BoT brake rules 1900s to late 1930s

[Dave John]

An interesting discussion. 

 

Compound, the Caledonian did have a van with a single sided sliding door and sliding roof panel, built with some variation of details between 1871 and 1885. They were similar to the LNWR D32 van. As built they had a single sided push rod style scotch brake located on the same side as the opening door. 

 

 

[sulzer27jd]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The committee members were not in a position to make a technical assessment of the merits of individual braking systems, nor would it have been deemed proper for them to make a recommendation in favour of one - this would have been seen as stifling competition. As with continuous brakes: the brake must meet the functionality criteria, whether it's Westinghouse or vacuum (or something else) is a commercial decision.

Agree but the point I am trying to make is that if you want to make the maximum reduction in accidents, with the minimum delay, in a world of single sided braked wagons, You opt to put manual brakes on both sides. You do not need to go beyond that and into the complications of ‘either side’ apply and release. 
 

I also sought to clarify that there was no ban on either side brake arrangements, only a requirement that they meet BoT approval. 1911 rules, schedule 1 point 5. 
 

john

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, sulzer27jd said:

You do not need to go beyond that and into the complications of ‘either side’ apply and release. 

 

Sorry, yes, understood. Why they went into that is still opaque, though one can surmise that there was a perceived risk of someone on the other side of the wagon taking off the brake, unbeknown to the man who had put it on on his side - he might go to uncouple, for instance, in the believe that the brake was on.

 

But that is just my speculation.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Sorry, yes, understood. Why they went into that is still opaque, though one can surmise that there was a perceived risk of someone on the other side of the wagon taking off the brake, unbeknown to the man who had put it on on his side - he might go to uncouple, for instance, in the believe that the brake was on.

 

But that is just my speculation.

Perfectly reasonable speculation I think although it would take someone who was completely unfamilia with normal practice in that location, or of malicious intent, to do it (such folk no doubt existed in both of those cases  ).

 

But here i think we pass beyond the realm of accidents involving shunting staff into a wider area.  If a Shunter uncouples wagon on which the brake has been released without his knowledge he is highly unlikely to suffer any injury in consequence because he will be standing alongside the wagon and won't be in its path if it moves.   Potentially other people - such as PerWay staff - could be in its path but anything happening to them wouldn't appear in the statistics of injuries/fatalities involving Shunters.  The vast majority of serious Shunter injuries involve tripping or falling followed at one time by crossing lines without looking out for moving vehicles; and obviously well up the statistics at one time having to go under or between vehicles to release a brake on the other side - a practice forever fraught with danger.  It is noticeable to that the 1911 requirement also sorted out the situation regarding handpoint levers - potentially another reason where somebody might have to cross a line. Plus lighting which addressed another major major issue of tripping and falling including the dangers of walking into a handpoint lever.

 

Provided the right tools were used freight shunting in almost every situation was inherently considerably safer for those involved than passenger vehicle shunting because the number of occasions when there was a need to cross under or between wagons was considerably less than the number of occasions when it was necessary to go between vehicles when passenger shunting.  The change to either side brakes would have been critically important in brining about that difference.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Provided the right tools were used freight shunting in almost every situation was inherently considerably safer for those involved than passenger vehicle shunting because the number of occasions when there was a need to cross under or between wagons was considerably less than the number of occasions when it was necessary to go between vehicles when passenger shunting.  

 

Somewhere I have a certificate of completion of a safety course issued by the LNWR to my Great Uncle Sid in 1916. He had a crushed thumb from an accident going between to couple up at New Street.

[sulzer27jd]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The change to either side brakes would have been critically important in brining about that difference.

I’m not trying to be picky but the change was to Both Side brakes and away from Either Side. At least as that was understood in the language used in the early 1900’s. 

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, sulzer27jd said:

I’m not trying to be picky but the change was to Both Side brakes and away from Either Side. At least as that was understood in the language used in the early 1900’s. 

 

Very strictly speaking, both side brake levers.

[sulzer27jd]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Very strictly speaking, both side brake levers.

Indeed so.

[Miss Prism]

Thanks everyone. I was previously unaware the DCIII exemption was carried within the 1911 rules. I think I have managed to update gwr.org's wagon brakes page accordingly, trying to keep it as concise as possible.

 

[Guy Rixon]

The early SECR was fond of "Hill's patent Invicta brake" for wagons, but used it in a weird, variant form. Mr. Hill's original patent was specifically for a method whereby the brake could be taken off from either side, and adds a lot of gubbins to achieve this. The SECR version (at least the one for which I've seen the details; there were a few revisions) removes the ability to release from either side. It reduces to just a way to apply one set of blocks on one side from levers on either side. It's logically equivalent to DC or Morton arrangements, but much more complex than either. This makes sense if the SECR had already paid the patent fee for the Invicta brake but wanted to remove the emergent safety-risk.