Air and vacuum braked vehicles

[David Charwelton]

When passenger or freight vehicles were worked into a different company's territory and those companies used different braking systems i.e. vacuum or air, what was the procedure? Did those vehicles have to be dual braked?

 

Regards, David 

[Railfreight1998]

What era are you thinking?

[David Charwelton]

I'm thinking from 1850 to 1950.

[Railfreight1998]

Up until nationalisation in 1948 most freight vehicles were unfitted, and for many years after only vacuum brakes were used. Air braked wagons only became common in the early 1970s as part of the air braked network (which eventually became the speedlink network), although some were introduced earlier (but not as early as you are thinking).

I'm not too knowledgable on early passenger stock, although after the creation of the 'Big 4', I believe vacuum braking was standardised on (although, as ever, there were exceptions, the isle of wight being one where air braking was used).

 

Hope this helps

 

[David Charwelton]

I was asking more about the period before nationalisation. I'm wondering about air braked passenger or freight stock going from for example LBSCR territory (air) to GWR territory (vacuum).  

[Bucoops]

I believe the Great Eastern had some dual braked coaches for trains that went out of their lines, as they standardised on Westinghouse air braking.

[jim.snowdon]

Where stock was intended to travel between railways with different systems, it was equipped with both vacuum and air brakes. The majority of such vehicles were either carriages, as in through carriages, and non-passenger coaching stock vehicles, eg hoseboxes, carriage trucks and vans for perishable traffics such as fish.. Even then, it would have been only in such numbers as was operationally necessary. Not until the later days of BR, when there was a concerted changeover from vacuum to air braking, was stock built with dual brake systems as a matter of course.

 

Jim

[Nick Holliday]

3 hours ago, David Charwelton said:

I'm thinking from 1850 to 1950.

That's a rather wide range! Decent continuous brakes , either air or vacuum, didn't really get adopted until towards the end of the Victorian era, before that there was a gradual development of different systems, none of which were really compatible with each other. Through running would be a rather hit and miss process, although standards were not particularly high.

49 minutes ago, David Charwelton said:

I was asking more about the period before nationalisation. I'm wondering about air braked passenger or freight stock going from for example LBSCR territory (air) to GWR territory (vacuum).  

As others have said, continuously braked freight stock was a rarity, and then generally to allow them to be  conveyed in passenger trains.  With passenger stock there were a number of strategies to allow through running.

 If the train arriving was, say the LBSC one, made up entirely of their Westingouse braked stock, the GWR would probably provide a suitable engine that was itself equipped to operate both types of brake, of which they had a limited number which would probably be allocated at locations where such situations arose. Similarly the Brighton had a limited number of dual equipped locos, with both vacuum and Westinghouse brakes.

Another solution, when just a handful of stock was using a different brake, was to have a through pipe, allowing the majority braking system to operate through the length of the train, albeit with the piped vehicles not actually contributing to the braking power, and there would be strict limits regarding the proportion of unbraked stock.

The ultimate answer was to have dual equipped vehicles, and by the time of the Great War most modern newly built stock would be thus equipped. This situation was achieved earlier on the west coast route, where the two protagonists, the LNWR and the Caledonian had  each chosen a different braking system, and once the LNWR had ditched its slightly archaic chain braking system, before 1900, most of their front line passenger stock was dual braked, as was the WCJS fleet, which included a number of NPCS and some passenger rated goods stock.

[JimC]

The GWR had a handful of locos, notably 5 Bulldogs fitted with air brakes in the 1914-1933 period, I think they were for working through trains from the Great Eastern. Not sure if there were others.

[jim.snowdon]

6 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

The ultimate answer was to have dual equipped vehicles, and by the time of the Great War most modern newly built stock would be thus equipped. This situation was achieved earlier on the west coast route, where the two protagonists, the LNWR and the Caledonian had  each chosen a different braking system, and once the LNWR had ditched its slightly archaic chain braking system, before 1900, most of their front line passenger stock was dual braked, as was the WCJS fleet, which included a number of NPCS and some passenger rated goods stock.

It might be the ultimate answer, in an ideal world, but I do not believe that it was true in practice, Ignoring the East and West Coast Joint Stock fleets, which were built and jointly owned with the intention of running whole trains across air brake/vacuum brake boundaries, a great deal of stock stayed within the limits of its home territory, or encountered only other vacuum braked railways. The latter were in the majority by a considerable margin. GWR stock, for example, had to travel a long way to meet an air brake railway. Plus, adding equipment that rareky, if ever got used, was not good value for the shareholders and the railways did not spend money to no purpose.

 

Jim

[Nick Holliday]

22 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

It might be the ultimate answer, in an ideal world, but I do not believe that it was true in practice, Ignoring the East and West Coast Joint Stock fleets, which were built and jointly owned with the intention of running whole trains across air brake/vacuum brake boundaries, a great deal of stock stayed within the limits of its home territory, or encountered only other vacuum braked railways. The latter were in the majority by a considerable margin. GWR stock, for example, had to travel a long way to meet an air brake railway. Plus, adding equipment that rareky, if ever got used, was not good value for the shareholders and the railways did not spend money to no purpose.

