Bachmann Queen Mary brake, too small?

[Porkscratching]

Having dug out a Bachmann SR Queen Mary from my stash, I was struck by how tiny it appears compared to other stock...

Did these have a skinny little cab in reality?..I've taken a side by side, (apologies for poor phone pics)

With a random Airfix BR job from the spares box, as these are generally held to be reasonably accurate to scale as I understand.

The Bachmann to my mind looks like something from HO scale by comparison, any thoughts much appreciated..

Edited March 23, 2019 by Porkscratching
Add another pic

[Dunsignalling]

SR brake vans were built narrower than most for reasons of route availability.

 

Width over duckets on that diagram is 8' 3", which scales to 33mm in OO.

 

Just measured one of my Bachmann ones, and it's spot on.

 

John

[Porkscratching]

Thanks for that, I'd assume all the Bachmann versions are from the same mould, though I'll run the verniers over it to be sure, do you know off hand a mean height for these?...as it seems a bit low in the roof line compared to other vans too.

[Dunsignalling]

33 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

Thanks for that, I'd assume all the Bachmann versions are from the same mould, though I'll run the verniers over it to be sure, do you know off hand a mean height for these?...as it seems a bit low in the roof line compared to other vans too.

The whole thing scales pretty exactly to the drawings in Southern Wagons Volume 4. It's only the verandas that give these vans their presence, the cabin itself is no bigger than on the four wheelers. It didn't need to be as it carried the same load: one guard, his bag, a water churn and enough coal to fuel his stove. The bogie ones just rode better at speed.

 

Unlike goods vans, capacity isn't an issue - check how much lower GW Toads are than most Minks. The thing with brake vans is they only needed to be high enough to avoid the guard banging his head, plus they had chimneys which had to be within gauge. Making them any higher than necessary wasted timber and made them colder/more expensive to heat in the winter.

 

Once SR vans started migrating onto other regions in later times, they became quite sought-after in winter, the small cabins were easier to keep warm.

 

John 

[Mark Saunders]

25 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Once SR vans started migrating onto other regions in later times, they became quite sought-after in winter, the small cabins were easier to keep warm.

 

 

No not in the North East at any time of year on mineral workings, the veranda was too long and it was almost impossible reach the coupling with a shunting pole to uncouple the van on the move!

 

Mark Saunders

 

[Porkscratching]

Cheers for the intel gents!..I'll proceed with doing something with it then.

I seem to recall that SR liked to keep tabs on these and didn't like them to wander too far afield in case they didn't get them back again, supposedly a very comfortable ride compared to some of the more basic vans I'm told.

[Kelly]

I guess it made sense to make them narrower to be more usable across the whole region (possibly excluding the Hastings line, which had a width limit of 8ft iirc, or Maunsell Coach Restriction 0). The Eastern section lines were quite tight in a number of places too, until parts were rebuilt under BR.

 

It makes more sense to build a brake van to a single width rather than 3 different widths like the maunsell coaching stock.

[The Johnster]

I think what John Dunsignalling meant was that the 4 wheeled vans that migrated off the Southern were sought after because of their small easily heated cabins, as the Southern Region ruthlessly chased down any Queen Mary's that made a break for the border.  In 7 years of working freight at Canton in the 70s, I only ever once rode in a Queen Mary, from Severn Tunnel to Stoke Gifford; it was like a Pullman.  The 4 wheel vans, based on an old SECR design I believe as I never saw any of the long bodied Brighton type (like LMS but with a droplight instead of the duckets) in BR service, were very poor riders though, even worse than the BR standard LNER derived type, and for the same reason; the ballast was carried on the ends beyond the verandahs and outside of the wheelbase.

 

This did nothing to prevent and everything to encourage the natural tendency of the last vehicle of a train to rock about a bit, and because the rocking 'worked' the timber body's joints, the vans were very draughty as well as uncomfortable and tiring to ride in.  I certainly didn't seek after them and remember an absolutely miserable run to Hereford one freezing night constantly having to relight the lamps which the van shook out every few minutes.  Had the stove glowing red hot and as many gaps as I could stuffed with newspaper, but it was still a howling gale in there and there was ice inside the windows!  The ride was shocking, genuinely alarming, and I advised my old hand Hereford relief to fail the van.

