Making Up Trains

[martin_wynne]

Some writing which will be familiar to our older readers.

 

 

from The Boys' Book of Model Railways Ernest F. Carter 1958

[Ray H]

Martin

 

Thanks for posting that. I've started a couple of threads recently about freight train operation - real & model - and a post in one of them linked to a slightly older thread that went into some detail about the various types of freight traffic and the way it was handled.

 

It would be good to try to gather all these together (if possible) and capture any further knowledge that may exist in RMweb land before the holders of that knowledge are no longer able to impart it.

[buffalo]

Oh dear, I'm sorry to see that some find this 'informative/useful'. Whilst the spirit of the article and some of its content are both welcome and correct, there are some glaring errors. Where, for example, did the notion of marshalling passenger stock at the rear of a mixed train come from?

 

Personally, for the GWR at least, I would rather trust sources such as the General Appendix to the Rule Book and Russell's Freight Wagons and  Loads, together with other contemporary photos, especially for the exceptions.

 

Nick

[Fat Controller]

These BR documents might be of interest:

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Booklet_BR20425_Issue.pdf

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/BR30054_6_Issue.pdf

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Booklet_BR20424_Issue.pdf

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Booklet_BR20426_Issue.pdf

http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Booklet_BR20427_Issue.pdf

[jonny777]

I remember seeing trains of timber from Boston docks in the early 60s with the wood protruding over the ends of 5-plank open wagons. We used to see them on a very regular basis until BR acquired some of these wagons https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwf2009/5576499429/in/set-72157626274180803 for the traffic.

[Wheatley]

Where, for example, did the notion of marshalling passenger stock at the rear of a mixed train come from?

 

Or beer barrels only being conveyed on their sides, or Pullman cars never being conveyed at the end, or the 'long ends' of timber always being at the leading end. I can find examples of all those being ignored.

 

Pity, because his basic premise was spot on.

[Fat Controller]

I remember seeing trains of timber from Boston docks in the early 60s with the wood protruding over the ends of 5-plank open wagons. We used to see them on a very regular basis until BR acquired some of these wagons https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwf2009/5576499429/in/set-72157626274180803 for the traffic.

Strictly, those aren't BR wagons, but privately-owned (and built on LMS 'Long Low' underframes, IIRC), but BR built some similar wagons:-

http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/timber

 as well as using Rectanks and vac-fitted Plates.

I suspect the change might have been due to the producers strapping their product into bundles, rather than loading it piece-by-piece. There were some views on another thread showing a short rake of wagons behind a shunter, taken at Stafford, which illustrated the problems of loading such bundles into ordinary wagons.

[MikeHunter]

I'm a big fan of Bob Essery's books on train shunting, marshalling etc, the ones on freight are really useful in explaining freight operation (ok mainly traditional steam and transition era, and with much focus on Midland/LMS/LM region, but hey this is his interest so obviously has many LMS photos). My perennial problem is that I model the 1930s, an era many years before I was born. I may inadvertently do lots of stupid things with my model, for lack of research/prototype knowledge. Sometimes the prototype looks "wrong" eg shunting with a brake van in the middle of wagons (Bob's books have photos) this looks "wrong" to me on a model, but clearly happened in real life. For me the struggle can be things like wagon loads, and what should be happening beyond the railway fence.

[Richard Lee]

Where, for example, did the notion of marshalling passenger stock at the rear of a mixed train come from?

Agreed.  The pictures of mixed  trains that I have seen in 'Branch Line To Hayling including the Isle of Wight Train Ferry' by Vic Mitchell and Keith Smith in association with Alan Bell, ISBN 0 906520 126, show the locomotive at the front, followed by the passenger coaches, followed by the goods wagons, followed by the (goods) brake van.  There are pictures of mixed trains from 1931, 1932 and 1963.

[Kenton]

I think this comes down the "one man's view of what should be done" rather than the "best practise rule book" or what should be a modeller's true guide to the railway - photographic evidence of the prototype.

 

If it can be shown by a photograph that it has happened then you are right in your model even if it broke the general rule or normal practice.

 

The article, to me, sounds very much like one of those "know it alls" you get at a show saying that the model is all wrong and they know the location personally, it was dirtier than that, a tree was a mm to the left of that bridge and passenger trains never stopped there on Sundays in his lifetime.

