Why did the GWR not use smoke deflectors?

Could well be.

Since they were in essence a safety issue, its surprising that little testing seems to have been done to find out which types were most effective. The LNER did test some types in the early 30's, but that didn't include any of the large plate types, they went for the A4 nose instead because basically none of the small wings or air channels cut in the smoke-box were effective.

 

These arrived in the Thompson/Peppercorn era.

 

Although the GWR never fitted elephants' ears deflectors the chimneys did have capuchons to encourage the exhaust to rise.

 

Clearly it's much easier for the train crew to see an open door if it opens externally. You'd have to balance the risk of a passenger falling out of an open (inward opening) door when in motion against the risk of a passenger on a platform being clouted with an (outward opening) door at relatively low speed. I suspect you'd conclude that an outward opening door was preferable, although whether the exercise has ever been done I don't know.

As an aside, in the late 90s I did some inter-railing around Europe and rode on a Portuguese main line train on which the passengers happily opened the doors as it was going along, and kids were hanging out holding onto the handrails to get the wind-in-the-hair experience. I could see why this was tolerated as it was unbearably hot, but it seemed bizarre in a European country. I don't know if the practice persists over there today!

 

Of course the GWR did have some stock with inward opening doors too. For use where there might not be proper platforms, clearly where there are platforms outward opening doors have nearly all the advantages.

 

Some fatalities were caused to passenger who, when faced by the sort of door found in HST's where it was necessary to open a window and turn an external handle, did so when the train was moving at some speed. The wind caught the door and dragged them out. Eventually some form of central locking was introduced.

There is no advantage in outward opening doors.

PH

 

No advantage? How would you arrange a suburban coach with doors between every pair of seats with inward opening doors? Sounds like a recipe for crushing the legs of someone sitting adjacent to the door if a crowd of people on a platform rushed to push the door open inwards in a hurry. Far easier for people on a crowded platform to keep out of the way of an outward opening door than people in a crowded compartment to keep out of the way of an inward opening door!

Tom

 

Evidently you have not read all the previous comments on this thread. I specifically referred to corridor stock.

PH

 

I guess an inward opening door requires a wider vestibule, which may have influenced the design.

 

Much suburban stock was non corridor compartment so the outward opening door was well suited to that. Could corridor stock achieve the same capacity as non corridor?

 

Seating capacity less but standing capacity more. Hence the modern, power doored world.

P.H.

 

When you refer to "corridor" stock, are you referring to side corridor stock or open stock as I still fail to see how an SK would compete with say a carriage from a 4SUB in overall capacity?

 

You are the one trying to make a point re carrying capacity. My concern was with safety both of passengers and people standing on platforms.

PH

 

At Didcot we have GW-fitted slam-door locks on Bow-Enders 4553 (1926) & 5085 (1928), Ocean Saloons 9112/12/18 (1930), & Centenary Diner 9635 (1935). The only apparent difference between the GW examples & those fitted to Mk. 1 stock is that in the GW model the internal latch isn't chromed.

So... IMO that poses two questions...
1 - Why did the GW revert to mortice locks after 1935?
2 - Why did BR adopt an already antiquated design?

In our experience, they're a bit of a 'mare to service - 'spring surprise' can/will happen when stripping them down. If the door isn't set 'just so' they tend to half-latch, & slamming a Collett door does it no favours at all - TPO 814 has slams on the Guard's door, as does BG 1184, & all of those have either been rebuilt entirely (814) or will need to be (1184).

Mortice-lock doors such as those on 1940-built 7371 were found to be very sound & just needed minor remedial work.
Those on Family Saloon 2511 (1895) are pretty good, but will need some work if the vehicle is ever to be used in traffic; the doors on Clere 1941 (1900) are fine & there's no reason to think that they're not the originals.

I'll posit the suggestion that the GW had to balance ease of use given by slams-locks against the extra costs of maintenance & repairs caused by that, and in the end the bean-counters won.

Pete S.
C&W Dept.,
GWS Didcot.

 

The double chimneys weren't fitted with capuchons & still chuck it spacewards even on today's coal:



P.

 

Never easy to have a sensible conversation with you is it. We can all remember the notices and warnings about not opening the doors before the train had stopped but why were the railways not forced by the Railway Inspectorate to change if it wad that much of a danger? A secondary matter would be capacity. If capacity Is reduced by inward opening doors then less incentive for railways to adopt them.
If outward opening doors are so dangerous, why are heritage railways allowed to use vehicles so fitted?

 

Thanks for thoughts
Paul H.

 

Never easy to have a conversation with you without your getting personal is it? See posting No. 74 for the way to do it!

PH

 

I suppose there are a number of risks to be balanced. Imagine a coach full of passengers pressing forwards on an inward opening door in an emergency. It seems to me that there is no simple answer.

 

Also, GW smokeboxes are relatively small and the GW loading gauge slightly more generous - that may have had an effect as capuchons on very short chimneys have no effect - e.g. the original Royal Scots. It might be a situation where a few inches make all the difference