 

He gave me the look, the 'Canton back cab jockey don't know you're born, laddie' one, so I left him to it.  He saw me again a few weeks later and admitted that I'd had a point!

[Porkscratching]

Great to have some first hand testimony from someone who worked these old vans in real life!

Nearest I got was as a kid, we used to regularly go and play on the track (accessible via an ungated level crossing), there was a siding, usually with various stock 'parked up'... getting into a brake van and sitting around on the 'comfy' seats looking out of the duckets was a favourite when one had been left there...

[The Johnster]

Then you remember the luxurious shoulder pads for the ducket seats.  These were essential in the event of the train bunching up or snatching unexpectedly; brake van work was a bit rough at the best of times and if you were out of the seat it was best to be hanging on to something or at least planning where to land.  We used the old sailing ship rule; one hand for yourself and one for the van...

 

As a rule, the ride was very good unless the train was moving!

[Porkscratching]

You can imagine what fun a couple of 8 or 9 year old kids had messing about in, on and around these vans... not to mention the old game of putting pennies on the track to get squashed, happy days!

I suspect there was a lot more to being a guard working goods than one would at first think...thanks for sharing Mr Johnster!

[The Johnster]

When I were a lad... we used to do the squashed pennies thing and also squashed pins.  These made very good swords for your soldiers.  

 

Being a goods guard on an un- or part-fitted train with a brake van was a fairly involved job.  Your road knowledge had to be up to the mark, so that you knew where the driver would need you to apply the brake to keep the train tight and stop the wagons bunching up, but also where to rub it gently just to stop the van from misbehaving.  You also needed to know where the train might slow down for signals, speed restrictions, or be 'put inside' loops for faster traffic to pass.  And you had to know this at night and in fog.

 

You were responsible for the lamps, one tail and a side lamp on each side.  These side lamps had removable red shades so that they could show a white light to the rear, which you displayed on loops or relief roads next to running lines where traffic would pass you to re-assure the drivers of such traffic that they were not about to run into you in the dark!  Failure to do so would incur the understandable wrath of such drivers when they caught up with you...

 

You signalled the driver or secondman (depending on the side) with your handlamp with the 'tip' to inform him you were safely aboard the van at the start of the journey or any other time you'd left it, and to inform him that he was clear of loops or speed restrictions.  You also used the handlamp to inform the signalman that you were 'inside clear' on entering a loop, so that he could clear back and set the road for the faster traffic you'd been put in there for.

 

You were, of course, also in charge of the train, and seeing to it that it was properly prepared to travel, and not overloaded for the loco.  The 'Driver's Slip' which you handed to the driver at the beginning of the journey, which contained the load, brake force, and maximum speed allowed (that of the slowest vehicle) had to be signed by you, making it a legal document and you responsible for seeing that it's information was correct; this would be looked at by the Board of Trade Inquiry if things went wrong.

 

Brake van preparation meant checking that the full equipment was carried; the 3 lamps, filled and correctly trimmed (a correctly trimmed paraffin lamp with a full reservoir burned for 24 hours), paraffin (usually in an old milk bottle), a shunting pole, brake stick, and a pair of track circuit clips (they clipped over the railhead and were connected by a wire, the purpose being to short out track circuits and automatically return MAS signals to danger should an incident leave adjacent lines blocked or fouled).  You also needed coal for the stove, and kindling to get the fire going.

 

In your satchel bag, you had all the necessary publications; WTT, General and Sectional Appendices (to the rule book, which was in your pocket) and notices, detonators (up to date; first thing the guard's inspector asked you if he ran into you was 'are your shots up to date?'), red and green flags, work gloves, your tea can, and whatever food you'd brought (I carried spare bars of chocolate on the basis that you might be out for up to 24 hours).  You were not doing the job properly if you did not also have a waterproof tin with a box of matches in it, and yesterday's newspaper, used for stopping up the numerous draughts.

 

The van had a rail with hooks set into the roof above the stove, which could be used to dry wet clothing. There were 3 padded seats, the duckets and a desk at the opposite end to the stove, and benches with storage inside along the sides.  The brake wheel was offset from the centre so that you could safely use it without having to get out of the seat; once you were underway at any speed it was advisable to stay sat down!

[Porkscratching]

That's pure gold Mr J.!

