Castle Aching

[jwealleans]

That's the fellow.   You could drop him a line and mention my name.   I'm sure I can find the etch for a reference number if he needs it.

[Edwardian]

Rationalising this, then, passenger vehicles would need to be treated in 4 different ways:

 

- Inner coaches on fixed rakes/portions and also coaches that might be inserted into such rakes, such as saloons or, most commonly, strengthening Thirds on market days:  BB-style coupling unit one end, no coupling the other end.

 

- Brake coaches A: Screw links at brake end, BB-style coupling unit other end.

 

- Brake coaches B, for the other end of a rake/portion: Screw links at brake end, no couplings at other end.

 

- NPC traffic that would be added at the front or end of a train.  This would be vans/brake vans for newspapers/parcels, milk and other perishables vans, horse boxes and open carriage trucks. I don't see the WN bothering with CCTs or special cattle boxes. These would have screw links at both ends. 

 

Could it really be that simple?!?

[uax6]

How do you intend to insert the strengtheners into your coach formations? If you have the BB style units you can't actually shunt them from a siding (and they would look odd in a siding wouldn't they?). So I suggest that these are loose vehicles fitted with screws, that you attach outside the normal rake, probably at the front of the train. If there is a requirement to have a non-passenger carrying vehicle at the outside of the rake, then add another NPCCS vehicle against the tender.

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

23 minutes ago, uax6 said:

How do you intend to insert the strengtheners into your coach formations? If you have the BB style units you can't actually shunt them from a siding (and they would look odd in a siding wouldn't they?). So I suggest that these are loose vehicles fitted with screws, that you attach outside the normal rake, probably at the front of the train. If there is a requirement to have a non-passenger carrying vehicle at the outside of the rake, then add another NPCCS vehicle against the tender.

 

Andy G

 

I don't see them being added at CA. Possibly Achingham and certainly Birchoverham Market (if modelled), where they will probably be a couple of extra Thirds based, and sit in a carriage shed when not required.

 

Tricky point, though; hadn't thought of that!

 

Insertion within a rake equipped with BB-style units will require some intervention from the Hand of God. Perhaps God could attach a pluggable BB-style unit while He's at it? The coach could then be shunted using the locomotive's couplings.

 

I don't ask for much, do I?

 

EDIT: PS:

 

 

 

I could get some units drawn up and 3D printed, and there is a flexible material available, somewhat akin to delrin (only this should take paint). 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Edwardian
Light Bulb Moment

[Regularity]

Depending on where and when, up to two non-guard-carrying coaches could usually be added to the rear of a train. You are certainly unlikely to see remarshalling of a set with passengers in the carriages. Not impossible, but unlikely. Add a third on the end for market days (and a grotty, slightly older coach, at that) would be entirely reasonable.

And has been said, too much side-play between wheel-flange and rail running face for reliable use of AJs in 00.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Regularity
AJs

[Edwardian]

12 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Depending on where and when, up to two non-guard-carrying coaches could usually be added to the rear of a train. You are certainly unlikely to see remarshalling of a set with passengers in the carriages. Not impossible, but unlikely. Add a third on the end for market days (and a grotty, slightly older coach, at that) would be entirely reasonable.

And has been said, too much side-play between wheel-flange and rail running face for reliable use of AJs in 00.

 

I confess, I do prefer insertion of a strengthening coach within the rake. 

 

Some (much) compromise is inevitable - I daresay Hands of God will come down whatever system I try, that safety chains won't be connected and that locos will not be connected via vac pipes to coaches, tail traffic certainly will not have connected brake hoses, lamps will be where they shouldn't and not always where they should, and I don't even want to think about the lack of a communication chord running from the engine! - however, I'd rather not have the way I marshal my stock dictated by coupling arrangements. It needs to be the other way around. 

 

Still, the worse problem is the goods traffic, as my Everyman standards are too 'sloppy' for AJs!

