"A" marking on the end of ex-LMS coaches

[teeinox]

This ex-LMS Hornby Stanier coach, like the prototypes, is adorned with the letter “A” on both sides of the gangway:

 

 

What does it mean, and what sort of coaches had this marking, and what sort didn’t?

 

Here's hoping an LMS expert can help!

[Wickham Green too]

A quick perusal through LMS Coaches Vol II suggests this marking was pretty short lived from the Stanier period into BR days ( though there were odd triangles on coach ends earlier ) ....... did wonder whether it might imply adaptor-fitted gangways - but that's difficult to investigate when all coaches seem to be photographed with gangway covers attached !

[Aire Head]

Indicates "Class A" stock which meant it was the best of what was available and therefore suitable to be used in the fastest trains. All sleeping coaches and catering vehicles were Class A regardless of age as we're MK1s in the BR period.

 

On LMS and LMR Passenger Train Marshalling instructions it will indicate as to whether the train had to be composed of "Class A" stock.

[Michael Hodgson]

14 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

On LMS and LMR Passenger Train Marshalling instructions it will indicate as to whether the train had to be composed of "Class A" stock.

 

You learn something every day on this site.

 

I would have just guessed that it was a set identification letter

[The Johnster]

Mk1s in the 70s were branded in this way, those with B4 or Commonwealth bogies allowed 100mph stencilled '100mph (A)' on the ends left of the gangways, and those unrefurbished and retaining B1 bogies were similarly stencilled '75mph (B).  These coaches were used for excursion, relief, and Motorail work, and jobs such as the 'Highwayman', a cut-price fare all-stopper that ran from Finsbury Park to Haymarket overnight, competition for the night coaches plying the route.  NPCCS stock on B1s and the surviving big 4 designs were allowed 90mph.

[kevinlms]

So overall the function and implication of the 'A' means the same thing - it refers to the stock built and maintained to a higher standard.

[teeinox]

Many thanks for your replies.  I suspected it might mean "class A" stock, i.e. for the best and fastest services, but couldn't be sure.

 

So the Replica Railways D1915 Perid III open excursion coach I have, I guess that would not be class "A" stock?  The picture in Jenkinson and Essery shows it not so marked, as far as I can see.

[Aire Head]

Just now, teeinox said:

Many thanks for your replies.  I suspected it might mean "class A" stock, i.e. for the best and fastest services, but couldn't be sure.

 

So the Replica Railways D1915 Perid III open excursion coach I have, I guess that would not be class "A" stock?  The picture in Jenkinson and Essery shows it not so marked, as far as I can see.

 

That would be unlikely. Typically you would be looking at any of the Bachmann "Porthole" Coaches, Hornby Period III and Airfix Period III stock. It's worth noting that Class A trains were all express trains but not all Express trains were class A too. So for my area trains like the Thames Clyde, Waverley and Leeds/Glasgow were Class A however trains like the Leeds/Bradford to Morecambe residentials were not despite being Express trains.

 

Passenger trains of all types in the LMS and LMR were known for being composed of a jumble of stock so mixing and matching is highly recommended!

 

[teeinox]

16 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

That would be unlikely. Typically you would be looking at any of the Bachmann "Porthole" Coaches, Hornby Period III and Airfix Period III stock. It's worth noting that Class A trains were all express trains but not all Express trains were class A too. So for my area trains like the Thames Clyde, Waverley and Leeds/Glasgow were Class A however trains like the Leeds/Bradford to Morecambe residentials were not despite being Express trains.

 

Passenger trains of all types in the LMS and LMR were known for being composed of a jumble of stock so mixing and matching is highly recommended!

 

Well, that saves me finding transfers for the coach!

 

You are so right about variety.  My interest in LMS coaching stock is what ran down to the South-West in the early 60s.  I was staggered to find a photo dated 1960 of a TO, D1629, built in 1925 included in a Kingswear - Liverpool express, and hauled by a Warship.  I guess it was a holiday train, decidedly not class A, so anything went.  Heaven knows what the punters thought, travelling in this antique!

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

... Passenger trains of all types in the LMS and LMR were known for being composed of a jumble of stock so mixing and matching is highly recommended!

At least ( virtually ) all the LMS stock was built to a common profile - the mix you'd see on the chocolate-and-cream railway could be all over the place !

[Aire Head]

6 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

At least ( virtually ) all the LMS stock was built to a common profile - the mix you'd see on the chocolate-and-cream railway could be all over the place !

 

Admittedly by the 1950s the profiles were a lot closer for the LMS but 1920s to 1940s anything goes!

