I know that the Hasting DEMUs were slightly narrower than most other
vehicles in the UK to fit the various tunnels between Tonbridge and
Hastings that had to be lined with extra layers of bricks which made
the tunnels too narrow for most rolling stock, and that the track was
singled in some tunnels to allow standard width trains after
electrification.

I presume the same thing happened in the days of steam - that there were
"Hastings width" locos and carriages?

Why was it economical to build reduced-width rolling stock in steam and
diesel days, but not when the line was electrified? Was the difference
the number of trains that would use the tunnels by the time the line was
electrified, and that it was now acceptable to single the line through
the tunnels (and use standard stock) whereas previously this had not
been an option?

When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap
than was standard because of the narrower trains?

I wonder why the tunnel-building contractor was allowed to get away with
fitting sub-standard linings (in some cases fewer than the agreed layers
of bricks) without it ever being picked up during construction. I
imagine that modern monitoring would pick up problems like that at an
early enough stage to allow modifications to be made - and the
contractor would be bound by contract to sort it out at his expense.
Those Victorians were just too trusting ;-) I bet there was a lot of
acrimony in the South Eastern Railway between the board of directors and
the project managers along the lines of "how could you let this happen -
why didn't you check more frequently what the contractors were doing?"

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> I know that the Hasting DEMUs were slightly narrower than most other
> vehicles in the UK to fit the various tunnels between Tonbridge and
> Hastings that had to be lined with extra layers of bricks which made
> the tunnels too narrow for most rolling stock, and that the track was
> singled in some tunnels to allow standard width trains after
> electrification.
>
> I presume the same thing happened in the days of steam - that there were
> "Hastings width" locos and carriages?

There were examples of some steam locos built with narrower cabs compared
with their class
mates .King Arthurs were one example,and some Battle of Britain of Britain
Pacifics another, the latter were rarely routed over the line and I believe
were soon changed to normal width and not routed that way.
In contrast the Schools class because of the shape of the firebox being a
roundtop style were a good fit anyway in their standard form. Those are the
ones I know about, earlier Locos may just have been smaller anyway but
maybe there were some narrow versions.

GH

"NY" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:EJidnYlfV70rHHr9nZ2dnUU78NnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>I know that the Hasting DEMUs were slightly narrower than most other
>vehicles in the UK to fit the various tunnels between Tonbridge and
>Hastings that had to be lined with extra layers of bricks which made the
>tunnels too narrow for most rolling stock, and that the track was singled
>in some tunnels to allow standard width trains after electrification.
>
> I presume the same thing happened in the days of steam - that there were
> "Hastings width" locos and carriages?
>
> Why was it economical to build reduced-width rolling stock in steam and
> diesel days, but not when the line was electrified?
AIUI the Hastings line DEMUs were an adaptation of steam age LHCS that had
already been ordered for the line. Coaches of that era were essentially hand
built bodies on underframes so the cost of a small non-standard fleet was
inconsequential.

> Was the difference the number of trains that would use the tunnels by the
> time the line was electrified, and that it was now acceptable to single
> the line through the tunnels (and use standard stock) whereas previously
> this had not been an option?
>
By the 1980s a lot of track, signalling and the rolling stock was due for
replacement. There were spare standard EMUs available, partly as a result of
Thameslink taking over services south of the river. The (Thatcher)
government was happy to authorise an electrification programme (which
included East Grinstead and some lines in Hampshire) that would make use of
this rolling stock, especially as huge amounts of money had been spent on
stripping asbestos out of it.

> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap than
> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>
Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
floor level, in common with the later class 207s.

--
DAS

"D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap than
>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>
> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.

Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the sides
significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings ones had
the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0" rather
than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
narrower.

I hadn't realised, until I found a Youtube video of a driver's eye view of
the route, that the route *had* been electrified: I'd thought Hastings was
one of the few lines in the Southern empire that was still diesel.

Talking of slewing lines to fit platforms., I presume in the days of
dual-gauge GWR that the track in a station had to be arranged so that the
common rail was always the one closest to a platform edge, so the doorsteps
of standard and broad gauge trains were both close to the platform edge to
avoid a "mind the gap".

