Mk 1 bogie preferences.

[randyrippley]

I was under that impression as well but was trying to think of another reason for it

Better engineering acceptance of, and better techniques of spraying asbestos cement???
Also cost - asbestos cement was cheap

 

[Grumpy]

As do Class 47s

And Hymeks

 

[Cowley]

And Hymeks

I must admit that I hadn’t ever thought that any of the locomotives mentioned had Commonwealth Bogies. I’d always just assumed that each manufacturer had their own ways of doing things.
Anyway it looks like the Metro-Vic Cobos also had them.

 

[hexagon789]

Better engineering acceptance of, and better techniques of spraying asbestos cement???
Also cost - asbestos cement was cheap

What did they use before asbestos?

 

[hexagon789]

And Hymeks

So they do, I never noticed! Though they've got a damper or something on the frames that makes them look a bit different.

 

[delt1c]

I think NBL 21's had a versionof the comonwealth

 

[randyrippley]

What did they use before asbestos?

presumably they didn't -older bodies were wood and steel.
Asbestos was a structural infill you could use as a replacement for wood, its fireproofing ability was secondary

 

[hexagon789]

presumably they didn't -older bodies were wood and steel.
Asbestos was a structural infill you could use as a replacement for wood, its fireproofing ability was secondary

So the earlier Mk1s just had a gap?

 

[AM9]

So the earlier Mk1s just had a gap?

ISTR that MKIs had some asbestos sprayed into the cavities to reduce the interior noise levels. This was extended in the bodies that were part of the BIC/CIGs.

 

[hexagon789]

ISTR that MKIs had some asbestos sprayed into the cavities to reduce the interior noise levels. This was extended in the bodies that were part of the BIC/CIGs.

Thanks but that presumably means that not all had that treatment.

It still begs the question why heritage lines swapped some of their Mk1s for later builds given the prohibitive cost of asbestos removal and the lack of a need for the later Commonwealth or even B4/5 bogie types

 

[randyrippley]

Thanks but that presumably means that not all had that treatment.

It still begs the question why heritage lines swapped some of their Mk1s for later builds given the prohibitive cost of asbestos removal and the lack of a need for the later Commonwealth or even B4/5 bogie types

presumbly newer ones were less corroded, and at guess it was partly to replace compartment stock with opens

 

[PaulC1309]

A few years ago I was involved in surveying 2 mk1 sleepers acquired by Bo'ness. These had sprayed blue asbestos on the underframe and also inside on the walls and ceilings behind the panelling. Both were dismantled and scrapped as the cost of removal and restoration was astronomical. Don't think I would've fancied travelling on one, scary! I believe it was mainly for acoustic insulation. I can't remember what bogies they had though.

 

[Alfie1014]

I agree that commonwealth bogies rode consistently well, though all course varied depending on how long since they had been last overhauled. Probably my worst riding experience was in a SR MkI TSO from one of the Oxted weekday loco hauled sets which were used on the summer Saturday Exeter - Brighton services. Hauled by a class 33 a friend and I were in the rearmost vehicle and as we went over Angmering level crossing at speed the ride was so rough we both thought we had almost derailed, so worried was my friend that he went to find the guard to report the rough ride. Suffice to say we made it Brighton safe and sound but I still remember it even now.

 

[dubscottie]

ISTR that MKIs had some asbestos sprayed into the cavities to reduce the interior noise levels. This was extended in the bodies that were part of the BIC/CIGs.

Blue asbestos was used as a sound insulation. Video of it being sprayed inside a Mk 1 sleeper here (16 min mark onwards).

 

[hexagon789]

presumbly newer ones were less corroded, and at guess it was partly to replace compartment stock with opens

I think the replacing compartment with open stock makes sense, certainly most heritage lines run mostly open coaches in their trains and I can see that being a reason.

