Jump to content
  • 0

GSWR Carriage Diagram Book 1924

Rate this question


jhb171achill
 Share

Question

A few snippets from the above outline diagram book. These include ex-W & L stock, and the RPSI's twelve-wheeler, No.861.

 

It's interesting to note the internal layout of many of these vehicles, including six wheelers with internal (but not through) side corridors, and other non-corridor stock with access to toilets from central compartments only. The RPSI's No. 1142 is among this lot too.

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

More will be added to this by degrees.

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

More.... any requests for anything else in the index page?

 

image.jpg

Edited by jhb171achill
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

It actually does, Jawfin. WELL SPOTTED! I never noticed that before. Prevailing wisdom is that the preserved 1097 was built in 1924 (under GSWR) and entered traffic in very early 1925 (now as a GSR vehicle).

 

It's listed in the diagram book as 52ft. I don't think the RPSI / DCDR one is 52ft - I think it's 56 or 60ft.

 

This opens a can of worms! If the preserved one is longer, as I suspect, then it has taken the number of the 1911 built one - why? If the preserved one actually IS the one in the book, look at the different layout for one thing, and more importantly WHY is it generally taken as having been built in 1924???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
It actually does, Jawfin. WELL SPOTTED! I never noticed that before. Prevailing wisdom is that the preserved 1097 was built in 1924 (under GSWR) and entered traffic in very early 1925 (now as a GSR vehicle).

 

It's listed in the diagram book as 52ft. I don't think the RPSI / DCDR one is 52ft - I think it's 56 or 60ft.

 

This opens a can of worms! If the preserved one is longer, as I suspect, then it has taken the number of the 1911 built one - why? If the preserved one actually IS the one in the book, look at the different layout for one thing, and more importantly WHY is it generally taken as having been built in 1924???????

 

A mystery! To the Turf burner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Brendan Pender and Herbert Richards’ book ‘GSWR Carriage Diagrams’ (Transport Research Associates 1975) makes no mention of a vehicle numbered 1097. It does contain diagrams for 1096 and for 1098/99. However, these carriages fall into two distinct types.

 

No. 1096 (on page 51) is shown as a 1924-built, 52’ 0” long tri-composite with 12 first and 16 second class seats, both in compartments, and 24 third class seats in an open saloon. This carriage has gangways at both ends.

 

Nos. 1098 and 1099 (on page 23) are shown as 1911-built, 52’ 0” long tri-composite with 12 first and 17 second and 24 third class seats, all in compartments. These carriages do not have gangways at either end and appear to be identical to to ones shown on page 1 of this thread.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This book I'm using is from 1924.

 

The possibility is therefore that 1097 is a very heavy rebuild of a 1911 built coach, which was in progress at time of preparation of the earlier book.

 

I've a bit more delving to do, but it appears that Jawfin has unearthed in two seconds something which has been sitting under my nose for years and years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
hmm...interesting.. What I find more interesting however is the inside cylindered 4-6-0 if never heard of! What's goin on?

 

The 362 Class 4-6-0s or Long Toms built in 1905 were an attempt to overcome the problem with excessive weight with the 355 Class 0-6-0s built two years earlier.

 

The Long Toms were considered to be a failure, the bogie tended to derail and they had a reputation of rough riding.

 

The GSWR settled on inside cylinder 2-6-0 wheel arrangement including the rebuilding of the 355 class as 2-6-0s until the building of the 500 Class outside cylinder 4-6-0s locos that were state of the art by the standards of the 1920s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
The 362 Class 4-6-0s or Long Toms built in 1905 were an attempt to overcome the problem with excessive weight with the 355 Class 0-6-0s built two years earlier.

 

The Long Toms were considered to be a failure, the bogie tended to derail and they had a reputation of rough riding.

 

The GSWR settled on inside cylinder 2-6-0 wheel arrangement including the rebuilding of the 355 class as 2-6-0s until the building of the 500 Class outside cylinder 4-6-0s locos that were state of the art by the standards of the 1920s.

