How many axles behind the guard?

[instanter]

In Haresnape's Railway Liveries BR Steam, on page 36, is a picture of V3 67620 about to leave Darlington with a train for Richmond. It is Colour Rail photo BRE445 which can be viewed on the internet (use the loco number in their search).
The train consists of two Gresley steel twins, ie 4 bodies, and as far as I can tell, the first twin is Dia 269, brake third and lavatory third, with the brake end attached to the loco. These carriages were built for the Darlington to Saltburn service. Assuming the other twin is from the same 'family', then going by the visible compartments, it must consist of two lavatory composites to Dia 271.
This means there are what we would probably consider to be three carriages behind the guard. What was the ruling on this, it would seem to be pushing 'no more that 8 axles behind the guard's vehicle' to the limit.
Thanks.

Edited November 9, 2020 by instanter

[roythebus]

I'm not aware of any rule like that. On the ECML we had 8 car (and more) trains with the guard at the front as that's where the brake coach was.

 

Maybe it was different in steam days.

[Zomboid]

If the train has an automatic brake then would it matter?

On an unbraked freight train it obviously would.

[LMS2968]

You could with fully fitted goods also put vehicles behind the brake van, and it was often done on fast fitteds to 'steady the van', especially on the eastern side of the Pennines. I don't know if there was an actual rule about the number of such wagons, but six comes to mind.

[Compound2632]

I think (I hope an expert will confirm) that it was an LMS regulation that there should be no more that a certain number of axles - possibly four - behind the vehicle with handbrake in which the guard was travelling. Certainly photos of two coach local trains on the LMS, S&DJR (in BR days), and BR(LMR) usually show the carriages marshalled with the brake compartment at the centre.

 

One of the guard's jobs was to protect the rear of the train if it stopped in section unwontedly - by walking back and setting detonators. For this, it makes sense that the guard should travel in the rear vehicle. I understand that there was some reluctance among guards to carry out this rule for fear of being left behind if the train started again - this had a minor role in the Aisgill accident of 1913.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Compound2632

[LMS2968]

Things change. When I was a guard, early to mid-1970s, if the train were fully fitted we rode on the loco, and in the front cab at that. There were some exceptions, but that was the usual case, and you don't get much further from the tail lamp than that!

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

you don't get much further from the tail lamp than that!

 

Were you working routes that had continuous track circuiting by then? Or single lines?

[LMS2968]

I was at Edge Hill, so we did, among others, the routes to Crewe with m.a.s. and full track circuiting, the L&MR, St. Helens line, and these were a mixture of full manual and semi-automatic signalling, to the Bootle Branch, the Clock Face line (St Helens – Widnes) and Huskisson Dock CLC branch, these last two by then singled, at least in parts, and manually signalled where any boxes survived. Most trains I worked at that time were Class 9 so we had a van on the end, but I did spend time at the front when we had a Class 4. Bear in mind that I wasn't there long enough to get the longer distance jobs.

[instanter]

Thanks very much gents for those interesting, and impressively quick responses.

I too thought the 8 (or 4) axles behind the guard was an LMS rule, though I've only seen it briefly mentioned, and can't remember where.

Seems I was unnecessarily concerned.

Thanks.

[The Stationmaster]

Ah - how long is a piece of string, and in what year were you measuring it - and that's before we ask if it is passenger train string or freight train string?  The reason for saying that being that the Regulations changed, and generally tended to be relaxed in respect of passenger trains, over the years.  And there is a further complication with passenger trains because after 1951 they were required, with reminders from time to time, to be marshalled with a brake end vehicle with the brake end outwards at both ends although that could be varied under the authority of the HQ operating dept.

 

As for vehicles behind the rearmost brakevan in which the Guard was travelling were concerned the GWR Appendix (which I believe represented commonly agreed RCH standards) said a maximum of 40 wheels in total of which vehicles containing passengers could also go up to a maximum of 40 wheels on gradients no steeper than 1 in 100.  If the gradient was steeper than 1 in 100 but no steeper than 1 in 40 then 40 wheels was still allowed but only 24 could be on vehicles containing passengers.  And if the gradient was steeper than 1 in 40 the total was reduced to 16 wheels and only one vehicle containing passengers.  Where practicable the vehicles containing passengers should be marshalled immediately behind the brake containing the Guard.

 

These figures were reissued in the WR 1960 Appendix but did not appear in the BR General Appendix so might have differed between Regions,

 

In the mid 1960s the WR figure was amended, and considerably relaxed, to allow 80 wheels behind the brakevan if the gradient was no steeper than 1 in 100 with 80 wheels for vehicles containing passengers.  The figures were 64/48 where the gradient was steeper than 1 in 100 but no steeper than 1 in 40, and 32/24 where the gradient was steeper than 1 in 40.