I bet the average Joe reckons the guard just sat in the van reading the papers, and maybe blew his whistle at the beginning of the journey!

Ps wish we'd thought of the squashed pins thing!

I did have a prize penny tho, that had gone under at least 25 trains...

[Mark Saunders]

48 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

T

I bet the average Joe reckons the guard just sat in the van reading the papers,

 

 

Without any internal lighting!

 

Plus all those pipes out the side for the waste pipes from the non existent sink & toilet!

[The Johnster]

I’m not saying it was a particularly onerous job, or denying that newspapers were read and eyes rested in loops on dark nights, but you had to know where you were and what was going on.  We had mostly ‘easy’ main line work at Canton; Radyr up the road did Valleys jobs with a lot more in the way of colliery shunting and pinning down brakes for incline working (there’s been a bit about this on Prototype Questions/cut-off braking of steam engines).  We hardly ever used the brake stick or shunting pole unless there was a hot box to detach; Radyr had much less time to sit down and read newspapers!

[Compound2632]

Is the model of the BR standard perhaps a little on the wide side?

[Derekl]

Slightly off topic, but possibly interesting - my father was a reporter on the Barrow Evening Mail in 1953/54. BR introduced an overnight fast freight service from Barrow to London and he was invited onto the inaugural run, to provide background to the story. He rode in the guards van, presumably a BR Standard. He described it as terrifying. He spent the whole journey (which must have been a good few hours) clinging on for dear life. Plus, when he got to London, he was filthy, covered in muck. I don't think he was given any warning of that risk and was wearing ordinary clothes (a suit, I imagine).

 

After a lengthy shower, he came back on a passenger train.

 

Today, I suppose, the reporter would not worry about all that real life experience and just write up the press release (although my father tended to the adventurous on this sort of issue). I suspect that the railway operators would not be enthusiastic about journalists parked at the front (or back) end without supervision, risk assessments and so on.

[Porkscratching]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Is the model of the BR standard perhaps a little on the wide side?

I used that as a comparison as it's an old Airfix kit one, and I believe these are meant to be accurate, despite being a very old model?

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Derekl said:

Slightly off topic, but possibly interesting - my father was a reporter on the Barrow Evening Mail in 1953/54. BR introduced an overnight fast freight service from Barrow to London and he was invited onto the inaugural run, to provide background to the story. He rode in the guards van, presumably a BR Standard. He described it as terrifying. He spent the whole journey (which must have been a good few hours) clinging on for dear life. Plus, when he got to London, he was filthy, covered in muck. I don't think he was given any warning of that risk and was wearing ordinary clothes (a suit, I imagine).

 

After a lengthy shower, he came back on a passenger train.

 

Today, I suppose, the reporter would not worry about all that real life experience and just write up the press release (although my father tended to the adventurous on this sort of issue). I suspect that the railway operators would not be enthusiastic about journalists parked at the front (or back) end without supervision, risk assessments and so on.

 

Kudos to him for sticking it out; I imagine he'd have had chances to bail out when the guards were relieved, probably Preston, and perhaps Crewe or Rugby.  Those fast vacuum fitted freights required no braking from the guard, but could be a bit hairy, and on the ECML guards preferred to have the permitted 2 vehicles coupled behind the van to steady thing up a bit; there are tales of some very high speeds on these trains hauled by V2s or pacifics.  

 

They were often regarded as a bit of a challenge for the locomen as well, 800 or more tons to near passenger timings.  

 

A novice riding on a fast freight job at night, disorientated, terrified, cowed by the noise and motion, and probably mocked by the railwaymen, would certainly have an impression of the experience!

[Steven B]

These first (and second) hand accounts are facinating, but do beg the question: if the ride of 4 wheel brake vans was so bad, how/why did they last so long? Why weren't more bogie vans built?

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

41 minutes ago, Steven B said:

These first (and second) hand accounts are facinating, but do beg the question: if the ride of 4 wheel brake vans was so bad, how/why did they last so long? Why weren't more bogie vans built?

 

 

 

Probably just cost. The Queen Mary's probably only got authorised because they were on a secondhand chassis.

[The Johnster]

Yes, cost.  The original batch of QMs was built on the frames of never-finished LSWR 3rd rail electric locos that were cancelled at the grouping.  The Western section of the Southern had some very fast goods traffic from the West Country and found the vans useful, to the extent that another batch was built.  