 

Jim

I can only quote Michael Harris (Great Western Coaches):-

"The majority of brake composites and saloons, as built in the 1890s and 1900s, were dual-fitted with vacuum and Westinghouse brakes."

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

I can only quote Michael Harris (Great Western Coaches):-

"The majority of brake composites and saloons, as built in the 1890s and 1900s, were dual-fitted with vacuum and Westinghouse brakes."

That's not exactly surprising, as these are the sorts of vehicle likely to go wandering off system as through carriages and special workings (or in modern terms, chartered carriages). They're a relative minority compared to the general run of firsts, thirds, composites and brake thirds that made up the fleet.

 

Jim

[Wickham Green too]

Apart from the Anglo-Scottish routes there were a number of regular through trains between different-braked railways : Brighton-Cardiff and the 'Sunny South Express' come to mind. Then railway amalgamations threw up mis-matches : the GER and NER became part of a generally vac-braked LNER and the former retained air braked services for many years. the Caledonian as part of the LMS has already been mentioned as has the Isle of Wight on the largely vac-braked Southern. The SR itself comprised the air-braked Brighton sandwiched between vacuum LSWR and SECR - thought the latter had barely rid itself of the Westinghouse legacy from the LCDR !

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, David Charwelton said:

I'm thinking from 1850 to 1950.

 

ALL of the 'big 4' which came into being standardised on vacuum brakes for new build Steam stock in 1922 (the Southern, and maybe other EMU fleets used air) so by nationalisation air braked loco hauled stock was pretty much non existent.

 

Of the pre-grouping companies, more had standardised on vacuum than air and this may well have had a significant influence on the direction the new companies took in 1922.

 

You also need to remember that sometimes other factors would have come into play - on the Southern for example it was only the LBSCR that persisted with air braking till grouping, but it had a much larger loading gauge than the SECR or LSWR meaning most Brighton mainline stock got scrapped as it wasn't useful elsewhere one electrification started extending to the south coast.

[Aire Head]

Also just because a vehicle has a continuous brake system doesn't mean it has to run with it in operation.

 

Thereforeit's entirely possible that the stock in question would be run as though unfitted with perhaps only as many wagons as we're required to create the fitted head running with the brake systems operational.

 

Edit: I was referring to Goods stock only!

Edited April 30, 2020 by Aire Head

[David Charwelton]

So were any goods vehicles that were not intended to run in passenger trains fitted with dual brakes?

 

Regards, David 

[AberdeenBill]

I think I've posted this link before...   An ex-LBSCR Westinghouse-fitted loco with ex-GER air-braked stock.    https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2635852 

 

Thanks,

Bill

[Bucoops]

8 minutes ago, AberdeenBill said:

I think I've posted this link before...   An ex-LBSCR Westinghouse-fitted loco with ex-GER air-braked stock.    https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2635852 

 

Thanks,

Bill

 

Oof that's a long trip for suburban (i.e. cramped!) stock.

 

The GE section of LNER and then later BR kept the Westinghouse system on their suburban services for so long because it was very effective for multi-stop suburban work, fast acting and fast recovery.

[Edwin_m]

22 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Also just because a vehicle has a continuous brake system doesn't mean it has to run with it in operation.

 

Thereforeit's entirely possible that the stock in question would be run as though unfitted with perhaps only as many wagons as we're required to create the fitted head running with the brake systems operational.

For the avoidance of doubt, any coach carrying passengers needed the continuous brake operational, at least after the 1889 Act.  When BR went over to air braked wagons in the 1960s, some of the early builds for non-bulk flows were air braked and vacuum piped to allow use beyond the air-braked freight network.  But that's out of the time period for this discussion.  

9 minutes ago, David Charwelton said:

So were any goods vehicles that were not intended to run in passenger trains fitted with dual brakes?

Maybe only ferry wagons?  

[Aire Head]

24 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

For the avoidance of doubt, any coach carrying passengers needed the continuous brake operational, at least after the 1889 Act.  When BR went over to air braked wagons in the 1960s, some of the early builds for non-bulk flows were air braked and vacuum piped to allow use beyond the air-braked freight network.  But that's out of the time period for this discussion.  

 

Ah yes I should have said I was referring to Goods stock only will edit that now!

[The Stationmaster]

The 1921 GWR list of dual braked coaching stock vehicles is considerable as shown below.  The details need to be read with care - where I have shown an exact number  it means that I have counted the running numbers in the list and  - hopefully my count is accurate.  Where I show 'Note *' it means that a block of numbers was listed and I have shown the total number of vehicles in that block although some might obviously have already been withdrawn.