 

A new national Instruction was issued in March 1968 which allowed a maximum of 20 vehicles behind the brakevan on passenger and ECS trains with no limitations due to gradients.  The general requirement to provided a brakevan with brake ends outwards at both ends of passenger trains was discontinued at the same date but in effect had long ceased to be applied in published train formations.

[LMS2968]

I have to say that Edge Hill was a goods depot; passenger work was covered by Lime Street. We did work parcels, though.                                                                  

[Compound2632]

I should clarify that my remarks were in reference to passenger trains, since that was what the OP was asking about.

[roythebus]

How long is a topic about brake vans?

[Aire Head]

20 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And there is a further complication with passenger trains because after 1951 they were required, with reminders from time to time, to be marshalled with a brake end vehicle with the brake end outwards at both ends although that could be varied under the authority of the HQ operating dept.

 

Out of interest how rigidly was this adhered too?

 

When I have been researching coach formations for my prototype I have seen example of 3 coach sets with 1 brake marshalled centrally or 4 coach sets with brakes either end which are then sometimes strengthened with additional non brake vehicles.

 

Would the strengeners be attached outside of the regular 4 coach set or would the set be remarshalled?

[Nearholmer]

You do have to look closely at dates, because as Stationmaster says, practices changed.

 

The original stipulations were either in legislation or Board of Trade regulations made under legislation (I'd need to check which, because I've forgotten), and date from before continuous brakes were in widespread use, and certainly before continuous brakes were an obligation (except where they weren't!).

 

Speaking for the Southern, then BR(S), a big change seems to have taken place either in 1967 or in 1968 when the revised national instruction was issued. Befor e then, brake coaches were provided at the outer ends of 'sets', and because it was Southern practice to use almost all fixed sets, with some longer trains made-up from two or more shorter sets, some trains had a plethora of brake coaches. Strengtheners were used outside the brake coaches, and NPCS vans were routinely added outside the brake coaches, but typically no more than two. After the change in practice, sets were re-marshalled to put one brake coach near the centre.

 

As an example, "three sets" were very common on the southern. Before: typically BSK/BSO, CK, BSK/BSO (seconds were thirds in earlier years, of course). After: typically TSO, BSK, CK.

 

Even some southern "two sets" consisted of two brake coaches, BSK/BSO + BCK, although I think this was mainly about providing vast amounts of luggage accommodation, because these sets were used as "detaching portions" from trains like the Atlantic Coast Express, to serve holiday-destination branches, and on the Reading-Tonbridge Line, which carried huge amounts of mail traffic - the BCK had a very small van, ideal for the guard ans a few parcels, while the BSK/BSO had a big van that could be loaded-up and then secured.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

Out of interest how rigidly was this adhered too?

 

When I have been researching coach formations for my prototype I have seen example of 3 coach sets with 1 brake marshalled centrally or 4 coach sets with brakes either end which are then sometimes strengthened with additional non brake vehicles.

 

Would the strengeners be attached outside of the regular 4 coach set or would the set be remarshalled?

Difficult to say.  It could effectively be over-ruled by the publication of a carriage working programme or indeed by a daily or weekly notice.  I reckon that for the vast majority of branch line services (if not all) you can reasonably forget it especially as it only became an Instruction in 1951 (prior to that the Instruction said that if a second brale van was added to a passenger train there should ideally be one at each end).  

 

But I have clear written evidence that the Instruction was heavily reiterated in the early 1950s - on both occasions following collisions in which passengers were injured/killed when vans at the end of the train would have avoided such fatalities.   The other change of course which rendered it less important was wider use of buckeye couplings on passenger stock and stronger coach body construction as Mk1 coaches replaced older stock.

 

As ever the best answer lies in carriage working programmes which will immediately show the level of official non-application of the Instruction.

 

PS 'Nearholmer' makes an excellent and very relevant point  - practice in terms of implementing the Instruction could vary between the BR Regions.

Edited November 11, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Steven B]

From the June 1950 London Midland Region Passenger Train Marshalling book:

Quote

A brake van or vehicle with brake compartment leading should, as far as practicable, be marshalled next to the engine of all passenger trains, except where the formtion is otherwise specified herein or delay will be caused at the starting point; similarly a brake van or vehicle with brake compartment trailing should, as fas as practicable be marshalled at the rear of passenger trains.

When passenger carrying vehicles are attached en route to either the front or rear of a train they should be marshalled within the brake van where this can be done without causing delay to the working.

In the case where two vehicles containing First Class accommodation, e.g. two Composites or Composite and Brake First, are scheduled to be marsalled together, the First Class sections of each coach should adjoin.