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:22:16 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>Talking of slewing lines to fit platforms., I presume in the days of
>dual-gauge GWR that the track in a station had to be arranged so that the
>common rail was always the one closest to a platform edge, so the doorsteps
>of standard and broad gauge trains were both close to the platform edge to
>avoid a "mind the gap".

Yes - and there were "side steps" to change sides where necessary,
which used check rails to drag the axle over, with the gap at the
other rail packed so the wheel ran on its flange.

This South African mixed 3'6" and 2' gauge example illustrates the
principle...

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2012/post-14569-0-25381400-1343575811.jpg

We learned this the hard way when we took a 3' gauge Baldwin to a gala
at Carson City, Nevada in the late 1990s. The turntable was mixed
gauge with four rails so the narrow gauge would line up after the
engine was turned, which required a "side step" - but they hadn't
packed the gap so it derailed when the pony truck dropped into it.

I think they must have fixed it since then because they run narrow
gauge on their "main line"

Having seen the South African picture, you can make it out in this
photo from Didcot, but you have too look quite hard for it, but if you
zoom in you can make it out...

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2012/post-14569-0-25381400-1343575811.jpg

On 09/07/2021 10:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:22:16 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Talking of slewing lines to fit platforms., I presume in the days of
>> dual-gauge GWR that the track in a station had to be arranged so that the
>> common rail was always the one closest to a platform edge, so the doorsteps
>> of standard and broad gauge trains were both close to the platform edge to
>> avoid a "mind the gap".
>
> Yes - and there were "side steps" to change sides where necessary,
> which used check rails to drag the axle over, with the gap at the
> other rail packed so the wheel ran on its flange.
>
> This South African mixed 3'6" and 2' gauge example illustrates the
> principle...
>
> https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2012/post-14569-0-25381400-1343575811.jpg
>
> We learned this the hard way when we took a 3' gauge Baldwin to a gala
> at Carson City, Nevada in the late 1990s. The turntable was mixed
> gauge with four rails so the narrow gauge would line up after the
> engine was turned, which required a "side step" - but they hadn't
> packed the gap so it derailed when the pony truck dropped into it.
>
> I think they must have fixed it since then because they run narrow
> gauge on their "main line"
>
> Having seen the South African picture, you can make it out in this
> photo from Didcot, but you have too look quite hard for it, but if you
> zoom in you can make it out...
>
> https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2012/post-14569-0-25381400-1343575811.jpg
>

You've referenced the same image twice.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
1985\09 - Flip Your Wig - Hüsker Dü

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:58:38 +0100, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:

>On 09/07/2021 10:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:22:16 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Talking of slewing lines to fit platforms., I presume in the days of
>>> dual-gauge GWR that the track in a station had to be arranged so that the
>>> common rail was always the one closest to a platform edge, so the doorsteps
>>> of standard and broad gauge trains were both close to the platform edge to
>>> avoid a "mind the gap".
>>
>> Yes - and there were "side steps" to change sides where necessary,
>> which used check rails to drag the axle over, with the gap at the
>> other rail packed so the wheel ran on its flange.
>>
>> This South African mixed 3'6" and 2' gauge example illustrates the
>> principle...
>>
>> https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2012/post-14569-0-25381400-1343575811.jpg
>>
>> We learned this the hard way when we took a 3' gauge Baldwin to a gala
>> at Carson City, Nevada in the late 1990s. The turntable was mixed
>> gauge with four rails so the narrow gauge would line up after the
>> engine was turned, which required a "side step" - but they hadn't
>> packed the gap so it derailed when the pony truck dropped into it.
>>
>> I think they must have fixed it since then because they run narrow
>> gauge on their "main line"
>>
>> Having seen the South African picture, you can make it out in this
>> photo from Didcot, but you have too look quite hard for it, but if you
>> zoom in you can make it out...
>>
>> https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_07_2012/post-14569-0-25381400-1343575811.jpg
>>
>
>You've referenced the same image twice.

Sorry, I must have mis-clicked on the copy...

http://www.gwr.org.uk/broad-gauge/mf-bg02.jpg

"Christopher A. Lee" <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote in message
news:qf8gegl3pg4j4vpvv8pabfuh41nvl361vu@4ax.com...
> Having seen the South African picture, you can make it out in this
> photo from Didcot, but you have too look quite hard for it, but if you
> zoom in you can make it out...

