Talk:Gangway connection

Corridor tenders and diesels (multiple working)
Useful new article. Probably appropriate to add comments about the LNER corridor tenders for A3s/A4s. Also, where diesel locos were fitted with connecting nose doors, could these provide access to an adjacent coach?

Just as an afterthought, this article is rather UK-centric at present! (But before anyone else criticises, perhaps they can expand the article with their knowledge of non-UK practice!)

EdJogg (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article grew out of what I was trying to squeeze into Flying Scotsman (train) and so they will get mentioned, but I need to consider redundancy between that article, and what's already in LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3, etc.
 * British Diesel locos with gangway connections, such as the pilot scheme Type 2 & Type 4 locos (such as British Rail Class 21 etc.) should be mentioned; but their gangways were incompatible with those of coaches, being significantly reduced in height; I think that they were also narrower than even the B.S. gangway.
 * It's UK-centric because that's what the majority of my books cover! Where I do have anything on non-UK railways, this is of the order of "The Boys First Book of Railways of the World", bought by well-meaning but incompletely informed relatives. I don't want to put in dodgy or (gasp) unsourced material. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This PDF doc mentions "vestibule gangways" (p. 2 para. 3) on a British Rail Class 37, and these are also shown on p. 3 fig. 1 item 8 "Flexible gangway". -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Corridor Tender -- why not lop-sided on track?
Just had a thought, on seeing that new pic, although it is teetering off-topic...

That corridor must have resulted in an odd weight distribution between the left and right wheels of the tender. How did they balance this out? A similar void on the opposite side would be the simple answer, but rather a waste of space, yet using the volume for coal/water would introduce a varying lateral weight distribution. (I'm working on the basis that a conventional tender will have the coal/water weight distributed laterally about the centre-line, and with a predictable variance fore-and-aft as either supply is used up.)

EdJogg (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting point, and one that I've never seen discussed. Certainly there was no similar void on the opposite side (a plan drawing on p. 58 of Haresnape's Gresley Locomotives makes that clear). Would the weight imbalance be significant though? We know that the passageway was 0.46 m wide and 1.52 m high. I know of no published figures for the length; but Haresnape's diagram is approx 1:100 scale, so I would judge the passageway to be about 6 metres long. This gives about 4.2 cubic metres, ie the space occupied by about 4.2 tonnes of water; about 6-7% of the weight of a full tender. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you've applied some metrics, it would seem less of an issue. The additional steel needed for the corridor might have reduced the apparent weight difference a bit. Maybe they just adjusted the springs to suit -- I presume the spring stiffness could be adjusted to control the ride height? That being the case, there might have been sufficient tolerance in the spring set for the weight difference to be adjusted away.
 * EdJogg (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have located photos showing end views of a LNER corridor tender:
 * That showing the front end shows that the door to the passageway was high up on the front plate of the tender: the upper edge is roughly level with the top of the side sheet. There appear to be two steps up to the passageway from the footplate. This being the case, there will have been space for water below the passageway floor; and as water was used up, the tender would have had a tencency to become more balanced, rather than less. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That showing the front end shows that the door to the passageway was high up on the front plate of the tender: the upper edge is roughly level with the top of the side sheet. There appear to be two steps up to the passageway from the footplate. This being the case, there will have been space for water below the passageway floor; and as water was used up, the tender would have had a tencency to become more balanced, rather than less. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct terms?
As a non-native speaker of English, I have problems finding the correct technical terms for corridor connections. I know the old style type is mostly called diaphragm de:Faltenbalg. But what do you call a de:Gummiwulst? Are there different words for it in British, American and Australian English?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Corridor connection is one of those items of railway hardware which have several terms - even in British English, where different sources use "corridor connection", "gangway connection", "gangway", "vestibule connection" or "vestibule"; and the same terms can mean different things too: "gangway" may mean the longitudinal passageway along the side or centre of the coach; "vestibule" may mean a transverse passageway without seats but with doors opening both to the outside and to the seating areas.
 * When creating the article I was unsure which term to use. Having read a few more sources, I'm considering moving this to [Gangway connection], but haven't found an overwhelming reason to do so. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved it, after deciding that "gangway" was not just more general, but seems to be commonly used in books. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Offset gangway
I've added File:GreatCentralRailwayE70268E.JPG to illustrate an offset gangway. Could really do with one on a passenger-carrying coach. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved the pic. (Hope that's OK?)
 * The term 'tender' is not mentioned in the TPO article and might be confusing. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Other similar articles
I just merged this article with the article "Corridor (rail vehicle)", and I noticed that the article "Corridor coach" is very similar. I would propose a merger between "Corridor connection" and "Corridor coach". The articles about railway vestibules (a disinct but related concept) are similarly messy. Narayansg —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 14 December 2012‎


