Compression and passenger train formations

[ejstubbs]

My layout is fairly space-constrained, to the extent that my passenger trains are limited to three coaches - four at a push.

 

I'm in the process of assembling a small rake of LMS non-corridor coaches to run with my Fowler 2-6-4T.  Following a bit of reading around, I understand that these would normally have run with a brake coach at each end.  I'm just wondering what's the best formation to use for a three-coach train: brake 3rd-composite-brake 3rd or the classic, hackneyed trainset formation of brake 3rd + two composites.  Two brake 3rds in a three-coach train seems to limit the passenger accommodation somewhat.  I'd prefer to keep it to three coaches, only using four coaches for the 'long-distance/express' corridor train.

 

Any thoughts?

[Irishrailwaymodeller]

My layout is fairly space-constrained, to the extent that my passenger trains are limited to three coaches - four at a push.

 

I'm in the process of assembling a small rake of LMS non-corridor coaches to run with my Fowler 2-6-4T.  Following a bit of reading around, I understand that these would normally have run with a brake coach at each end.  I'm just wondering what's the best formation to use for a three-coach train: brake 3rd-composite-brake 3rd or the classic, hackneyed trainset formation of brake 3rd + two composites.  Two brake 3rds in a three-coach train seems to limit the passenger accommodation somewhat.  I'd prefer to keep it to three coaches, only using four coaches for the 'long-distance/express' corridor train.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Pretty much all layouts are space-constrained so this is a common challenge! You have covered the options so whichever looks best on layout could be chosen. I would guess that most small branch-line trains would be unlikely to have had first-class accommodation?

[Leander]

My layout is fairly space-constrained, to the extent that my passenger trains are limited to three coaches - four at a push.

 

I'm in the process of assembling a small rake of LMS non-corridor coaches to run with my Fowler 2-6-4T.  Following a bit of reading around, I understand that these would normally have run with a brake coach at each end.  I'm just wondering what's the best formation to use for a three-coach train: brake 3rd-composite-brake 3rd or the classic, hackneyed trainset formation of brake 3rd + two composites.  Two brake 3rds in a three-coach train seems to limit the passenger accommodation somewhat.  I'd prefer to keep it to three coaches, only using four coaches for the 'long-distance/express' corridor train.

 

Any thoughts?

Try C/BS/S. In plain English that's a Composite, Brake Second and a Second. That is not at all an unprototypical formation.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would stick with the more usual Brake Third at each end plus composite in the middle. That's still plenty of accommodation for passengers particularly if you choose the diagrams with smaller brake compartments. To make the train look a bit more interesting, hang a van of some sort on the back.

 

Depending on the era that you are modelling, it might be worthwhile having one of the Brake Thirds as a pre-group vehicle for variety.

[Nick Holliday]

When the LBSCR put its six-wheelers onto 54' bogie underframes in the Edwardian period, the majority ended up as three coach sets with two brake thirds flanking some sort of composite. Although that sounds a bit boring, there was plenty of variety as the look of each coach depended on its donor vehicle(s).

[Flying Pig]

David Jenkinson wrote about this subject in MRJ 15 when he was planning the train for Inkerman Street and noted that brake third/compo*/brake third was the probable formation, though full third/brake third/compo (as suggested above) was also legitimate, if less likely. He was specifically referring to the Central Division (ex L&Y) in 1940 but I doubt that matters too much.

 

*he chose to build a lavatory compo (Airfix/Dapol) running as a stand in, but admitted that he was trying to avoid building a "frightfully boring" standard formation. Also, both his brake thirds were period I stock and one was a 54' design, but I don't think Hornby can help you there.

[Oldddudders]

I am entirely ignorant about matters LMS, but would suggest that contemporary photos are your best friend, enabling you to feel confident that is how it was. And there are specialist coach and LMS groups who may have an instant answer. My prototype, Southern, ran rigidly-maintained coach sets a lot of the time. BT/C/BT was a common formation there. 

