Amanda's 7mm Stuff - A 1366T takes shape - and runs!

[Pacific231G]

On 18/12/2020 at 13:17, Marshall5 said:

It wasn't permitted for "loose coupled wagons" to be marshalled between the loco and carriage(s).  Vacuum fitted, screw coupled stock, however, could be - subject to a maximum number IIRC.  Any loose coupled wagons must be marshalled behind the passenger stock and have a goods brake at the rear.  The difference between U.K. and Continental practice is that the latter's goods stock had continuous brakes long before the U.K.

Ray.

That's true because, in Britain, mixed trains came under passenger train rules. In other countries (certainly France for which I have the relevant rule book)  mixed trains came under goods train rules. That was necessary because not all goods wagons could be conveyed in passenger trains but only  those classified as GV (grand vitesses) . These were perhaps comparable to the British XP classification though a good proportion of PV (petite vitesse) wagons could carry a reduced load and run as GV. This was indicated by a star of David with the max GV load in tonnes in its centre. There was a complication, that I don't think applied to vacuum brakes, where Westinghouse brakes came in different flavours for passengers and freight. Some wagons could be set to either but if a goods train was conveying a number of passenger coaches as stock movements some of them would likely have their brakes isolated and that would affect the number of braked wagons for which there were detailed rules depending on gradients etc.

 

Loose coupled trains seem to have been a peculiarly British practice as was the idea of the guard scampering up and down the train pinning down brakes and the use of screw couplers came well before the general adoption of continuous brakes especially on goods trains. Not all goods vehicles were braked but those that were not were generally  piped ("conduite blanche" in French parlance) Before continuous brakes became the norm, brakemen riding on wagons equipped with screw brakes and a suitable perch or cab had to be provided and a screw brake had to be provided at or near the end of a train (depending on the ruling gradient involved) and definitely on or behind the last passenger carrying vehicle. In 1949, when my rule book was issued, the rear brake was required to be manned (it didn't have to be in a brake van) though not on a train up to 20 "vehicle units"* fitted with continuous brakes.  Later on the position of the brake van seems to have moved to the front of goods trains.

 

*this was a classification in which a PV wagon or brake van with fixed axles counted as one unit, a GV wagon or brake counted as one and a half, a bogie wagon or a coach with fixed axles counted as two and a bogie coach counted as three "unités-véhicule"

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Pacific231G
grammar and clarity

[Pacific231G]

11 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

It wasn't permitted for "loose coupled wagons" to be marshalled between the loco and carriage(s).  Vacuum fitted, screw coupled stock, however, could be - subject to a maximum number IIRC.  Any loose coupled wagons must be marshalled behind the passenger stock and have a goods brake at the rear.  The difference between U.K. and Continental practice is that the latter's goods stock had continuous brakes long before the U.K.

Ray.

An update on all this and, getting back to Amanda's proposed layout, I've been delving a bit around the Culm Valley line. I can see why Maurice Deane so fell in love with it that, having spent a day surverying it, he immediately set about using the baseboards from his Portreath layout to build as authentic a model as possible of the whole branch. How long he ran it for I have no idea but Deane was a serial layout builder so possible not long (or possibly it remained his main home layout but he had nothing much else to say about it)

Anyway, It seems that the branch didn't use goods brakes (they did appear later when it became essentially a private siding for the dairy as Hemyock) but instead, when dealing with loose coupled wagons, simply put one of the  two brake end passenger coaches behind the loco for the passengers and the other one at the rear of the train to act as the brake van. Though the passenger trains seem to have been all or almost all mixed, most of them seem to have been made of milk tank wagos and, being fitted, they could be marshalled behind the passenger stock. I'd guess that one train a  day would have served the intermediate goods yards (and been rather slow for the passengers) but the rest, if their only freight was milk, would have been no slower than a passenger train.

The ex Barry coaches that replaced the clerestories in 1950 (probably that year) had electric lighting but the runs were too short for the dyamo to charge their batteries so they were retuned to gas lighting and seem to have been the last gas lit coaches on BR.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Marshall5]

Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree on several points.  When I travelled on the branch the milk tankers were marshalled between the loco and the passenger carriage in both the up and down direction.  Although I have seen one photo from the 20's with a second carriage acting as brake I don't think this was typical.  There is a very clear photo on P58 of Paul Karau's G.W. Branchline Termini Vol2 with a Toad behind a pair of unfitted wagons marshalled after the carriage. I believe this was the normal method of working.  I think you may find the aforementioned volume informative and also Micheal Messenger's history of the line.

Ray.

[Guest WM183]

RedactedRedacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[ianathompson]

2 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

When I travelled on the branch the milk tankers were marshalled between the loco and the passenger carriage in both the up and down direction.

