Trains without brake vans.

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, Mophead45143 said:

1. If a piped brake van was attached to rear of an otherwise fully fitted freight, would it still have to display side lamps in addition to the central tail light? The vehicle itself is obviously not fitted with the automatic brake, but if it were to become detached then the brakes would apply along the whole train due to the severed through pipe. As such, would side lamps be necessary as the driver / secondman would not really need to be alerted to its presence, as unlike with an unfitted freight, its absence would be very noticeable!!! 

 

Side lamps would not need to be displayed for a piped Brake Van at the end of a fitted freight.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Aire Head

[Nearholmer]

Which begs the question as to why side lamps were displayed at all. Was it to warn loco drivers to whistle up, because the guard might be on the deck pinning down brakes?

[Nearholmer]

Which begs the question as to why side lamps were displayed at all. Was it to warn loco drivers to whistle up, because the guard might be on the deck pinning down brakes?

[Aire Head]

47 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Which begs the question as to why side lamps were displayed at all. Was it to warn loco drivers to whistle up, because the guard might be on the deck pinning down brakes?

My understanding was they were used for number of reasons.

 

The White Lights shown forward indicated to a driver that his train was intact, more important when Unfitted and partially fitted trains were running and a break in the train wouldn't cause a noticeable issue in the cab.

 

The rear lights could be used to indicate which line the train was on which was useful for when refuge sidings/fast slow lines/goods lines etc were in operation as faster passenger trains would be overtaking the slower goods trains. The different lamp displays to the rear would reassure/warn the driver of the overtaking trains as to which line the goods train was travelling on as it went past.

 

 

[LMS2968]

10 hours ago, Aire Head said:

Side lamps would not need to be displayed for a piped Brake Van at the end of a fitted freight.

I beg to differ.

 

120. (a) Each train when on any running line last must always have a tail lamp, properly cleaned and trimmed, attached to the rear of the last vehicle, and this lamp will furnish evidence to the Signalman and others that the train is complete. After sunset, or during fog or falling snow, or when the block apparatus has failed in a section where there is a tunnel, or where otherwise provided, the tail lamp must be alight and show a red light and, except in the case of passenger and other trains composed of coaching stock, fully fitted freight trains, and light engines, two red side lights must also be carried.

(b) The Guard, if there be only one, or rear Guard if there be more than one, must see that tail and the tail lamps, and side lamps where provided, are kept properly burning when necessary.

 

121. Freight trains, with the exception of fully fitted trains, must carry side lights showing a white light forward on the rear brake van after sunset or during fog or falling snow; the indications to the rear must be as follows:—

(a)  On Main lines, Fast lines, and Single lines— Two red lights.

(b)  On Slow lines, Relief lines, or Goods lines or Loops adjoining Main or Fast lines, and running in the same direction—One red light on side furthest away from the main or fast line and one white light on side nearest the main or fast line. (See Note.)

(c)     On Goods lines or Loops adjoining Slow or Relief lines, and running in the same direction— Two red lights.  (See Note.)

(d)  On Reception sidings—The side lamps must be removed or obscured when the train has passed into the siding.

Where side lights are shown to be carried, the side lamps must be in position during daylight as well as during darkness.

Mixed trains must carry side lights as laid down for freight trains.

 

Rules 120(a) and 121make no reference to blow-through brakes, and had I found myself in the position described - but I don't recall ever meeting it - I would have had the sidelamps displayed.

 

Their primary purpose was so that the enginemen could look back and see that the train was complete. Even in good daylight, this could be difficult if there were vans marshalled near the rear of the train. The sidelamps protruded beyond these vans so could be seen from the engine, so the completeness of the train was proved. The indication to following traffic wasn't so much a purpose: it mattered only if the train was in that traffic's path. The white light to the other running line simply prevented the following driving having to but the brake in, just in case. Otherwise, it served no purpose.

[BR traction instructor]

Much better to deal with actual situations/pictures of prototype formations etc rather than hypothesising. BR had many and varied situations where brakevans were provided for specific reasons and often dedicated brakevans were kept with the flows that required them. Brakevans marshalled at the rear of fully fitted freights were usually there to fulfil specific operating requirements e.g when certain classes of dangerous goods were conveyed, or a propelling movement that required a brakevan at the leading end featured in the journey.