There's then dozens of exceptions (about 20% of trains) where there are non-brake vehicles at the head of the train, or behind the last brake vehicle. I've not spotted any trains with more than three bogie vehicles (12 axles) behind the last brake vehicle.

 

Steven B.

 

 

[31A]

I've got a copy of the LNER General Appendix, dated 1st November 1947.  The section headed "Vehicles Behind the Rear Brake of Passenger Trains" says:

 

"Not more than 20 vehicles built to Coaching Stock requirements may be attached behind the brake van in which the Guard rides, provided:-

 

(a) The proportion of piped vehicles on the train is in accordance with the instructions headed "Continuous Brakes on Passenger Trains".

(b) The last vehicle is fitted complete with the continuous brake in use on the train, except as shown in clause 2 of the instructions headed "Continuous Brakes on Passenger Trains".

(c) The authorised load of the train is not exceeded.

(d) There are no special instructions in the Working Timetable or Sectional Appendix prohibiting or restricting the attaching of such vehicles."

 

A separate section is headed "Marshalling of Passenger Trains".

 

This says:

 

"A brake van or vehicle with brake compartment leading should as far as practicable be marshalled next the engine of all Passenger trains except where the formation is otherwise specified in the Carriage Working Instructions or delay will be caused at starting points.

When passenger carrying vehicles are attached en route to the front of the train they should be marshalled within the front brake van where the can be done without causing delay to the working."

 

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

‘As far as practicable’ is a suggestion, not a rule!

[LMS2968]

10 hours ago, 31A said:

I"A brake van or vehicle with brake compartment leading should as far as practicable be marshalled next the engine of all Passenger trains except where the formation is otherwise specified in the Carriage Working Instructions or delay will be caused at starting points.

When passenger carrying vehicles are attached en route to the front of the train they should be marshalled within the front brake van where the can be done without causing delay to the working."

Which basically says that this is never going to happen in reality.

[Nearholmer]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

As far as practicable’ is a suggestion, not a rule!

Depends who is reading it. To a lawyer it would have a very specific meaning that is very far beyond a suggestion, likewise a railway manager I’d suggest. How a ‘front line’ railwayman would have understood it I reckon would have depended crucially on how they were trained and supervised.

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

‘As far as practicable’ is a suggestion, not a rule!

Not so much a 'suggestion' but 'this is the way you should do it, but ... (accepting that there might be circumstances in which it is not practicable to do it in that way).  You also need to understand the meaning of 'should' in older Instructions, Rules, and Regulations and it is merely putting 'shall' into the correct tense, i.e. it is mandatory.  As language changed the word 'must' gradually replaced 'should'.

 

But as I posted earlier the wording was revised to a more positive form in 1951 although there was still a get out allowing the Chief Operating Manager/equivalent to make an exception (e.g, the coach marshalling booklet carried his name so it allowed an exception as did various Notices).  The 1951 Instruction sutill used teh words 'as far as practicable' but was far n more proscriptive anbout the permnitted exceptions and teh authority foir those exceptions.

 

The Instruction was reiterated on the WR in a letter dated 22 July 1952 after a collision that day on the Region in which passengers were injured as the trailing van third was marshalled with compartments trailing and passenger injuries had resulted from the collision.   A far more serious collision occurred at Welwyn Garden City in January 1957 when an overnight express from Aberdeen ran into the rear of a local train from Baldock to Kings Cross resulting in a passenger fatality and 25 people being taken to hospital.  The Inspecting Officer, Lt Col. Wilson, concluded that casualties would have been less serious if the rear vehicle of the local train had been correctly marshalled with the van end trailing 'in accordance with standing instructions that this should be done where practicable' and an investigation by the ER's Operating Superintendent confirmed that it had indeed being practicable to marshal the vehicle in that manner after the formation had previously been altered over the Christmas/New Year period.  it seems that a BR wide reminder was issued later in the year judging by the example of the WR's reminder dated21 August 1957.

[31A]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

The Instruction was reiterated on the WR in a letter dated 22 July 1952 after a collision that day on the Region in which passengers were injured as the trailing van third was marshalled with compartments trailing and passenger injuries had resulted from the collision.   A far more serious collision occurred at Welwyn Garden City in January 1957 when an overnight express from Aberdeen ran into the rear of a local train from Baldock to Kings Cross resulting in a passenger fatality and 25 people being taken to hospital.  The Inspecting Officer, Lt Col. Wilson, concluded that casualties would have been less serious if the rear vehicle of the local train had been correctly marshalled with the van end trailing 'in accordance with standing instructions that this should be done where practicable' and an investigation by the ER's Operating Superintendent confirmed that it had indeed being practicable to marshal the vehicle in that manner after the formation had previously been altered over the Christmas/New Year period.  it seems that a BR wide reminder was issued later in the year judging by the example of the WR's reminder dated21 August 1957.

