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)
You have "facts"? Have you got access to Dr.Who's Tardis or have you a pass key to some other time machine? You're peddling your opinion that the interior of a GPO sorting coach has only one possible layout.
I just stated it in my previous response. The Midland were building offset corridors on postal stock in 1878 when Clayton took charge of the carriage and wagon design. The first corridor coach with corridor connections on the Midland appeared in 1898. There were also Pullman sleeping and parlour cars which appeared in the 1870s and they had the traditional North American verandas at the ends so, in a way, it wouldn't have mattered where you put a corridor connection on a vehicle end if you wanted to prevent unauthorised access
However, in the Midland 1878 designs there were two types of vehicles
- the sorting vehicle and the tender, and the corridor connections were only fitted on one end of these vehicles since they worked as a pair, and the outer ends of the pair would have had no connections to other carriages - even if they had corridor connections. It's only some years later when newspaper vans are added to the setup that additional offset connections are fitted to the outer ends of the 'pairs'.
The Midland was a relatively small player in the TPO game. The LNWR was by far the largest player on the west side of the country and investigation of their carriage building practices could throw up more details of who did what, where and when.
Also, in Jenkinson and Essery's book on Midland Carriages, there is a diagram of a 1907 sorting coach which shows that they used up every available inch for sorting, with the sorting tables going right to the ends of the coaches, and a drop down flap being suppied to go across the centre door opening on the sorting side to give additional shelf space. The only place for corridor connections would be the opposite side to the sorting side or else you would reduce the sorting area quite considerably positioning the corridor connections centrally. They also 'stole' extra width of a few inches by building bulges into the sorting sides of the coaches, and that feature carried on in LMS designs.
I've just had a dig around the LNWR Society web page and come up with these
First part of an article on LNWR TPO carriages - particlurly Page 9 where it states that the offside corridor connections were first installed in 1860
formatting link
and the second part
formatting link
And a glossary entry describing the Lansdown side gangways - part way down the web page
formatting link
......no mention of security issues.
And, from what was stated in the article in their newsletter. it looks as though the HMRS has covered the subject in detail - but maybe an HMRS member could have a dig around to see what's there.
And the author of the article - Philip Millard - is still an active modeller and regularly contributes to the 7mm scale Yahoo group. So you might be tempted to contact him via that list.
: > You still 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?... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >
: : Yes Jerry, I have answered that
No you have not, read the question again - why was a key-lock OK for the security of external doors but not for the internal doors?
No, thought the interior was flush so the sliding door projection would reduce overall width but it doesnt. Not sure if correctly sent interior dimensions post correctly, so here they are again:- 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 :-)
Picture of an early TPO coach built in 1886 (not the first one though), pioneer passenger corridor coaches 1893. Interesting comment by Michael Rutherford in jan 2010 Backtrack article on Through Passenger services - GWR ran first corridor train in Britain in
1892, connections were not for passengers but for the guard to pass through coaches and the connection doors were kept locked.
It was Phillip Millard that I quoted a while back when said "But in a letter to modellers backtrack fellow states less a security feature more for better use of interior layout and also as they were wider than normal to allow passage of handcarts loaded with mailbags."
Further to my earlier post, and quote from Keith Parkin's book, I have now dug out tfurther information from David Jenkinson's "British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century", Volume 1, Page 234. Apologies for the length of what follows, but it is quoted (almost) verbatim:
"Because the mail pick-up apparatus was always at the near side of the line, TPO vehicles were usually built one-sided with the pick-up nets on the near side and the sorting racks on the off side of the carriage. Furthermore, in order to give an uninterrupted run of sorting shelves, it was equally customary to offset the gangways to the near or pick-up side of the carriages. These structural constraints meant that the vehicles not only had to be turned before their return journeys, but also could not be gangwayed to the normal centre-gangway passenger-carrying vehilces in the train. This, of course, ensured the security of the mail vehicles but also meant that all mail vehicles had to be marshalled together rather than mixed up with the passenger vehicles, the ultimate form being a full mail train".
At the time of writing this book (1988) David Jenkinson was head of Education, Research and Gallery Development at the NRM, York. From what he says - and if somebody working in the NRM can't lay his hands on the requisite information ten we might as well all pack up and find something else to do - it would seem that the offset gangway was (largely) a result of providing a reasonable work environment for the sorters and from this came the added bonus of security of the contents of the TPO vehicles due to their not being able to be gangwayed to non-TPO coaches.
Just a thought, and - as ever - hope this contributes to the debate.
Theres also this time factor with the LNWR draughtsman asked to design a TPO sometime before 1886. Got it on his desk and theres no passenger equivalent to bother about. Coach body already handed and turning no problem so to get the best internal layout the coach connections go to the side.
A few years later the same person or his mate is doing the coaches for corridor trains. He comes to the coach connections and where should he put them ? Of course its discussed with the top man, but the obvious place is as per TPO's or is it central ?
There weren't externally accessible internal doors. As such, we'll never know if the Post Office would have connsidered key-locks to be sufficient. I guess your follow-up question would be "what is the difference between an internal and an external door?: Answer: one cannot readily stand at an external door while picking the lock.
Passenger coaches in the UK back then with corridors usually had them to one side! The only coaches I can picture (British or foreign) with center corridors are prison coaches. Open carriages normally had central ways between the seats.
I've been reading the thread all the way through - why do you imagine you have "facts" when nothing was recorded on the reasons for the original design and everything written since can clearly only be "opinion"? One can apply logic and reach the most favoured conclusion, but that still isn't "facts".
: : I've been reading the thread all the way through
Then read it again, at least two book citations have now been offered for the 'theory' that internal layout was the main if not only reason for the off-sets.
: > : > You still 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?... : > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : >
: > : >
: > : : > : Yes Jerry, I have answered that : >
: > No you have not, read the question again - why was a key-lock OK : > for the security of external doors but not for the internal : > doors? : >
: : There weren't externally accessible internal doors.
alt.troll is that away ===>>>
Now are you going to toddle off there or are you going to answer the question?...
Not that easy when youre standing at the corridor connection with train running at say over 50mph but theres a few feet gap to the next carraige as well.
True the first general corridors built by LNWR had side corridors but at both ends of the carriage there was a lavatory - except when Guard/brake compartment at the end.
--------------------- __[ L | compartments __[\_ |____________ [ corridor --------------------
Allowing for slant of lavatory to be closer to level, and corridor much narrower than compartments. Appears logical to put coach connection at corridor side, but they didnt, it was put into the centre. Perhaps cos they didnt want to have to have all coaches the same way round for connection !
Cheers, Simon
But dont forget the main point, TPO's arrived a few years before corridors with coach connections !
Jerry, the question is plain silly! You're asking me to imagine a situation that never existed and then demanding I explain why it didn't exist - backed by facts!
Here in NZ the corridor connection doors were locked with a standard old-fashioned big brass key. That's enough to stop someone who thought there was another carriage, or kids mucking about, or ... It certainly wouldn't stop a train robber!
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.