[jwealleans]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

I'd rather not have the way I marshal my stock dictated by coupling arrangements. It needs to be the other way around. 

 

I take the view that this presents a similar problem to the one the real railways had between vacuum and Westinghouse stock and also Pullman and BS vestibules.   It adds to the interest and makes you think more about what you're doing.

[Edwardian]

49 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

 

I take the view that this presents a similar problem to the one the real railways had between vacuum and Westinghouse stock and also Pullman and BS vestibules.   It adds to the interest and makes you think more about what you're doing.

 

Taking the case in point, I'd rather have shunting issues to overcome (and perhaps with some Divine Intervention) than run a train as I do not believe it would have been marshalled.  As with so much in this hobby, it is a choice of which of two unrealistic solutions bothers you the most!  

[drduncan]

Admittedly my recollections of GWR picture evidence is that strengthening coaches went at the head or rear of the regular branch set and it was not marshalled within the fixed rake.

 

Cross country/through workings are a different matter. Here you were adding fixed rakes (with a brake) at either the head or rear of the existing train depending on their onward destination. If a single coach was sufficient for the traffic it was invariably a brake composite (brake tri comp if the owners still bothered with second class). The working of through coaches on the north and west route is particularly illuminating to show how multiple through portions were marshalled together. But Kew is a  bit far from the county palatine so pm me if you’d like some JPEG’s…

 

Regards

Duncan

[Caley Jim]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I confess, I do prefer insertion of a strengthening coach within the rake. 

A photo recently posted on the CRA forum showed a matching rake of 65ft coaches with a brake at either end, and then another coach coupled between that and the loco. Simply adding a strengthening vehicle to the end of a 'set' rake would be a much simpler operation than splitting the rake to insert it, not to mention the same extra work when removing it. The only requirement as far, as the regulations were concerned, was that if there were passenger compartments next to the loco, the first 3 (?) of these had to be locked to form a barrier. (crumple zone in modern safety terms). 

 

Jim

Edited September 1, 2021 by Caley Jim
Predictive text (again!)

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

A photo recently posted on the CRA forum showed a matching rake of 65ft coaches with a brake at either end, and then another coach coupled between that and the loco. Simply adding a strengthening vehicle to the end of a 'set' rake would be a much simpler operation than splitting the rake to insert it, not to mention the same extra work when removing it. The only requirement as far, as the regulations were concerned, was that if there were passenger compartments next to the loco, the first 3 (?) of these had to be locked to form a barrier. (crumple zone in modern safety terms). 

 

Jim

 

Yes, but that rather negates the benefit of adding a 5-compartment Third!

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Yes, but that rather negates the benefit of adding a 5-compartment Third!

It does!  I can't recall what the regulations were regarding if (and if so how many) passenger vehicles without a guard's compartment were allowed at the rear of a train.

 

Jim

[Edwardian]

Just now, Caley Jim said:

It does!  I can't recall what the regulations were regarding if (and if so how many) passenger vehicles without a guard's compartment were allowed at the rear of a train.

 

Jim

 

This is precisely why I would imagine that if the WN was adding an old 1870s Third as a market day strengthener, they'd insert it within the rake.

 

 

[ChrisN]

4 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

It does!  I can't recall what the regulations were regarding if (and if so how many) passenger vehicles without a guard's compartment were allowed at the rear of a train.

 

Jim

 

If I recall correctly, the rule was no more than two coaches behind the guards van.

 

I know on the Cambrian that through coaches were either on the front or the back as seen on photos, but outward LNWR coaches always had to be at the back.

[Caley Jim]

24 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

If I recall correctly, the rule was no more than two coaches behind the guards van.

I had a recollection that a maximum of two vehicles could be attached behind the last brake compartment, but was unsure whether that included passenger vehicles.   So, James, your extra third could simply be tacked on to the rear of the train.

