Would a short parcels train need a guards van

[The Johnster]

What an interesting and informative thread. My first, and subsequent reaction to reading it has be - oh blow ( or words to that effect!) - along with the wish I had though about this when making/acquiring a few parcels vehicles for my very small layout. Adding a brake of some kind into my trains is going to be next to impossible. Heck.

 

Izzy

 

 

Hornby SR BY might fit the bill if the period suits (SR and BR until 70s), and a lovely little model.  Also LMS 'stove' 6 wheeler if you can find on on Ebay.  A goods brake, XP rated, will do for a BLT (you said very small layout and I am assuming), and at a push the parcels traffic can run with the daily pickup or attached to passenger trains; make sure the timetable allows for them to be shunted!  No brake van is required after 1969; the guard rides on the loco.

 

In fact I am considering changing Cwmdimbath's operation to have more 'tail traffic' on passenger trains and maybe the odd parcels working for a clearance once a week.  It'll make the passenger operation a bit more interesting.

Edited November 10, 2017 by The Johnster

[Izzy]

Hornby SR BY might fit the bill if the period suits (SR and BR until 70s), and a lovely little model.  Also LMS 'stove' 6 wheeler if you can find on on Ebay.  A goods brake, XP rated, will do for a BLT (you said very small layout and I am assuming), and at a push the parcels traffic can run with the daily pickup or attached to passenger trains; make sure the timetable allows for them to be shunted!  No brake van is required after 1969; the guard rides on the loco.

 

In fact I am considering changing Cwmdimbath's operation to have more 'tail traffic' on passenger trains and maybe the odd parcels working for a clearance once a week.  It'll make the passenger operation a bit more interesting.

 

Yes, many thanks. The problem is, when I said very small a more accurate description might have been tiny. This is a result of it being a test track to start with with no intention for it to be anything else, or even for me to model in the scale (4mm/P4) to any great extent, it all happened by accident as they say, and I seem to have come a bit unstuck here with a platform that can - just - accomodate a 2-car DMU (105) or a loco and a few wagons, and a run-round loop that can just about handle a pair of BR 4-wheel CCT's (made out of TTE coaches) or some Parkside CCT's I have. Neither the platform/loop/fiddle can take me adding a brake on the end. Set in the early-to-mid-60's nor can I employ the post 1969 scenario with the J15 steam loco or the single cab 08 or 15. See what I mean.... heck!    What I really should have acquired I now realise was a couple of BG's of some vintage/type/size seen on exGE metals instead of the other NCCPS. I am sure I'll find a way around things eventually one way or another........

 

Izzy

[The Johnster]

Hmm. And I thought my railway was small.  Your only hope is to replace one of the CCT's with a BY, or use the DMU's platform for an alternative parcels train of up to 5 four wheeled vehicles at a push.  The Hornby INSULFISH or Dapol Fruit D might come into play here, and the use of vanfits is quite permissible.

 

But I see your point. 

 

Or of course you could build a bigger 4mm layout...

Edited November 10, 2017 by The Johnster

[pctrainman]

Hi , I have now acquired some further rolling stock and would much appreciate some further advice .The stock I have obtained is an NGS stove R ,an ex Southern PMV in BR Crimson , a  CCT BR Midland Maroon Wagon and a Peco 10 foot WB box van , I would like advice on making up a short parcels train using these with the 2MT but ommitting the previously mentioned GUV .This brings up one further question in that would a GUV have ever run either within or at the rear end of a rake of Suburban MK 1's ?

[chrisf]

More likely at the rear than within.

 

Chris

[pctrainman]

Is the lineup with the 2MT ok ? and should the stove R be at the tail end ? or can it be anywhere in the rake >

[phil-b259]

Is the lineup with the 2MT ok ? and should the stove R be at the tail end ? or can it be anywhere in the rake >

 

While in an ideal world it should be at the rear of the train, due to (i) the short length and (ii) It being fully fitted it can actually be pretty much anywhere.

 

If you are running a 3 vehicle setup however putting the Stove R in the middle has a pleasing symmetry about it.

[dpgibbons]

I would think that suburban passenger trains were poorly suited to conveying van traffic given their tight timetabling and frequent stops. 

[The Stationmaster]

While in an ideal world it should be at the rear of the train, due to (i) the short length and (ii) It being fully fitted it can actually be pretty much anywhere.

