|
|
Post by simplyloco on Jun 25, 2020 7:58:04 GMT
John, just leave the damn things off! You could always say the Pikeys nicked them, if anyone asks. Regards, Steve Now I've spent quite some hours of my time remaining on them, I'll leave them there! The restored tender doesn't have any hooks, but those artistic people at the NRM might have left them off deliberately? John EDIT. I've just realised that you were referring to leaving them off the tender... |
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Jun 25, 2020 7:59:48 GMT
SNIP I understand that not many years ago, a Stirling tender was found, which has been restored and is now coupled to the loco in York. I wonder if this tender has the hooks fitted? To answer your question I'll post this again. John www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RbdBzZQ4Ck |
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Jun 25, 2020 9:17:26 GMT
It seems quite clear from contemporary evidence that the loco, at least, had them from early days. You've made a splendid job of the hooks and chains, so leave them on the loco, whatever their original purpose was. As usual, shots from the rear are not common, so having them on the tender is less certain, though narrow gauge practice seems to have been that locos that had them at the front also had them at the rear.
As ever, the choice lies with you, and let any critics provide the evidence otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhamblin on Jun 25, 2020 10:15:59 GMT
SNIP I understand that not many years ago, a Stirling tender was found, which has been restored and is now coupled to the loco in York. I wonder if this tender has the hooks fitted? To answer your question I'll post this again. John www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RbdBzZQ4CkAlso noted that there is a linked video of a 7 1/4" version running on the Echilles Woods railway that doesn't have hooks and chains on its Stirling design tender. So I think leave them off  Closing stages of the build coming along nicely John. Regards, Dan |
|
timb
Statesman
Posts: 512 
|
Post by timb on Jun 25, 2020 10:40:58 GMT
I've read all the above posts. What a load of ill-informed 'tosh'. Julian
Julian, you are quick to dismiss the posts but fail to offer a reason for the hooks, do you have any idea?
It appears that to some if you are not on the 'approved list' or do not have the requisite skill level or knowledge 'qualifications' for whatever it is you are commenting on then your contribution is completely dismissed, I think I will keep my comments to myself henceforth. I hoped that sharing my poor efforts would invite encouragement and inspire, indeed many do but I do not want to feel that my efforts are pointless through some ill-conceived yet ruthless response to an otherwise innocent post I may make.
Sorry John for ranting on your thread.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by springcrocus on Jun 25, 2020 10:55:43 GMT
I've read all the above posts. What a load of ill-informed 'tosh'. Julian
Julian, you are quick to dismiss the posts but fail to offer a reason for the hooks, do you have any idea?
It appears that to some if you are not on the 'approved list' or do not have the requisite skill level or knowledge 'qualifications' for whatever it is you are commenting on then your contribution is completely dismissed, I think I will keep my comments to myself henceforth. I hoped that sharing my poor efforts would invite encouragement and inspire, indeed many do but I do not want to feel that my efforts are pointless through some ill-conceived yet ruthless response to an otherwise innocent post I may make.
Sorry John for ranting on your thread.
Tim
Don't be too disheartened, Tim, poor old Julian was traumatised as a youngster when Arthur Grimmet lobbed his loco out of the window into the rose bush. 
Regards, Steve
Yes, John, I was referring to the tender. The hooks on the front look very good indeed.
Regards, Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Jun 25, 2020 11:00:44 GMT
Julian, you are quick to dismiss the posts but fail to offer a reason for the hooks, do you have any idea?
It appears that to some if you are not on the 'approved list' or do not have the requisite skill level or knowledge 'qualifications' for whatever it is you are commenting on then your contribution is completely dismissed, I think I will keep my comments to myself henceforth. I hoped that sharing my poor efforts would invite encouragement and inspire, indeed many do but I do not want to feel that my efforts are pointless through some ill-conceived yet ruthless response to an otherwise innocent post I may make.
Sorry John for ranting on your thread.