 

[hexagon789]

A few years ago I was involved in surveying 2 mk1 sleepers acquired by Bo'ness. These had sprayed blue asbestos on the underframe and also inside on the walls and ceilings behind the panelling. Both were dismantled and scrapped as the cost of removal and restoration was astronomical. Don't think I would've fancied travelling on one, scary! I believe it was mainly for acoustic insulation. I can't remember what bogies they had though.

Could've been mk1s or Commonwealths, I think they started with the asbestos spraying in the 1950s as opposed to towards the end of Mk1 construction from what I've managed to find out about the use of asbestos in Mk1s.

 

[kjsway]

Can't say that I have a favourite (going back to the original question), but I vaguely recall being in compartment stock in the early 80s which was alarmingly hunting from side to side at speed between Taunton and Bristol.

Does anyone have knowledge of what bogie maintenance was done back then, and how often? Did parts break or need replacement? Did bearings or surfaces need oiling? How often were brake blocks changed?

Id like to see some detailed drawings or photos, to understand how suspension worked in a general sense.
Too many questions. Sorry!

 

[hexagon789]

Can't say that I have a favourite (going back to the original question), but I vaguely recall being in compartment stock in the early 80s which was alarmingly hunting from side to side at speed between Taunton and Bristol.

Does anyone have knowledge of what bogie maintenance was done back then, and how often? Did parts break or need replacement? Did bearings or surfaces need oiling? How often were brake blocks changed?

Id like to see some detailed drawings or photos, to understand how suspension worked in a general sense.
Too many questions. Sorry!

The issues with the Mark 1 bogies was down to the tyre profile wearing down. The bogies were nominally cleared for 100mph but this issue with the tyres wearing causing hunting at speed saw a 90mph restriction imposed without special maintenance.

I'm not sure what the last Mk1-bogied Mk1s plated for 100 with special maintenance were but the Western Region had some 100mph rated BGs on Mk1 bogies in the early 1970s, these ran in both the 90mph timed West Country and 100mph timed Bristol/South Wales trains.

 

[Helvellyn]

Regarding asbestos I think it was used in certain types quite extensively (e.g. Mark 1 Sleepers) but also in one of the most hazardous forms in some of the very last Mark 1s and early Mark 2s.

That is why the very last built CKs, SKs and TSOs (which seem to have gone to the Eastern Region) were withdrawn by the mid-1980s due to BR's deadline for eliminating asbestos stock. The few escapees seem to be the odd coach that had it removed or those converted to augment the Class 309s in three batches.

Some of the first Mark 2s fell into this category. For example, when the Mark 2 Pullmans were withdrawn in 1985 only ten went into charter use because the rest had been sprayed with asbestos. Many FKs were treated as well as many of the 50xx Mark 2 TSOs. I think the Harris book has details on where the cessation of asbestos stopped for each Mark 2 type.

It is also why the last built 2-HAPs were condemned because although fitted with Commonwealth trailers bogies they had been heavily sprayed with asbestos.

With regards heritage railways, the early Mark 1s would be what was initially available as BR generally withdrew older stock. The advantages of late build stock as it became surplus would likely include better build quality (lessons learnt over a twelve year build period), thus in theory reduced corrosion weak points (e.g. window frames) but also a greater chance the stick had been refurbished/facelifted by one of the sectors plus probably easier to maintain the interior with the use of metal interior window frames and melamine panelling as opposed to lots and lots of wood. Yes it has atmosphere, but that is a lot of joints to maintain, sanding and refurbishing, etc.

It is probably a bit like aircraft where incremental improvements over the years gradually extend range and service life whilst hopefully simplifying maintenance as lessons from in service use are fed back to the manufacturer. There are a few 1989/1990 built Airbus A320s still in service but compare it to one built in 2015 to the same model specifications and whilst it is still an A320 there are lots of differences.

With hindsight when Commonwealth bogies, metal window frames, melamine panelling and revised ceiling panels in open saloon started to be applied around 1959/60 maybe BR should have designated such coaches Mark 1A. The Platform 5 books would call out where in each type these improvements kicked in. Obviously I am comparing to the Mark 2 where improvements saw an increment to the Mark designation seven times in less than a decade whereas over twelve years a Mark 1 was a Mark 1 (and for NPCCS vehicles new build TPO vehicles were still being built at York alongside the Mark 1 style EMUs into the early 1970s).