 

BeRTIe

Edited January 26, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[LMS2968]

You need to consider the era. In steam days and with only a few exceptions covered on another thread, all goods trains, whether fitted or not, would have a brakevan and the guard would ride therein. With the coming of diesels, a fully fitted goods would see the guard, theoretically at least, ride in the back cab and no brakevan would be provided. My years as a guard were in the early to mid-1970s, which explains why I never came across the situation of fully fitted wagons with a blow-through brakevan: the van would be neither needed nor provided. But the situation might have arisen in earlier years.

[BR traction instructor]

Completely agree about specifying era as part of dealing with real examples of how and why a brakevan is required.

 

Here is a real situation (photographer currently unknown). Workington Derwent in the 1970/80s had an exemption in the Sectional Appendix for authority to run unfitted freights without a brakevan. Note the vacuum pipe isn’t even on the stopper and there is obviously no tail lamp bracket on this piped only Covhop. 

 

The two lower pics show a 1980s propelling brakevan situation both in transit with rtn empties (Alastair Wood pic at New Mills sth) and on arrival at Portwood drops (Stockport CLC, terminal later relocated to Bredbury) with the loads from Tunstead, where it would be on the buffer stops having preceded the journey from Woodley.

 

BeRTIe

Edited January 26, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[BR traction instructor]

Edited January 26, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Which begs the question as to why side lamps were displayed at all. Was it to warn loco drivers to whistle up, because the guard might be on the deck pinning down brakes?

Simples - to indicate to the Driver that his train was complete.  The Driver (and effectively the Fireman on his behalf) was required to look back to check his train and as long as the brakevan side lamps were visible he knew that his train was complete.

 

The other reason was that where there were multiple tracks the Drivers of trains heading in the same direction on other lines - which could be immediately adjacent on some types of quadrupling or where there were runn ing loops/goods lines - would know which line the train with side lamps was on from the relative disposition of red and white and sidelights showing to the rear.  Where there were more than two running lines in teh same direction there could be quite complicated Instructions regarding which arrangement of side lamp colours were to be shown on which line (not that there were many options with only two lamps and two colours  ).

 

Signalmen were also required to check that side lamps were correctly exhibited.

 

(And of course the SR did it differently from everyone else as their unfitted freights only had side lamps - no tail lamp).   A more interesting - and probably unaswerable? - question is why sidelamps lasted so long on passenger trains considering that they had an automatic brake throughout?

[BR traction instructor]

Another twist in having no brake van at the rear of a freight train is seen in this early 70s pic (photographer currently unknown) at Barnstaple jnc. China clay loads are arriving from Meeth with the brake van mid train, likely to be due to a complex shunt requirement at Meeth/Marland. If the train was fully fitted on this leg and the guard was simply using the brakevan in conjunction with his duties in operating the gated crossings along the route then the consist would comply with the BR Rules & Regs.

 

A similar situation can be seen in the New Mills sth 1983 pic (currently unknown photographer). This could be a returning Hope St to Peak Forest rake of empties (opens were used to store stone at Hope St) or the Ashburys to Dowlow trip. Either way the train would need to be fully fitted to allow the brake van to run mid train like this.

 

BeRTIe

Edited January 26, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[lather]

On 28/09/2021 at 21:17, Rivercider said:

The branch to Denby included a number of level crossings operated by the guard, so MGR trains over the branch included a CAR brake van at the rear for the guard, this may explain the CAR lettered for Derby,

 

I'm fairly local to Denby (about 2 miles or so), and well remember the trains on the branch.

 

The crews seemed to have a little bit of fun with the brake vans at the Denby end of the line in the early 1980s. Several times, I remember waiting at the level crossing at Rawson Green (aka Kilburn Toll Bar, where the line crossed the A609 Belper Road) for the Derby-bound service to cross. Across would trundle the train, usually behind a pair of Class 20s, but minus a brake van. The train would stop with the last wagon a couple of wagon lengths past the crossing and wait. A couple of minutes later, across would trundle the brake van - all on it's own! It would gently buffer up to the train, the crew would open the crossing gates to allow the traffic to re-start, and the train would sit there for a few minutes while they coupled the van to the train and checked the brakes before starting off on the way to Derby. Definitely not standard practice, almost certainly an "elf & safety" nightmare, and I know there's some who may doubt the story, but I witnessed it with my own eyes on several occasions.

 

For anyone who's interested in the Denby branch, there's a video about it (from the Class 56 era, so no self-propelled brake vans...) called "On The Denby". It's a bit hard to find, but worth it if you can get a copy.

[33C]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Simples - to indicate to the Driver that his train was complete.  The Driver (and effectively the Fireman on his behalf) was required to look back to check his train and as long as the brakevan side lamps were visible he knew that his train was complete.