 

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

milk tank wagos and, being fitted, they could be marshalled behind the passenger stock.

 

Looking in from the outside I cannot see any reaon for anyone to disagree.

 

The milk tankers were fitted vehicles, as noted, so they could be marshalled anywhere in the train, in front of or behind the carriages.

The BoT insisted that unfitted vehicles were marshalled behind the passenger stock and that a goods brake was placed behind them, as noted.

 

To slightly digress, the Highland Railway were noted recidivists from these rules, being far from London, and away from the official eye.

They often marshalled unfitted goods vehicles between the loco and carriages in the Victorian era.

These practices persisted until they had one or two accidents too many.

 

Ian T

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree on several points.  When I travelled on the branch the milk tankers were marshalled between the loco and the passenger carriage in both the up and down direction.  Although I have seen one photo from the 20's with a second carriage acting as brake I don't think this was typical.  There is a very clear photo on P58 of Paul Karau's G.W. Branchline Termini Vol2 with a Toad behind a pair of unfitted wagons marshalled after the carriage. I believe this was the normal method of working.  I think you may find the aforementioned volume informative and also Micheal Messenger's history of the line.

Ray.

Hi Ray

Trying to find enough information to draw general conclusions has been fascinating. I can well understand why people get so drawn to this particular branch line and definitely envy you for having actually travelled on it.  

The BoT may have insisted, as Ian says, that unfitted vehicles were marshalled behind the passenger stock and that a brake was placed behind them, but I see no reason why that would have to be a goods brake rather than the other brake-end coach without passengers and there are photos that show this.

 

So, based on what I've been able to find out, I  have to disagree with your conclusion  that the use of a goods brake was the normal way of working mixed trains that included loose coupled stock though clearly that did happen.

 

The composition you describe of a single brake-end coach at the rear of the train when it was only conveying milk tankers (screw-coupled and fitted)  does seem to have been the most common though  I'm not sure what would have happened in winter when the passengers required steam heating.  This is  the formation that appears in several photos and what Maurice Deane describes riding in when returning from Hemyock to Tiverton in October (1950?) after walking the seven miles up the line (with or without permission he doesn't say!)  Though he doesn't mention it in his pair of articles in the Jan and Feb 1952 Railway Modellers I think he must have made several other visits to the line. to have captured its atmosphere and details so well in his model of the branch . The photos of his model are also interesting for the three formations of trains they inclide. One has milk tankers followed by a single brake-end coach, a second has the brake-end coupled to the loco and followed by milk tankers. The third  and most interesting is a train of four general goods wagons topped and tailed by both brake-ends.  That is such an unusual formation that it must be based on his own researches and observations and does conform with other photographic  evidence.

 

I've just been looking at Paul Karau's book and even the the 1950s farm removal train in H3 has one of the branch coaches at the rear acting as a goods brake while H5 from 1938 shows the two coaches either side of a solitary goods wagon.

It's only in H6 that one of the coaches is followed by a couple of (presumably loose coupled) open wagons and a toad. I have also seen an image of a loco heading for Hemyock with a Toad to pick up milk tankers but that seems to have come from after the end of passenger services when milk traffic was still important. Apart from those two I've not found a single photo out of around fifty that shows a goods brake anywhere on the line.

 

From all that I reckon that the normal way of working was to use one of the brake-end coaches as the brake van and, if loose coupled wagons were being conveyed, to add the other coach behind the loco to carry passengers. From all accounts, passenger numbers were generally so low that needing both coaches to carry passengers would have been unusual.  If I were to hazard a guess it would be that, whenever  one of the two coaches was out of service as they would have been from time to time, they simply brought in a goods brake van instead to handle what was probably the one mixed train each way each day that handed general goods. All the other mixed trains  simply took milk tankers to and from Hemyock with no intermediate shunting.

 

We may never know for certain so if anyone modelling the line wants to run a Toad and only wants tio build one brake end - both interesting vehicles-  they can justify using the Toad on the daily mixed general goods train. If they just want to use the two brake ends nobody can say they've got it wrong. I'm now wondering whether there were other British lines that saved on rolling stock by making their brake-end coaches double up as goods brakes.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Hal Nail]

https://hemyock.org/mediagallery/mediaobjects/disp/6/6_cvlr_2.jpg

 

[Karhedron]

This is always a favourite picture I reach for when the subject of trailing vehicles on a branchline train crops up. This is the 3.20 p.m. mixed train from Marlow to Bourne End in 1954. Sadly it doesn't show the entire train so there may well be a brake van at the rear. But is is certainly a lovely shot with plenty of possibilities that shows "interesting" workings survived well into the BR era.

