Coal Pockets, front aprons?

[Paul R.]

I am in the process of building a 6pocket set based on the Como pockets. The smaller pocket aprons I have worked out . the large ones have internal counterweights, how do they work. looks like the front of the pocket floor has a cutout for the counterweights? I might add I have already built the pockets so any work will be difficult!!I am building a Sn3 portable layout for the local Exhibition in early June, about 3.4m long and650mm wide in 3 sections called South Park So I am compressing things a bit! I don't think the purists will like me. That will do to start. Paul Richie Ballarat,  Vic. Au

[Jim Courtney]

Jeff Ramsey generously contributed drawings of standard UP coaling trestles and chutes in the C&S Coal Chute thread:  http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/The-C-amp-S-Coal-Chutes-Pine-Como-Dickey-Pitkin-and-almost-Breckenridge-td4269.html (bottom of first page).

Perhaps they will answer some of your questions.

Jim

[Paul R.]

Hello Jim,
I have had several looks at those plans, they concentrate on the outside counterweights and arms the
internal ones would be a bit different? Maybe a photo of an engine loading at Como dock might help!
Must have another look at the photos. Maybe one of the boys who have built Como pockets could add
here. Paul R.


On Fri, Apr 29th, 2016 at 1:57 AM, "Jim Courtney [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <ml-
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Jeff Ramsey generously contributed drawings of standard UP coaling
> trestles
> and chutes in the C&S Coal Chute thread:  
> http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/The-C-amp-S-Coal-Chutes-Pine-Como-Dickey-
Pitkin-and-almost-Breckenridge-td4269.html
> <http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/The-C-amp-S-Coal-Chutes-Pine-Como-Dickey-
Pitkin-and-almost-Breckenridge-td4269.html>

>  
> (bottom of first page).
>
> Perhaps they will answer some of your questions.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> -----
> Jim Courtney
> Poulsbo, WA
> _______________________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Coal-Pockets-front-aprons-tp5126p5127.html
>
> To unsubscribe from Coal Pockets, front aprons?, visit
> http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?

macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=5126&code=cHJpY2hpZUB2aWMuY2hhcmlvdC5uZXQuYXV8NTEyNn
wxMjYxMTM0NzMx

[Todd Hackett]

Paul R. wrote

Hello Jim,
I have had several looks at those plans, they concentrate on the outside counterweights and arms the
internal ones would be a bit different? Maybe a photo of an engine loading at Como dock might help!...

I'm not sure what you mean by "internal ones." I you are referring to the inner coal door, it hinges from the top and is pushed open by the coal, so it doesn't need counterweights. The only part that has counterweights is the apron.

[Paul R.]

Hello Todd,
I am using the term in the Joe Crea plan meaning the counterweights on the larger bins is between the
supports not outside as in the smaller ones. the photo here shows that so are there would have to be
slots on the bottom of the floor of  bin outside the bin itself to allow for the movement of the
counterweights. Hope that clears up what I want to work out. Thanks for any help. Paul R.

On Sat, Apr 30th, 2016 at 1:50 AM, "Todd Hackett [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <ml-
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Paul R. wrote
> > Hello Jim,
> > I have had several looks at those plans, they concentrate on the
> outside
> > counterweights and arms the
> > internal ones would be a bit different? Maybe a photo of an engine
> loading
> > at Como dock might help!...
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "internal ones." I you are referring to the
> inner coal door, it hinges from the top and is pushed open by the coal,
> so
> it doesn't need counterweights. The only part that has counterweights is
> the
> apron.
> <http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/file/n5129/ComoCoalRHK1938-07-31-2.jpg>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Coal-Pockets-front-aprons-tp5126p5129.html
>
> To unsubscribe from Coal Pockets, front aprons?, visit
> http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?

macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=5126&code=cHJpY2hpZUB2aWMuY2hhcmlvdC5uZXQuYXV8NTEyNn
wxMjYxMTM0NzMx

[Todd Hackett]

Paul R. wrote

..the counterweights on the larger bins is between the
supports not outside as in the smaller ones....

