The price of our pleasures!

Also don't forget that the interior of Postal vehicles was Post-Office territory and absolutely a "no-go" area for other than PO staff. It was intended to not be through-accessible. As such, making it compatible and then locking the door would be silly.

Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.Procter
Loading thread data ...

Have Brits got too fat to negotiate those narrow corridors???? (response to your suggesting NZers drive 50 year old cars ;-)

Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.Procter

I see no reason to believe TPO carraiges would contain post but no persons. I therefore assume any robber would have planned the caper. I also assume any robber would stop the train. But you assume offset of connections where a robber would have to reach an extra 2 feet to the side would make a difference in the opening of a door. By the way, do you know if the TPO end door had a lock access from the outside.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

But as the TPO's were designed and built by the railway company a few years before passenger coaches with coach connections then TPO's would have to have been modified to make them compatible.

Would you like to try suggesting the coach connections on passenger coaches were made with central connections so that they were not compatible with TPO's.

Some people think that which came first the chicken or the egg doesnt have an obvious answer.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

The position I think we have reached:

- PO sorting vehicles were initially designed with off-set connections because: a. that suited the internal layout of sorting coaches. b. because access to other PO vehicles was desirable.

- Passenger coaches were designed with centralized corridor connections because that position makes them all compatible without turning individual coaches.

- PO vehicles were not redesigned to match because: a. no through connection was required or desirable. b. because relocating would mess up the sorting carriage internal design. c. ?

My original point was a. immediately above, stated in different words. Others here have said b. immediately above was the main purpose.

IMHO other questions such as whether normal locks were adequate or if passenger vehicle connections were centralized to make them incompatible are like asking "what if cats were dogs and dogs were cats?" ;-)

Regards, Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.Procter

Obviously the chicken got laid first!

Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.Procter

Ah, but thats where you are wrong - it was the 'almost a chicken' :-)

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Perhaps but it was in a different context - specifically you were not aware of the time difference of the passenger vs TPO coach build nor which came first.

Well, almost but .... PO sorting vehicles were designed with connections because: b. because access to other PO vehicles was desirable.

The connections were offset because :- a. that suited the internal layout of sorting coaches.

However cant accept following for LNWR as

The position of the internal corridor on one side of the coach meant that these coaches were handed. For the first few years the LNWR always marshalled these coaches with the internal corridor on the same side. Consequently they would have been compatible anyway. Also if I remember correctly another poster pointed out that GWR passenger coaches started with offset connections that were later changed to central ones.

Sorry :-)

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

I definitely had assumed that Passenger corridor connections came first. In that situation, the author who wrote the bit about PO corridor connections being made different to disallow through connections made complete sense. Sufficient for me not to reconsider the situation for 50 years.

I'm an L&YR fan - didn't even know about the LNWR coaches. (What's GWR???) ;-)

Greg.P. NZ

Reply to
Greg.Procter

L&YR - ok youre getting there, just little jump to Premier Line :-)

GWR - training ground for finest British CME, but he had to move to realise his potential.

Have learned more about coaches, TPO's, coach operating procedures in last couple of weeks than in preceding 8 years - bonus.

Cheers, Simon

Reply to
simon

Nothing to do with my Great something Grandfather by any chance? (bloke named G.Stephenson) My lot came from Bradford and surrounds and my Grandmother worked on the L&Y ambulance trains in WWI, so I won't be switching until I finish building that train at least. I do have a Fleischmann HO Warship, Bullied coaches and several rebuilt Lima BR 33s. My Dad went to the same school as Bullied, but a few years later. (Roseneath Wellington, NZ)

Still doesn't ring a bell - the place somebody left isn't that exciting.

Yes, in a way Jerry did us a favour!

Reply to
Greg.Procter

Don't encourage him!!

Reply to
MartinS

"Greg.Procter" wrote

LOL - only the chavs in Hull, but they'd only think that a train was something to try & derail.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

"Chavs" is a word that hasn't (yet) made it to NZ - although I rhink I can guess.

(probably no model railway fans?)

Greg.P.

Reply to
Greg.Procter

The Australian equivalent is "bogans".

Reply to
Jane Sullivan

There's various definitions of the meaning, but Council Housed And Violent is a popular one.

There's also PoshChav coming along - over-paid young "professionals" that don't know how to behave in public.

Cheers Richard

Reply to
beamends

The V is for Vermin in another version.

MBQ

Reply to
manatbandq

=A0

formatting link
MBQ

Reply to
manatbandq

'Ta.

wolf k.

Reply to
Wolf K

Or "lumpenproletariat", coined by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels in 1845.

Reply to
MartinS

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.