel the financial strain already.

 

Might it be possible to include a River Class tank in the package? Too obscure? 

 

Been waiting a long time for this one. 

 

1618 and 1638 (or BR numbered equivalents) for me please.

 

[The Johnster]

10 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The Southern developed a phobia about 2-6-4 tanks for passenger work after Sevenoaks, despite evidence emerging that the pebble ballast was mainly to blame and the River behaving satisfactorily on LNER metals.   

I think this is understandable in the case of the Rivers or any similar-looking tank engine in the wake of Sevenoaks; a combination of the company’s knee-jerk immediate withdrawal of the class as unsafe and press attention on their poor riding reputation must have utterly destroyed passenger confidence in them.   As was shown om the GN main line with Maunsell and Gresley on the footplate there was not much wrong with them that couldn’t be attributed to the Dungeness ballast, and the Southern used Meldon granite after the accident. 
 

There was plenty of fast outer suburban work on the Southern, especially where the third rail had not yet penetrated, but Maunsell never had the backing from the board for them; I understand the reluctance, and as money got tight in the 30’s electrification dominated.  Bullied never got a 2-6-4T off the board either, though one of his would have looked nothing like a River…

 

BR immediately provided Brighton with orders for LMS Fairbairns as soon as they took control, memory of the carnage at Sevenoaks having faded a little perhaps, and Brighton was responsible for the successful Standard 4MT version.  

[Wickham Green too]

32 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

... BR immediately provided Brighton with orders for LMS Fairbairns as soon as they took control, memory of the carnage at Sevenoaks having faded a little perhaps, and Brighton was responsible for the successful Standard 4MT version.  

Not quite immediately - 42198/9 ran trial in the spring of 1948 but production of their brethren at Brighton didn't start for a couple of years. What DIDN'T happen - though expected at the time - was a similar trial of LNER L1s .... clearly there was no real aversion to 2-6-4Ts - just to Maunsell 2-6-4Ts !

[No Decorum]

As I understand it, Rivers had derailed before the fatal accident but nothing was done about it until people were killed. If notice had been taken in time, perhaps something as simple as redesigned baffleplates in the tanks would have solved the problem.

[Wickham Green too]

Redesigned baffle plates would not have rectified the fundamentally flawed Dungeness ( apology for ) ballast.

 

Notice WAS taken of riding problems and the second batch of locos were built with flat rather than hemispherical bogie & pony truck centres, with laminated rather than helical springs and with the side steadying pony truck springs further apart ( modifications being applied to the earlier locos ) : according to C.E.J.Fryers "The Rolling Rivers" "... on the face of it, it should have been this batch which caused less trouble than the first: in fact it was the other way round, which rather suggests that the tendency to roll was not primarily due to the design of the engine but to some extraneous cause or causes."