Class 8 - Class H Goods Trains

[Aire Head]

I am sure this topic has been done to death however I am struggling to find the exact information I am looking for.

 

I am planning on modelling the former Midland Railway lines in West Yorkshire (in particular the Aire and Wharfe Valley Lines) in the mid 1950s.

 

I want to make sure that I get the headcodes for the goods services correct and having research the meaning of the headcodes and studied period images (the excellent David Heys Collection has been invaluable) I have noticed that a significant amount of good traffic appears to run under the class H/ Class 8 Headcode.

 

My understanding is that this indicates an unfitted freight however the rolling stock shown in the images frequently is fitted stock. Is there any particular reason for this? Were class H/ class 8 trains used as a catch all for anything that couldn't be considered an express freight?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Aire Head

[LMS2968]

The fact that the stock had the vacuum brake didn't necessarily mean it was connected and in use. The wagons would be used indiscriminately whatever brakes they had. A fitted head of a specified proportion of the train allowed a higher speed, the greater number of fitted wagons, the higher the allowed speed, but if the train wasn't required to run at that speed there was no point in coupling up the vacuum bags, which just added work for the shunters at each end of the journey.

[Aire Head]

 

7 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

The fact that the stock had the vacuum brake didn't necessarily mean it was connected and in use. The wagons would be used indiscriminately whatever brakes they had. A fitted head of a specified proportion of the train allowed a higher speed, the greater number of fitted wagons, the higher the allowed speed, but if the train wasn't required to run at that speed there was no point in coupling up the vacuum bags, which just added work for the shunters at each end of the journey.

So the headcode is more dictating the speed at which the train is travelling? As such a class H is really just any goods train that isn't an Express working?

 

What determined whether a working was considered Express?

 

Edit: I am aware it's probably not that simple however if I can determine a rough guideline for when assembling rakes it will help massively!

Edited November 4, 2019 by Aire Head

[SP Steve]

The following may explain the differences (from Trains Illustrated August 1950):

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[Aire Head]

I feel then I should be fine to run the majority of my goods trains as class H compiled overwhelmingly of general goods stock crawling through at no particularly great speed.

[SP Steve]

For completeness, head codes carried before 5th June 1950 would have been:

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

The fact that the stock had the vacuum brake didn't necessarily mean it was connected and in use. The wagons would be used indiscriminately whatever brakes they had. A fitted head of a specified proportion of the train allowed a higher speed, the greater number of fitted wagons, the higher the allowed speed, but if the train wasn't required to run at that speed there was no point in coupling up the vacuum bags, which just added work for the shunters at each end of the journey.

All very true, but the memoirs of footplate crew make it clear that some would connect up any fitted wagon(s) if available coupled on adjacent the loco, especially on routes with significant gradients and when anticipating poor rail conditions.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Looking at old working timetables of my trainspotting area in the 1950s, most freights ran as Class H if they were long distance or Class K for local trips. There were occasional ones running as Classes C, D and E.

Edited November 4, 2019 by TheSignalEngineer

[The Stationmaster]

55 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

For completeness, head codes carried before 5th June 1950 would have been:

 

 

Except the codes were alphabetical not numeric and what is shown as 3 was actually the Class D headcode and what is shown as 4 was actually the Class C headcode.

 

 

[SP Steve]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Except the codes were alphabetical not numeric and what is shown as 3 was actually the Class D headcode and what is shown as 4 was actually the Class C headcode.

 

 

 

The image was taken from the August 1949 edition of "Trains Illustrated" which featured a piece by G Freeman Allen on Engine Head Codes & Train Numbers. If the source material has been used correctly then the two you've quoted appear to be reversed i.e. 3 = Class C and 4 = Class D. Comparing the two images gives:

 

1 = Class A

2 = Class B

3 = Class C

4 = Class D

5 = Class F

6 = Class H

7 = Class G

8 = Class J

9 = Class K

 

The only one featuring in the June 1950 version without a direct equivalent is the Class E.

 

In the Ian Allan "British Railway Headcodes" book of February 1962 it gives the following equivalents (presumably to cater for the four character panels on diesel & electrics):

 

1 = Class A

2 = Class B

3 = Class C

4 = Class C

5 = Class D

6 = Class E

7 = Class F

8 = Class H

9 = Class J & Class K

0 = Class G

 

Having no recourse to official documentation on the subject then I have no means of checking if any of the above holds true! 

