Mk 1 Full Brakes - why used?

[Nearholmer]

I think BG were used in the 1970s on services into Euston, at the London end of the train, to avoid shifting brute trolleys the full length of busy platforms to access the ramps down to the undercroft.

 

The volume of red star parcels then was very great, because there were virtually no other ‘courier’ services (UPS in a few places maybe?), so the only other choice was Royal Mail, which for parcels was a lot slower.

[Oldddudders]

On 19/01/2020 at 13:50, C126 said:

 

May I just second this, and thank you all for your contributions.  I, too, am finding it very useful.  Any memories of the van train along the west Sussex coast, bringing market garden produce up to Bricklayers Arms?  Was the train used regularly for any other horticultural freight flow into London?

11.35 Chichester to B Arms. A BRUTE train - one BRUTE out, one BRUTE in. I think it picked up BRUTEs at Haywards Heath, but can't remember whether it ran via and stopped at Redhill or straight up the Quarry. It certainly stopped at East Croydon. 

[Aire Head]

On 19/01/2020 at 17:50, The Stationmaster said:

On passenger trains it was actually the number of wheels.  And the number allowed behind the  rearmost brakevan on a passenger etc train depended on the maximum rising gradient of the route over which the train would run.  It should be noted that the limits were set by regional Instructions not the normal Brake Regulations and may well have varied a little between Regions prior to 1972, for example things changed considerably when what amounted to fixed formation air braked Intercity trains began to operate regularly. The detail given below has been checked against WR official source documents. 

 

So - at 1960 (and going back for quite a long while previously it was as follows -

A. Rising gradient not steeper than 1 in 100 or falling or level = total of 40 wheels allowed behind the rearmost brake;  passengers allowed to travel in a maximum of vehicles up to and including 40 wheels behind the rearmost brakevan

B.  Rising gradient steeper than 1 in 100 but no steeper than 1 in 40 = total 40 wheels;  but passengers only allowed to travel in vehicles up to a maximum of 24 wheels behind the brakevan.

C.  Rising gradient steeper than 1 in 40 = total of 16 wheels; passengers only allowed to travel in a maximum of  a single vehicle behind the brakevan. 

 

 

So please forgive what may be a stupid question.

 

If their was a maximum number of permitted wheel behind a brake why do you see smaller rakes of coaches that are not through portions marshalled with a brake at both ends?

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Hopefully there would normally be a simple correlation with the number of axles !

Except for the NER dynamometer test car, which had a wheel which was lowered for recording distance! 

[Edwin_m]

9 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

So please forgive what may be a stupid question.

 

If their was a maximum number of permitted wheel behind a brake why do you see smaller rakes of coaches that are not through portions marshalled with a brake at both ends?

Going by The Stationmaster's quote, 40 wheels is only five coaches and the gradient rules might reduce this to three or two (at least carrying passengers).  Depending on route many formations wouldn't be allowed to have one brake located at one end and a few wouldn't even be allowed to have one in the middle.  Rules also differed on other Regions and the position of the brake might also have been constrained by any short platforms along the route. 

 

I believe in 1972 all these rules were swept away and the brake could be anywhere in a passenger train.  

Edited January 21, 2020 by Edwin_m
Got mixed up between wheels and axles ... told you it was confusing!

[Siberian Snooper]

10 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

So please forgive what may be a stupid question.

 

If their was a maximum number of permitted wheel behind a brake why do you see smaller rakes of coaches that are not through portions marshalled with a brake at both ends?

 

Possibly the space was required for mail and parcels, most trains used to carry a fair bit of both, not mention luggage which wouldn't fit in the rack.

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 19/01/2020 at 17:50, The Stationmaster said:

This was mainly to enable the number of brakevans to be reduced to one on as many passenger trains as possible and to facilitate the gradual introduction of standard formations on some routes.

 

My recollection from the mid 80s to early 90s is of Cross-Country trains with a guard's compartment at both ends, e.g. BG/FO/RMB/4 x SO/BSO (where all the open carriages were air-conditioned Mk 2, the BG and RMB Mk 1) or WCML BG/n x SO/RB (Mk 3)/n x FO/BFO. I didn't travel much on loco-hauled routes with shorter formations, though I think Class 50-hauled Oxford-Paddington trains were mostly non-air conditioned Mk 2 TSOs with a BSK in the middle.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Compound2632

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

So please forgive what may be a stupid question.

 

If their was a maximum number of permitted wheel behind a brake why do you see smaller rakes of coaches that are not through portions marshalled with a brake at both ends?

Not a stupid question at all.  So let's think it through - if a train was running over a route without very steep gradients you could only put a maximum of 5 x 8-wheeled bogie coaches behind a brakevan, if there was a gradient steeper than i in 100 that came down to three 8 wheelers.  So train lengths could in many places be restricted.  BUT there were other factors also to be considered - one being the already mentioned issue of van space but far more important for many years was the Instruction requiring passenger trains to be marshalled with a brakevan (van end outwards) at each end except where special authority was granted for this not to be done.  