 

The other reason was that where there were multiple tracks the Drivers of trains heading in the same direction on other lines - which could be immediately adjacent on some types of quadrupling or where there were runn ing loops/goods lines - would know which line the train with side lamps was on from the relative disposition of red and white and sidelights showing to the rear.  Where there were more than two running lines in teh same direction there could be quite complicated Instructions regarding which arrangement of side lamp colours were to be shown on which line (not that there were many options with only two lamps and two colours  ).

 

Signalmen were also required to check that side lamps were correctly exhibited.

 

(And of course the SR did it differently from everyone else as their unfitted freights only had side lamps - no tail lamp).   A more interesting - and probably unaswerable? - question is why sidelamps lasted so long on passenger trains considering that they had an automatic brake throughout?

I loved this regulation when in training and on the road. Later as a driver I got the shock of my life coming off a tight curve, to see 3 red lamps and thought I was on the wrong road and was just about to slam the lot in, when it became clear that that train had been wrong roaded to let me go through and the guard had not shown the white nearest me! I leant on the horn at his ducket to show my displeasure!! 

Edited January 26, 2022 by 33C
Missing letter.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, 33C said:

I loved this regulation when in training and on the road. Later as a driver I got the shock of my life coming off a tight curve, to see 3 red lamps and thought I was on the wrong road and was just about to slam the lot in, when it became clear that that train had been wrong roaded to let me go through and the guard had not shown the white nearest me! I leant on the horn at his ducket to show my displeasure!! 

Yes - not a pleasant experience.  I saw it one night travelling in the cab down the Main Line between Newport and Cardiff which is quite cury in places and ahead there were three reds lights in that triangular arrangement.  . 'Happens all the time' was the Driver's comment!l

 

3 hours ago, BR traction instructor said:

Another twist in having no brake van at the rear of a freight train is seen in this early 70s pic (photographer currently unknown) at Barnstaple jnc. China clay loads are arriving from Meeth with the brake van mid train, likely to be due to a complex shunt requirement at Meeth/Marland. If the train was fully fitted on this leg and the guard was simply using the brakevan in conjunction with his duties in operating the gated crossings along the route then the consist would comply with the BR Rules & Regs.

 

BeRTIe

 

There was only one gated crossing between Barnstaple and Meeth (at Torrington) - all the rest were open crossings.  And it wasn't normally the Guard's duty to operate the crossing at Torrington.   The picture was clearly taken prior to the closure of Barnstaple Jcn B Signal Box in May 1971 but then it becomes something of an oddity to explain as the train is standing on the Down Main where neither working in the wrong direction nor propelling in the right direction were  permitted.    And there was no signalled route off the branch from Fremington (Meeth) which allowed an arriving train to cross to the Down Main although it could be signalled onto either the Up Main or the Middle Siding.

 

So it looks most likely that the train has been shunted to the Down Main at Barnstaple Junction A for some reason (or somebody has been taking liberties with an unsignalled move ).

[Mophead45143]

8 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

You need to consider the era. In steam days and with only a few exceptions covered on another thread, all goods trains, whether fitted or not, would have a brakevan and the guard would ride therein. With the coming of diesels, a fully fitted goods would see the guard, theoretically at least, ride in the back cab and no brakevan would be provided. My years as a guard were in the early to mid-1970s, which explains why I never came across the situation of fully fitted wagons with a blow-through brakevan: the van would be neither needed nor provided. But the situation might have arisen in earlier years.

 

Well to be specific, my original query relates to my modelling year of 1977, and even more specifically the mixed freights that would have run through Chesterfield on the MML (Toton - Tinsley, Severn Tunnel Junction - Tinsley etc.). More often than not there would be some unfitted wagons within these trains at this time, which of course would require a brake van with side lamps displayed. 

 

However, if when being marshalled at one of these yards it became apparent that the consist on that day was made up entirely of fitted vehicles, was the common practice not to attach a brake van as it was not required? I only ask as one was normally used on these workings because they tended to only be partially fitted. In other words, would workings like this be 'booked' to have one as such?