Wow,that's very interesting. Maybe that's why the GNR considered a 4-6-0 around the same time. Were they inchicorised? Belpaire firebox,snap head rivets or were the neglected? Also how many were built? Sorry bout all the questions but I'm very interested in this. And I had thought the 400s we're the first Irish 4-6-0s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Harry

 

Funny enough how taste and perception changes, at one time I though the Inchacore styling of the GSR era was the bees-knees, but now I prefer the combination of power and elegance of the Coey-Maunsell era and big 4-4-0s with tapered round top boilers nothing like them in Ireland or the UK.

 

Any to the Long Toms there were 6 supposedly nicknamed after a Boer artillery piece used in the Second Boer War, co-incidentally the GNR 0-8-0 of the same era built under Henry Ivatt, Robert Coey and Richard Maunsell's former boss at Inchacore were also nicknamed long Toms.

 

The Coey locos seem to have had more in common appearance wise with Crew than Doncaster in design, though mechanically the Irish locos were totally different and in certain respects more modern

 

362-367 were designed for heavy goods work, the 4-6-0s appear to have shared common parts including wheels, motion and possibly firebox with the 355 & 368 Class inside cylinder 2-6-0s. The wheels were the same size as the J15 or 101 so not really suitable for mixed traffic work.

 

Its to the Coey and Maunsells credit that they quickly rebuilt the 355 Class into an inside cylinder 2-6-0 and followed up with the 368 Class rather than inflict more 4-6-0s on the operating department.

 

The GSWR & GNR (England) Long Toms seem to have been nicknamed after a Boers artillery piece in the Second Boer War.

The Long Toms were built during an era when the majority of British engineers were struggling to design a 4-6-0 that would work, it says a lot about the calibre of management in the Coey-Maunsell era that they quickly developed the inside cylinder 2-6-0 rather than build more 362 Class 4-6-0s on the operating Department once the problems with poor tracking and rough riding were identified.

 

1948 CIE Running Dept assessment of the 355 & 368 inside cylinder 2-6-0s

“Very useful heavy goods engine, powerful and with a low axleload enabling them to be worked over many lines. A type that should have been developed”.

 

The 500 Class 4-6-0s Woolwich Moguls appear to have made the 362 Class 4-6-0s and some of the 355 & 368 Class 2-6-0s redundant. The GSR had a surplus of heavy goods locos, and it would have been difficult to justify re-building the 362s while scrapping similar locomotives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

Any to the Long Toms there were 6 supposedly nicknamed after a Boer artillery piece used in the Second Boer War, co-incidentally the GNR 0-8-0 of the same era built under Henry Ivatt, Robert Coey and Richard Maunsell's former boss at Inchacore were also nicknamed long Toms.

 

 

'Supposedly', would doubt the Irish locos had that nickname applied. Perhaps the railway industry technical press or enthusiasts called them that, there is a marked near-absense of nicknames used to describe loco classes in Ireland compared to Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have to say I never heard the nickname "Long Tom" applied to anything Inchicore...... as mentioned above, nicknames were few there (or York Road or Dundalk) compared to Britain.

 

Inchicore men invariably referred to locos as the 101 class, 530 class, 400 class, 60 class and so on. They rarely (if ever) even used the GSR designations such as B1a, D17 or J15 in conversation....

 

An exception at Broadstone was No. 666, which attracted several highly uncimolimentary nicknames!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I have to say I never heard the nickname "Long Tom" applied to anything Inchicore...... as mentioned above, nicknames were few there (or York Road or Dundalk) compared to Britain.

 

Inchicore men invariably referred to locos as the 101 class, 530 class, 400 class, 60 class and so on. They rarely (if ever) even used the GSR designations such as B1a, D17 or J15 in conversation....

 

An exception at Broadstone was No. 666, which attracted several highly uncimolimentary nicknames!