 

This latter Instruction was for safety reasons in order to reduce the risk of passenger fatalities and injuries in the event of a collision and it was even very heavily re-emphasised by the Inspecting Officer following a collision in the first j half of the 1950s - I have a copy of the reminder letter issued on the WR after that incident.   Some branch and some local trains were long granted authority to not comply with the Instruction and it was finally removed completely during the 1960s when there was that move I previously mentioned towards more standardised formations and the use of only one brakevan on some longer distance trains.  I think - without delving through the amendments - that it roughly coincided with the increase in the number of vehicles allowed behind a brakevan. 

 

Coming back to the counting business don't forget that the railway always worked on the number of wheels on a vehicle - not the number of axles - so it was wholly logical to have an Instruction worded on that basis.  Even modellers seem to talk about four wheeled or six wheeled vehicles instead of two axle or three axle vehicles.  And equally don't forget that there were plenty of four wjheeled NPCCS vehicles running around well into the 1960s (and later) as well as a few six wheelers.

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

My recollection from the mid 80s to early 90s is of Cross-Country trains with a guard's compartment at both ends, e.g. BG/FO/RMB/4 x SO/BSO (where all the open carriages were air-conditioned Mk 2, the BG and RMB Mk 1) or WCML BG/n x SO/RB (Mk 3)/n x FO/BFO. I didn't travel much on loco-hauled routes with shorter formations, though I think Class 50-hauled Oxford-Paddington trains were mostly non-air conditioned Mk 2 TSOs with a BSK in the middle.

Not strictly in line with the formations you have quoted, but worth bearing in mind a lot of Cross Country formations split and joined at Carstairs (and some of these also at Preston) so needed to have two brakes in the formation.  These included the last BFKs (Mk2d) although those were used to segregate the first class passengers from passing plebs rather than anything to do with the brake area.  

[The Johnster]

15 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Except for the NER dynamometer test car, which had a wheel which was lowered for recording distance! 

But that wheel didn’t have an axle, nor did the one on the Hawksworth dnyo. 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Not strictly in line with the formations you have quoted, but worth bearing in mind a lot of Cross Country formations split and joined at Carstairs (and some of these also at Preston) so needed to have two brakes in the formation.  These included the last BFKs (Mk2d) although those were used to segregate the first class passengers from passing plebs rather than anything to do with the brake area.  

 

The Sussex Scot and Dorset Scot indeed but the majority - Bournemouth / Brighton - Liverpool / Manchester / Newcastle were, I think, as described. I mostly used these trains between Oxford and Birmingham - even that far south the Edinburgh portion of one of the Scots was preferable to the Glasgow portion.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Were BGs or any other brake coaches ever used in lieu of a brake van on freight trains? I know they were used for a brief period on Freightliner services as a stand in for the fiberglass cabooses, but were they ever used on general freight services?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

[Wickham Green too]

Probably not on any sort of regular basis - but I'd be happy to be proved wrong ...... please !

[w124bob]

I think the answer to BG's in freight service is no, there's no heat so guards would kick off pronto(certainly the ones I knew). However they did occasionally appear in a freight train formations(as did other parcels stock) I assume this was for movement to and from a works visit or just an easy way to position an errant van after an unsheduled defect repair.Some routes appear to have had freights with parcels stock on a fairly regular basis, many S&C freights had the odd BG or GUV in the train. York was another destination, seem to recall a fairly busy C&W works there. 

[doilum]

Probably mentioned elsewhere but..

Cutsyke working men's club arranged for centrally placed full brake in their annual charter to an east coast resort. They needed space for the free bar!

Edited March 9, 2021 by doilum

[rodent279]

20 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Were BGs or any other brake coaches ever used in lieu of a brake van on freight trains? I know they were used for a brief period on Freightliner services as a stand in for the fiberglass cabooses, but were they ever used on general freight services?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

Was going to ask this question, and I can see is been answered below.

Was there anything in the Rule Book, General Appendix etc, that actually prohibited using a BG on a freight train, in lieu of a freight brake? As opposed to not doing it to prevent guards from kicking off due to lack of heat?

[Edwin_m]

33 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Was going to ask this question, and I can see is been answered below.

Was there anything in the Rule Book, General Appendix etc, that actually prohibited using a BG on a freight train, in lieu of a freight brake? As opposed to not doing it to prevent guards from kicking off due to lack of heat?

Thinking aloud so I may be talking rubbish...

 

The handbrake on a BG would only normally be used to secure a standing train.  Would it be effective if used on the move, as the brake in a non-fully-fitted freight train would be?  Does it operate on all the axles for instance?  

 

This wouldn't of course prevent use of a BG on a fully-fitted freight.  

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Was going to ask this question, and I can see is been answered below.

Was there anything in the Rule Book, General Appendix etc, that actually prohibited using a BG on a freight train, in lieu of a freight brake? As opposed to not doing it to prevent guards from kicking off due to lack of heat?

It would count as a passenger vehicle formed in a freight train and theere were all sorts of limitations on that at various times so it simply would not be practicable from that viewpoint alone.

