Flying Scotsman

Friend reported her as passing through Carlisle heading south yesterday.

 

A lot of coaching stock isn't buckeye fitted - going back to pre-Pendolino days, I remember being surprised that the class 86 & 87 weren't buckeye fitted, despite working push-pull.

 

I thought all mark 1s had buckeyes from the outset?
I can understand that it wasn't going to be used, but I'm surprised it's not there at all

 

I think they may have got confused with 45699 or whatever it's numbered as this week. 60103 is booked to move from Aviemore to Inverness this afternoon.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...S2HXIwszoTA-0SSPLNzJY8NTfXOhtziORcHokuC-v9Xhw

 

Assume you have never witnessed TPE trying to couple two 185's who don't want to talk to each other. The approach seems to be to batter them together with ever increasing ferocity until I assume whatever is refusing to connect does connect, and if that doesn't work I have seen them bring out.... the lump of wood!

 

They did. I assume it was removed with the balcony conversion as it would never be coupled to another coach, always being at the end. Part of the buffing system with buckeyed stock is in the corridor connection, so with that removed, you couldn't couple with buckeyes safely even if you wanted to.

 

Our rulebook says if it doesn't go after 2 tries, give up and report it as deffective.

 

If in doubt, give it a clout. Standard railway operating practice!

 

And or a kick surely

 

Flying Scotsman good to go.
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/10/york-railway-museum-release-flying-scotsman-tour-update.html

 

Flying Scotsman to carry out tours after passing mechanical inspection (msn.com)

 

For 'A spokesman for the NRM' read 'the NRM tweeted'... https://x.com/RailwayMuseum/status/1710270878745837871

Good news all round, hopefully the issues with the RS are similarly small/surmountable.

 

Hardly good news for the Royal Scotsman set but dont expect many tears will be shed...

 

Only Mk1 corridor stock had Buckeyes, non-corridor suburban stock did not.

 

As Alex haas said you need a gangway to use a buckeye, specifically a Pullman gangway. That’s one reason why only the LNER corridor tenders had them. Their near non-corridor cousins had screw couplings. I could never understand why first generation DMUs had BS standard gangways and screw couplings instead of Pullman gangways and buckeyes but there will be a reason.

 

Is that what they were doing, testing the crash worthiness of the modified coach?

 

True up to a point, I think, but some Class 33 and even some departmental coaches (the LNERCA scrapped an electrification test coach [DE041305] thus fitted) that had no gangways but were fitted with or retained the lower buffing plate portion of the gangway together with buckeye. 33 108 on the SVR was one, for example. I'm a bit surprised the Royal Scotsman balcony coach didn't retain a similar arrangement, although as so few locos have buckeyes I don't suppose it mattered.

 

Steve
A reason why almost all 1st generation DMUs did not have buckeye couplings, is that the bogies are very close to the end of the underframe. Therefore there is no space for the double acting drawbar spring unit and dragbox. Which would foul the top of the bogie frame and probably the brake cylinder too.

 

I believe it was also intended that they would haul trailing loads to a much greater extent than they actually did

 

My understanding was that all the crash resistance of a Mk. 1 was in its chassis, not the bodywork which is why corrosion can be such an issue for them - but I could be wrong.