 

http://www.mdrs.org.uk/localrailways/nas_1411spadeoak.jpg

Edited December 21, 2020 by Karhedron

[Happy Hippo]

Weren't milk tanks fitted with vacuum brakes?  I cannot see them being dragged from west Wales to London at 25 mph.

[brossard]

Some great pictures posted here.  Very inspiring.

 

I recall seeing a video (typically I haven't been able to find it again) showing a mainline express, going through a station at very high speed, and towing two milk tanks at the rear.

 

However, we are talking about branchlines here, so I would expect speeds to be much lower.

 

John

[D9020 Nimbus]

24 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

This is always a favourite picture I reach for when the subject of trailing vehicles on a branchline train crops up. This is the 3.20 p.m. mixed train from Marlow to Bourne End in 1954. Sadly it doesn't show the entire train so there may well be a brake van at the rear. But is is certainly a lovely shot with plenty of possibilities that shows "interesting" workings survived well into the BR era.

 

http://www.mdrs.org.uk/localrailways/nas_1411spadeoak.jpg

There would have to be a brake van, surely — there are several open wagons in the train and I don't think they would be XP-rated.

[Pacific231G]

59 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

Weren't milk tanks fitted with vacuum brakes?  I cannot see them being dragged from west Wales to London at 25 mph.

Yes they were and AFAIK they travelled on the main line at express speeds both as tail loads and in dedicated milk trains. There are plenty of photos of the Culm Valley train with one or both brake end coachs and a bunch of milk tankers either in front or behind. They only put the second coach at the other end when there were loose coupled wagons involved and passengers then rode in the front coach (I wonder how strictly that was enforced) . The milk tankers  weren't allowed to enter the goods sidings at Culmstock or Uffculme  - presumably because their wheelbase was too long. It therefore seems, and photos bear this out, that mixed trains either conveyed milk tankers and XP vans carrying churns etc - so would have made the run between Hemyock and Tiverton at the same speed as a passenger train- or loose coupled general goods wagons, which would have been slower, but not both.  I dont know what the situation would have been with other fitted wagons such as cattle or horse boxes. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Pacific231G

[34006]

5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Yes they were and AFAIK they travelled on the main line at express speeds both as tail loads and in dedicated milk trains. There are plenty of photos of the Culm Valley train with one or both brake end coachs and a bunch of milk tankers either in front or behind. They only put the second coach at the other end when there were loose coupled wagons involved and passengers then rode in the front coach (I wonder how strictly that was enforced) . The milk tankers  weren't allowed to enter the goods sidings at Culmstock or Uffculme  - presumably because their wheelbase was too long. It therefore seems, and photos bear this out, that mixed trains either conveyed milk tankers and XP vans carrying churns etc - so would have made the run between Hemyock and Tiverton at the same speed as a passenger train- or loose coupled general goods wagons, which would have been slower, but not both.  I dont know what the situation would have been with other fitted wagons such as cattle or horse boxes. 

Just a quick thought,the speed limit on the Culm Valley line was 15 mph,so I guess there was little difference in the travel time of either goods or passenger trains.

 

atb

Phil

[Karhedron]

14 hours ago, 34006 said:

Just a quick thought,the speed limit on the Culm Valley line was 15 mph,so I guess there was little difference in the travel time of either goods or passenger trains.

 

You are right about that. A toad brake van was often used after the withdrawal of passenger services on the branch. 

 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

15 hours ago, 34006 said:

Just a quick thought,the speed limit on the Culm Valley line was 15 mph,so I guess there was little difference in the travel time of either goods or passenger trains.

 

atb

Phil

The actual running time probably was much the same, though setting off with loose coupled wagons may have involved a slower  accelaration,  but it's the shunting at intermediate stations that really adds to the journey time of mixed trains.

That wouldn't have applied if the goods were all milk tankers as they'd only be shunted before departure and after arrival at Hemyock or Tiverton.

The 1950 Bradshaw is quite interesting especially as it would have been the one in force when Maurice Deane visited the line* .

 

Apart from the daily return passenger train from Tiverton to Culmstock or Uffculme, down trains (to Hemyock) were scheduled for 57', 49', 64' and 49' and up trains at 32', 37',41', 40' and 34' It doesnt say whether those were all mixed or whether  one or two were all passenger but it's not hard to spot the pick-up mixed goods. Also, apart from the private siding at Coldharbour, all the intermediate goods sidings were trailling towards Hemyock so was a down mixed goods train shunted with the passenger coach attached (There was an account of this in a recent French Railways Society Journal) or did the crew have to uncouple from the coach, run round the train using the loop and then shunt the sidings in which case they would surely have done this in the up direction. Given that one down train is timed for 63 minutes, fifteen minutes longer than the two faster workings, and there's no such extra allowance for any up train I'd guess that the coach did stay with the engine  and most goods wagons were taken down to Hemyock and then back up to Tiverton with no intermediate shunting. Handling livestock may have required different treatment. 