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

[BR traction instructor]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes - not a pleasant experience.  I saw it one night travelling in the cab down the Main Line between Newport and Cardiff which is quite cury in places and ahead there were three reds lights in that triangular arrangement.  . 'Happens all the time' was the Driver's comment!l

 

There was only one gated crossing between Barnstaple and Meeth (at Torrington) - all the rest were open crossings.  And it wasn't normally the Guard's duty to operate the crossing at Torrington.   The picture was clearly taken prior to the closure of Barnstaple Jcn B Signal Box in May 1971 but then it becomes something of an oddity to explain as the train is standing on the Down Main where neither working in the wrong direction nor propelling in the right direction were  permitted.    And there was no signalled route off the branch from Fremington (Meeth) which allowed an arriving train to cross to the Down Main although it could be signalled onto either the Up Main or the Middle Siding.

 

So it looks most likely that the train has been shunted to the Down Main at Barnstaple Junction A for some reason (or somebody has been taking liberties with an unsignalled move ).

…and yet here is the same move again (photographer currently unknown) at an earlier date. I’ll accept one dodgy move but not two. A little more for you to research maybe?

 

The second pic (again from the unknown photographer) shows that the first train arrived at Barnstaple jnc from Fremington on that line and wasn’t shunted on to it (I have four more mid to late 70s pics showing the same train arriving on the same line too).

 

BeRTIe

Edited January 26, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[Rivercider]

3 hours ago, lather said:

 

I'm fairly local to Denby (about 2 miles or so), and well remember the trains on the branch.

 

The crews seemed to have a little bit of fun with the brake vans at the Denby end of the line in the early 1980s. Several times, I remember waiting at the level crossing at Rawson Green (aka Kilburn Toll Bar, where the line crossed the A609 Belper Road) for the Derby-bound service to cross. Across would trundle the train, usually behind a pair of Class 20s, but minus a brake van. The train would stop with the last wagon a couple of wagon lengths past the crossing and wait. A couple of minutes later, across would trundle the brake van - all on it's own! It would gently buffer up to the train, the crew would open the crossing gates to allow the traffic to re-start, and the train would sit there for a few minutes while they coupled the van to the train and checked the brakes before starting off on the way to Derby. Definitely not standard practice, almost certainly an "elf & safety" nightmare, and I know there's some who may doubt the story, but I witnessed it with my own eyes on several occasions.

 

For anyone who's interested in the Denby branch, there's a video about it (from the Class 56 era, so no self-propelled brake vans...) called "On The Denby". It's a bit hard to find, but worth it if you can get a copy.

Great memories for you there.

 

I remember witnessing a similar incident one day at Bodmin Road, as it was then.

A St Blazey allocated class 08 was used to shunt Wenford Bridge, and a brake van was always provided for the guard to ride in regardless that the train was fully fitted. On my visit 08113 appeared off the Bodmin branch running light diesel and set back into the sidings at Bodmin Road, the driver then gave a toot on the whistle. A few moments later the brake van came freewheeling off the branch into Bodmin Road, (it is quite steep down from Bodmin), and stopped in the yard. The 08 then reversed back on top of the van and headed west back to St Blazey.

The move was surely not legal, but saved a run-round move, and gave the guard a bit of fun, so I expect this happened often!

 

cheers

[Rivercider]

15 minutes ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

Well to be specific, my original query relates to my modelling year of 1977, and even more specifically the mixed freights that would have run through Chesterfield on the MML (Toton - Tinsley, Severn Tunnel Junction - Tinsley etc.). More often than not there would be some unfitted wagons within these trains at this time, which of course would require a brake van with side lamps displayed. 

 

However, if when being marshalled at one of these yards it became apparent that the consist on that day was made up entirely of fitted vehicles, was the common practice not to attach a brake van as it was not required? I only ask as one was normally used on these workings because they tended to only be partially fitted. In other words, would workings like this be 'booked' to have one as such?

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

I think the relevant Freight Train Marshalling booklet would give instructions for timetabled mainline freight services. It may be that the originating yard has fully fitted traffic, but an intermediate yard has unfitted wagons to attach, in that case a brake van would normally still be provided. It is possible of the originating yard was short of brake vans they might get permission to keep the van if there was no unfitted traffic to attach en-route. Though if the van was required by the terminating yard for a return working it would still have to be sent.

If the passing freight train was part of a local trip working then sometimes the trip loco would convey a brake van for the duration of the turn of duty even though some of the work might be with fully fitted vehicles.

 

cheers 

[LMS2968]

49 minutes ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

Well to be specific, my original query relates to my modelling year of 1977, and even more specifically the mixed freights that would have run through Chesterfield on the MML (Toton - Tinsley, Severn Tunnel Junction - Tinsley etc.). More often than not there would be some unfitted wagons within these trains at this time, which of course would require a brake van with side lamps displayed. 