 

But then the source "The Boys' Book of Model Railways" doesn't exactly sound definitive but more of a comic opinion.

[Talltim]

I wonder if "The Girls' book of model railways" is more accurate

[Fat Controller]

I think this comes down the "one man's view of what should be done" rather than the "best practise rule book" or what should be a modeller's true guide to the railway - photographic evidence of the prototype.

 

If it can be shown by a photograph that it has happened then you are right in your model even if it broke the general rule or normal practice.

 

The article, to me, sounds very much like one of those "know it alls" you get at a show saying that the model is all wrong and they know the location personally, it was dirtier than that, a tree was a mm to the left of that bridge and passenger trains never stopped there on Sundays in his lifetime.

 

But then the source "The Boys' Book of Model Railways" doesn't exactly sound definitive but more of a comic opinion.

Nice to see you back, Kenton, and on form too.

[Fat Controller]

I'm a big fan of Bob Essery's books on train shunting, marshalling etc, the ones on freight are really useful in explaining freight operation (ok mainly traditional steam and transition era, and with much focus on Midland/LMS/LM region, but hey this is his interest so obviously has many LMS photos). My perennial problem is that I model the 1930s, an era many years before I was born. I may inadvertently do lots of stupid things with my model, for lack of research/prototype knowledge. Sometimes the prototype looks "wrong" eg shunting with a brake van in the middle of wagons (Bob's books have photos) this looks "wrong" to me on a model, but clearly happened in real life. For me the struggle can be things like wagon loads, and what should be happening beyond the railway fence.

Even in more recent times, you'd see some odd formations. How about:-

x 16t minerals loaded with scrap; loco; x minerals loaded with coal or empty; brakevan.

This was a regular formation for the Tyne Yard to Blaydon trip in the early 1980s, for a short bit of the Newcastle- Carlisle route from Dunston to Blaydon. The loaded scrap wagons would have been picked up from a scrapyard which had buried one end of their run-round under a pile of scrap. 

[martin_wynne]

But then the source "The Boys' Book of Model Railways" doesn't exactly sound definitive but more of a comic opinion.

 

I loved that book when I received it for my 10th birthday. I'd have been hard put to understand "definitive" at the time.

 

Martin.

[DaveF]

On reading the article I assumed the reference to four and 6 wheeled stock being at either the front or rear of a passenger train, not the middle, would be a reference to the marshalling of horse boxes and similar vehicles which were normally conveyed by passenger train.

 

As for goods stock at the front of passenger stock:

 

Kyle of Lochalsh Class 24 5121 awaiting departure. Note open wagon next to loco Aug 73 J3320

Of course this could have been a shunting move.

 

David

[Fat Controller]

On reading the article I assumed the reference to four and 6 wheeled stock being at either the front or rear of a passenger train, not the middle, would be a reference to the marshalling of horse boxes and similar vehicles which were normally conveyed by passenger train.

 

As for goods stock at the front of passenger stock:

 

za Kyle of Lochalsh Class 24 5121 awaiting departure. Note open wagon next to loco Aug 73 J3320.jpg

Kyle of Lochalsh Class 24 5121 awaiting departure. Note open wagon next to loco Aug 73 J3320

Of course this could have been a shunting move.

 

David

The open would have been fitted and, it being August, there'd be no need for steam-heating, so it could well be a commercial working. I think I've seen similar formations before on the Kyle line; perhaps a cement wagon to Strome Ferry?

[Londontram]

Looking at some of my Caledonian railway references it seems that many of the practices outlined here were adhered to especially to the period when the railway was in the process of changing from fixed axle to bogie stock. In one picture of an express from Edinburgh to Glasgow it clearly shows the loco then a 6 wheel full brake and a 6 wheel five compartment coach and the third and forth coaches are two of the then newish  65ft 12 wheel Grampian stock coaches. So certainly in pre grouping days it was possible to see 6 wheel and bogie coaches marshaled in this manor and it was always common practice to have horse boxes, fresh fish, fruit and milk vans at the head of the train before the passenger stock.

                                     Steve

[Wheatley]

But those aren't 'mixed' trains, they're passenger trains with some passenger-rated (XP branded in BR days) goods stock tagging along, and there are plenty of photos of them at the back too.