> http://www.gwr.org.uk/broad-gauge/mf-bg02.jpg

I presume any side-steps of the standard gauge rails were at places where a
train would be travelling very slowly, to avoid the train lurching sharply
from side to side.

I bet the GWR track workers were pleased when mixed gauge came to an end and
all the extra check rails and side-steps no longer needed to be maintained.
Just imagine if mixed gauge had continued into the era of third-rail
electric trains ;-) Are there any countries with mixed gauge which use
3rd-rail? I presume you'd need two electrified rails at positions to suit
the two trains' collector shoes - and on either side as the 3rd rail swapped
to avoid point-work.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:39:04 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Christopher A. Lee" <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote in message
>news:qf8gegl3pg4j4vpvv8pabfuh41nvl361vu@4ax.com...
>> Having seen the South African picture, you can make it out in this
>> photo from Didcot, but you have too look quite hard for it, but if you
>> zoom in you can make it out...
>
>> http://www.gwr.org.uk/broad-gauge/mf-bg02.jpg
>
>I presume any side-steps of the standard gauge rails were at places where a
>train would be travelling very slowly, to avoid the train lurching sharply
>from side to side.

They certainly wouldn't have been running at modern speeds.

In mixed gauge days, the GWR had lateral extensions to the buffers on
some of their broad gauge shunters, so the wagon buffers would slide
along these when they switched sides

Brunel's broad gauge showed up in some pretty surprisiing places, eg
the Isle of Man, where it was used for the construction and repair of
the Port Erin breakwater because 7' gauge wagons could haul more
stone.

Holyhead breakwater was another one, and was not converted to standard
gauge until 1913.

There are three original 7" gauge locomotives in museums. Most people
know about the South Devon Railway's vertical boilered shunter "Tiny",
but would you believe the photographer Colin Garrett followed up
rumours and chased down two at Ponta Delgada in the Azores?

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> I know that the Hasting DEMUs were slightly narrower than most other
> vehicles in the UK to fit the various tunnels between Tonbridge and
> Hastings that had to be lined with extra layers of bricks which made
> the tunnels too narrow for most rolling stock, and that the track was
> singled in some tunnels to allow standard width trains after
> electrification.
>
> I presume the same thing happened in the days of steam - that there were
> "Hastings width" locos and carriages?
>
> Why was it economical to build reduced-width rolling stock in steam and
> diesel days, but not when the line was electrified? Was the difference
> the number of trains that would use the tunnels by the time the line was
> electrified, and that it was now acceptable to single the line through
> the tunnels (and use standard stock) whereas previously this had not
> been an option?
>

Running stock which is restricted to, or restricted from, certain routes is
operationally "a right faff" and I'm sure BR were glad to be rid of the
need to have separate stock for one route. If the replacement stock had
still been diesel I strongly suspect the same would have happened.

Previously, perhaps it was just 'not thought of'? Signalling of short
sections of single track became easier with the arrival of either Track
Circuit Block or Tokenless Block, whereas in earlier times presumably token
exchange would have been necessary.

> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap
> than was standard because of the narrower trains?
>

I think the trains are roughly the same width at underframe level, but
flat-sided rather than the usual bowing out at the waist; look at photos of
the preserved Hastings unit running with a CEP(?) buffet car; or photos of
the "Tadpole" DEMUSs which also combined both widths of stock.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap than
>>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>>
>> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
>> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.
>
> Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the sides
> significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings ones had
> the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
> that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0" rather
> than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
> narrower.
>

The flat sides of the Hastings stock is their most distinctive feature!!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
news:sc9tkq$p64$2@dont-email.me...
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>>>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>>>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap
>>>> than
>>>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>>>
>>> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
>>> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.
>>
>> Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the
>> sides
>> significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings ones
>> had
>> the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
>> that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0" rather
>> than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
>> narrower.
>
> The flat sides of the Hastings stock is their most distinctive feature!!

Ah. I've never seen one close enough to observe that, But now I know about
it, I'll see if I can see it on photos.