 

Secondly, as eEdwin has already noted. the hanbnrake ona BG is a very different beast from the handbrake on a freight brakevan as it serves a very different purpose - it is there to secure stationary vehicles, not to slow down and sti op moving vehicles.   You can then add numerous other complications such as the lack of decent footboards. for easy access from ground level - essential on a freight brakevan; length and other restrictions on where it could be shunted too at smaller stations;  the fact that it will consume more of the overall train length than a freight brakevan and thus slightly reduce a permitted load when length was the critical criterion;  and similarly occupying more siding space in a brakevan road in a yard.  

 

And one final factor - if the thing was running round on a freight trains then it couldn't be in a passenger or parcels train and at times there were major shortages of BGs so nobody would let them be inched for anything other than their proper work

[The Johnster]

Also, there were no brackets for side lamps, which would probably have been out of gauge anyway on a vehicle with a full coach body profile, and no way for the frozen guard to access them to change the shades, which would prevent their use on all but fully fitted trains anyway.  

[roythebus1]

I was about to mention that fact! Strange how professional railwaymen think alike.

[Ravenser]

On 21/01/2020 at 15:41, Compound2632 said:

 

The Sussex Scot and Dorset Scot indeed but the majority - Bournemouth / Brighton - Liverpool / Manchester / Newcastle were, I think, as described. I mostly used these trains between Oxford and Birmingham - even that far south the Edinburgh portion of one of the Scots was preferable to the Glasgow portion.

 

 

This is a rather old post - but surely, in view of regulations quoted up the thread , the issue here is that these trains all run via the Lickey Incline, which is steeper than 1 in 40. Therefore there would always have been severe restrictions on vehicles being permitted behind the brake, and in practice the old rule of a brake at each end would have been normal procedure on all passenger trains using the Birmingham/Bristol route?

 

And no doubt similar considerations would apply for anything loco-hauled  running west of Exeter, in view of Dainton and Rattrey Banks?

[Bomag]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

This is a rather old post - but surely, in view of regulations quoted up the thread , the issue here is that these trains all run via the Lickey Incline, which is steeper than 1 in 40. Therefore there would always have been severe restrictions on vehicles being permitted behind the brake, and in practice the old rule of a brake at each end would have been normal procedure on all passenger trains using the Birmingham/Bristol route?

 

And no doubt similar considerations would apply for anything loco-hauled  running west of Exeter, in view of Dainton and Rattrey Banks?

 

The Sussex and Dorset Scot, and most things running to Poole and points east did not run via Lickey. The Pines Express did, and only when using the S&D (rerouted Sept 62?); until re-routing it had a BCK one end and BSK at the other.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

the issue here is that these trains all run via the Lickey Incline, which is steeper than 1 in 40.

 

No. The trains I was discussing ran Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington - Coventry - B'ham International - B'ham New Street. The Lickey Incline is on the Bristol - Gloucester - Cheltenham - B'ham New St route, which was operated by HSTs in the heyday of my rail travelling (mid-late 80s/early 90s), the HSTs having replaced 45-hauled trains.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

TTBOMK there were no restrictions to the formation of passenger or NPCCS trains that were specific to the Lickey or the South Devon banks, or any other gradient.  If a train with automatic brakes throughout, which all such trains were, parts, both portions are brought to a stand as the (vacuum or air) brakes apply automatically, and the leading portion will come to a stand a few yards ahead of the trailing one.  This happens irrespective of the position of the brake van(s) in the train, or the gradient.  
 

The stopping will be quicker if this happens while the train is ascending the gradient as the train will be usually moving more slowly and is fighting gravity, but both portions will stop safely.  On the Lickey, and for that matter on Shap, Beattock, and Llanvihangel as well, most trains were banked uncoupled in the rear, and it would be unlikely tha a division would be apparent until the banker dropped behind at the top.  On the South Devon and Severn Tunnel banking jobs, the banker was coupled inside the train loco, and thus connected in to the automatic brake.  
 

Coupling failures on passenger rated stock with properly tightened screw coupling were very rare, but not completely unknown.  Inadequately greased couplings could become stiff and lift off the adjoining drawhook under compression, but this was very rare with passenger rated stock.  In all cases the portions came to a stand with no serious consequences, but of course were inconvenient and caused delays.  Passengers were often not aware that anything was amiss beyond the delay, especially in the rear portion. 
 

The main danger in the event of a gangwayed passenger train parting is that of passengers falling out of the open gangway connections; AFAIK this never happened, but it’s a worry.  The guard will need some time to lock the gangway doors, and nobody will have a key on a portion without a guard (unless there are other railway staff aboard such as catering staff or traincrew ‘on the cushions’). 
 

A spare screw coupling and vacuum hose (‘bag’ on the WR) were carried in the guard’s compartment; if the train parted, one of the vacuum bags was usually pulled off the pipe rather than uncoupling at the join.  

Edited March 11, 2021 by The Johnster

[Titan]

You seem to forget that brakes leak off, sometimes quite quickly if maintenance is due.  If the coupling parts behind the brake van you may have only a few minutes to secure the vehicles before they run away, and if no handbrake is available you will have to find decent chocks for  the wheels before Armagh is replicated...

Edited March 11, 2021 by Titan