Class 121

[DiveController]

John, @Mayner

What's your reference for older pre-CIE or pre-GSR stock I have a few books on the GSWR etc but very hard to find a reference for rolling stock as opposed to the locos themselves? 

Thanks

[Mayner]

"GSWR Carriage Diagrams" by H Richards &  B Pender a 1975 Transport Research Associates re-print of the 1924 GSWR Carriage Diagram Book. The late Padraig O'Cuimin published IRRS Journal papers on MGWR wagon and coaching stock in the early 1970s.

I understand that hard and digital copies of some drawings are available from the IRRS http://irishrailarchives.ie/index.php/archives/maps_drawings/

[BSGSV]

On 4/20/2019 at 2:49 AM, Mayner said:

The TPOs a bit of a puzzle. The majority of GSWR and MGWR 6w and bogie TPOs had been officially withdrawn from service before the B121 Class entered service.

Van appears to be a bogie rather than a 6w van (4 axleboxes showing) with GSWR rather than MGWR design features, including roof profile, gas lighting, window profile and continuous lower foot boards.

Looks very close to 245 a 45' GSWR TPO built in 1900 officially withdrawn in 1959 .

Van appears to be in good cosmetic condition painted in the late 50s green with single eau-de-nil stripe paint scheme.

A pair of  GSWR built TPOs survived into the 1960s these were longer more modern looking vehicles with elliptical roofs completely unlike the van in the Athenry  photo

Its just about possible that GSWR TPO was "cascaded" from the Southern on to the Midland to replace a more modern ex-MGWR TPO as Inchacore rolled out its first batch of Laminate TPOs in 1959.

 

I would suspect it is one of 2952-4, converted from GSW 45' non-corridor, gas lit carriages in 1950. They retained the gas lighting and lack of corridors. These were allocated to the Galway Night Mails in the 1950's, two working, one spare, which also probably covered for 1M on the Day Mail. Like you, I am surprised to see one still about with a 121 class., given the 17 "Silver" CIE built TPO's were about by this time. 

Apologies if I have distracted from the 121 thread again!

Edited April 22, 2019 by BSGSV

[Mayner]

12 hours ago, BSGSV said:

I would suspect it is one of 2952-4, converted from GSW 45' non-corridor, gas lit carriages in 1950. They retained the gas lighting and lack of corridors. These were allocated to the Galway Night Mails in the 1950's, two working, one spare, which also probably covered for 1M on the Day Mail. Like you, I am surprised to see one still about with a 121 class., given the 17 "Silver" CIE built TPO's were about by this time. 

Apologies if I have distracted from the 121 thread again!

2954 is just about visible at the right hand end of the coach in the photo.

I did not realise that CIE carried out such major conversions of relatively elderly GSWR coaching stock into the 1950s.

It almost looks like Inchacore went back to the 1900 TPO design for the conversions, the door,window and paneling arrangement appears to be similar to the earlier TPOs.

 

 

[Irishswissernie]

   Yes the number is 2954

[WRENNEIRE]

121 lads????

[Irishswissernie]

Yeh I know but I left a bit of the handrail and bonnet of 121 on the left hand edge of the photo

How about this one as an apology   B135+B132 Longford

ERnie

Edited April 23, 2019 by Irishswissernie

[BSGSV]

Nice. Looks like Up and Down Sligo's crossing at Longford. 

[StevieB]

I agree with that .

Stephen

[Edo]

Evening Gents

 

quick question on the 121 

did the "doubling up" happen much before the IE era

been looking thru photos over the weekend and I didn't see any Greys, or B& T's 121's working in Tandem?

Just asking as Im trying to keep my 121 purchases as efficient as possible (Im looking at the Grey, B& T and Supertrain eras )

 

thanks

Ed

[jhb171achill]

Ed

The so-called "pairs" went well back before IE times. I recall the first time I saw a 121 in the new "Supertrain" livery - it was a Cork train about to leave Heuston (what's now Platform 5) in 1972. Up front was a pair of pristine newly-painted 121s. Pairs of 141s were to be seen on main lines in the 1960s too - while I never saw a paired 121 at that time, I'm sure it happened if it did with 141s.

I recall the goods passing through Lisburn with a pair of 141s on more than one occasion about 1968/9 or so.

[patrick]

I believe the 121's were  not  fitted for multiple unit working when delivered but they were  during the black and tan era. The long side handrails were also a later addition. Pairs of 121's 141's and 181's were relatively common on the Tralee line during the seventies on heavier passaenger trains.

Edited April 29, 2019 by patrick

[Mayner]

Pairs of 121s regularly worked the Connolly-Sligo & Connolly Rosslare services and some Heuston-Westport services from the late 1970s into the IE era. 121s also worked occasionally in multiple with 141 or 181 sometimes with one loco in Black & Tan and the other in Supertrain Livery. The arrival of the 071 freed up more smaller locos to work in multiple to speed up services on the secondary main line routes.