 

The comfort of freight guards was not a particularly high priority; the Railway industry was remarkably 'small c conservative' and the attitude that what had been good enough for the previous generation was good enough for you, so stop moaning and get on with it, was the main preventer of better riding brake vans.  Bogie vans needed universal joints in the brake rodding, and these needed greasing and maintenance, and we can't be doing with that!  The bulk of freight work in steam days was very slow and the problem was less of an issue then; modernisation brought about faster goods trains and less traffic so they got clearer runs at exactly the same time as the push for fully fitted traffic meant that it was unlikely that a new brake van design would ever follow the LNER/BR standard.  Vans could be kept out of pool for the fast trains in steam days and good ones run in circuits.

 

My view is that the BR standard van was a missed opportunity, a fundamentally flawed design with the ballast outboard of the axles almost guaranteeing a poor ride once the van had a few miles under it.  The LMS van was a better rider, with the ballast low down between the axles, but notoriously draughty; the door opened inwards and the wind pushed it.  The GW toad was withdrawn in the early 60s, to the chagrin of WR men who were very fond of it.  Like the Midland van, it had it's ballast low down and central, and was very solidly constructed and draughtproof, but condemned by the single verandah which spent half the time leading as the vans weren't turned; the brake was outside and the guard had to go out and use it in all conditions.  It was ultimately decided that the single ended nature of the van would prevent the guard from escaping from it in an accident.

 

The locomen liked this van as well because of the long bench seats which were good for 'resting your eyes' when you were stuck in a loop for a few hours.  But there was no way to observe the train from inside the van, no ducket or droplight.  

 

The QMs were the best by a very large margin, and the Southern religiously chased them down if any went off region despite the official status of being pooled.  They were good for 75mph, whereas the 4 wheel vans were limited to 60mph.  But I think BR could have done better than the LNER 20tonner, even if it was only a Midland van with outward opening cabin doors or a GW toad with 2 verandahs.

 

Prior to the 1969 single manning agreement when guards became 'traincrew' and booked on at Loco depots with the drivers, they were based at goods yards and, despite the pooling arrangement, were able to keep vans to work specific jobs.  They were more able to report poor running or other defects and chase them up if they weren't attended to, and the vans were, in the nature of things, kept much cleaner and in generally better condition.  By my time on the railway in the 70s, the vans were in poor condition, getting worse, and nobody cared very much.  We were by and large the authors of our own misfortune, contributing to the neglect; what was the point of tidying a van up only to hand it over to a relief en route and have to pick up another scruffy one the following day?

[Steamport Southport]

The LMS tried bogie brake vans and come to the conclusion it was pointless.

 

They were built like that so they could go through the restricted tunnels not because of comfort. They were built to replace antiquated vans inherited from the SER and LCDR and the standard vans were too wide. They needed the extra length due to weight distribution problems.

 

Don't forget most of the railways tried concrete and steel/iron brake vans. I think the guard was well down the list of priorities when it came to comfort.

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

[Compound2632]

Surely in the days of loose-coupled goods trains, the guard was to some extent the author of his own (dis)comfort? His job was to make skillful use of his brake to assist in keeping the train under control - keeping the couplings taught and so avoiding snatches that would be uncomfortable for him as well as risking breaking a coupling.

[The Johnster]

To a limited extent yes; certainly a novice or incompetent guard could make life a lot more uncomfortable and even dangerous for himself!  You could, with a good driver (and they weren't all good drivers even if they all thought they were) who was skilled at handling an unpredictable vacuum fitted head, generally stop the train from bunching up on level track, but preventing snatches altogether on an undulating road was beyond the skill of the most experienced guards and drivers.  This is because there is more to it than just keeping the couplings tight, the vertical radius at the top of a gradient that led directly onto a downhill section would stretch the drawhook springs and snatch the couplings when they sprang back as the train got on to the downhill part.  This stretch would be minimal, perhaps an inch per wagon, but that's a 5 foot snatch on a 60 wagon train.  This would destroy your carefully maintained tight couplings just as the driver has to put power on to maintain a tight train through the next dip; result, a violent snatch which the driver was not always aware of and could do nothing about.  But one could generally predict where and when it was coming!

 

You could do nothing about the ride of course, and it would take a good hour to locate and stop up all the draughts.