 

A 'mixed train' is one with non-passenger rated or unfitted wagons attached at the back, with a goods brake van. The Aberfeldy and Killin branches are two examples (again in BR days), no doubt there were others elsewhere. Of course whether that's what Mr Carter meant by a mixed train is a moot point. The otherwise excellent George O'Hara also uses the term to describe all sorts of things which aren't mixed trains and it's equally annoying/confusing.  

 

The only traffic I'm aware of which always had to go immediately behind the loco was livestock, to avoid buffing shock.

 

But like I said, Mr Carter's basic premise was a good one (that we shouldn't just make stuff up), and I'm grateful to Martin for posting it.

[The Stationmaster]

The phrase 'mixed train' is one which seems to be dearly beloved by many with little or no understanding of the railway and the way it worked - as a consequence it is very much over-used for something which was in reality far from common and subject to considerable limitation about where and in what circumstances it could run; and we've addressed it more than once on the forum in the past.

 

However there is a photo taken on a light railway which very clearly shows a mixed train with a passenger vehicle on the rear - suggesting that Col Stephens was inclined to do things his own way.

 

I'm also intrigued by Mr Carter's 'two tail lamps on a goods train' when writing in 1958 I suspect such practice - if it ever existed in the first place - was as long dead as 'goods trains' such things having disappeared from the railway between the World Wars when they all officially became freight trains.  (I get pedantic about that one as in a couple of my past jobs the word 'freight' not only appeared in my job title but in one was accompanied by the word 'trains'   )

[Ian Smeeton]

A proper mixed train

 

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/saw032168

 

Regards

 

Ian

[martin_wynne]

'goods trains' such things having disappeared from the railway between the World Wars when they all officially became freight trains.  (I get pedantic about that one as in a couple of my past jobs the word 'freight' not only appeared in my job title but in one was accompanied by the word 'trains'   )

 

I hope you didn't allow them to be shunted into a Goods Shed.

[kevinlms]

I loved that book when I received it for my 10th birthday. I'd have been hard put to understand "definitive" at the time.

 

Martin.

I have a later version of the same book (1963) and I don't think its too bad. In no way is it intended to be definitive at all. How can a book covering model railways in 144 pages, possibly be so? Its ridiculous to think that could be. Personally, I found it to be a start to INVESTIGATE why some of the things mentioned in this book are so, or indeed the exceptions to these 'rules'. Which I would suggest was the authors aim.

 

It is a very general introduction & parts of the book are very good indeed.

 

There is quite a good section on 'planning your layout in practice', showing how a stations could be laid out, allowing for runarounds etc for train reversal. It would seem that many of the questions asked on RMweb's Layout & Track design page, could do with a read of this book, to get a basic clue.

Other useful stuff is bridge & tunnel clearances, cuttings & embankments, where to put signals & why. A chapter on 'Running your railway', includes information on working of 'freight' trains, a layout of a 'locomotive running shed' showing the key elements of such a location, laid out to avoid congestion.

Parts of the book are very dated (especially the electrics) and probably reflect a much earlier period than 1958 - was parts of the book rehashed from pre-WW2? A not uncommon occurrence of this period.

 

I do note that most of those who have been critical of this article are either, professional railwaymen of many years standing, or experienced enthusiasts with collections of official or semi-official documents, such as the Russell or Essery's books, mentioned.

 

Can anyone point to better (read more accurate) contemporary information that was available to the intended target audience? I probably received this book, when I was about 8 or 9, with no professional railway employees in my family at all. Or even customers, except as passengers on commuter trains - and what would those ones know?

 

So this book, filled in lots of my areas of ignorance, which was universal. I would like to think, that I've filled in a quite a few gaps since.

[kevinlms]

I have a later version of the same book (1963) and I don't think its too bad. In no way is it intended to be definitive at all. How can a book covering model railways in 144 pages, possibly be so? Its ridiculous to think that could be. Personally, I found it to be a start to INVESTIGATE why some of the things mentioned in this book are so, or indeed the exceptions to these 'rules'. Which I would suggest was the authors aim.

 

It is a very general introduction & parts of the book are very good indeed.

 

There is quite a good section on 'planning your layout in practice', showing how a stations could be laid out, allowing for runarounds etc for train reversal. It would seem that many of the questions asked on RMweb's Layout & Track design page, could do with a read of this book, to get a basic clue.