These trains were made up of TL (train line, steam heated) coaching stock and generator van, mainly Craven with MK2 Bredin Buffet car and occasional TL fitted Park Royal or Laminate coaches at busy periods.

[Edo]

Thanks Guys - always appreciate the input.

So a pair of Supertrains definitely - I would probably get away with one of each of the Greys and B&T's going by Ernie's fantastic photo collection...............

Still - it'll be PCP financing at the rate stuff is being released this year...............

[DiveController]

4 hours ago, patrick said:

I believe the 121's were  not  fitted for multiple unit working when delivered but they were  during the black and tan era. The long side handrails were also a later addition. Pairs of 121's 141's and 181's were relatively common on the Tralee line during the seventies on heavier passaenger trains.

They weren't ....

and even in Ernie's great collection alone you can see pictures of 121s without the MU socket to connect the cable for multiple working.

MU socket with cable

 

Double heading in Supertrain 1978 including 122 with visible MU sock on the cab end also

122 in 1970s Supertrain without any evidence of a MU socket on the bonnet end yet (the end usually coupled in consist with another 121 as with 130 above, but they were also fitted on the cab end)

 

The handrails were generally fitted from 1971 onwards to 121 catwalks

B121 in 1974 with handrails still in BnT livery coupled to 141 Supertrain

 

 

Apologies Ernie for posting so many links to your album

Edited April 30, 2019 by DiveController
Correction, links added

[WRENNEIRE]

No handrails or MU Socket

 

[DiveController]

Were the tablet catchers moved upwards at some point or was there a 'set' position (lower) and a' retrieved/inactive' position higher up? In all of the original grey and yellow liveries the tablet catcher is set lower on the loco and does not reach the cab side side window (which doesn't appear to have been altered) whereas, in many/most BnT livery and after, the catchers (where present) seem to reach the base of the side window   

[Dempsey]

This might be of interest. Hattons  have listed the class 121 on their website and appear to be taking pre orders .  I dont know if its been mentioned already .

[Glover]

Marks Models also have them on their site but no price quoted.

As I understand it, Hattons show a 'possible' price but it may not be realistic.

Cheers,

Glover

[WRENNEIRE]

Every time you see the price of petrol going up your 121's will be also going up

Euro v Dollar is in the shitter at the moment with no sign of any recovery soon

Expect it to be in the €200 range and if it is any cheaper, happy days

[josefstadt]

On 5/4/2019 at 1:20 AM, DiveController said:

Were the tablet catchers moved upwards at some point or was there a 'set' position (lower) and a' retrieved/inactive' position higher up? In all of the original grey and yellow liveries the tablet catcher is set lower on the loco and does not reach the cab side side window (which doesn't appear to have been altered) whereas, in many/most BnT livery and after, the catchers (where present) seem to reach the base of the side window   

They certainly seem to have been. If you zoom in on the black & white photo of B125 in WRENNEIRE's post above you can see the original mounts below where the snatcher arm was mounted when the photo was taken.

[DiveController]

Yes, I saw that and assumed it was the original anchor point for the snatcher. In later photos it appear that the original mounting has been plated over removing those mounts. I don't know exactly why they would have needed to be in a more elevated position, clearance above some new platform object?

I not even sure when the automatic snatchers were first used and finally ceased manual exchange seemingly more common as time went by 

[connollystn]

Great picture of the 121 [B125] above. Seeing some unexpected details - didn't think there were vents in the cab doors. Were the 121s the only locomotives which had the tablet catchers placed too low?

[Garfield]

43 minutes ago, connollystn said:

Great picture of the 121 [B125] above. Seeing some unexpected details - didn't think there were vents in the cab doors. Were the 121s the only locomotives which had the tablet catchers placed too low?

The vents were added to the doors during the time the locos were still allowed to operate nose-first so that it would be easier for the driver to hear detonators, etc. They were plated over once nose-first operation was banned.

[flange lubricator]

On 7/5/2019 at 3:51 PM, connollystn said:

Great picture of the 121 [B125] above. Seeing some unexpected details - didn't think there were vents in the cab doors. Were the 121s the only locomotives which had the tablet catchers placed too low?

I think the tablet catchers were the same height on all the locos I think  the  issue  was have been the height of the window , which on a 121 was much higher than the other locos , this may have made the placement and retrieval of the staff from the snatcher more difficult? So in the original postion  the snatcher was sitting at three o’clock from the cab side but in the revised position was the at five o’clock from the cab side and when pull back was easier for the snatcher man to retrieve ?

Edited December 29, 2022 by flange lubricator

[murrayec]

I'd say that's correct @flange lubricator, easier to get at.

