The price of our pleasures!

: : I admit to responding when I should have ignored your stupidity. :

The only reason you think it's "stupidity" because I am not prepared to allow you to peddle your miss information as fact, much to your over large egos dismay...

: > : > : The author closest to the source is the best bet. : > : : >

: > Except when they are wrong... : >

: > TPOs with their off-set gangways was due to internal mail sorting : > equipment layout, any fool can see that just by examining the : > internal layout of such coaches, some things simply do not change : > against physical facts how ever you or a miss-guided author : > wishes, the size of letters (aka the size needed for sorting : > racks, the average space taken up by a standing or sitting postal : > worker, the size of a postal sack etc. : >

: : Average letter length - about 8". : Sorting clerk's arm - about 2'9" : Space to move - say 12" : That's a total of around 4'5". : Sorting coach width - 8' to 9' : : Seems to me they could have put the corridor connection in the middle with : very little loss of working space.

You have just proved that you have never studied any plans for such coaches...

: : > Also, you have never explained why a simple key-lock was deemed : > totally adequate for external door security but not for the : > corridor connection doors and thus requiring them to be off-set - : > with all the complications that introduces, even within just the : > specialised world of TPO stock! : : The Postal vehicle were for Postal staff only -

Your referance is?...

: Why was a simple keylock insufficient? This is perhaps revealing my : mis-spent youth, but people of a certain persuasion : are barely slowed down by a locked door. Locks are to keep honest people : out.

Yopu8 stilll have not answered the question, why was a lock and key was sufficaint for the external doors but according to you not the internal door?...

: : You are incapable of quoting facts.

Greg talking about himself again, after all he is still to cite any books title or author...

SNIP

Pleased to see you arent ready to give up yet :-) Have you included space for his stool - for him to sit on. LNWR TPO coach at Butterly has these fitted. What size corridor connection are you allowing for - supposed to be bigger than normal passenger one as they used a trolley to transport bags between coaches.

Will measure the interior from drawings in DJ's book later including interior width. Full width of carraige wasnt available as recessed doors present on non-corridor side.

Cheers, Simon

The TPO preservation website has this to say on the matter:

The corridor connections were not of a standard design and were offset as opposed to the normal centrally located versions on regular passenger stock. There appear to be two schools of thought as to why these connections were offset - that they were so located to allow for the space occupied by the sorting fittings constructed on one side of the vehicle or that they were so designed to prevent access to and from the passenger vehicles often attached to TPO's. It would not have been difficult to design the internal furnishings of a TPO to allow central positioning of the gangway, even on the first vehicles to be equipped with connectors. However, bearing in mind the Post Office paranoia with keeping its activities close to its chest and certainly not encouraging public access to its inner workings, the idea of keeping passengers out of TPO's would seem logical. What better way to keep TPO staff and passengers apart ?

Mark

Somneone who has gone to the trouble of creating an entire website dedicated to the preservation of TPOs would be quite likely to be reasonably well informed about them, I would have thought.

Mark

: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in message : >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >

: >

: >: : >:

: >Not at all "informed", just simply hedging it's bets! : : Somneone who has gone to the trouble of creating an entire website : dedicated to the preservation of TPOs would be quite likely to be : reasonably well informed about them, I would have thought. :

As you well know, or should do (considering 'It's your trade' and all that), any fool can register a domain and build a website. When ever national broadcasters can make errors in factual information someone sitting at home in their bedroom most certainly can - and if the people/person behind the website really is "informed" they would know the *definitive* answer, after all "they are dedicated to the preservation of TPOs"...

Doesn't change the fact that a/. the exterior security remained nothing more that the normal GPO specified key-locks, that sorted mail was also carried in normal railway passenger guards vans and that anyone bothering to study the plans for any of these 'POS' [1] coaches would soon understand why the off-sets were used, it's basic human ergonomics (as one would say today).

Well, the site seems to be pretty well written as far as I can see. And, as the author says, the origins of the offset gangway are so far back in time that it's quite likely that the definitive reason simply hasn't been preserved. After all, if it had been, anyone would be able to point to a contemporary source which explained it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The fact that we are, and that two plausible explanations exist, is pretty good evidence for the absence of a definitive answer.

Mark

Mark,

Maybe the source could explain how the Post Office had the prescience to install off centre connections twenty or more years before central corridor connections appeared on normal passenger stock. The Midland were building offset connections into mail handling stock from the

My source is Lacy and Dow's book(s) on Midland carriages which contains several pages discussing the construction and use of TPO stock.