This little line really does get more interesting the more one delves into it. 

 

* Though Maurice Deane's first article (RM Jan 1952) seemed to imply that he'd visited the line on a single day he doesn't actually say that. He also says that he walked the seven miles up the line. With photographing the stations that would have taken several hours so I suspect that did that on a Sunday when it was closed- there is no stock in any of the sidings at the intermediate stations in his photos. I presume he stayed in Hemyock overnight before observing operations at Hemyock the following day before returning to Tiverton  and home by train.That might have given him enough information for modelling the line but he may equally have spent several days there (a long weekend perhaps?)  getting permission to walk it on the Sunday  and simply compressed that into a simpler narrative. I can't post his article as it's copyright but can PM it for "private study" if anyone else wants to read it.

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are right about that. A toad brake van was often used after the withdrawal of passenger services on the branch. 

 

 

From the various photos it does seem that the rules about a brake after loose coupled stock were strictly followed even with quite short trains but with fitted milk tankers would the van have had to be at the rear?  

[Karhedron]

49 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

From the various photos it does seem that the rules about a brake after loose coupled stock were strictly followed even with quite short trains but with fitted milk tankers would the van have had to be at the rear?  

 

I am not an expert but I think it would depend on whether the brake van was fitted or not. If it was not fitted, it would definitely have to go at the back as the milk tanks could not have an unfitted vehicle between them and the loco. If the brake van was fitted then I suppose in theory it could have gone anywhere in the rake. What actually happened in practice I am not sure.

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I am not an expert but I think it would depend on whether the brake van was fitted or not. If it was not fitted, it would definitely have to go at the back as the milk tanks could not have an unfitted vehicle between them and the loco. If the brake van was fitted then I suppose in theory it could have gone anywhere in the rake. What actually happened in practice I am not sure.

I had a look around and it seems that brake vans had to be at the end of the train until they were generally replaced towards the end of the 1960s by guards riding in the rear cabs of diesel locos. There were exceptions to that such as dangerous loads and locos that only had one cab. There was apparently a big dispute between ASLEF, the NUR and BR about the respective roles of second men and guards around that time. However, there are photos of the Culm Valley train with milk tankers following the coach so presumably the rules on passenger train tail loads then applied. 

 

Going back to the Culm Valley coaches themselves, the ex Barry brake seconds that replaced the Clerestories in 1950 came with electric lighting but the train was too slow for the dynamos to charge their batteries. They were instead retro-fitted with gas lighting becoming the last gas lit coaches on BR. I'm curious about the heating of those coaches though because if they were steam heated (as I assume they were) then, when one of them was being used as a brake  behind loose coupled wagons, the guard's compartment would have been unheated. I wonder if they had a separate stove for that.  The same thing would have applied to the earlier clerestories too.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Pacific231G

[34006]

I'm sure I have seen somewhere that the coaches were taken to Tivvy every week to have their batteries charged.Maybe a round trip to Exeter would have been enough?

 

atb

Phil

[Marshall5]

I have attached a scan of the 1948 Working Timetable which, perhaps, gives a better indication of train working on the Hemyock branch. The footnotes are particularly informative.  I doubt that it would be much different in 1950.

As regards the earlier posts, not quite all sidings "were trailing towards Hemyock". Small's flour mill siding at Uffculme was trailing towards the Junction and grain wagons for the mill can be seen in several photos.

As it was forbidden to shunt with passengers on board I think it reasonable to assume that the carriage of mixed trains would be 'parked' in the platform at intermediate stations while shunting took place.  The ex Barry gas lit carriages were replaced at the end of 1962 by 2 electrically lit ex LNER 4 comp.Bk.3rd's for which charging equipment was installed at the Junction.  Considering that closure was announced in 1962 one wonders why B.R. bothered as the branch shut to passengers in Sept. 1963.

Ray.

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[Hal Nail]

11 hours ago, WM183 said:

Four coach trains are simply impossible in our space, but three coaches + tank loco may work.

If you want to fit it all in the fiddle yard that's over 5 foot of your 14 not scenic.

If you don't have one, I would beg borrow or steal a coach - much easier to visualise when you see one. 

 

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted

[brossard]

Just to add my 2 cents, GWR B set coaches are 61' long.  Mk 1 coaches are 57'.  There are Kirk kits for Gresley 52' coaches.

 

John

[Guest WM183]

Redacted

Edited April 12, 2023 by WM183
Redacted