[The Stationmaster]

11 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

 

The image was taken from the August 1949 edition of "Trains Illustrated" which featured a piece by G Freeman Allen on Engine Head Codes & Train Numbers. If the source material has been used correctly then the two you've quoted appear to be reversed i.e. 3 = Class C and 4 = Class D. Comparing the two images gives:

 

1 = Class A

2 = Class B

3 = Class C

4 = Class D

5 = Class F

6 = Class H

7 = Class G

8 = Class J

9 = Class K

It is possible that it was taken incorrectly from source material although I suspect it is equally possible that different Companies used slightly different variations of some codes.  The information I quoted was from the then current GWR General Appendix (fully amended) in which teh C & D codes were reversed ina supplment issued in 1950.

 

the one numbered 5 in the older list you posted was the ; lamping for Class E on the GWR prior to May 1950 when Class E lamps were changed to those shown in the original post of the new standard code and the original Class E code became the new Class F code,

 

From this, and noting the source of G. freeman Allen I suspect the codes you posted might have been LNER codes but alas i haven't got the necessary original document to check that. 

11 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

The only one featuring in the June 1950 version without a direct equivalent is the Class E.

 

In the Ian Allan "British Railway Headcodes" book of February 1962 it gives the following equivalents (presumably to cater for the four character panels on diesel & electrics):

 

1 = Class A

2 = Class B

3 = Class C

4 = Class C

5 = Class D

6 = Class E

7 = Class F

8 = Class H

9 = Class J & Class K

0 = Class G

 

Having no recourse to official documentation on the subject then I have no means of checking if any of the above holds true! 

The 1962 IA listing is more or less correct against the original documentation the only exception being that some trains previously allocated an A headcode were reclassified into Class 2.

 

The pther importn ant thing to remember with headlamp codes and train classification is that they were a relatively dynamic subject, increasingly so in post 1960s days but even so there were changes made to them in earlier years

[Aire Head]

The next question is would the class C headcode cover both Parcels and a Fully Fitted goods?

[TheSignalEngineer]

We certainly had a few Class C freights through Birmingham. They were usually perishables or guaranteed delivery merchandise. There were also ones like the Swindon - Longbridge car parts.

[Aire Head]

Fully fitted freights were certainly known and pictured in the region I wish to depict as a significant amount of traffic was generated through the textile mills.

 

The disadvantage of having headcodes on your locomotives is it generally restricts them to depicting one particular type of working.

 

However if a class C Headcode allows to be use the same locomotive on both fully fitted and parcels workings it is less restrictive.

 

I've seen plenty of images of both minerals and general goods running under a class H to the point where I'd be satisfied that I could do so without it being wrong.

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Fitted wagons and class 8 freights.

 

From the ER Freight Train Load Book.

 

"When class 8 trains are worked by a fitted engine and convey wagons fitted with vacuum brakes such vehicles must, without any laid down marshalling, be attached next to the locomotive and the vacuum pipes connected; in the case of ballast trains, fitted vehicles should be provided at each end of the train wherever possible. Before starting , the Guard must advise the Driver how many wagons are brake connected to the locomotive."

 

Was this an ER only instruction, or a ex LNER one which included the NER?  I cannot find a similar instruction in my LMR Loads of Freight Trains books.

[LMS2968]

Rule 131(a) states ". . . that the prescribed brake power is available, and in proper working order." Even in 1973 we made no effort to marshal fitted stock next to the engine, and would not couple the vacuum bags if we found one such wagon there. There are of course, rules, and then again . . .

[SP Steve]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

Fully fitted freights were certainly known and pictured in the region I wish to depict as a significant amount of traffic was generated through the textile mills.

 

I have a WTT dated June 1961 covering traffic between Leeds and Skipton and the following services ran weekdays as Class C Freights:

 

TWFO ThQ            5026       20:00 Harpenden - Greenhill

MX                         5012       20:23 Wetmore - Carlisle

MX                         5014       21:15 Nottingham - Carlisle London Road

MX                         4924       04:20 Hunslet Down Sidings - Carlisle Kingmoor

MSX                       4986       07:15 Hunslet Down Sidings - Heysham

MSX                       4936       07:50 Hunslet Down Sidings - Carlisle Viaduct Yard