 

25 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

I know on the Cambrian that through coaches were either on the front or the back as seen on photos, but outward LNWR coaches always had to be at the back.

That was presumably to make removing them to be added to the LNWR train easier.

 

Jim

[ChrisN]

1 minute ago, Caley Jim said:

I had a recollection that a maximum of two vehicles could be attached behind the last brake compartment, but was unsure whether that included passenger vehicles.   So, James, your extra third could simply be tacked on to the rear of the train.

 

That was presumably to make removing them to be added to the LNWR train easier.

 

Jim

 

Jim,

Yes, but the coaches at the front were only going half way if I recall, (sorry cannot find the right document quickly), the middle ones were going the full Cambrian distance, and those going further were at the back.  I am not sure if this was the case for all trains.

[Nearholmer]

The BoT only made recommendations, not requirements, in this matter, so the detailed rules about it were made by individual companies, and varied between companies, and over time within companies. Stationmaster gave a detailed rundown of the history of the relevant GWR rules in another thread.

 

Extract from marked-up copy of BoT 'Requirements and Recommendations' of 1892, marked-up with amendments to create the 1902 edition.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE WORKING OF RAILWAYS.

 

1. There should be a brake vehicle with a guard in it at or near the tail of every train ; this vehicle should be provided with a raised roof and extended sides, glazed to the front and back; and it should be the duty of the guard to keep a constant look-out from it along his train.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

11 hours ago, Regularity said:

Depending on where and when, up to two non-guard-carrying coaches could usually be added to the rear of a train. You are certainly unlikely to see remarshalling of a set with passengers in the carriages. Not impossible, but unlikely. Add a third on the end for market days (and a grotty, slightly older coach, at that) would be entirely reasonable.

And has been said, too much side-play between wheel-flange and rail running face for reliable use of AJs in 00.

 

37 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The BoT only made recommendations, not requirements, in this matter, so the detailed rules about it were made by individual companies, and varied between companies, and over time within companies. Stationmaster gave a detailed rundown of the history of the relevant GWR rules in another thread.

 

Extract from marked-up copy of BoT 'Requirements and Recommendations' of 1892, marked-up with amendments to create the 1902 edition.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE WORKING OF RAILWAYS.

 

1. There should be a brake vehicle with a guard in it at or near the tail of every train ; this vehicle should be provided with a raised roof and extended sides, glazed to the front and back; and it should be the duty of the guard to keep a constant look-out from it along his train.

 

Hence why I said usually up to two.

 

Doesn’t apply nowadays, of course.

[uax6]

On the Highland the only time they locked out a compartment next to the loco was if it was a coupe with glazed windows on the end... 

The LMS rule for vehicles behind the rear van was afaiaa a maximum of 8 axles, so 4 four-wheelers, two 6 wheelers and a four wheeler, a bogie coach and either two 4 wheelers or a single 6 wheeler, or two bogie coaches.

 

I really cannot see any railway (or railwayman for that matter) whating to make life harder for themselves by braking up sets just to add a strengthener or a saloon, its just a lot of work for nothing (and cost, don't forget the cost of shunting stuff about... extra coal burnt etc)

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

OK, so the strengthened services could run:

• CA - Achingham - CA, using the Achingham branch 4-set; or,
• BM - CA - Achingham - CA - BM, using a 'mainline' 4W 4 or5-set; or,
• BM - AC - CA - Achingham - CA - AC - BM, again using a 'mainline' 4W 4 or 5-set

 

I thought to cater for 3 loose Thirds; a couple of the 1870s coaches, such as used by the branch set, and a longer 4-wheeler, notionally a former Second, that was gifted to me.

 

If I add 1 or 2 such coaches to the end of a train, half the time they will be behind the locomotive, the other half of the time they will be at the tail end, behind the brake coach.

 

Does anyone see a problem with this arrangement?

 

I accept the benefit of not inserting these coaches within the rake, but seek comfort that the alternative would be reasonably prototypical.

