ThaneofFife Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Does anybody know the reason(s) why the brake vehicle in these 6 coach rakes of Mk2s had to be at the Glasgow end? Reading in the latest Traction magazine about these interesting workings and the author mentions this practice but never explained the important bit -the "why"? Trains that were diverted resulting in the brake being at the Edinburgh end had to be turned or remarshalled to get the brake back to the Glasgow end. Seems a faff. I cant for the life of me think of a reason why this would be....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianwales Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Hi I am not 100% sure, but, I understand it was something to do with the guard and driver being at opposite ends of the train if the train failed in the tunnel leaving Glasgow QS Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy Angus Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Not sure but it might be something to do with having the first class accomodation at a particular end and therfore closer for the more "important" passengers. It is amazing how disgruntled some individuals get when "their" coach is not where they expect it. Roddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted June 6, 2012 Author Share Posted June 6, 2012 Hi I am not 100% sure, but, I understand it was something to do with the guard and driver being at opposite ends of the train if the train failed in the tunnel leaving Glasgow QS Ian Hi Ian Hmm, what on trains bound for Edinburgh you mean? I can kind of see some sort of sense to this as trains descending through the tunnel would have driver and guard virtually next to each other and so a decamp of passengers to walk them into GQS would mean the guard is always at the best end to facilitate an evacuation. ......unless anybody else knows any different?................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Not sure but it might be something to do with having the first class accomodation at a particular end and therfore closer for the more "important" passengers. I doubt that TBH - whichever station it was closer for, it would be further away at the other end... Ian's theory, for protecting the train in Cowlairs tunnel, sounds pretty plausible. A man who will probably know for definite is Bob 65b. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I'm positive it was purely an operational thing to do with the need to have the van at the Glasgow End for the removal of mail and parcels to achieve the quick turnaround time - except for Sundays each set turned round in less than 15" to form the next return working. I'm sure it was carried over from the DMU days and of course was repeated for the 47/7 & DBSO sets. I don't remember any laid down requirement to always have the brake at the rear apart from the marshalling instruction where we were expected to have them leave Cowlairs and Craigentinny with the sets so formed and if throughout the day for whatever (unforseen) reason it became reversed the only requirement was that it should be reversed back at the first available opportunity. In the absence of an appropriate appendix or local instruction to hand - I'll ask a friend who might know more! Reversals were a bit of a faff for the driver at least - at the Glasgow End it meant going round the Cowlairs triangle whereas when done at the Edinburgh End it meant running from Winchburgh Jn to Dalmeny Jn and after changing ends running to the Waverley via Saughton Jn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 The only reference I can find is in the circuit workings, which include the instruction "It is important that the set should run with the BSO on rear from Glasgow and front from Edinburgh should the set be reversed due to unforeseen circumstances, the correct marshalling must be restored at first suitable opportunity." The sets were marshalled with the FK next to the BSO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 Mail and parcels? Another possible but why were they more important than mail and parcels bound for edinburgh - that would be my only reason to doubt this. Roberts circuit working adds to the mystery as it only states that reversed sets should be remarshalled. One thing I overlooked was the fact that the 47/7 push pulls were similarly arranged with DBSO at the GQS end............. I'll drop Stephen Rabone this one by email and he might be able to get a definitive from the writer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strathyre Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Bob's right although the presence of the DBSO at the Glasgow end was mainly as a consequence of the directive that the locomotive had to be at the Edinburgh (tunnel) end - in the early days at least. In the case of a set arriving at Queen St the wrong way round a loco had to be sent from Eatfield to pilot it back up the tunnel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 ive learned another possible and highly plausible thought - that the brake had to be marshalled at the queen street end should a train split in the tunnel (and the runaway portion rolls down the incline back into the terminus). also explains why 47/7 DBSOs were queen street end first. this seems to have some credibility. i dont think the positioning of 1st class or the parcels situation are related. a guard cooped up at the queen street end of every train would seem to be a safeguard to wind on the handbrake in such circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Mail and parcels? Another possible but why were they more important than mail and parcels bound for edinburgh - that would be my only reason to doubt this. Nothing to do with priority of Glasgow over Edinburgh It was a station arrangements thing - at Queen St. It was extremely difficult to offload re-load the Edinburgh Mail at Queen St. with the BSO at the wrong (tunnel) end - the only platform access was at the George Square end - meaning running the tractor/trolley's/BRUTE's down through the passengers trying to get off or on to the set. This applied whether the set was run into Platforms 2, 3 or 6 but even worse on Platform 7. At the Waverley the opposite applied - it was easier the offload / re-load the mail from the Glasgow End - there being a natural route for the mail traffic down the back of the exit ramp - via platforms 10 & 11 Roberts circuit working adds to the mystery as it only states that reversed sets should be remarshalled. One thing I overlooked was the fact that the 47/7 push pulls were similarly arranged with DBSO at the GQS end............. Isn't that what I said - about them reversing? You also overlooked that (as far I know) the DMU's prior to that were marshalled with a van to the front as well. 