 

The term "Long Toms" was used by both Drew Donaldson and Jack O'Neill in a "Decade of Steam" to describe the inside cylinder 4-6-0s. The term was also used by Jeremy Clements and Michael McMahon in GSR Locomotives.

 

Drew was likely to have met and Jack have worked with men that had fired or driven the 362 Class.

 

The Long Toms rode like buckling broncos and crews with dentures removed them before a trip. They had all gone by 1931 but not before they had broken the hearts and a few bones of the unfortunate crews that had to man them. The K3s and K4s, which had piston valves and a long sloping firebox, were easy to fire and light on coal. They were very powerful and had a good turn of speed, being used occasionally on the Cork-Rosslare Boat Trains Jack O’Neill “A Decade of Steam

 

While nicknames were probably rarer than the UK the NCC had it Whippets and Jeeps, CIE/IE Yanks and Yankee Engines individual GSWR/GSR/CIE Woolworth/Woolwich individual steam locos had nick names Waterford's Nelson & Three Little Ducks

Edited by Mayner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Some nicknames only appear in preservation or after closure, e.g. the "western rail corrior".... When in traffic I don't ever remember hearing 70 and 80 class railcars referred to as "thumpers"...

 

To go back to topic, I must look up drawings of whatever clerestory stuff the GSWR had which might have worked in railcar sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Harry

 

Funny enough how taste and perception changes, at one time I though the Inchacore styling of the GSR era was the bees-knees, but now I prefer the combination of power and elegance of the Coey-Maunsell era and big 4-4-0s with tapered round top boilers nothing like them in Ireland or the UK.

 

Any to the Long Toms there were 6 supposedly nicknamed after a Boer artillery piece used in the Second Boer War, co-incidentally the GNR 0-8-0 of the same era built under Henry Ivatt, Robert Coey and Richard Maunsell's former boss at Inchacore were also nicknamed long Toms.

 

The Coey locos seem to have had more in common appearance wise with Crew than Doncaster in design, though mechanically the Irish locos were totally different and in certain respects more modern

 

362-367 were designed for heavy goods work, the 4-6-0s appear to have shared common parts including wheels, motion and possibly firebox with the 355 & 368 Class inside cylinder 2-6-0s. The wheels were the same size as the J15 or 101 so not really suitable for mixed traffic work.

 

Its to the Coey and Maunsells credit that they quickly rebuilt the 355 Class into an inside cylinder 2-6-0 and followed up with the 368 Class rather than inflict more 4-6-0s on the operating department.

 

The GSWR & GNR (England) Long Toms seem to have been nicknamed after a Boers artillery piece in the Second Boer War.

The Long Toms were built during an era when the majority of British engineers were struggling to design a 4-6-0 that would work, it says a lot about the calibre of management in the Coey-Maunsell era that they quickly developed the inside cylinder 2-6-0 rather than build more 362 Class 4-6-0s on the operating Department once the problems with poor tracking and rough riding were identified.

 

1948 CIE Running Dept assessment of the 355 & 368 inside cylinder 2-6-0s

“Very useful heavy goods engine, powerful and with a low axleload enabling them to be worked over many lines. A type that should have been developed”.

 

The 500 Class 4-6-0s Woolwich Moguls appear to have made the 362 Class 4-6-0s and some of the 355 & 368 Class 2-6-0s redundant. The GSR had a surplus of heavy goods locos, and it would have been difficult to justify re-building the 362s while scrapping similar locomotives.

Absolutely fascinating! So these locomotives designed for freight workings? These would have been a very powerful locomotive at the time,possibly one of the largest in Europe? Such a shame they were all scrapped, they would have been a fascinating exhibit at Cultra! Would the 500s have been the first "successful" 4-6-0s? I have a feeling that the GWR will get involved in this conversation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Absolutely fascinating! So these locomotives designed for freight workings? These would have been a very powerful locomotive at the time,possibly one of the largest in Europe? Such a shame they were all scrapped, they would have been a fascinating exhibit at Cultra! Would the 500s have been the first "successful" 4-6-0s? I have a feeling that the GWR will get involved in this conversation..