The Midland TPO stock was very long lived with most lasting well into the LMS period and some lasting into the BR period, Therefore the original offset corridor specification would have to have been maintained with more modern stock to retain compatibility.

Jim.

: >"Mark Goodge" wrote in message : >news: snipped-for-privacy@news.markshouse.net... : >: On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:49:31 -0000, Jerry put finger to : >: : >: Somneone who has gone to the trouble of creating an entire website : >: dedicated to the preservation of TPOs would be quite likely to be : >: reasonably well informed about them, I would have thought. : >: : >

: >As you well know, or should do (considering 'It's your trade' and : >all that), any fool can register a domain and build a website. : >When ever national broadcasters can make errors in factual : >information someone sitting at home in their bedroom most : >certainly can - and if the people/person behind the website : >really is "informed" they would know the *definitive* answer, : >after all "they are dedicated to the preservation of TPOs"... : : Well, the site seems to be pretty well written as far as I can see.

So can a trolled page on Wikipedia, it then takes a true expert to notice the troll...

: And, as the author says, the origins of the offset gangway are so far : back in time that it's quite likely that the definitive reason simply : hasn't been preserved.

More likely that someone at some point in time spread 'urban myth' (a personal theory) and like a lot of such 'myth' many people repeat it... So far we have one definite, but un-cited, book that states that security *was* the reason, we have at least one cited book were the published plans clearly show the need for an off-set to allow efficient sorting and movement of mail.

After all, if it had been, anyone would be able : to point to a contemporary source which explained it, and we wouldn't : be having this discussion at all. The fact that we are, and that two : plausible explanations exist, is pretty good evidence for the absence : of a definitive answer. :

The only reason we have had this discussion is because someone called Greg dug his heels in on insisting that the book he read

Details from DJ's LNWR coach book show ;- External Width 8' internal width 7' 3" sorting partition 2' 6" door width 2' 10"

so half width 3' 7.5" sorting partition + half of door = 3' 11"

So there wasnt room for a centre door - 7" short :-)

Cheers, Simon

Similar for LNWR, side corridor connections in 1886 a few years before passenger corridor stock.

Agree its a bit of a clincher !

Cheers, Simon

Yes Jerry, I have answered that - it's irrelevant because there was no access allowed between the railways part of the train and the Postal part.

Why would I give up? I've come across more annoying computer operating systems than Jerry, and I'm still using my computer! ;-)

Depends - early photos (to 1950s) of Postal coaches show the sorters standing - not a stool to be seen!

I'll have to accept whatever you tell me as I haven't any handy layout drawings of postal coaches.

Surely the recessed doors weren't full length???

Regards, Greg.P.

It wasn't that I was being dogmatic as much as that I had never previously heard the theory of internal design being the reason - obviously I don't read enough books! ;-)

I see you intend to go down fighting, Jerry! ;-)

Regards, Greg.P.

I had decided at last to leave the subject alone, particularly as Mark had it covered.

However, I did not dig my heals in on insisting my source was correct, I simply reported that a source I considered reliable 40-50 years ago had stated ... I've probably averaged reading one railway book a week since I gained access to libraries circa 1958 and would probably purchase about one per month. Few people would be surprised that I can't recall all the titles and authors. The relevant book could be on my bookshelves but I'd guess there would be 500 (railway) books there - say about 100 of which are on Britain's railways. It would take me some time to locate the relevant book, presuming it is actually in my collection., which it well might not be. I also have a near complete collection of British model railway mags from the 1950s to the 80s and a fair few from then to today. That's a lot of words and a lot of pages!

Get real Jerry.

Regards, Greg.P.

Those are all good points. However, we would need a date for the first GPO corridor connection and a date for the first passenger corridor connections on the same railway for it to be shown to be factually relevant. (no put-down intended)

Greg.P.

a:- are you aware of the meaning of the word "lies"? b:- as apparently nothing in the way of explanation of the reasoning for the offset exists from the period of it's conception, any rational theory today has as much relevance as any other - that makes _your_ stated opinions as much "lies" as mine. c:- Postal coach interiors, for the major part of their operational existance, were no-go areas for other than Postal employees. (I wrote "for the major part ..." as I don't know if there were exceptions in the earliest days, in recent years, or how the advent of A4 tender corridor access was handled)

Regards, Greg.P.