|
|
Post by astock5000 on Dec 31, 2009 23:54:41 GMT
I know I said in the 38TS drawing thread that I wouldn't be doing any drawings of 'standard' stock yet, but I still can't get the cab of the class 378 drawing to look right, so I decided to do something different. 1923 Cammell Laird DM 3472 in London Transport red with cream window pillars (1940s - 50s) livery: i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm67/astock5000/1923CLDMPNG.png |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 3, 2010 22:21:22 GMT
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 3, 2010 23:28:54 GMT
Good stuff. You need to add opening toplights to the remaining windows and the trailing bogie showbeam is the wrong shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 3, 2010 23:59:49 GMT
Good stuff. You need to add opening toplights to the remaining windows and the trailing bogie showbeam is the wrong shape. There don't seem to be that many photos around of 1923 Cammell Laird DMs, and on a lot of them it is hard to see the opening windows, but there is a photo of one in "Standard tube stock part 2" that looks like the windows each side of the passenger doors do not have opening toplights. |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 10, 2010 8:01:44 GMT
Good stuff. You need to add opening toplights to the remaining windows and the trailing bogie showbeam is the wrong shape. There don't seem to be that many photos around of 1923 Cammell Laird DMs, and on a lot of them it is hard to see the opening windows, but there is a photo of one in "Standard tube stock part 2" that looks like the windows each side of the passenger doors do not have opening toplights. The 1923 Cammell Laird cars had droplights which opened a few inches but ISTR they were covered with glazed screens later to prevent passengers sticking their arms out of them. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 10, 2010 18:26:58 GMT
To my inexperienced eye the two cabs look identical internally. Is this correct, or did the "A" end and "D" end cabs differ in any way? What about those in the control trailers? (No doubt they would be quieter!)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 10, 2010 19:42:29 GMT
I'm no expert on standard stock but I'm learning more all the time. I believe the control trailers had a different type of handle to the DMs, they used a push button on top of the handle rather than the spring the other and later cars had.
The cab I guess would have been smaller in the CT than the DMs too.
I'm sure TP would be able to come up with better answers.
What is interesting is the huge number of different types and builders of the cars. There was probably a different car for each year, with cars built in 1922, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 34! No other fleet could boast such variety.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 10, 2010 20:41:39 GMT
I'm no expert on standard stock but I'm learning more all the time. I believe the control trailers had a different type of handle to the DMs, they used a push button on top of the handle rather than the spring the other and later cars had. The master controller type depended on the supplier. On the Standard Stock, there were three suppliers of traction kit: Met Vickers, GEC and BTH. The GEC ones had the deadman button. Regardless of the type of car, it was the supplier which dictated the different type of controller. The Standard Stock suppliers were required to make their equipment compatible. Thus, you could have a BTH controller at one end of the train and a GEC controller at the other end. Of course. I doubt it. Yup |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 10, 2010 23:21:54 GMT
Cabs would have been smaller in the CTs Why?
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by roythebus on Jan 10, 2010 23:26:20 GMT
Of course they were all different, that's why they were called "standard" stock!! Someone at LT may have had a sense of humour in those (pre-LT) days.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 10, 2010 23:26:47 GMT
The reason was because the Driver had all the equipment behind him and therefore part of the switch room space was also part of the cab.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Jan 11, 2010 2:16:04 GMT
Of course they were all different, that's why they were called "standard" stock!! Someone at LT may have had a sense of humour in those (pre-LT) days. I'm still wanting to find out what was standardized in all the varieties of this stock. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 11, 2010 8:13:37 GMT
I think Frank Pick's main aim was to have a standard train for all the tube lines. They looked the same and had a similar interior. Of course having a build period of 12 years will always produce some differences.
The three different batches, 1923-25 1926-1930 and 1931-1934 were eventually split up between the Central, Northern City and Piccadilly Lines. They weren't compatable for many years.
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jan 11, 2010 9:09:16 GMT
Weren't they also used on The Bakerloo?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 11, 2010 11:55:50 GMT
Of course they were all different, that's why they were called "standard" stock!! Someone at LT may have had a sense of humour in those (pre-LT) days. I'm still wanting to find out what was standardized in all the varieties of this stock. The trailer car wheel diameter.  |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 11, 2010 12:12:35 GMT
I think Frank Pick's main aim was to have a standard train for all the tube lines. They looked the same and had a similar interior. Of course having a build period of 12 years will always produce some differences. The three different batches, 1923-25 1926-1930 and 1931-1934 were eventually split up between the Central, Northern City and Piccadilly Lines. They weren't compatable for many years. In its day, the gate stock was referred to as "standard" stock, so as to differentiate between it and the later deliveries of 1914-20. When the first new cars were delivered for the Edgware extension and C & SLR replacement in 1924, they became the "new standard" stock. The various types were all built to the same standard but this varied with manufacturers and with time as improvements were introduced. The name was only normally used unofficially, since Underground stock was usually referred to by date and the "Standard Stock" was officially known as "Pre-1938 Tube Stock" after the Second World War. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2010 16:04:51 GMT
I smile every time I see the term 'Standard' stock applied to this particular variety of tube train because I've tried to model it..........
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 11, 2010 21:48:16 GMT
Yes, we're both looking forward to making our 1928 UCC cars!!
TP, weren't the 1905 B stock known as standard stock too?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 11, 2010 22:17:38 GMT
Yes, we're both looking forward to making our 1928 UCC cars!! TP, weren't the 1905 B stock known as standard stock too? Yes. Then, with the arrival of newer cars in the 20s, they were sometimes referred to as "old standard wooden cars" or a derivative of this. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 11, 2010 23:37:46 GMT
....and local stock too I think (mainly the unrefurbed cars I believe).
Did the gate stock have similar equipment and traction motors to the standard stock that replaced them I wonder?
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 12, 2010 0:12:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jan 12, 2010 7:24:13 GMT
....and local stock too I think (mainly the unrefurbed cars I believe). Did the gate stock have similar equipment and traction motors to the standard stock that replaced them I wonder? It was broadly similar electro-magnetic contactor equipment but newer. The Gate stock had 1905 type B T-H equipment, manual acceleration and 200hp GE69 motors. The Standard Stock had automatic acceleration and 240hp WT54 motors. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 18, 2010 23:53:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 29, 2010 0:07:38 GMT
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 29, 2010 8:27:04 GMT
Good stuff, all we need is an IoW trailer as lots of 1923CL trailers ended up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Feb 1, 2010 0:18:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Feb 28, 2010 21:21:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on May 24, 2010 22:19:11 GMT
1922 Metropolitan Carriage prototype trailer 822: i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm67/astock5000/1922METTPNG.pngGood stuff, all we need is an IoW trailer as lots of 1923CL trailers ended up there. I won't be doing any drawings in non-LT/TfL liveries as I am too busy, and because these drawings are part of a bigger project I'm working on, but I could upload plain white drawings if anyone wants to do some other liveries. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on May 25, 2010 13:02:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on May 27, 2010 23:34:50 GMT
|
|