 

[edwin_m]

With hindsight when Commonwealth bogies, metal window frames, melamine panelling and revised ceiling panels in open saloon started to be applied around 1959/60 maybe BR should have designated such coaches Mark 1A. The Platform 5 books would call out where in each type these improvements kicked in. Obviously I am comparing to the Mark 2 where improvements saw an increment to the Mark designation seven times in less than a decade whereas over twelve years a Mark 1 was a Mark 1 (and for NPCCS vehicles new build TPO vehicles were still being built at York alongside the Mark 1 style EMUs into the early 1970s).

I'd agree but only up to a point. All the Mk1s were compatible with each other as built, except that some had dual heating and others just had steam. So maybe the dual-heated ones could have been designated Mk1A but I think they were various batches during the production rather than going over exclusively to dual heating on a particular date. The other distinction was maximum speed, but all were built as 100mph vehicles and some of the ones downgraded were later restored to 100mph running by replacement of bogies or special maintenance regimes.

By contrast the Mk2 series had two major operational incompatibilities as built, the change to air brakes at Mk2a and to electric only heating (with air conditioning) at Mk2d. There was also the operational complication that some air-conditioned versions couldn't be powered by Deltics or 47401-420 so had to be kept well away from the Eastern.

 

[Taunton]

By contrast the Mk2 series had two major operational incompatibilities as built, the change to air brakes at Mk2a and to electric only heating (with air conditioning) at Mk2d.

Actually after the last steam locos went in 1967 the Southern Region changed over all their allocated Mk 1 stock to this, air brakes (only) and ETH (only), thus making them incompatible with Mk 1 from other regions. I suspect they would have liked to paint them green as well! This stock, used on Oxted line peak services, Southampton boat trains, and the relatively few other loco hauled trains they had, suited their Class 33 and electric locos, which never had steam heat capability from the start. The principal remaining loco hauled service on the Southern in the 1960s-70s, Waterloo to Exeter, had not only its Warship locos (vacuum brake non-ETH) but also the carriages supplied by the WR. When it changed over to Class 33, all the stock, still Mk 1, had to be changed over as well to air brake ETH.

Presumably none of the Mk 1 stock on the Bluebell or Watercress etc therefore come from SR stock.

 

[delt1c]

Actually after the last steam locos went in 1967 the Southern Region changed over all their allocated Mk 1 stock to this, air brakes (only) and ETH (only), thus making them incompatible with Mk 1 from other regions. I suspect they would have liked to paint them green as well! This stock, used on Oxted line peak services, Southampton boat trains, and the relatively few other loco hauled trains they had, suited their Class 33 and electric locos, which never had steam heat capability from the start. The principal remaining loco hauled service on the Southern in the 1960s-70s, Waterloo to Exeter, had not only its Warship locos (vacuum brake non-ETH) but also the carriages supplied by the WR. When it changed over to Class 33, all the stock, still Mk 1, had to be changed over as well to air brake ETH.

Presumably none of the Mk 1 stock on the Bluebell or Watercress etc therefore come from SR stock.

Only made them incompatible with Vacum brake , steam heat Mk 1’s. They could still work with Dual brakes dual heat stock from other regions.

 

[hexagon789]

There was also the operational complication that some air-conditioned versions couldn't be powered by Deltics or 47401-420 so had to be kept well away from the Eastern.

It wasn't the coaches that were the issue with that but the locos. The ETH produced by 47/4 "Generators" and 55s varied in voltage depending on throttle position. This caused the Motor Alternators in Mk2Ds and 2Es to trip out.

Mk2F vehicles have the superior MA Mk3 coaches have so we're unaffected. Certain Mk2D received modified MAs to work with Deltics and the 55s themselves had alterations made to the throttle control to allow for a less fluctuating ETH output.