But all the locos would have to have them in the same position! otherwise the corresponding snatcher on the platform would have to be adjusted- height wise for the different locos, if, the snatchers were in different locations?

It was a mad system! I wonder did anyone get hung up on one flying through the station?

Eoin

Edited May 7, 2019 by murrayec

[DiveController]

On 5/7/2019 at 1:25 PM, flange lubricator said:

 would the  issue  have been the height of the window , which on a 121 was much higher than the other locos , this may have made the placement and retrieval of the staff from the snatcher more difficult? 

I certainly thought that this could be the reason. Possibly it was modified such that the attachment point was higher making retrieval easier, but the fork of the catch remained a the correct hight to 

On 5/7/2019 at 1:41 PM, murrayec said:

all the locos would have to have them in the same position! otherwise the corresponding snatcher on the platform would have to be adjusted- height wise for the different locos, .... I wonder did anyone get hung up on one flying through the station?

Agree. The only pictures I have seen on the tablet snatcher device has been on the approach to the station so that the snatcher would be retracted passing the platform. Actually, I'm assuming the the device retracted automatically once the exchange was made, or was easily/quickly performed before picking up non-intending passengers from the platform

Edited July 22, 2020 by DiveController

[Dhu Varren]

Zooming in to the picture of 122 above, there is a noticeable angle between the snatcher head and the supporting arm. This would mean that when in the extended position the arm would be at a downward angle so that the snatcher would be horizontal for the pickup. Basic geometry would mean that the snatcher would be at the same height as the lineside equipment, even though it was mounted higher on the loco than the original snatcher. 

[Glover]

I know this is diverting away from the 121 topic but it does relate to tablet snatchers.

I believe that some AEC railcars used this equipment, especially on the Sligo road but I don't think I've ever seen a photo with them.

Could they perhaps have been fitted around the guards van area?

Glover

[Lambeg man]

I think I can help you GLOVER.

Both the AEC (of GNR and CIE origin) Railcars had a low hatch in the center of the bulkhead between the first class section and the driving cab whereby the train guard manually collected the "staff" from the signalman and then walked through the train to deliver the staff through the hatch to the driver.

I stand to be corrected on this.

However, I for one have never seen a picture of a 'Railcar' (other than UTA/exNCC) with tablet 'snatchers' fitted.  

Edited May 7, 2019 by Lambeg man

[murrayec]

Station equipment & view from inside the loco with catcher deployed and token nabbed;-

 

[jhb171achill]

I'm pretty sure. 99.99%, that no AEC car ever had a tablet catcher. If there was one, I'd say it is a short lived one-off experiment.

They'd have to attach it to what was actually a much lighter carriage body panel, much lighter than a loco side. Snatching at speed would probably tear the panel off.......

[Mayner]

19 minutes ago, Glover said:

I know this is diverting away from the 121 topic but it does relate to tablet snatchers.

I believe that some AEC railcars used this equipment, especially on the Sligo road but I don't think I've ever seen a photo with them.

Could they perhaps have been fitted around the guards van area?

Glover

Up to the 1960s mechanical staff exchange on CIE was largely limited to the Dublin-Galway & Mallow Rosslare lines and mechanical staff exchange was later introduced on the Limierick Junction-Waterford and Cherryville Junction-Waterford Lines after the AEC railcars were bumped from the principal main line passenger duties.

The guard normally did the staff exchange with the CIE AEC railcars, with a bell signal to the driver that he had collected the correct staff. 

Staff snatchers were fitted inside the guards compartment on some CIE railcars with a small roller shutter door to allow the snatcher head to swing out to make the exchange. 

The snatchers and roller shutter doors were removed and plated over after the railcars ceased operating main line passenger services.

[DiveController]

2 hours ago, murrayec said:

Station equipment & view from inside the loco with catcher deployed and token nabbed;-

 

Eoin, @murrayec probably the best view of the staff snatchers I've seen. I guess they were positioned wherever the signal cabin was (seems intuitive). The mechanical staff exchanger seems to be a paired unit as the jaws would have to face the approaching locomotive to receive the old token being dropped to the signalman. In your photo the catcher is set to expect a left hand running locomotive, with the other available for running in the opposite direction. It seems like the exchanger on the locomotive was raised manually by the chain on the right side in the last photo. Incidentally, it seems that photo is collecting on the right side the locomotive. The jaws of the tablet snatcher on the loco would always face the direction of travel which is not problem for twin cabbed loco but when the 121s ran bonnet first did they face the other direction initially and were subsequently reversed when they were obliged to run cab first instead, or maybe 121s didn't;t regularly rub on lines using mechanical exchangers at that time?

Edited May 8, 2019 by DiveController

[Garfield]

Footage of staff snatcher apparatus in operation can be seen in this video:

http://www.euscreen.eu/play.jsp?id=EUS_524B0F1DFF9D4311A5271797E7849D5E