Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 19:44:33 GMT
I finally managed to obtain a copy of the book 'Workhorses of the London Underground' by J Graeme Bruce at the Acton show last weekend. Firstly, SUPERB book! However, reading it has posed a couple of questions. The book states that, of the 1938 built Battery locos Nos L35-L43, the Metadyne equiped locos were unable to work in multiple with the others. Would this also preclude them from working with a Ballast Motor? There is a picture in '"Standard" Tube Stock, A Photographic History By Brian Hardy. Part 2-1945 onwards' (LURS 1987) of an engineers train at Barons Court with a Battery Loco from the 1938 batch leading and a Ballast Motor (an ex 1923 MCCW example) on the rear. As a member of staff can be seen leaning out of the rear cab of the Ballast Motor with his hand on the brake handle would this mean that multiple working was not a requirement and two Drivers were used? Thanks in advance.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Mar 15, 2009 20:24:29 GMT
Were the battery locos still fitted with the metadyne equipment at this stage? The three equipments fitted were from the original experiments with the 6 cars of 1905 saloon stock in the 1930s.
Can't help otherwise, sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 20:34:23 GMT
I think they were. There is no mention of it having been removed. I believe that L43 was regarded as a bit of a 'pet' as it was the last of the Metadynes.
|
|
|
|
Post by locoken54 on Mar 25, 2009 15:02:50 GMT
I worked at Lillie Bridge in the 70's and all three Metadyne battery locos were still equipped as such whilst I was there. As far as I remember they were never worked in multiple with the other battery locos or ballast cars.
Also it wasn't unusual for two drivers to man an engineers train.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2009 23:21:45 GMT
Thanks for that. It avoids me making the sort of mistake that I am all too quick to pick up on other peoples BR layouts! These may be little snippets of info but they are vital to build the overall look and feel of a model. I am still 'feeling my way' with LT matters and I have yet to tackle such subjects as signalling and lineside equipment. The input from all of you is very welcome and appreciated. Thanks again.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 27, 2009 0:48:53 GMT
Were the metadynes favoured by crews? So many of the old guard smile at the thought of the O/P stock roaring past with the equipment, was (is) it similar with the battery locos?
|
|
|
|
Post by locoken54 on Apr 1, 2009 6:54:08 GMT
I must admit they were at the back of the queue when it came to being used due to their limited range when running on batteries. The metadyne drew quite a current without putting anything back in (unlike when they were originally fitted to the surface stock). They did sound nice - a bit like a quite jet engine. As for the crews, I can't speak for them, maybe they could chip in with their views.
|
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Apr 1, 2009 13:50:06 GMT
Ken, we probably know each other... I was the first ballast guard on the diesel link in preparation for the retirement of the tank loco..... and you're right, the metadynes were usually the last things to be put on a formation. I don't think any of the crews understood them apart from being only too aware of several tons of hardware spinning at goodness knows how many RPM. There was always the fear that the metadyne would get out of balance and throw itself (and us) clean out of the loco. The stock training I received was "thin" at best. I believe it was policy never to form up a train with a metadyne at each end - such was their unreliability. As for working in formation, I don't recall anything using inter-car jumpers with any success.
There was some strange lever in the cab of L43, any ideas what it was for?
|
|
|
|
Post by locoken54 on Apr 1, 2009 18:01:22 GMT
We probably do.... I was a Car Examiner with the likes of Geordie, Charlie and Fl**ry and often rode in the cab of the Sentinal to have a chat and pass the day.
I must admit we rarely electronically jumpered loco's - most times they were just main line/train line air connections.
As for the strange lever, I honestly can't remember (it was over thirty years ago!). But I remember it used to take ages for the metadyne to spin up from switching on until you got drive.
|
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Apr 2, 2009 15:17:54 GMT
I do reacall Fleary and Geordie... the names at least. As you say, it was a lifetime ago. I'd forgotten about the need to spin up the metadyne before anything else could happen. Funny thing is that formula One cars have a similar device this season. Nothing much new is there.
Was it ever decided as to who actually burnt down the old wooden shunters' cabin (the one next to the shunting plunger on the "electric" side)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2009 15:46:17 GMT
I presume then that a train formed with a Battery Loco one end and a Ballast Motor the other would have two Drivers and, as such, could be formed of any Battery Loco that happened to be available? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by locoken54 on Apr 2, 2009 17:37:57 GMT
Correct, and, as is common with 2 battery locos that are not in multiple, 2 drivers driving, the one in the rear vehicle watching the gauges and reacting to the train line loss as the signal to power off.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Apr 2, 2009 18:21:42 GMT
The only time I knew of battery loco hauled trains using inter car jumpers was for the Brixton extension work on the Victoria Line.Ballast motor trains were always in multiple working.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Apr 3, 2009 13:37:36 GMT
re battery locos in multiple. the tour of Gatwick express stock from richmond to barking and back to wimbledon used two in multiple with a made-up long connecting jumper threaded along the coaches
|
|