[Rivercider]

I am entirely ignorant about matters LMS, but would suggest that contemporary photos are your best friend, enabling you to feel confident that is how it was. And there are specialist coach and LMS groups who may have an instant answer. 

 

 

Are these from Flickr the right sort of coaching stock?

 

Fowler plus 3 Kendal 1963 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/23769706792/in/photolist-aWUyFv-boEA4g-djiJ45-aypzin-aa1Vha-dJmJ8y-dDQZxt-c5hJxU-dM4Jfg-AcUp6p-dDQZov-ahe2JG-dDWn8o-CdrXGU-B4RZ7Q-dcwnfD-Aw8Htz-FufBXe-zEeWH2-DjDZ9w-DyNCCV-yjXU1d-xtGbRo-yWJyks-zzEhMz-JUtTKX-xtG9Nf-DCvqoa-yVnctX-xtGaME-yg5fqN-yFzmtN

 

Fowler plus 3 Oxenholme 1963

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/22450835077/in/photolist-aWUyFv-boEA4g-djiJ45-aypzin-aa1Vha-dJmJ8y-dDQZxt-c5hJxU-dM4Jfg-AcUp6p-dDQZov-ahe2JG-dDWn8o-CdrXGU-B4RZ7Q-dcwnfD-Aw8Htz-FufBXe-zEeWH2-DjDZ9w-DyNCCV-yjXU1d-xtGbRo-yWJyks-zzEhMz-JUtTKX-xtG9Nf-DCvqoa-yVnctX-xtGaME-yg5fqN-yFzmtN/

 

Fowler plus 3 Thorton-in-Craven 1964

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/7161180233/in/photolist-bK7LxK-bK7Lua-bnwzTV-bV4rWF-ahe2JG-bUNVoH-bUNVBF-a51m5m-bV4s88-ycLEdh-eWhFGm-BkzyLv-a8dkVw-BJKJvB 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/7161180985/in/photolist-bK7LxK-bK7Lua-bnwzTV-bV4rWF-ahe2JG-bUNVoH-bUNVBF-a51m5m-bV4s88-ycLEdh-eWhFGm-BkzyLv-a8dkVw-BJKJvB

 

 

cheers

[DCB]

The LMS and constituents seemed to prefer Compartment Brake 3rds and Compartment Composite coaches for locals.  The LMS corridor Brake 3rds are more like Van 3rds with half the length given to parcels and guard so one per set  placing the guard in the middle as in later BR Blue days makes sense. I think the rule of no passengers in the front two compartments fell in to disuse during the war.  Brake 3rds and Brake Compos sometimes ran van inwards when formations were changed, it was not particularly easy to turn coaches at many locations.

 

The GW preferred Brake Composites and Full thirds but made wide use of non corridor open composites, as per 21st century from around 1900 onwards

[The Stationmaster]

The LMS and constituents seemed to prefer Compartment Brake 3rds and Compartment Composite coaches for locals.  The LMS corridor Brake 3rds are more like Van 3rds with half the length given to parcels and guard so one per set  placing the guard in the middle as in later BR Blue days makes sense. I think the rule of no passengers in the front two compartments fell in to disuse during the war.  Brake 3rds and Brake Compos sometimes ran van inwards when formations were changed, it was not particularly easy to turn coaches at many locations.

 

The GW preferred Brake Composites and Full thirds but made wide use of non corridor open composites, as per 21st century from around 1900 onwards

 

The Instruction that passenger trains should be formed with brake van ends, or vans. outermost at both ends remained in force well in the 1950s trains (possibly even until 1960 without checking when it was finally withdrawn) and it was in fact strongly reinforced following a collision on the WR in 1952 and was again reiterated by an HMRI following a collision at Welwyn in 1957 as both incidents involved passenger fatalities which it was considered would have been avoided if the trains involved had been correctly formed with van ends at the outer ends of the trains concerned.

 

It was however specifically authorised for coach marshalling instructions to vary the General Appendix Instruction and no doubt occasional very short term locally arranged strengthening ignored it - hence the need to issue reminders.  Equally although it didn't affect short trains there were also very specific requirements regarding the number of wheels (later expressed as 'vehicles') permitted to be marshalled behind a passenger train brake van and these weren't eased until the 1960s.

