10000/1

Generally, never.

Drivers hated them here and on other diesels like the Class 37. Not sure why. Probably had something to do with pay.

 

Basically because they were too small and narrow for footplate staff to get through. IIRC the similar fitting on Class 28s was tried by a journalist writing for a railway magazine and he reported having to "bend almost double" to pass through and opined that attempting such action at speed would "not be an easy task".

 

I'd recommend a look at the excellent D is for Diesels books, there's a few photos in several volumes of the nose doors in use, but as Fred alludes to they seem very small, as someone who's above 6 foot tall, I wouldn't fancy going through one!

 

Are there any photo's of the node doors in use 'in real life' though?

 

It would seem bonkers we couldn't make an access door on a British locomotive with more headroom.

The Americans were building their EMD F-units from the late 30s and they managed alright.

 

Well I don't think the corridor tender on an A4 was particularly large so it should be no surprise that a diesel corridor connection would be snug. I imagine they were only used for the Secondman to get access to the boiler on the second loco or to correct faults .

 

Yes, but don't forget that in the USA they have a load gauge that is somewhat higher and wider than ours which permitted them to do that.

 

In 'Under 10 CMEs' Volume 2, Eric Langridge wrote "A nose was specified; it kept the driver from being unnerved by disappearing sleepers, so it was said. It housed big Westinghouse air compressors, air being required for engine control gear, and a miniature corridor and connection for access through the two locomotives could be worked in." Presumably the height of the nose and the width of the other equipment were the limiting factors in designing the connection.

 

..... aside from being a jolly useful place to put all those little bits'n'bobs diesels come with!

 

One thing I never particularly liked about the aesthetics of the twin diesels was their numbers 10000/1 over-running the sides of the nose and partially onto the cab doors. It looked stupid.

It was certainty not a problem for other locomotives to display their numbers, so it begs the question why the LMS couldn't correct that silly flaw at the drawing stage...

 

A photo of the "Fell" in a post about aesthetics????

Minus undercarriage, it always reminds me of a Class 29 which has run heavily into tar tankers fore and aft! For my money, the only UK diesels approaching good looking (sorry Deltic fans!) were the Wizzos, though I'll admit to a soft spot for the "Rats" and "Cromptons".

 

Thank Google Images for that.

Every other link was dead and couldn't be uploaded.

And that's not counting the porn.

 

There is a story that during the design process, Gresley made a corridor using the stacked chairs from around the dining table at his home and said "If I can get down that, so can the enginemen".

 

I love the over-running numbers! Along with the silver undercarriage, the shiny black paint and the big silver strake, it hints temptingly at a late Art Deco version of dieselisation that might have happened with a wealthier post war economy and no nationalisation. It also suggests that whoever was in charge of the drawing board had at least seen pictures of some of the flamboyant American diesels of the same era, in particular Alco's DL109: https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-alco-dl-109.html

 

Didn't they also tend to leak and thus were responsible for subjecting the unfortunate drivers to blasts to freezing wet air round their feet...? I was led to believe this didn't increase their popularity (although I believe 37s suffer from this a bit anyway, doors or no doors)