 

I found it interesting that the LNER's instruction applicable in 1947 specified a "brake van or vehicle with the brake compartment leading" at the front of the train (which I took as being to provide a 'crumple zone' in the event of a collision) but didn't say anything about the rear of the train.  I suppose if the above was complied with and the set was not re-marshalled before its return journey there would be a van at both ends of the set, but I also think that re-marshalling of sets between journeys was more common than might be imagined these days.  However from what Lt Col Wilson wrote after WGC it seems as though the ER Authorities may have revised their instructions in the intervening 10 years.

[Miserable]

On 10/11/2020 at 11:19, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

A new national Instruction was issued in March 1968 which allowed a maximum of 20 vehicles behind the brakevan on passenger and ECS trains with no limitations due to gradients.  The general requirement to provided a brakevan with brake ends outwards at both ends of passenger trains was discontinued at the same date but in effect had long ceased to be applied in published train formations.

I can't speak for earlier rules, but by 1979 when I passed out as a guard the only requirement on passenger trains was that there should be at least one vehicle with an internal handbrake in the set (which would also carry emergency tools etc), where it was was irrelevant (though 'vans' had a valve to operate the train brake in addition, the Guard was not authorised to use it). This also served as stowage cycles, rather awfully wheel chair bound passengers, Red Star parcels and Royal Mail. There was no mention of number of axles or such in the rules. In all the 5 coach sets I worked the 'van' was always in the middle, simply so RM and station staff knew where to stand  - it wans't a 'Rule' as such - on others, MystEx's etc, the set was any old order. There was a fairly  complex set of rules concerning actions after a train brake failure, but that was about working/not working brakes, gradients etc, nothings about axles though. 

 

Post abolition of brake vans on fitted freights the guard rode in the back cab of the engine (in theory, anyway), so where a van was in the train was irrelevant except for a couple of special cases, e.g. nuclear flasks. It's worth noting that by that time very few vans, even if painted bauxite, had a train brake at all. 

[The Johnster]

Passed out as guard in 1970, and if memory serves (and it's a long time ago so the  details get a bit foggy sometimes and I don't always know what I thought I knew if you see what I mean), the rule on passenger carrying trains was that you could have up to 10 vehicles behind the rearmost guard's compartment, in which you rode.  We were to use the setter to make a full brake application in an emergency, but this was considered as a last resort as the drivers disapproved of us messing about with it.  I recall reading the report into the 1906 Salisbury accident in which the Inspecting Officer mentioned that the guard might have prevented or lessened the effects of the derailemnt had he applied the automatic brake with the setter in his van.  I gave some thought to 'what would I have done' and, given that the guard would probably have been unaware of his exact position until the lights of Salisbury station appeared (it was much darker at night in those days), by which time the loco would have been very close to the fatal curve and closing fast. I'd have probably used the setter but doubt I'd have made any significant difference. 

 

On fitted or part fitted freight trains, the trailing 4 axles of the fitted section had to have the automatic brake in working order, and we were allowed 4 axles of working brake behind a brake van with a through pipe on a fully fitted train.  Fully fitted trains with brake vans were rare by this time, and only one of my regular link jobs featured this, a Canton Sidings-Calvert empties for London Brick, fully fitted 50mph 'pipe' wagons and a Hymek (later 37) turn.  We worked back cab to Lawrence Hill where extra traffic was picked up which included a van with a setter and gauges as the train propelled for some miles along the ex GC main line along what was by then a 'long siding'.  We were relived at Swindon and never got that far!  I never worked a freight train with vehicles marshalled behind the van. 

 

The practice had previously used on fast freight jobs, particularly on the ECML fish trains which ran to very fast timings and were reputed to frequently run at speeds faster than needed or allowed.  The vehicles behind the van were requested by the guard in order to steady the ride of his van.  Our fish trains on the WR (I never worked one) had passenger stock brake vans but after 1969 were 'back cab' jobs, which did not need a brake van at all.

 

ECS trains, class 5, were a question I never had fully answered; up to 20 vehicles could be marshalled, but where did the guard ride?  According to the best reading I made of the rule book and General Appendix, he should ride in the brake van with no more than 10 vehicles behind him, but there was no provision for heating in this vehicle and the loco may well not have had a steam heating boiler or ETH.  Practice was to ride back cab as if the train was a class 4 fully fitted parcels made up of NPCCS, but I don't recall any written instruction that authorised this.