Tim
Tim Please keep posting and use the ignore facility as you deem appropriate. Looking back there are many contributors who we don't see anymore precisely because of negative contributions by others. John |
|
Midland
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,875
|
Post by Midland on Jun 25, 2020 11:17:54 GMT
Well, well, well, who would have thought that the hooks are for holding trains together! In those days, things broke like the rods running down the middle holding the damn thing together. Go and lie down under and old coach to see for yourself.  Coach 2 by David Goyder, on Flickr  Coach 1 by David Goyder, on Flickr David |
|
mbrown
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,793
Member is Online
|
Post by mbrown on Jun 25, 2020 13:00:24 GMT
Just for the sake of completeness, the comment was made several posts back that, although these safety chains and hooks were common on the Irish narrow gauge, the better known Welsh lines didn't have them.
Depends what you mean by "better known", but the Vale of Rheidol had them from the start and still does.
It would be interesting to know of any legislation that might have advocated them, and when (or if) such legislation was repealed... The different practices of the old companies clearly didn't relate to gradients, as Julian noted, but it is also hard to see companies fitting the things if they didn't have to.... Clearly the point about the main coupling gear coming adrift is based on some actual occurrences, but why, then, did some companies get away with not having them?
We need an expert in historical railway law!
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Jun 25, 2020 13:43:11 GMT
We need an expert in historical railway law! Malcolm Not on this thread we don't...  John |
|
|
|
Post by ettingtonliam on Jun 25, 2020 14:34:08 GMT
Just for the sake of completeness, the comment was made several posts back that, although these safety chains and hooks were common on the Irish narrow gauge, the better known Welsh lines didn't have them. Depends what you mean by "better known", but the Vale of Rheidol had them from the start and still does. It would be interesting to know of any legislation that might have advocated them, and when (or if) such legislation was repealed... The different practices of the old companies clearly didn't relate to gradients, as Julian noted, but it is also hard to see companies fitting the things if they didn't have to.... Clearly the point about the main coupling gear coming adrift is based on some actual occurrences, but why, then, did some companies get away with not having them? We need an expert in historical railway law! Malcolm Malcolm I took a quick look this morning, and the Ffestiniog, Talylynn seemed not to use them, but the Welshpool, Glynn Valley and, as you say, Vale of Rheidol did. The Welsh Highland, just to be difficult, appeared to have the anchorages on the buffer beam, and then a single link hanging from it, bereft of nay form of hook. The Corris didn't seem to have hooks. I was rather hoping that with your expertise in narrow gauge matters, you'd be able to explain the purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Jun 25, 2020 14:40:53 GMT
The Isle of Man railway have safety chains and hooks
|
|
JonL
Elder Statesman
WWSME (Wiltshire)
Posts: 2,990
Member is Online
|
Post by JonL on Jun 25, 2020 14:41:31 GMT
Julian, it's possible to disagree with someone without being disagreeable. When you find every member of this has blocked you and you are shouting into the echo maybe you will realise this.
|
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Jun 25, 2020 15:06:38 GMT
The Isle of Man railway have safety chains and hooks As do the West Lancs Light Railway |
|
uuu
Elder Statesman
your message here...
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by uuu on Jun 25, 2020 15:31:10 GMT
And what are these extra chains hanging off this LBSCR coach on the Isle of Wight Steam railway? They seem a bit shorter than the others.  This is a Wikipedia image on "Railway couplings":  Wilf |
|
mbrown
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,793
Member is Online
|
Post by mbrown on Jun 25, 2020 16:21:59 GMT
[
I was rather hoping that with your expertise in narrow gauge matters, you'd be able to explain the purpose.
[/quote][/quote]
To be honest, I hadn't given it any thought until this thread raised the fascinating question.
The Talyllyn has twin buffers and screw couplings, the others have some form of centre buffer-coupling. But, as you say, practices with side chains differ. The VoR and W&L had side chains before and during GWR ownership. There have certainly been a couple of occasions on the TR when a drawbar had broken and the train parted (thank goodness the TR now has continuous brakes, but before that the Rule Book had a whole section on how to bring the two parts to a stand if a drawbar broke. Similar things may have happened on railways with centre buffer-couplings.