What was the rationale for forming Tadpole sets of a Hastings carriage and a
conventional-width carriage? (Wide head, narrower body, hence the nickname
Tadpole).

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 20:59:37 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>news:sc9tkq$p64$2@dont-email.me...
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>>>>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>>>>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>>>>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap
>>>>> than
>>>>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>>>>
>>>> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
>>>> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.
>>>
>>> Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the
>>> sides
>>> significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings ones
>>> had
>>> the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
>>> that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0" rather
>>> than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
>>> narrower.
>>
>> The flat sides of the Hastings stock is their most distinctive feature!!
>
>Ah. I've never seen one close enough to observe that, But now I know about
>it, I'll see if I can see it on photos.
>
>
>What was the rationale for forming Tadpole sets of a Hastings carriage and a
>conventional-width carriage? (Wide head, narrower body, hence the nickname
>Tadpole).

Recycling. Seriously.

They were formed from redundant Class 201 Hastings DEMU cars and
2-EPB driving trailers when steam was withdrawn from the Reading -
Tonbridge line..

So they were virtually free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_206

On 09/07/2021 20:59, NY wrote:
> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
> news:sc9tkq$p64$2@dont-email.me...
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>>>>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>>>>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>>>>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform
>>>>> gap than
>>>>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>>>>
>>>> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard
>>>> at/below
>>>> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.
>>>
>>> Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the
>>> sides
>>> significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings
>>> ones had
>>> the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
>>> that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0"
>>> rather
>>> than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
>>> narrower.
>>
>> The flat sides of the Hastings stock is their most distinctive feature!!
>
> Ah. I've never seen one close enough to observe that, But now I know
> about it, I'll see if I can see it on photos.
>
>
> What was the rationale for forming Tadpole sets of a Hastings carriage
> and a conventional-width carriage? (Wide head, narrower body, hence the
> nickname Tadpole).

Actually two Hastings line carriages, driving motor and trailer, with a
normal width driving trailer. The stock was available as a stop gap for
the North Downs line. I used to watch them trek in and out of Reading
but don't have any surviving photos. There were 6 units, introduced in
1964, and originally designated 3R (Reading-Redhill). I think the third
vehicle was a converted Bullied coach but could be wrong.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
> news:sc9tkq$p64$2@dont-email.me...
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>>>>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>>>>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>>>>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap
>>>>> than
>>>>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>>>>
>>>> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
>>>> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.
>>>
>>> Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the
>>> sides
>>> significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings ones
>>> had
>>> the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
>>> that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0" rather
>>> than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
>>> narrower.
>>
>> The flat sides of the Hastings stock is their most distinctive feature!!
>
> Ah. I've never seen one close enough to observe that, But now I know about
> it, I'll see if I can see it on photos.
>
>
> What was the rationale for forming Tadpole sets of a Hastings carriage and a
> conventional-width carriage? (Wide head, narrower body, hence the nickname
> Tadpole).
>
>

AFAIK just use of available assets as they became surplus to requirements,
to form sets needed elsewhere (Hastings stock had no driving trailer
vehicles, so couldn't be formed into three car sets).

I'm sure the internet has the answer.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "D A Stocks" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:sc8f92$q80$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> When wider electric stock was introduced, was it necessary to slew the
>>>> tracks in stations to allow clearance for wider trains, or were the
>>>> platforms built for "normal" trains, with a wider train-platform gap than
>>>> was standard because of the narrower trains?
>>>>
>>> Not particularly. The profile of the trains was fairly standard at/below
>>> floor level, in common with the later class 207s.
>>
>> Ah, so the typical profile of a non-Hastings carriage is to have the sides
>> significantly wider that the floor/doorstep, whereas the Hastings ones had
>> the carriage sides more in line with the width of the floor. I'd assumed
>> that the shape was similar and that if the overall width was 8' 0" rather
>> than 9' 2" (or thereabouts) that the floor was also correspondingly
>> narrower.
>>
>
> The flat sides of the Hastings stock is their most distinctive feature!!

The same for the 33/2s - from the end they looked sortof normal, but the
bottom of the bodysides was the giveaway. I never saw one in real life.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply