roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Apr 4, 2009 10:41:55 GMT
Carrying on from the earlier thread which now appears to be locked, don't forget the Waterloo & City stock, built 1942/43 ish only had Westinghouse brakes, and control equipment similar to that fitted to standard stock.
Surprisingly, it wasn't even similar to the control equipment fitted to the Bullied designed 4-SUB units which were built around the same time.
I know the early tube and Q stock had A type ep brakes and 38TS etc had D type. what happened to B and C type EP brakes?
On a similar vien, the BTH diesel electric loco on the K&ESR has Underground 38TS style master contol units, with vac train brake and air brake for the loco!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 4, 2009 17:59:04 GMT
Did the 1940s stock ever get retro fitted with ep brakes like the standard stock?
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Apr 4, 2009 22:22:37 GMT
No, the W&C stock was Westinghouse to the last. Some of the redundant air brake equipment was, how shall we say, "requisitioned" some time before they were withdrawn for use on a presrevd railway that only uses Westinghouse brakes, but the less said the better. lol.
The Westinghouse on those trains was usually excellent. It was possible to stop on a sixpence, and at exactly the same place every time.
I was involved in filming the Dempsey and Makepeace episode on the W&C on the early 80's. The film director wanted me to stop the train "just there", which I did. I then backed out of the station and came in again and he was suprised that I stopped exactly in the same place. When I told him I did that 16 times a day, he was still quite amazed.
I managed to get a 16 hour sunday out of it, and 3 meals at the location unit in Threadneedle Street! No repeat appearance money from the repeats on UK Gold though.
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Apr 8, 2009 17:56:56 GMT
I know the early tube and Q stock had A type ep brakes and 38TS etc had D type. what happened to B and C type EP brakes? The B Type was fitted to the O Stock when new. This was non-self-lapping. I have a vague idea that when it was converted to self-lapping it became the BD type, or was that the original P Stock type? I need to look up my reference books but I am working and living in London during the week. I'll try to look it up over the weekend. I never saw what the C Type was.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Apr 8, 2009 18:53:07 GMT
This may add to the confusion or it may help: I have in my hot and stickies a Westinghouse publication: 'Self Lapping Interlocked Electro-Pneumatic Brake Equipment with Retardation Control'. I've not got many of my westinghouse bits with me (they are predominantly signalling based) so I can't work out exactly which iteration of the EP brakes this refers to, apart from: - Catalogue is printing reference 1939/2M.1046/2M.0148/2M.0149 (which looks suspiciously like a 55, Broadway typing pool code, rather than a Westinghouse reference).
- Catalogue has reference EP 4 and covers
- Brake Controller type 'D'
- Reducing Valve type C. 6. C.
- Contactor Unit, style 'A'
- EP Brake Unit, Type F2
- Safety Valve Type E1
- Trip Valve, Type D.R. 2
- I'm pretty sure the large fold out wiring diagram at the back is for '38 stock
I think Westinghouse were almost pathologically obsessive in labelling their components, and the order in which revision had been made. Catalogue is the fourth edition, because it is the 4th type of EP brake controller - 'D', third type of reducing valve, 6th revision. This doesn't always hold true - often the reference letter is the initial letter for something (and you have to try and work out what on earth it is referring to); in this catalogue the retardation controller is referred to as 'Type LT' (wot a surprise!). Revisions to equipment not printed in the catalogue are covered by bulletins - I know I've got a couple (somewhere) on the Quick Acting Triple Valve (which is only glossed over in this publication, a curious omission). Anyhow, make of this what you will. ;D
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 8, 2009 20:49:35 GMT
Wasn't the self lapping brake introduced on the O and P stock?
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Apr 10, 2009 20:47:05 GMT
Type D was introduced on the 38 Stock. The O Stock originally did not have self-lapping brakes. The P Stock did I think but I am away from my library at the moment.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 10, 2009 23:13:22 GMT
That sounds ok actually, I think the first O stock damaged when it hit a tank engine near Farringdon was rebuilt with P stock controls.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Apr 10, 2009 23:59:25 GMT
*Interest Piqued* I guess that this was on the Circle proper, as the CWL was de-juiced in '35 and O stock didn't come in until '37?
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Apr 11, 2009 11:21:23 GMT
This was the accident at Farringdon on 1st May 1939 when a GWR tank locomotive crossed from the outer rail across the inner rail to get to the up CWR line. While it was doing this, a 3-car O Stock H & C train started up against the starting signal, which was on. There was a collision at about 15mph. Although the tripcock operated, the overlap was too short to prevent a collision.
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Apr 11, 2009 11:27:35 GMT
Wasn't the self lapping brake introduced on the O and P stock? Checking my library, I found that the O Stock was delivered with type B non-self-lapping brake controllers, whilst P Stock had self-lapping controllers. The O Stock controllers were converted to type BD during 1951-2 (before the Metadynes were removed) so that they then also had self-lapping brake controllers.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 11, 2009 18:40:50 GMT
This was the accident at Farringdon on 1st May 1939 when a GWR tank locomotive crossed from the outer rail across the inner rail to get to the up CWR line. While it was doing this, a 3-car O Stock H & C train started up against the starting signal, which was on. There was a collision at about 15mph. Although the tripcock operated, the overlap was too short to prevent a collision. Three car operation must have ceased not long after this, as there was only one compressor per 3 cars.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 11, 2009 22:13:08 GMT
Would it not depend on how the train was formed? Such as E-E-W or E-W-W?
At least theres an historical precident for Quaintons 3 car set then!
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Apr 11, 2009 22:44:35 GMT
Didn't O/P stocks have a unit bus line so it didn't matter which shoes were on current?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 12, 2009 16:01:28 GMT
The D end motor car carried the compressor rather than the trailers, I guess because the trailers were an afterthought. The aim was to reduce train failures by having 2+ comps per train. This is why standard stock stopped running in 3 car trains (M-T-CT except on the GN&C) and why uncoupling was stopped on the T stock so all trains were M-T-T-DT+DT-T-T-M or M-T-DT+DT-T-M.
Think the O/P stock had a busline, but not between different units.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2009 16:35:03 GMT
The D end motor car carried the compressor rather than the trailers, I guess because the trailers were an afterthought. Think the O/P stock had a busline, but not between different units. AIUI the O/P stock was all built on the basis that 'all motor' trains were a future possibility - the trailers being built for easy conversion to motors. A pair of motors (A+D) had only one metadyne machine between them, so a bus line connection would have been necessary.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Apr 14, 2009 18:09:50 GMT
No I meant a unit bus line not a train bus line,it was needed as if the car with the compressor was in the middle on a shed road there would be no feed to it otherwise.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 14, 2009 23:02:42 GMT
When the CO/CP stock was converted in 1958-65 there was no connection between the units only between the cars of the 2 or 3 cars in the unit. The new PCM controlled the two motors per car on each car but there was not line voltage connection between sets, if I understand what I read!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 23:18:06 GMT
A pair of motors (A+D) had only one metadyne machine between them, so a bus line connection would have been necessary. By which I meant a bus line between the pair of motors, i.e. within the (2/3 car) unit.
|
|