MSX                       5020       01:55 Willesden - Carlisle

SX                           5004       16:45 Water Orton - Glasgow College

SX                           5008       16:55 Water Orton - Carlisle Kingmoor

SO                          5008       16:55 Water Orton - Carlisle London Road

SX                           5006       16:25 Leicester - Carlisle Kingmoor

SX                           5010       20:30 Rotherham Masboro Station Yard - Glasgow

SX                           5022       19:23 Hendon - Gushetfaulds  "CONDOR"

 

MSX                       5035       19:50 Gushetfaulds - Hendon "CONDOR"

MSX                       5001       17:42 Buchanan Street - St Pancras

MSX                       5025       17:50 Hurlford - Brent

MSX                       5003       18:18 Glasgow College - Washwood Heath

MSX                       5033       00:10 Carlisle - Leicester

MSX                       5045       21:20 Edinburgh Lothian Road - Stoke Gifford

WThSO FOQ         5043       00:30 Greenhill - Wilshamstead

                               5009       06:00 Carlisle - St Pancras

FO                          5001       17:42 Buchanan Street - St Pancras

                               5041       13:05 Carlisle Durran Hill - King's Norton

MX                         5133       14:50 Heysham - Stourton Up Sidings

                               5019       16:03 Carlisle - Washwood Heath

 

I've taken traffic passing Skipton South Junction as the datum - most of the workings would have passed in the hours of darkness which may make it easier for you in selecting typical traffic flows.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Rule 131(a) states ". . . that the prescribed brake power is available, and in proper working order." Even in 1973 we made no effort to marshal fitted stock next to the engine, and would not couple the vacuum bags if we found one such wagon there. There are of course, rules, and then again . . .

And in the yards where I worked the Train Preparers definitely wouldn't go round doing dirty and unnecessary jobs such as bagging up vacuum pipes which weren't needed.  A problem could  of course occur with TOPS if the system assumed that fitted wagons were bagged up and it used them in the brake force calculation which went onto the Load Slip  - although by then train speeds were in any case governed by the train classification so provided teh Class was listed correctly there was no problem.

 

Equally of course there were situations, particularly the Incline Instructions, where continuous brakes weren't much help anyway!

[The Johnster]

The class of the train (at least by the early 70s when I was a goods guard at Canton) governs the timings, rather than the maximum speed.  Maximum speed, assuming that it is slower than the line speed, is determined by the slowest maximum allowed speed of any vehicle in the train.  Instanter couplings on any train except class 9 were to be in the 'short' position, and Class 8 trains were timed to run at 35mph, though most consisted of wagons allowed to run at 45mph.  We even had a regular class 8 working from Tidal Sidings that was composed of bogie bolster for steel billets which were allowed 60mph, but never needed to run that fast!  

 

There were exceptions, but as a rule 4-wheeled wagons were permitted 45mph irrespective of 9 or 10' wheelbase.  The 35 ton 9' wheelbase iron ore hoppers were restricted to 35mph, and IIRC the twin bolsters used in some local steel traffic work from Panteg (Pontypool) were restricted to 25mph, as were all trains with instanter couplings in the long position.

 

The difference is between the speed at which the train is timed, which is according to the class of train, which determines the brake force that must be available, and the slowest maximum speed of any wagon on the train.  So a class 8 can run faster than it's timed 35mph if the stock permits it and the train is driven in accordance with the brake force available, as can any* train run faster than it's booked point to point times subject to maximum allowed stock and loco speed, line speed, and with consideration to the load and brakes.  

 

Line speeds were AFAIK a BR development in terms of the higher speeds.  A blanket overall speed limit of 75mph was imposed during WW2 in response to poor maintenance and the difficulties associated with the blackout.  This was relaxed in 1953, an event celebrated by the introduction of the KX-Edinburgh 'Elizabethan' with reduced timings.  There were always overall speed limits on some routes of course, but well maintained main line without speed restricted curves was not restricted and you could go as fast as you thought was safe.  There is little need to do this in practice, as you are required to run to point to point time and are given recovery allowance in the timings if you are running late.  If you failed to make up the time expected, you were censured, and censured for burning excess coal if you hammered things too much.  There was certainly nowhere on the railway in the 70s that did not have a line speed allocated to it, and AFAIK this still holds true.