'll drop Stephen Rabone this one by email and he might be able to get a definitive from the writer. Better you go and find an appendix entry if you're unable to accept what's already been offered to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Refer last post Stuart! With the Van at the Glasgow End, whist at the Waverley (an inevitably in Platform 7) it was easier to access it via Platforms 10/11 - avoiding the punters altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 "Robert" or can I call you Bob ?(surprised we're on overly familiar first name terms so quickly) - the explanation you posted does seem to dot the i's and cross the t's on this. Nice one kiddo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 In the class 47 days, I would guess it was easier to detect and deal with any wheelspin climbing out of Queen Street if driving from the loco, than if driving from the DBSO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 In the class 47 days, I would guess it was easier to detect and deal with any wheelspin climbing out of Queen Street if driving from the loco, than if driving from the DBSO. Well funnily enough Edwin - apparently there was a thought (which turned out to be unfounded in reality) that the two-wire control system wouldn't be sensitive enough for controlling the locomotives regulating air when being driven from the DBSO going up the incline. The issue apparently was that climbing the incline in one particular notch might potentially cause a lack of power but when the next notch up was selected it could cause wheelspin. (the risk of course being the set could stall on the incline)! In the early days it took the drivers a while to get used to the remote working, when compared to the point & shoot of the old 2 x 27s..... caused a fair amount of grief in the early days though we did get a Haymarket driver to get 107mph out of a set on the ECML (under test of course)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Bob's right although the presence of the DBSO at the Glasgow end was mainly as a consequence of the directive that the locomotive had to be at the Edinburgh (tunnel) end - in the early days at least. In the case of a set arriving at Queen St the wrong way round a loco had to be sent from Eatfield to pilot it back up the tunnel. According to an ex-BR employee friend when these trains were operated by DBSO/ Cl47s the reason the locomotive was at the tunnel end in Queens Street was so a failed locomotive could be changed easily. Because Waverley is a through station it didn't really matter at which end the loco was. At Waverley a train with a problem locomotive could be run into a through platform. Jeremy Jeremy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 . Because Waverley is a through station it didn't really matter at which end the loco was. Bit of a red herring that though - the push/pulls normally used the west end bays at Waverley, there are (IIRC) only two through platforms round the outside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Bit of a red herring that though - the push/pulls normally used the west end bays at Waverley, there are (IIRC) only two through platforms round the outside. My amendment crossed your post! Jeremy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Plus the sub Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Plus the sub Ian Yeah, I wasnt sure how 'officially' they were in use at that time Bob, though I do recall being on a railtour that used them in the early '80s. Jeremy - noted mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Ian - apologies for using the "derisive" smiley! (it wasn't meant to be) ! I'd have thought that ability to remove a failed loco happened as a consequence rather than a plan. With such a short turnround time inbound failures usually caused a cancellation or replacement with a 47/7 and spare set off maintenace at Craigentinny stepping up into the diagram for the return working from Edinburgh though of course it's not to say that it wasn't a consideration I'm sure. A lot of the construct of the service was inherited on what had gone on before - the position of the van and the first class! (it was important that the morning first class passenger got a flyer in the morning at Glasgow but going home at night I guess they were not too bothered) - so it was said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC126 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I recall reading an old Railway World (?) article about the (then new) E&G Class 27 push pull sets. The article mentioned that the practice stemmed from a local instruction to have the guard nearest to the QS station end to summon assistance in the event of a failure as the train ascended Cowlairs Tunnel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC126 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Further to the above, I'm wondering if this requirement had anything to do with the E&G Intercity DMUs being unusually built with the guards compartments at the cab (outer) ends? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'd reckon Andrew the first port of call would be to try and track down that article! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Further to the above, I'm wondering if this requirement had anything to do with the E&G Intercity DMUs being unusually built with the guards compartments at the cab (outer) ends? Mmm, dunno Andrew; possibly. Units from the same build were used on WR services, and ended up in the E-G fleet, although I think the first 1950s rumblings of an Inter-City pattern of DMU were with the E-G route in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.