[DCB]

A quick perusal of several books ranging from South Devon to Wick via the Midland main line and Berwick 1925 to 1963 has revealed that leaving aside ex GW B sets approx 50% of trains have a brake van leading.  75% of these has it van end leading.   Leaving a clear majority of  trains with passenger compartments leading.    Train Formations & Carriage Workings of the GWR by W.S.Becket shows several trains scheduled to run Corridor 3rd leading, some restaurant car leading.   

 

Photos of the MSWJR, a long straggling cross country route from Southampton to Cheltenham in 1953 show 3 coach trains. Brake- Composite, Third, Third, which would go back Third, Third, Brake Compo, and in 1935 a classic Brake, brake van end trailing, Third, and Brake with Brake with van end leading, and these were regular sets on a run from Southampton SR to Cheltenham LMS and back.

 

Ideally a train formed Brake 3rd, Composite, Brake 3rd would suffice for the ex LMS Branch.

[Steamport Southport]

A useful place to find carriage formations is the Comet website. Click on the view PDF on each coach.

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/modules/viewcategory.php/LMS%20Coach%20Kits%20and%20Sides

 

 

 

Sample here for the LMS Period I Non-Corridor Composite shows that common formations were:

 

 

 BT/T (with van inboard)                BT/C/BT                          BT/C/T/BT                      BT/T/F/T/BT               BT/C/BT/BT/T/BT                        BT/T/F/T/T/BT

 

http://www.cometmodels.co.uk/data/Catalog/pdf/M14.pdf

 

 

 

Jason

[TheSignalEngineer]

Quite a lot of LMR stopping trains had three coaches, the type depending on the nature of the journey. For short trips a common formation was BT/C/BT. For longer workings Inter-District stock with lavatories could be used. Corridor stock was used on some of the longest workings, especially if they ended up combined for Class 1 trains for part of the time.

An example at New Street http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrbns_br1994.htm

[Steamport Southport]

Are these from Flickr the right sort of coaching stock?

 

Fowler plus 3 Kendal 1963 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/23769706792/in/photolist-aWUyFv-boEA4g-djiJ45-aypzin-aa1Vha-dJmJ8y-dDQZxt-c5hJxU-dM4Jfg-AcUp6p-dDQZov-ahe2JG-dDWn8o-CdrXGU-B4RZ7Q-dcwnfD-Aw8Htz-FufBXe-zEeWH2-DjDZ9w-DyNCCV-yjXU1d-xtGbRo-yWJyks-zzEhMz-JUtTKX-xtG9Nf-DCvqoa-yVnctX-xtGaME-yg5fqN-yFzmtN

 

Fowler plus 3 Oxenholme 1963

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/22450835077/in/photolist-aWUyFv-boEA4g-djiJ45-aypzin-aa1Vha-dJmJ8y-dDQZxt-c5hJxU-dM4Jfg-AcUp6p-dDQZov-ahe2JG-dDWn8o-CdrXGU-B4RZ7Q-dcwnfD-Aw8Htz-FufBXe-zEeWH2-DjDZ9w-DyNCCV-yjXU1d-xtGbRo-yWJyks-zzEhMz-JUtTKX-xtG9Nf-DCvqoa-yVnctX-xtGaME-yg5fqN-yFzmtN/

 

Fowler plus 3 Thorton-in-Craven 1964

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/7161180233/in/photolist-bK7LxK-bK7Lua-bnwzTV-bV4rWF-ahe2JG-bUNVoH-bUNVBF-a51m5m-bV4s88-ycLEdh-eWhFGm-BkzyLv-a8dkVw-BJKJvB 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64215236@N03/7161180985/in/photolist-bK7LxK-bK7Lua-bnwzTV-bV4rWF-ahe2JG-bUNVoH-bUNVBF-a51m5m-bV4s88-ycLEdh-eWhFGm-BkzyLv-a8dkVw-BJKJvB

 

 

cheers

 

Photos 1, 3 and 4 look like they are Push/Pull sets to me, although the locomotive isn't P/P fitted. The set in 2 probably is as well.