[The Johnster]

If you are used to the current railway scene as it has existed for the last 50 years, with it's set rakes of coaches and set trains, the steam age composition of trains may be a bit of a culture shock.  The main expresses, that attracted all the publicity, always had the latest matching stock with the latest features, but everything else, including quite important trains made up of 'A' classed stock, would be a complete mishmash.   This was firstly because the makeup of a train on any particular day was determined by the Traffic Department and their assessment of the accomodation needed, so the carriage sidings would be asked to turn out, say for example, BCK/SO/CK/FK/RCK/SK/SK/BSK/BG, with no requirement for the coaches to match visually, only that they contained that specific accommodation in that order.  The same train the following day might have the BG removed and replaced by an SO; trains were to an extent bespoke to that working that day.   Of course, air and vacuum braked stock could not be mixed together. 

 

The other exception to this were some of the high-density suburban trains, which on the GW and LNER were sometimes close coupled in semi-permanent sets or articulated. 

 

On the GW/WR in particular, it was apparently the rule that no two coaches of the same type should be marshalled together, and if this was unavoidable they were to be in different liveries, and if the same livery was unavoidable, then the corridors were to be on opposite sides. 

[Wickham Green too]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

If you are used to the current railway scene as it has existed for the last 50 years, with it's set rakes of coaches and set trains, the steam age composition of trains may be a bit of a culture shock. ...

In general, yes - but the Southern and its principal constituents had a long history of set trains ( not least the electrics ) whether for main line or secondary work. That's not to say that you'd never see a train made up of , say, an SECR Birdcage trio plus a Maunsell three-set nor a Pull & Push set comprising coaches from different constituents ...... let alone a mis-matched 'swinger' added for extra capacity.

[Aire Head]

1 minute ago, Wickham Green too said:

In general, yes - but the Southern and its principal constituents had a long history of set trains

 

To add to this the LMS/LMR did use coach sets too, these sets were worked on rotation with strengtheners added as required. Multiple sets could be composed into a rake. Sometimes multiple sets would be portion worked within the same train.

 

The sets would be still of a jumble of stock aslong as the seating requirements were met it didn't matter what age and type it was.

 

[teeinox]

Another picture I have of ex-LMS stock in the South-West, dated June 1961, shows, after D844 “Spartan” heading it, a Period I twin-window BSK, then an ex-GWR all door Collett bow-ended composite (!), followed by a Period III SK, a Period II SK, and then a Period II something or other, whereupon the photo cuts off.  The SKs could have been SOs, but I suspect they were not popular on trains to the South-West because of lack of luggage storage.  The entertaining question is: how did the ex-GWR coach get in there?

 

In another example, the motley effect seems to have diminished.  This is a Penzance – Manchester train on 2nd August 1960.  It consists of 10 ex-LMS Period III coaches, finishing with 3 Mk1s on the tail.  From the locomotive, D800 Sir Brian Robertson, it starts with 3 x SK, then a BSK (van leading), 4 x SKs - could be a composite in there -, followed by a BSK, van leading, and then another BSK with the van trailing.  The train then continues with the 3 Mk1s, whereupon the photo cuts off.  So, 13 coaches in the photo.  What’s the rationale behind this formation, especially the positions of the BSKs?  Was this an enhanced standard formation, or what I suspect it is, an ad-hoc formation for the holiday trade?  Any clues?

 

No discernible catering, though, but did London Midland holiday trains to the South-West at that time ever have any?

[Steamport Southport]

3 minutes ago, teeinox said:

Another picture I have of ex-LMS stock in the South-West, dated June 1961, shows, after D844 “Spartan” heading it, a Period I twin-window BSK, then an ex-GWR all door Collett bow-ended composite (!), followed by a Period III SK, a Period II SK, and then a Period II something or other, whereupon the photo cuts off.  The SKs could have been SOs, but I suspect they were not popular on trains to the South-West because of lack of luggage storage.  The entertaining question is: how did the ex-GWR coach get in there?

 

In another example, the motley effect seems to have diminished.  This is a Penzance – Manchester train on 2nd August 1960.  It consists of 10 ex-LMS Period III coaches, finishing with 3 Mk1s on the tail.  From the locomotive, D800 Sir Brian Robertson, it starts with 3 x SK, then a BSK (van leading), 4 x SKs - could be a composite in there -, followed by a BSK, van leading, and then another BSK with the van trailing.  The train then continues with the 3 Mk1s, whereupon the photo cuts off.  So, 13 coaches in the photo.  What’s the rationale behind this formation, especially the positions of the BSKs?  Was this an enhanced standard formation, or what I suspect it is, an ad-hoc formation for the holiday trade?  Any clues?

 

No discernible catering, though, but did London Midland holiday trains to the South-West at that time ever have any?

 

Seems like a normal formation.

 

The Brakes was so it could be split or merged with trains coming from elsewhere.

 

Any catering vehicles were probably added or removed at somewhere like Crewe or Bristol. You would only need them at certain times during the journey such as lunch/tea/dinner so they were often removed or added during the journey.