 

Harry

 

It might be worth while taking out a subscription to New Irish Lines and getting a copy of "Great Southern Locomotives" Colourpoint Books http://www.colourpointbooks.co.uk/more_details.php?id=261.

 

 

The Nov 2014 and May 2015 issues of New Irish Lines included copies of GSWR/GSR weight diagrams for a number of classes including the 400s & 500.

 

It looks like the initial proposal for the 500 Class 4-6-0 was prepared under Watson in 1916, which puts the GSWR on an equal footing with the LSWR in terms of developing the modern British 2 cylinder mixed traffic 4-6-0.

 

The GSWR inside cylinder 4-6-0s were nothing exceptional by the standards of the time the LNWR had over 500 inside cylinder 4-6-0, the 170 19" goods built 1906-9 were close in terms of size and power to the Irish locos. A small number of 19' goods survived into early BR days, the majority of LNWR inside cylinder 4-6-0s were scrapped during the same time period as the Irish locos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It's at times like this I wish Bob Clements, Harry Montgomery and my grandfather were still about to ask questions to!

 

A main line layout featuring all the big Cork line stuff would be amazing. If there were 48 hours per day, nine days a week, and sleep was unnecessary, that would be my big project!

 

Such a set-up would feature Woolwiches, 400s, 500s and 800s, along with all manner of 0.6.0 and 4.4.0 types. The selection of carriages and wagons would be infinite - everything from 1870s ancient gas lit six-wheelers to modern "Bredins" and Pullman cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
It's at times like this I wish Bob Clements, Harry Montgomery and my grandfather were still about to ask questions to!

 

A main line layout featuring all the big Cork line stuff would be amazing. If there were 48 hours per day, nine days a week, and sleep was unnecessary, that would be my big project!

 

Such a set-up would feature Woolwiches, 400s, 500s and 800s, along with all manner of 0.6.0 and 4.4.0 types. The selection of carriages and wagons would be infinite - everything from 1870s ancient gas lit six-wheelers to modern "Bredins" and Pullman cars.

 

All that's needed is an Irish Pete Waterman and an army of craftsmen and women to turn the dream into reality. A Scale 7 Cork main line layout in an aircraft hanger would be something else.

 

I wonder does Bono or Dennis O'Brien like model trains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Or this; GSWR main line dining cars...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21690[/ATTACH]

 

AND THEY'RE ALL THE RIGHT WAY UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Gimme a medal.

 

Guinness, since you ask.

 

All I get is - "Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator".

 

..but, it is the right way up..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 12/15/2015 at 8:39 PM, Jawfin said:

Do you happen to have the drawings for 813, JB? Never managed to see a pic of it (although it apparently looks like 836)

Profuse apologies, Jawfin - I missed this at the time! 836 at Downpatrick is the same as 837 at Mullingar; I think just those two were built together.

813 was different, though of similar external "house style". I'll try and find a diagram tomorrow of both in original state.

4 hours ago, DiveController said:

Is there any possibility you could post up the pages on the parcel vans and the TPOs &tenders from that era please? @jhb171achill

Sure, DiveC, again I'll see what I can dig out tomorrow. However, from memory, they are very un-detailed diagrams - only very general outlines, and not 100% accurately to scale, I suspect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 11/27/2015 at 8:45 PM, josefstadt said:

Brendan Pender and Herbert Richards’ book ‘GSWR Carriage Diagrams’ (Transport Research Associates 1975) makes no mention of a vehicle numbered 1097. It does contain diagrams for 1096 and for 1098/99.

1097 replaced 346 in 1957 as an ambulance coach and was renumbered AM12 in 1965 hence is not mentioned in Pender & Richards book of 1975. Credit to  @BSGSV on another tread on this forum ( I just spotted the info and remembered this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use