 

I remember drivers at Canton (and they were at the other sheds as well) who considered it a matter of professional pride to arrive at Paddington on time or late by the exact amount of net time they'd lost on the way up while consistently observing the speed limits, drivers who were equally motivated to make up as much time as the loco could manage (however thrashed) consistent with safety and try to arrive before the booked time (these were the passengers' heroes of course), and drivers who didn't really give a duck so long as none of the delay was booked to them.  My highest regard was for the first type.

 

 

*The rules are the rules except when there are exceptions.  Class 9 trains are restricted to 25mph in any circumstances, locos running tender first or propelling brake vans to 40mph, light engines to 75mph because of the lack of brake power, and 80 with 1 vehicle/85 with 2; line speed with 3 or more subject to other restrictions.  Locos are (in theory) restricted to a top speed as well, e.g. Class 52 90mph, class 47 95mph.  Steam locos were speed restricted on the basis of driving wheel size and this varied between company/regions.  The LMS/LMR for example restricted Stanier 8Fs to 50mph but balanced the driving wheels of some to be able to run at 60mph; these locos were indicated by a white star above the number on the cabside.

Edited November 5, 2019 by The Johnster

[LMS2968]

I can't disagree with any of that, Johnster, except that that was in the 1970s while the OP is talking about the 1950s. At that period the speed limits were somewhat looser: we hadn't had the unexplained straight track derailments on cwr which brought the speed of four wheelers progressively down from 60-ish to 35 mph.

 

Reading the memoirs of some engine crews from steam days and having spent a fair bit of time myself in 20T, four wheel brake vans often makes me cringe!

[Clive Mortimore]

There was a major change to headcode classifications in 1969. Class 8 trains required a fitted head after this change. From 2D53 site "Freight train, not fully fitted with a brake force not less than that shown in section E of the Working Manual for rail staff."

[Aire Head]

To be honest it's all very informative!

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

I can't disagree with any of that, Johnster, except that that was in the 1970s while the OP is talking about the 1950s. At that period the speed limits were somewhat looser: we hadn't had the unexplained straight track derailments on cwr which brought the speed of four wheelers progressively down from 60-ish to 35 mph.

 

Reading the memoirs of some engine crews from steam days and having spent a fair bit of time myself in 20T, four wheel brake vans often makes me cringe!

Preaching to the choir; my blood freezes when I read some of the stuff they used to got up to on the ECML fish trains, no wonder the guards liked to take advantage of the ability to marshall 2 fitted vehicles behind the van to steady it!  And some of that windcutter stuff on on the GC must have been pretty terrifying as well.  

 

Most vans were very good riders until the train started moving.  60mph is fine in a good van, but by my time and I suspect for a long time prior to it good vans were like rocking horse doodoo, and 45mph in a rocker, with the cabin having worked all it's seams loose so that the first hour of the run was spent finding holes to stop up with bits of newspaper to contain the draughts, and with the lamps being shaken out constantly because of the rough riding, was very unpleasant, and physically tiring as you had to constantly brace yourself against the motion.  Getting out of the seat to relight the shaken out lamps was highly fraught, and a case of the old sailor's rule, one hand for the ship and one for yourself. 

 

The worst experience of this sort I had was in a Southern pill box van, which was downright frightening.  This was on a Cardiff-Carlisle class 7, and I very strongly recommended to my relief at Hereford, a grizzled veteran, that he fail the van as unsafe.  Seriously, I'd have known if we'd come off the road because the ride would have improved.  He gave me the familiar 'kids today, we 'ad to put up with much worse, don't know you're born sitting in the back cab most the time' look, but I ran in to him again some weeks later and he acknowledged that I'd been right!  

 

 

 

[LMS2968]

Agreed, at the speeds we were doing, the ride was better described as hard rather than rough. The issue was brakes.

 

If the driver had wound them up to a good speed with the couplings stretched out and then found the backboard (distant) against him, he had little time to gather them all together before putting the brake full in. You kept your ears open, and if you heard the clonk - clonk - clonk of rapidly closing buffers you got down on the floor sitting with your back in one front corner and waited for the jolt. At lower speeds the driver had more time to gather them up and you tended not to be thrown from one end of the van to the other, but you soon learned which drivers were heavy handed!

[RonnieS]

It may have been even more complex in that  weights and speed were involved in applying the head code?

i. e, The Fawley Bromford Bridge Oil Trains went North Loaded at 750 tons under a D head code but returned South empty as class  C. 

 

If I am correct in reading the enclosed max weight under  C lamps is about 600 tons?