 * Oppose merge Corridor connections are a significant step after the development of corridor coaches. There was a period when corridors had replaced non-corridor stock, but before the corridor spanned between coaches. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what's with ? Under what circumstances would somebody looking for those Amtrak services end up here? Please ensure that if any are present, they accord with the advice at WP:HAT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern types
Need to add info on modern types. For example, this one can clearly be tilted back when not in use; it seems to be associated with the Voith coupler. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Articulated car?
This and articulated car seem to be covering roughly the same topic. -- Kendrick7talk 02:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a world of difference. Gangway connections are the means by which passengers move from one carriage to another; articulation is a method by which the ends of two adjacent carriages or wagons are carried on the same bogie. One can exist without the other, and vice versa. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Of course, per above and adding that articulation usually is between two parts of the same car and not intended to be disengaged except in the workshop. For example: nobody speaks of an articulated bus (bendy bus) as two buses, same goes for trams, and you never switch front and back (or whatever) parts in daily operation; nobody speaks of a set of traditional railway coaches connected by gangway connections as one coach and each coach is constructed so that it can be treated as a separate unit in daily operation. Then there are short couplings and twin units, but those are stories for their respective articles.
 * Because of this and the low activity here since February, I believe it's time to remove the template. 83.248.231.116 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness: an articulation can also be between bogies or wheelsets, not over them, as in a normal articulated bus and many low-floor trams. 83.248.231.116 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote
This formerly appeared at the top of the article:

It's my opinion that this is unnecessary, because the title Corridor (rail vehicle) is completely unambiguous. Hatnotes are there to say "Did you mean...?" such as one on Bach (about the most famous composer of that name) linking to Bach (disambiguation) in case a reader searching for "Bach" meant some other Bach. It seems very unlikely to me that a reader coming here from Corridor (rail vehicle) would have been looking for any other kind of corridor. If they did, they would see that it's about a specific kind of corridor and search for "corridor" - which would send them to Corridor, a disambiguation page. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide view
At present, obviously, it's only about Great Britain. 83.248.231.116 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only write, obviously, using the sources which I have, and those deal 99.9% with British matters. -- Red rose64 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A template is no accusation. It's a highlight, an invitation, a hedge against overlooking a need for improvement. I would rather have added things myself if I had had good sources. Feel proud that you started the article instead. 83.248.231.116 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Corridor train
Corridor train redirects here, from a dab page. Having ridden a lot of British trains in the 1950s & 60s, & read much early 20th century English fiction, I believe the term (at least as used historically) refers to a carriage with a corridor connecting the compartments, not the coupling vestibule between cars. Strange as it seems now, many if not most commuter trains in the period I am writing of had separate compartments, isolated from each other, each with its own outside doors. "Corridor train" was therefore an important distinction, distinguishing a train of such cars from a longer-haul (or more modern) train with compartments connected by a corridor, usually with a WC at the end.

Perhaps this is covered in another article, to which the dab & redirect should point. Or it could be added here. Suggestions? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that different railways had different terms for the same feature, or even the same term for different features. Consider the term "gangway": this could refer to a longitudinal aisle through the seating area at (or close to) the centre line of the coach; or it could refer to the flexible connection providing passenger access between coaches. Then there is "vestibule": this could refer to a portion of the coach without seating through which the passengers pass in moving between an exterior door and the longitudinal passageway (whether side corridor or centre aisle); or it could again refer to the flexible connection. On some railways, the aforementioned aisle might be referred to as a "centre corridor". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)