 

However, if when being marshalled at one of these yards it became apparent that the consist on that day was made up entirely of fitted vehicles, was the common practice not to attach a brake van as it was not required? I only ask as one was normally used on these workings because they tended to only be partially fitted. In other words, would workings like this be 'booked' to have one as such?

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

It wouldn't happen like that. Every train ran under a classification, which laid down certain criteria such as maximum speed, brake power, etc. A Class 5 had to have the brakes working on no fewer than half the vehicles; a Class 6 with not less than 20% (previously as a Class E, this was counted as four wagons) fitted.

 

Let's say you're preparing your train, which is to run as Class 6. You bag up the first 20% of the wagons, ensuring that they are braked and not blow-throughs (if one is, you bag up the next one, etc. until you have your 20% fitted head). Now you find that the next wagon also has a vacuum cylinder, so do you couple the vac bags? No, you leave them on their stoppers and let the wagon and all behind it run unfitted. Why? Firstly, because you already have the required brake power with the 20% fitted head; you don't need any more as the train is arranged to work at that level. Second, if you turn up at the destination with thirty-six wagons all bagged up when the shunters are expecting four, you aren't going to make any friends. They now have to go between each pair of wagons to unhook instead of simply throwing the link off with the pole; and they also have to pull the strings on each and every wagon to release the vacuum before they could start to sort them.

 

You ran your train with the required brake power, but you didn't couple up vacuum bags just because they were there.

[Mophead45143]

49 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

It wouldn't happen like that. Every train ran under a classification, which laid down certain criteria such as maximum speed, brake power, etc. A Class 5 had to have the brakes working on no fewer than half the vehicles; a Class 6 with not less than 20% (previously as a Class E, this was counted as four wagons) fitted.

 

Let's say you're preparing your train, which is to run as Class 6. You bag up the first 20% of the wagons, ensuring that they are braked and not blow-throughs (if one is, you bag up the next one, etc. until you have your 20% fitted head). Now you find that the next wagon also has a vacuum cylinder, so do you couple the vac bags? No, you leave them on their stoppers and let the wagon and all behind it run unfitted. Why? Firstly, because you already have the required brake power with the 20% fitted head; you don't need any more as the train is arranged to work at that level. Second, if you turn up at the destination with thirty-six wagons all bagged up when the shunters are expecting four, you aren't going to make any friends. They now have to go between each pair of wagons to unhook instead of simply throwing the link off with the pole; and they also have to pull the strings on each and every wagon to release the vacuum before they could start to sort them.

 

You ran your train with the required brake power, but you didn't couple up vacuum bags just because they were there.

 

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot of sense. Most of what I have seen on the forum covers the theoretical, but I was always skeptical that just because something could be done, it would be. Like you say, if the working involves lots of shunting at either end, then you only cover the minimum requirement as far as braking is concerned. I wouldn't like to be the shunter that has to mess about with strings on 30-40 wagons! As a secondman in preservation, 7 mk1's is bad enough when taking over a set after a GWR kettle has been on it!!!

 

So generally, whatever the train is timetabled as (i.e. class 6/7/8...), it would run as. I guess fully fitted freights of the 1970's were of the block train variety anyway, and many of these were becoming air braked by then (MGR, oil, etc.).

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

It wouldn't happen like that. Every train ran under a classification, which laid down certain criteria such as maximum speed, brake power, etc. A Class 5 had to have the brakes working on no fewer than half the vehicles; a Class 6 with not less than 20% (previously as a Class E, this was counted as four wagons) fitted.

 

Let's say you're preparing your train, which is to run as Class 6. You bag up the first 20% of the wagons, ensuring that they are braked and not blow-throughs (if one is, you bag up the next one, etc. until you have your 20% fitted head). Now you find that the next wagon also has a vacuum cylinder, so do you couple the vac bags? No, you leave them on their stoppers and let the wagon and all behind it run unfitted. Why? Firstly, because you already have the required brake power with the 20% fitted head; you don't need any more as the train is arranged to work at that level. Second, if you turn up at the destination with thirty-six wagons all bagged up when the shunters are expecting four, you aren't going to make any friends. They now have to go between each pair of wagons to unhook instead of simply throwing the link off with the pole; and they also have to pull the strings on each and every wagon to release the vacuum before they could start to sort them.

 

You ran your train with the required brake power, but you didn't couple up vacuum bags just because they were there.

