mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 6, 2008 17:23:54 GMT
Right then, the scanner is now gobbling through a pile of stuff related to 1952. I'll add more links in this post as the images are processed: First page of TC 19, first supplement 1952 second and third pages. This TC is germane to you, TP as it covers some changes between Q and R stock. 1952 must have been a year of a few changes, not only with the reintroduction of uncoupling on the Piccadilly, but also the R stock appearing on the District. Sundays: District and Piccadilly WTT 68 25/5/52 (Sundays) Depot WorkingDistrict and Piccadilly WTT 68 25/5/52 (Sundays) Rolling Stock WorkingMet No1 WTT 136 30/6/52 RS Working SundaysMet No2 WTT 139 30/6/52 RS Working SundaysSaturdays (Met No1 and 2 only), Diz and Pick cover both SE and SO: Met No1 WTT 136 30/6/52 RS Working SaturdaysMet No2 WTT 139 30/6/52 RS Working SaturdaysWeekdays (Mon - Fri Met; Mon - Sat District): Met No1 WTT 136 30/6/52 RS Working Mon - FriMet No2 WTT 139 30/6/52 RS Working Mon - FriDistrict WTT 67 19/5/52 Upminster RS WorkingDistrict WTT 67 19/5/52 Dagenham E and Barking RS WorkingDistrict WTT 67 19/5/52 Little Ilford RS Working Note the note. District WTT 67 19/5/52 Plaistow (Bay), Whitechapel, Cromwell and Triangle, HSK, South Ken RS WorkingDistrict WTT 67 19/5/52 Parsons Green, Ealing Brodway RS WorkingDistrict WTT 67 19/5/52 Acton Town Yard, Northfields, Ealing Common Depot (Part 1) RS WorkingDistrict WTT 67 19/5/52 Ealing Common (Part 2) and HammersmithI think I'll do the 1947 District in a couple of days. ;D |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 6, 2008 19:16:20 GMT
I know that this if off-top but I have always been fascinated by the >October 1939 District Ealing Bdy>Barking>Southend line services. Is there any TT evidence as to when they ran please?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 6, 2008 19:41:03 GMT
I've got plenty of Southend stuff buried in the District timetables, but not particuarly that time of year.
Are you expressly interested in Oct '39 - I've got May '39 in my hot and stickies now.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 6, 2008 20:15:57 GMT
Let you hot & stickies do the walkin' please! My mum said that when they lived in South Ealing they caught the train out east at least once. Grandad worked as a p/way engineer so must have had a priv for the family. I would like to know what the uncoupling arrangements were at Barking...was it rather like Ricky?
I mentione dup to October '39 as that's when the service ended. You never seem to see much about the DR locos it seems.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 6, 2008 20:24:51 GMT
Give me a day or so - I should be able to extract at least a summary, if you want. Can't help with the off-District stuff though, but I can give you the times as far as Barking - check in Harsig's post for the diagram of Barking clickety-click toot sweet for a serving suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 7, 2008 7:23:10 GMT
I mentione dup to October '39 as that's when the service ended. You never seem to see much about the DR locos it seems. The RS Working pages already posted by mrfs42 show the locos going out of and into depots. They are always in pairs. One of the areas of research for my DR RS articles will be why they ordered 10 locos to operate in pairs. I suspect they wanted to use bog standard BTH traction and GE 69 motors in A type motor bogies but 4 of these motors would not give enough power to haul LTS carriages up Bow Bank, the defining gradient (1:28) on the line. This pushes them to a 2-loco solution. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 9, 2008 11:44:58 GMT
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 9, 2008 14:12:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 9, 2008 17:17:56 GMT
Excellent stuff as usual mrfs. Interesting that P Stock appears as P Stock not D for "Metadyne". The lettering system was not universal until towards the end of WWII, I think.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 13, 2008 20:48:20 GMT
Reading the railways archive brings some interesting facts. The 1938 O stock collision with a Pannier tank at Farringdon involved a 3 car train in passenger service.
Also there was a derailment at Edgware Road in 1950. The train involved was a Putney to Edgware Road train made of 5 cars with Westinghouse brakes - H stock?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 14, 2008 7:37:22 GMT
Reading the railways archive brings some interesting facts. The 1938 O stock collision with a Pannier tank at Farringdon involved a 3 car train in passenger service. Also there was a derailment at Edgware Road in 1950. The train involved was a Putney to Edgware Road train made of 5 cars with Westinghouse brakes - H stock? This was H Stock. However, 5-car working was unusual at this time. Trains were timetabled to be 4-, 6- or 8-cars. I suspect it should have been 6-car but they were a car short. Normally it would have been reduced from 6- to 4-cars at Parsons Green. In this case, they would either change it over or knock off the east end motor car to get the 4-car formation. They could do this in those days because the trains were easily uncoupled at any point along the train, unlike today, where you need a depot, a pit and an army of fitters to split a unit. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 14, 2008 8:43:41 GMT
I wonder what formation would have been run? M-M-T-T-M?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 15, 2008 13:46:21 GMT
I wonder what formation would have been run? M-M-T-T-M? Yes but the M-M would be at the east end. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 15, 2008 16:37:44 GMT
...because thats where the uncoupling normally was. So it would have been M-T-T-M+M then I guess?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 15, 2008 20:17:35 GMT
...because thats where the uncoupling normally was. So it would have been M-T-T-M+M then I guess? Correct. |
|