 

If I had to, I could add a spare 1870s luggage brake on the end after the extra Third(s).  The train guard could, I suppose, transfer to this vehicle when it was the terminating vehicle. This does add further dead weight to haul, reducing the economies of not shunting the Third(s) into the rake. 

 

To spice things up, if required, one could add an ex-MGN vehicle at Hillingham on the ex-BM local 'mainline' services, or an ex-GER vehicle at Aching Constable to the service running via AC. 

 

 

[jwealleans]

One practical reason for placing vehicles at the head or end of a train was locomotive changes?   The relieving loco would often have the additional vehicles attached, so only one shunting move is required.    Otherwise the station pilot would attach them to the rear.   The train loco would only be detached to pick up the stock and then reattach if there was no other practical alternative.

 

Detaching would often be the reverse - vehicle(s) to be detached at the head of the train if the loco is to be changed and all come off together.  Otherwise a pilot would remove and shunt the detached vehicles from the rear of the train.  We have a move on Grantham where a down express departs leaving a through carriage for Lincoln on the main line, from where it is collected by a pilot.  

[drduncan]

I’m imagining that strengthening coaches will be on specific services within that specific day. So for market day, the extra coach will be on a single service (or two) to the event and then removed at the destination to await the return service at the end of the event (market) while the branch set does its thing the rest of the day . Depending on whether adding as head or tail traffic is easiest the extra coach might always be at the same end
 

So where the interest comes is the adding and removal of the extra coach and it’s stabling in the interim. 
 

Duncan

[Edwardian]

6 hours ago, drduncan said:

I’m imagining that strengthening coaches will be on specific services within that specific day. So for market day, the extra coach will be on a single service (or two) to the event and then removed at the destination to await the return service at the end of the event (market) while the branch set does its thing the rest of the day . Depending on whether adding as head or tail traffic is easiest the extra coach might always be at the same end
 

So where the interest comes is the adding and removal of the extra coach and it’s stabling in the interim. 
 

Duncan

 

Good point.

 

The two market destinations (obviously on different days) would be Achingham and Birchoverham Market. 

 

On a service working Achingam to BM, a strengthening coach stabled at Achingam could conveniently work to BM and back, or, for a service to Achingham, a BM stabled coach could work to Achingham and back.

 

In between times, they would be detached and remain at the destination station until the return home, so, yes, they could be on the same end of the train each time, save that a service via AC would reverse there.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Edwardian

[uax6]

This sort of leads on to another interesting question:

 

How do you envisage actually operating the railway?

 

What I mean by that is: Are you going to run operating sessions or ad hoc?

 

For operating sessions (which can take months to come to an end) do you want to do a days timetable complete, or say a weeks timetable complete? Rolling dice can give variations for days, weeks, months, traffic loading, failures, late running etc. One thing you would need for this would be some simple clocks for each locaton, so that you can keep note of the time. Ian Thompson of this parish uses home made 3min * finger worked clocks, but it could be that use just have paper digital(!) clocks, where you turn the number over from the back to give a simple time display.

 

Ad hoc working would be just running something when-ever you fancy. 

 

Andy G

 

* 3 mins gives a good representation of a move (un-coupling and moving in one direction counting as a move).

[Annie]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

If I had to, I could add a spare 1870s luggage brake on the end after the extra Third(s).  The train guard could, I suppose, transfer to this vehicle when it was the terminating vehicle. This does add further dead weight to haul, reducing the economies of not shunting the Third(s) into the rake. 

 

To spice things up, if required, one could add an ex-MGN vehicle at Hillingham on the ex-BM local 'mainline' services, or an ex-GER vehicle at Aching Constable to the service running via AC. 

On some passenger runs on my Barrow Hills & Foxhollow Extension Railway where most stations have a lock up goods shed on the platform adding an additional luggage brake to trains is pretty much the default condition.