 

[AM9]

The issues with the Mark 1 bogies was down to the tyre profile wearing down. The bogies were nominally cleared for 100mph but this issue with the tyres wearing causing hunting at speed saw a 90mph restriction imposed without special maintenance.

I'm not sure what the last Mk1-bogied Mk1s plated for 100 with special maintenance were but the Western Region had some 100mph rated BGs on Mk1 bogies in the early 1970s, these ran in both the 90mph timed West Country and 100mph timed Bristol/South Wales trains.

I remember that the 309s were test beds for new wheel profiles that were designed to reduce hunting even when worn, so with the onset of much 100mph running in the '60s, the Commonwealth bogie with the new profiles may have been a preferred configuration. I presume that the B4 bogies were also compatible with the new profiles.

 

[43096]

It wasn't the coaches that were the issue with that but the locos. The ETH produced by 47/4 "Generators" and 55s varied in voltage depending on throttle position. This caused the Motor Alternators in Mk2Ds and 2Es to trip out.

Mk2F vehicles have the superior MA Mk3 coaches have so we're unaffected. Certain Mk2D received modified MAs to work with Deltics and the 55s themselves had alterations made to the throttle control to allow for a less fluctuating ETH output.

Although if I had any Mark 2D/E/F or Mark 3 loco-hauled stock, I wouldn't be letting a "Generator" or (particularly) a "Deltic" anywhere near the stock's ETH jumper cables.

 

[randyrippley]

Only made them incompatible with Vacum brake , steam heat Mk 1’s. They could still work with Dual brakes dual heat stock from other regions.

not so sure about that ..... the Waterloo-Exeter sets all carried a plaque saying "only to be used between Waterloo and Exeter"
There must have been something else restricting them

 

[Taunton]

not so sure about that ..... the Waterloo-Exeter sets all carried a plaque saying "only to be used between Waterloo and Exeter"

Was that not to stop them being sent out on AB/ETH work from Waterloo? I also think these sets were dual heat, so if a 33 needed to take over the diagram, it wasn't an issue. Once all was changed over to 33/AB, the reverse applied, you would not want Exeter accidentally marshalling them into a normal WR set.

One of the saving graces was most of the oddball excursions etc that ran into SR territory were in the summer, when heating was not required.

Only made them incompatible with Vacuum brake , steam heat Mk 1’s. They could still work with Dual brakes dual heat stock from other regions.

But there was virtually no dual braked stock (unlike locos). It's a real challenge to install, from insufficient space under the frame for both vacuum and air chambers, to the complex rigging required to say get the brake off with vacuum when air has applied it. There's also the chance of connecting it up air at one end but vacuum at the other.

 

[delt1c]

not so sure about that ..... the Waterloo-Exeter sets all carried a plaque saying "only to be used between Waterloo and Exeter"
There must have been something else restricting them

A long of stock carried such stickers in the 70’s and 80’s , it was to avoid them straying. The Mk2’s for Edinburgh Glasgow push pull carried such stickers, then after they were replaced and sent to Eastern region many still retained these stickers. Likewise many Vans were also in theory dedicated to certain routes but could turn up anywhere ( and did) on the network

 

[hexagon789]

Although if I had any Mark 2D/E/F or Mark 3 loco-hauled stock, I wouldn't be letting a "Generator" or (particularly) a "Deltic" anywhere near the stock's ETH jumper cables.

I thought Mk2F and Mk3 (along with suitably treated 2D) weren't and issue for Deltics? Certainly the Scottish Region used a Deltic to run a trip to Oban and back in the early '80s that used a Mk3 Push-pull set and a Deltic was chosen because it was the only ETH-fitted loco that had a low enough RA for the Oban line, 47s being too heavy and the 37/4 conversions now having been done yet.

 

[dubscottie]

From what I can recall, the Deltic to Oban had the engine next to the coaches running on idle to supply ETH only and the other was used for traction, one engine being enough to shift 6 coaches.
There is a pic on Flickr of a Deltic on MK3 stock at York and the ETH connections seem to be plugged in also.