But you didn't need to go in between to uncouple vacuum bags as they would pull apart as you knocked the wagons off when shunting (after you'd pulled the strings of course) and that was one reason why vacuum bags weren't pinned on freight vehicles (the other reason was to save a little bit of time) when preparing and bagging up a trains).    and with Instanter couplkings no need to go in at all as you lengthened the coupling using the shunting pole.Occasionally they wouldn't part cleanly and a bag would be pulled off the standpipe and that was no doubt why yards always seemed to have a small stock of spare bags hardy for the C&W Examiner to fit replacements.  But definitely yes - you only bagged up enough wagons to get the required number for a fitted head and far quicker and simpler working in Class 9 land where there was no need to bother with bagging-up.

 

But if a train was booked to run fully fitted then running with a braked head only wasn't really liked on the Western and (officially) could only be done with Control agreement.  On one occasion when we were very largely a 'fully fitted railway' and I was the Regional On Call Officer I even had a call from Control one night asking if I would give authority for a train to run with insufficient brake force as certain CCE vehicles which had to go on it had defective vacuum brakes.  I told them to ring the M&EE On Call Officer and get him to get his folk to get the brakes working - cue a couple of very disgruntled fitters who were called out to do the job; train delayed but the CCE vehicles were on it as booked and got to the right place for their weekend job.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Mophead45143 said:

 

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot of sense. Most of what I have seen on the forum covers the theoretical, but I was always skeptical that just because something could be done, it would be. Like you say, if the working involves lots of shunting at either end, then you only cover the minimum requirement as far as braking is concerned. I wouldn't like to be the shunter that has to mess about with strings on 30-40 wagons! As a secondman in preservation, 7 mk1's is bad enough when taking over a set after a GWR kettle has been on it!!!

 

So generally, whatever the train is timetabled as (i.e. class 6/7/8...), it would run as. I guess fully fitted freights of the 1970's were of the block train variety anyway, and many of these were becoming air braked by then (MGR, oil, etc.).

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

By and large, yes, and increasingly along the timeline, but there was still the NCL network of goods depots, which generated class 6 trains of traditional vacuum braked general merchandise freight in 12ton vans, BD or AF containers on conflats, and 5-plank sheeted opens.  And you didn’t have to look far to find other vac braked class 6 traffic; cement in presflos or bagged in 12ton vans, block train 45ton 4-wheeled 60mph oil/petrol tanks, block 50mph ‘Pipe’ dropside opens Canton Sidings/Lawrence Hill-Calvert for London Brick, block wooden bodied medfits of salt for winter road gritting each autumn, and that’s just in my bottom goods guard link at Canton.  
 

The china clay vacuum hoods were still running, there were block vacuum trains of dogfish for ballast laying, and no doubt plenty of other examples of block vacuum traffic.  All the class 7 and 8 part fitted traffic had vacuum heads; TTBOMK there was no such thing as a part fitted train with an air braked head, though I cannot see any reason to not do it beyond that the traffic never required it.  Faced with such a situation I’d have got on with it assuming that we were within load for the loco on that route and had sufficient brake force for the class of train. 
 

 

 

[BR traction instructor]

BR laid down the marshalling instructions for its principal freight trains in booklets such as this. The make up of the portions of the train are shown, along with any supplementary instructions.

 

A picture demonstrating the marshalling of 1970s freights is included at the bottom (photographer currently unknown) seen passing Chesterfield sbnd. If the shunting loco had vacuum pipes fitted and the fitted head of the freight could be marshalled behind it, then it would have been marshalled immediately behind the 40. However, it must be unfitted/unable to be part of the fitted head because it is actually marshalled immediately behind the fitted head (as per General Appendix instructions).

 

BeRTIe

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[BR traction instructor]

Edited January 27, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[LMS2968]

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But you didn't need to go in between to uncouple vacuum bags as they would pull apart as you knocked the wagons off when shunting (after you'd pulled the strings of course) and that was one reason why vacuum bags weren't pinned on freight vehicles (the other reason was to save a little bit of time) when preparing and bagging up a trains).    and with Instanter couplkings no need to go in at all as you lengthened the coupling using the shunting pole.Occasionally they wouldn't part cleanly and a bag would be pulled off the standpipe and that was no doubt why yards always seemed to have a small stock of spare bags hardy for the C&W Examiner to fit replacements.  But definitely yes - you only bagged up enough wagons to get the required number for a fitted head and far quicker and simpler working in Class 9 land where there was no need to bother with bagging-up.

Yes, getting mixed up with steam heat bags. It was over 45 years ago!