Other useful stuff is bridge & tunnel clearances, cuttings & embankments, where to put signals & why. A chapter on 'Running your railway', includes information on working of 'freight' trains, a layout of a 'locomotive running shed' showing the key elements of such a location, laid out to avoid congestion.

Parts of the book are very dated (especially the electrics) and probably reflect a much earlier period than 1958 - was parts of the book rehashed from pre-WW2? A not uncommon occurrence of this period.

 

I do note that most of those who have been critical of this article are either, professional railwaymen of many years standing, or experienced enthusiasts with collections of official or semi-official documents, such as the Russell or Essery's books, mentioned.

 

Edited to add, I have got most of the Essery ones & have indeed read them!!!

 

 

Can anyone point to better (read more accurate) contemporary information that was available to the intended target audience? I probably received this book, when I was about 8 or 9, with no professional railway employees in my family at all. Or even customers, except as passengers on commuter trains - and what would those ones know?

 

So this book, filled in lots of my areas of ignorance, which was universal. I would like to think, that I've filled in a quite a few gaps since.

[The Stationmaster]

I have a later version of the same book (1963) and I don't think its too bad. In no way is it intended to be definitive at all. How can a book covering model railways in 144 pages, possibly be so? Its ridiculous to think that could be. Personally, I found it to be a start to INVESTIGATE why some of the things mentioned in this book are so, or indeed the exceptions to these 'rules'. Which I would suggest was the authors aim.

 

It is a very general introduction & parts of the book are very good indeed.

 

There is quite a good section on 'planning your layout in practice', showing how a stations could be laid out, allowing for runarounds etc for train reversal. It would seem that many of the questions asked on RMweb's Layout & Track design page, could do with a read of this book, to get a basic clue.

Other useful stuff is bridge & tunnel clearances, cuttings & embankments, where to put signals & why. A chapter on 'Running your railway', includes information on working of 'freight' trains, a layout of a 'locomotive running shed' showing the key elements of such a location, laid out to avoid congestion.

Parts of the book are very dated (especially the electrics) and probably reflect a much earlier period than 1958 - was parts of the book rehashed from pre-WW2? A not uncommon occurrence of this period.

 

I do note that most of those who have been critical of this article are either, professional railwaymen of many years standing, or experienced enthusiasts with collections of official or semi-official documents, such as the Russell or Essery's books, mentioned.

 

Can anyone point to better (read more accurate) contemporary information that was available to the intended target audience? I probably received this book, when I was about 8 or 9, with no professional railway employees in my family at all. Or even customers, except as passengers on commuter trains - and what would those ones know?

 

So this book, filled in lots of my areas of ignorance, which was universal. I would like to think, that I've filled in a quite a few gaps since.

I believe quite a lot of Ernest Carter's stuff was written a lot earlier than 1958 and - don't get me wrong - it was not only good for its time but it was a good introduction to many aspects of 'the railway' encouraging further research and reading for those who were so minded.  But that does not excuse a few silly, and basic,  inaccuracies any more than it excuses similar, or worse, errors in far more recent, and sometimes lauded, books and articles.

 

The essential thing about Carter was that he understood model railways and had a fairly good amateur grasp of the real thing but - most important of all - he was able to bring the subject to a wider audience in a  very readable form.  We can of course in hindsight, or from an informed position, point out his errors and some of them look silly but perhaps they can be excused as coming from an era when not only was something better than nothing but access to official documentation was often not so easy and was not necessarily easily understood.    Somewhere I have his book on modelling signalling - pretty good by any standards as it happens and a sight better than some stuff published since, or even written today, by those who really ought to know better.  I don't know if it is an old adage or something grandma said when asked to suck eggs but my own view is that one really ought to fully understand a subject before having the nerve to publish a book which covers it in detail;  I don't regard Carter's works in that way but they are of the age in which they were written and like modelling much has changed and become more sophisticated since his time.

[martin_wynne]

In Ernest Carter's day railway modelling was essentially about replicating the function of a railway.

 

Nowadays the emphasis has shifted to replicating the appearance of a railway.

 

That's not necessarily good or bad, but I know which interested me most as a 10-year-old. Perhaps the change is the reason for the lack of interest in railway modelling by youngsters today, once they have grown out of Thomas the Tank Engine?

 

I've seen "model what you see" advanced as a creed here on RMweb often. But I can't remember ever seeing "model what you understand".

 

Martin.