 

The front coaches in 3 and 4 have sun visors above the end driving windows. I haven't got my LMS coach books at hand so I can't say which diagrams they are at the moment.

 

 

Jason

[chrisf]

The idea of matching supply of seats with demand for them was a good one which the present day railway does not always achieve.  On parts of the London Midland it was the practice to put the brake in the middle of a three coach set: I have in mind the suburban services out of St Pancras prior to 1960.

 

Chris 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Photos 1, 3 and 4 look like they are Push/Pull sets to me, although the locomotive isn't P/P fitted. The set in 2 probably is as well.

 

The front coaches in 3 and 4 have sun visors above the end driving windows. I haven't got my LMS coach books at hand so I can't say which diagrams they are at the moment.

 

 

Jason

1 and 2 don't look like P&P brakes to me but the leading coach 3 and 4 is. Probably being used as ordinary stock after being displaced from its former use by a DMU.

[Steamport Southport]

1 and 2 don't look like P&P brakes to me but the leading coach 3 and 4 is. Probably being used as ordinary stock after being displaced from its former use by a DMU.

 

I was thinking of the far coaches in photos 1 and 2. It looks like they could be driving trailers to me as it seems to be similar stock in each photo and the Windermere Branch trains seem to often be Push/Pull fitted stock.

 

Someone out there will probably know the full details as it's quite late in the day for most of this stock. I think most of it had gone by the mid 1960s.

 

 

I'm going to have to do some research as those trains in the photographs are very inspiring and I have a Fowler tank somewhere in the pile. Thanks for posting Rivercider.

 

 

Jason

[chris45lsw]

I was thinking of the far coaches in photos 1 and 2. It looks like they could be driving trailers to me as it seems to be similar stock in each photo and the Windermere Branch trains seem to often be Push/Pull fitted stock.

 

Someone out there will probably know the full details as it's quite late in the day for most of this stock. I think most of it had gone by the mid 1960s.

 

 

I'm going to have to do some research as those trains in the photographs are very inspiring and I have a Fowler tank somewhere in the pile. Thanks for posting Rivercider.

 

 

Jason

Photo 1 is non pull-push, ie LMS BS / C / BS.

 

Photos 3 & 4 are also LMS BS / C / BS but the BS next the loco is a pull-push driving trailer.  I suspect it's the same rake in both pictures (as well as the same loco). 

 

Photo 2 certainly isn't P-P as it consists of BSK (LMS post-War) / CK (BR Mark 1) / ?SK or SO? (BR Mk 1).

 

Chris Knowles-Thomas

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am entirely ignorant about matters LMS, but would suggest that contemporary photos are your best friend, enabling you to feel confident that is how it was. And there are specialist coach and LMS groups who may have an instant answer. My prototype, Southern, ran rigidly-maintained coach sets a lot of the time. BT/C/BT was a common formation there. 

We all know that the Southern maintained complete sets because they helpfully numbered them.

 

But in reality, the LMS also ran most of its trains as fixed rakes with "extras" added on as required. Some of the diagrams of these fixed sets could be quite complicated taking a whole week for the train to arrive back where it started.

[Steamport Southport]

Photo 1 is non pull-push, ie LMS BS / C / BS.

 

Photos 3 & 4 are also LMS BS / C / BS but the BS next the loco is a pull-push driving trailer.  I suspect it's the same rake in both pictures (as well as the same loco). 

 

Photo 2 certainly isn't P-P as it consists of BSK (LMS post-War) / CK (BR Mark 1) / ?SK or SO? (BR Mk 1).

 

Chris Knowles-Thomas

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

I should look at photos a bit more closely as looking at photo 2 again it's obvious that they are Mk1s by the underframe trusses. As Homer Simpson would say... Doh!

 

 

 

Jason