Okay, I think I understand. I think the confusion comes from a major difference in construction between the Burnett & Clifton style of coal chutes and the Williams, White & Co design used at Como. I'm not sure if the rest of the C&S docks were Burnett & Clifton, but they seem to follow much of the basic structure. The only C&S coal dock where there was a distinction between large & small chutes was Pine, where the larger chutes may have bee added later using different construction.

In the basic Burnett & Clifton design, each chute is nearly a stand-alone structure with four legs. The side boards for the chute are attached directly to the inside of the legs, and the apron sides with counterweights are on the outside. Each bin has its own legs, so there is a narrow gap between legs of adjacent chutes containing the sides of aprons for both chutes.

At Como, the bins don't have their own legs. The side boards don't attach to the legs. You can see in the photo that the side boards are inside the apron sides - considerably narrower than the space between the structure legs. The floor probably doesn't extend beyond the side boards, leaving room for the counterweighted extensions of the apron sides to swing past. The following sketch shows a possible arrangement. The sections are taken between the leg and the apron side. Red shows the fixed chute structure, green shows the apron in its raised position, and blue is the chute in the closed position. In the front view, I added dashed red lines to show the legs as they extend upward, as well as the sides of the chute and extension of the apron sides (in green).

[Paul R.]

Hello Todd and all,
That answers my question, after looking several times at the photo, that did occur to me. As I have already built
the basic pockets with the sides attached to the posts that means a major rebuild! That will have to be after June
as I have an exhibition in June of this section of the layout. Maybe new pocket sides will not look too bad, I would
like to have 1or2 of the aprons to hinge, more thoughts. Thanks to all for the help . That means that the pockets
could have been built elsewhere and railed to Como? would have made a nice load! Paul R.  


On Sun, May 1st, 2016 at 1:28 AM, "Todd Hackett [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <ml-
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Paul R. wrote
> > ..the counterweights on the larger bins is between the
> > supports not outside as in the smaller ones....
>
> Okay, I think I understand. I think the confusion comes from a major
> difference in construction between the Burnett & Clifton style of coal
> chutes and the Williams, White & Co design used at Como. I'm not sure if
> the
> rest of the C&S docks were Burnett & Clifton, but they seem to follow
> much
> of the basic structure. The only C&S coal dock where there was a
> distinction
> between large & small chutes was Pine, where the larger chutes may have
> bee
> added later using different construction.
>
> In the basic Burnett & Clifton design, each chute is nearly a stand-alone
> structure with four legs. The side boards for the chute are attached
> directly to the inside of the legs, and the apron sides with
> counterweights
> are on the outside. Each bin has its own legs, so there is a narrow gap
> between legs of adjacent chutes containing the sides of aprons for both
> chutes.
>
> At Como, the bins don't have their own legs. The side boards don't attach
> to
> the legs. You can see in the photo that the side boards are inside the
> apron
> sides - considerably narrower than the space between the structure legs.
> The
> floor probably doesn't extend beyond the side boards, leaving room for
> the
> counterweighted extensions of the apron sides to swing past. The
> following
> sketch shows a possible arrangement. The sections are taken between the
> leg
> and the apron side. Red shows the fixed chute structure, green shows the
> apron in its raised position, and blue is the chute in the closed
> position.
> In the front view, I added dashed red lines to show the legs as they
> extend
> upward, as well as the sides of the chute and extension of the apron
> sides
> (in green).

 

[Paul R.]

Hello Todd and all,
Since My last post, I had a major accident ,an argument with a twincab ute( I ride a Mcycle) which left me with 2 broken legs, a month in hospital, now home and in rehab. Have now got back into modelling so have been finishing-pacific Hotel and Como depot then I will get back to the coal pockets and my 3 stall round house .Will add some photos on the progress shortly Paul R.