 

If you are running a 3 vehicle setup however putting the Stove R in the middle has a pleasing symmetry about it.

 

Except that ideally the 4 wheeled vehicles should be marshalled together (although that restriction changed over the years so it is date dependent.

 

The GUV should be marshalled either at the head of all the passenger carrying vehicles or behind them but it must not be marshalled between any passenger carrying vehcles.

[jim.snowdon]

I would think that suburban passenger trains were poorly suited to conveying van traffic given their tight timetabling and frequent stops. 

That looks to me to be the usual modellers' gaffe of considering all non-gangwayed coaching stock to be the preserve of commuter services. Ignoring the era before through gangways on coaching stock became commonplace, non-gangwayed stock was just as likely to turn up on cross-country stopping services with quite modest distances between stops.

 

Jim

[pctrainman]

Once again I find myself in debt to you all for very helpful advice which has allowed me to come up with a finalised plan , i'm going to team the GUV which is in Maroon with a Maroon rake of 3 suburban MK1's and place the GUV at the tail end as in that position it will stop immediately outside the parcels office  on my mainline station , the 2MT will haul the Stove R the 10 foot WB box van and the ex Southern PMV plus the Midland CCT which will make it a tad longer than I would have preferred but it looks good so i'm going that way , my grateful thanks to you all.

[The Johnster]

Non gangwayed stock could be used on all sorts of services besides branch and local commuter work, a feature of vehicles designed specifically for commuter work being that they tended to have very restricted van storage areas.  There are plenty of examples of trains of n/g stock being booked to carry 'tail traffic', especially the first service of the day which might convey parcels, mails, and the London newspapers in a separate van, which worked back, often ecs, to the main line hub after the rush hour on the tail of another train.

 

I was once told, though I would not swear to it being correct, that any journey of less than 2 hours booked duration could have n/g compartment stock, but if the journey time was longer, gangwayed stock with access to the toilet for all passengers was required, which was why the Newport-Brecon service, taking 2 hours and 10 minutes, used gangwayed main line stock behind panniers under 'ordinary stopping train' headcode.   Passengers were expected to cross their legs up to 1 hour 59 minutes...

 

Your train formations sound entirely plausible, pc, but remember that, while fixed formations of passenger stock which might be strengthened with a spare if needed were common in steam days, parcels and NPCCS were more liable to be remarshalled and altered considerably on a day to day basis; the only constant requirement being for the same overall amount of space in specific sections of the train.  This is why there were blackboards on which the current destination of the van's contents could be written were provided; not sure how effective they were in wet weather!

Edited November 16, 2017 by The Johnster

[phil-b259]

Non gangwayed stock could be used on all sorts of services besides branch and local commuter work, a feature of vehicles designed specifically for commuter work being that they tended to have very restricted van storage areas.  There are plenty of examples of trains of n/g stock being booked to carry 'tail traffic', especially the first service of the day which might convey parcels, mails, and the London newspapers in a separate van, which worked back, often ecs, to the main line hub after the rush hour on the tail of another train.

 

I was once told, though I would not swear to it being correct, that any journey of less than 2 hours booked duration could have n/g compartment stock, but if the journey time was longer, gangwayed stock with access to the toilet for all passengers was required, which was why the Newport-Brecon service, taking 2 hours and 10 minutes, used gangwayed main line stock behind panniers under 'ordinary stopping train' headcode.   Passengers were expected to cross their legs up to 1 hour 59 minutes...

 

Replace 'required' with desired. Technically there was (and still is) no requirement under law to provide toilet facilities regardless of the journey duration. However as you say 2hrs might well have been the the yardstick used by officials planning rolling stock diagrams - if for no other reason to prevent the soiling of passenger stock by passengers (Hint:- there is a reason why the inter car gangways in the 313 units used by Southern out of Brighton stink of Urine in the evenings)

Edited November 16, 2017 by phil-b259

[TheSignalEngineer]

.....the 2MT will haul the Stove R the 10 foot WB box van and the ex Southern PMV plus the Midland CCT which will make it a tad longer than I would have preferred but it looks good so i'm going that way , my grateful thanks to you all.

You don't have to use all four at the same time. Use the Stove R or an XP rated Goods Brake with one or two of the others.