 

As for the GWR coach. Could have came from somewhere like Birkenhead or Chester.

 

 

It's worth getting a copy of this. Look around as it's usually about £10. Don't pay a great deal more for it.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Passenger-Train-Formations-1923-1983-LMS-LM/dp/0711016062

 

There are also some formations on the Comet website. Look at the instructions for individual coaches.

 

 

 

Jason

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, teeinox said:

consists of 10 ex-LMS Period III coaches, finishing with 3 Mk1s on the tail.  From the locomotive, D800 Sir Brian Robertson, it starts with 3 x SK, then a BSK (van leading), 4 x SKs - could be a composite in there -, followed by a BSK, van leading, and then another BSK with the van trailing.  The train then continues with the 3 Mk1s, whereupon the photo cuts off. 

 

The van end often ends up "the wrong way" with brake coaches. Strictly speaking it should be the right way around however the phrase "where practicable" comes in here. Turning a coach takes time and involves more shunting which is something the railways are always keen to avoid.

 

The MK1s being separated from the ExLMS stock is because of the difference in gangways. LMS stock uses British Standard Gangways whereas MK1s use the Pullman type. In order to connect the two an adaptor fitted vehicle is required. trains would be marshalled to use as few of these vehicles as possible typically by grouping all of the stock by gangway type.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Aire Head
Changed for clarity

[Wickham Green too]

53 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

... LMS stock uses British Standard Gangways whereas MK1s use the Pullman type. In order to connect the two an adaptor is required. trains would always be marshalled to use as few adaptors as possible typically by grouping all of the stock by gangway type to reduce the number required to one or two adaptors maximum.

NOPE ! ....... a former LMS coach would either have B.S. gangways with adaptors fitted ( permanently ) or not. ( possibly fitted one end, even )

[Aire Head]

31 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

NOPE ! ....... a former LMS coach would either have B.S. gangways with adaptors fitted ( permanently ) or not. ( possibly fitted one end, even )

 

Edit: My apologies I see what you are saying now. I am aware of how the adaptors work however my wording could have been clearer and I have amended it accordingly.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Aire Head

[keefer]

Regarding the letters on coach ends, this was the situation with BR:

Parkin (1999) p.68:

"The frequency of works visits is obviously dependant on the work load of the vehicle. Three classes were denoted by the letters A, B and C [where :]

Group A included all sleepers, catering vehicles, Pullmans and stock in regular all year round rosters.

Group B had regularly rostered 'strengthening' vehicles if used 3-or-more days each week [and]

Group C had the rest.

The maintenance group was sometimes added in parenthesis after the vehicle code e.g. BSK(B), though these were not always changed when a coach was transferred and the RO once noted E9254 branded BSO(C) running regularly in a roster covering 438 miles per day."

[teeinox]

22 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Seems like a normal formation.

 

The Brakes was so it could be split or merged with trains coming from elsewhere.

 

Any catering vehicles were probably added or removed at somewhere like Crewe or Bristol. You would only need them at certain times during the journey such as lunch/tea/dinner so they were often removed or added during the journey.

 

As for the GWR coach. Could have came from somewhere like Birkenhead or Chester.

 

 

It's worth getting a copy of this. Look around as it's usually about £10. Don't pay a great deal more for it.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Passenger-Train-Formations-1923-1983-LMS-LM/dp/0711016062

 

There are also some formations on the Comet website. Look at the instructions for individual coaches.

 

 

 

Jason

Many thanks for the suggestion, though the Passenger Train Formation book is going for £20 upward.  Must be a good book!

[Steamport Southport]

6 minutes ago, teeinox said:

Many thanks for the suggestion, though the Passenger Train Formation book is going for £20 upward.  Must be a good book!

 

It's useful. But could do with updating and being expanded. It is pretty small and I wouldn't pay a great deal more than a tenner for it.

 

Just keep looking as they come up on Amazon and eBay all the time for a lot less.

 

The same author did two on the LNER as well, with Steve Banks. They really are like hens teeth. Last one I saw went for about £150! They keep promising that they'll be reprinted but that hasn't happened yet.

 

This one is only about the LNER expresses and is 256 pages!

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LNER-Passenger-Trains-Formations-1923-67/dp/086093649X

 

 

Jason

[uax6]

Which bit of the LMS does the book cover? Does it cover the Highland area at all please?
 

Andy G

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, uax6 said:

Which bit of the LMS does the book cover? Does it cover the Highland area at all please?
 

Andy G

 

It covers the main express trains I'm afraid.

 

The BR coaching group has lots of LMS/LMR documents some of which will cover the Northern Division.

[Wickham Green too]

It covers pretty well all the London Midland system - but with only about forty examples, they're rather thinly spread !