I was interested to see that the Waldeisenbahn Muskau in Germany uses a single link coupling backed up with two side chains. These looked to me surprisingly flimsy - they were connected with carabiniers like mountaineers use. They may have given a degree of belt and braces safety.
The purpose of the hooks and links is pretty clearly to be a second line of defence against broken drawbars and couplings. But why some used them and others didn't, I just don't know. The question is, does anyone know or is it a mystery?
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
Post by Jock McFarlane on Jun 25, 2020 17:17:27 GMT
Just for the sake of completeness, the comment was made several posts back that, although these safety chains and hooks were common on the Irish narrow gauge, the better known Welsh lines didn't have them. Depends what you mean by "better known", but the Vale of Rheidol had them from the start and still does. It would be interesting to know of any legislation that might have advocated them, and when (or if) such legislation was repealed... The different practices of the old companies clearly didn't relate to gradients, as Julian noted, but it is also hard to see companies fitting the things if they didn't have to.... Clearly the point about the main coupling gear coming adrift is based on some actual occurrences, but why, then, did some companies get away with not having them? We need an expert in historical railway law! Malcolm Its an interesting point you make and at the expense of further cluttering John's thread here is what I know and partly deduce. Before continuous brakes (automatic vacuum or airbrake) came into regular use on passenger trains in the later 1870s/1880s brakes relied on the locomotive and brake vans spaced throughout the train. The guards in the brakevan applied a handbrake upon a whistled signal from the driver. There was of course a risk of breaking a main coupling chain or hook enhanced by the intermittent spacing of the brakevans and without continuous brakes this was bad news. So safety chains would keep the train together and prevent collisions between the divided parts of the train. Around 1890 the Board of Trade made automatic brakes (vacuum or air) compulsory so that in the event of a train becoming divided the individual parts would come to a standstill with the brakes fully applied. Safety chains at this point therefore become unnecessary for passenger trains. I cannot imagine there was ever legislation requiring the use of safety chains but in the early days common sense was the norm. and the safety chains provided. Finally, I have an original rule book dated 1854 for the Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee railway. Rule 15 for Goods and Mineral Guards - "The coupling chains and brakes must be specially looked to before either ascending or descending inclines; as also that the side chains are properly hooked." Rule 11 for passenger guards "Guards are responsible that on the journey all centre coupling and side chains are securely fastened, and that the former are screwed up tight to prevent oscillation" Regards JM |
|
|
|
Post by simplyloco on Jun 25, 2020 17:18:09 GMT
This will do, and there will be no more chains and hooks fitted to this loco!  Now to finish off my rear end... John  |
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by jma1009 on Jun 25, 2020 19:46:19 GMT
All British Pre grouping railway goods wagons coaches, and locomotives had these chains fitted encase the main hook failed,I do not think it lasted too long but that is the reason. Incorrect! Nuff sed! And what are these extra chains hanging off this LBSCR coach on the Isle of Wight Steam railway? They seem a bit shorter than the others. Wilf, this isn't a LBSCR carriage, it's an Olbury Carriage bought new by the Isle of Wight Railway of 1864 vintage, and it has no additional chains either for coupling. Anyway, I've already stated twice now, I like John's additions, and that they are well made. What 'Minor Railways' did is of no relevance; the Talyllyn never complied with the Board of Trade regulations for continuous brakes following 'Armagh' in 1889 for some 100 years, and never added additional chains. The Ffestiniog locos had a chain underneath the main coupler (for passenger stock etc) the chain being for slate wagons. Anyway, apologies, John, for the thread drift. Cheers, Julian |
|
|
|
Post by springcrocus on Jun 25, 2020 22:01:04 GMT
Brilliant, John. We both like a bit of controversy but you've excelled here!
How you've managed to evoke such passion from a simple hook and three-link chain is amazing. 
Absolute cobblers, yet we all love it. Fantastic.
Regards, one-of-the-herd Steve.
 Pmsl
|
|