 

All vehicles are dual braked vacuum/Westinghouse except where I have shown 'Westinghouse pipe only'  for those which are vacuum braked but only have a Westinghouse through pipe.  All vehicles are 8 wheeled unless I have shown otherwise. The vehicle descriptions are copied from the GWR lists so may seem repetitive in places 

 

Restaurant Cars - 2  +4 Westinghouse pipe only

1st class family or invalid carriages with lavatory -  14 x8 wheelers,  2 x 4 wheelers

1st class family carriages with lavatory - 11 x 8 wheelers, 6 x 4 wheelers

3rd class saloon with lavatory - 3 x 8 wheelers, 6 x 6 wheelers

Corridor Compo - 9

Brake Compo - 4

Brake Compo with lavatory - 12

Brake Compo 1st & 3rd with lavatory - 20

Brake Compo 1st & 2nd with lavatory - 7

3rd Class 'plain' - 7

3rd Class with lavatory and luggage, 6 wheeler - 3

3rd Brake, 6 wheeler - 13 

Corridor 3rd with lavatory. - 14

Corridor Van 3rd with lavatory - 18

Corridor 3rd Brake with lavatory - 2

3rd Class Brake with luggage - 5

3rd class brake corridor with lavatories - 11

Corridor Brake vans - 27

Vans Passenger Brake -  4 x 8 wheeler, 6 wheeler - 10

Bullion Vans, 6 wheeler - Westinghouse pipe only - 2

Van milk & poultry  - 8 wheeler - 13;  6 wheeler - 60, Note*, plus 4 Westinghouse pipe only; 4 wheeler - 60, Note *;

Van milk & poultry gangwayed -14

Van milk & poultry 6 wheeled - 101 Note*. plus 4 Westinghouse pipe only

Van  hound - 1 x 4 wheeler

Van fish - 25 Note:*

Horse boxes, 4 wheeled - numerous plus more with Westinghouse pipe only

Carriage Trucks  covered large 4 wheeler - 27 Note*

Carriage Trucks covered small 4 wheeler - 8 plus 6 Westinghouse pipe only

Carriage Trucks open, 4 wheeler - 10 plus 10 Westinghouse pipe only.  All 20 are Note*

Carriage Trucks open 21ft long, 4 wheeler - 20  then + 62 Note * 

Carriage Trucks open 45ft long, 6 wheeler - 8, Note *

Open Scenery Trucks, 50ft - 4

Covered Scenery Trucks, 50 ft - 12

Fruit Vans - 40 Note*, plus numerous Westinghouse pipe only

Cattle Wagons, 4 wheeler, Westinghouse pipe only - 31 Note :* 

ditto with groom's compartment, and dual braked - 20 Note*

 

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

For the avoidance of doubt, any coach carrying passengers needed the continuous brake operational, at least after the 1889 Act.  When BR went over to air braked wagons in the 1960s, some of the early builds for non-bulk flows were air braked and vacuum piped to allow use beyond the air-braked freight network.  But that's out of the time period for this discussion.  

Maybe only ferry wagons?  

Technically that first comment is not correct as the situation was that a certain (very small) proportion of passenger carrying vehicles within a passenger train was allowed to run with the automatic brake inoperative for whatever reason - usually due to a fault.  This was only permitted on trains running a fairly short distance between stops although over the years that distance was extended and it was subject to a reduction in speed.  Oddly although the RCH/Companies' Brake Regulations in 1921 and later allowed this (and it was explicitly so in BR days) it was technically contrary to Section 1 of the 1889 Act.

21 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

GWR stock, for example, had to travel a long way to meet an air brake railway. Plus, adding equipment that rareky, if ever got used, was not good value for the shareholders and the railways did not spend money to no purpose.

 

Jim

Being horribly pedantic that was definitely not the case unless you count the width of a rail joint as 'a long way'   The reason being of course that the GWR not only made end-on connections with the Rhymney Railway but also had a line jointly owned with that company.  From 1  January 1924 the GWR officially listed the fact that its passenger trains on former Rhymney Railway lines were worked on the Westinghouse Air Brake System and not the vacuum brake system, the Rhymney having been a Westinghouse line for many years.    Conversion to vacuum braking took place fairly shortly after that.

[jim.snowdon]

55 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Being horribly pedantic that was definitely not the case unless you count the width of a rail joint as 'a long way'  

I wasn't, but then I hadn't realised that the Rhymney Railway was a Westinghouse line. I do now.

 

Jim

[David Charwelton]

I am now thinking of the marshalling of freight trains. Would the shunters decide the order of the vehicles? From the point of view of having a fitted head of sufficient length, presumably the shunter would not marshal any vehicles having the 'wrong' braking system in the head even if through piped? How was it ensured that the right pipes were connected if vehicles were fitted and through piped? Did air and vacuum pipes have different connections?

 

Regards, David

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, David Charwelton said:

I am now thinking of the marshalling of freight trains. Would the shunters decide the order of the vehicles? From the point of view of having a fitted head of sufficient length, presumably the shunter would not marshal any vehicles having the 'wrong' braking system in the head even if through piped? How was it ensured that the right pipes were connected if vehicles were fitted and through piped? Did air and vacuum pipes have different connections?

 

Regards, David

 

Now that is a can of worms!

 

What kind of goods train are you trying to depict?