brake ends - why two?
Mike Smith
Goods trains had a guards van at the back so the guard could make his
way back down the track in the event of an incedent to place
detonators. Loco at one end guard at t'other.
Passenger trains, vacuum fitted, the guard could be anywhere in the
rake.
Why then did the GWR build B-Set coaches with guards compartments at
both ends.
Roger T.
--
"Mike Smith"
> Passenger trains, vacuum fitted, the guard could be anywhere in the
> rake.
>
> Why then did the GWR build B-Set coaches with guards compartments at
> both ends.
We've had this discussion before.
Just take the time to study and look at steam era photos. Please.
The following excludes the SR and BR(S) who ran fixed rakes with a brake at
each end.
"Express" rakes and corridor rakes of three four or more coaches usually had
two brake ends, one at each end of the train. There may however, have been
strengthening coaches add and if so, these were usually added at the "head
end",. between the first brake and the tender. Again, look at photos, it's
obvious.
However, three or two coach rakes, whether corridor or non-corridor, could
also have only one brake. This was usually marshalled towards the centre of
the rake. Again, just look at the photographic evidence.
Somewhere published, back in the 1960s, I've seen copies of BR regs for
carriage shunters that lay out the above.
For those of us who were around at the time, all the above was obvious, if
you looked at the train as well as the loco. :-)
AFAIK, the marshalling of trains is where almost all the "preservation"
railways almost always get it wrong. The photo captions in the comics may
say that so and so photo captures the steam era perfectly, when all you have
to do is look at the make up of the train to see they've got it all wrong.
:-)
Cheers
Roger T.
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Anthony
news:10381242...@news.islandnet.com...
> "Express" rakes and corridor rakes of three four or more coaches usually
had
> two brake ends, one at each end of the train. There may however, have
been
> strengthening coaches add and if so, these were usually added at the "head
> end",. between the first brake and the tender. Again, look at photos,
it's
> obvious.
>
> However, three or two coach rakes, whether corridor or non-corridor, could
> also have only one brake. This was usually marshalled towards the centre
of
> the rake. Again, just look at the photographic evidence.
AAMOI, a GWR table for carriage types at Kingswear (forget the year) showed
an equal number of brake and non-brake coaches used, which (even allowing
for a few parcels-only trains in summer), gives a rather different
impression than the "ten coaches with a brake at each end" philosophy.
Of course, as Roger says, trains were mostly formed of rakes of (typically
four) coaches plus odds and ends such as restaurent cars, full brakes, and
sleeping cars added where necessary. One of each rake would probably have a
brake of some kind.
Anthony.
Simon Harding
I suggest you look back through the archives for this NG. The subject
was done to death last summer. See the thread entitled "Carriage
rakes" started by David Frith on 16th July. There are 111 messages in
there so that should hopefully answer the question for you!
Simon.
Mike Smith
wrote:
>sp...@notigg.org.uk (Mike Smith) wrote in message news:<3de07a57...@news.freenetname.co.uk>...
>
>I suggest you look back through the archives for this NG. The subject
>was done to death last summer. See the thread entitled "Carriage
>rakes" started by David Frith on 16th July. There are 111 messages in
>there so that should hopefully answer the question for you!
>
>Simon.
Many thanks gentlemen, this is indeed a complicated topic. What I was
wondering was whether the GWR had a specific rule about having a guard
at the rear of the train?
They could have used a a full passenger coach with a single brake-end
coach with the guard in the middle. This would've given them more
seats but they built the B-sets with their two guards compartments
instead..
Christopher A. Lee
One of the guard's duties was to check the brakes before setting off, for
the whole train. This was easiest if he was at the rear.
There were also rules as to how many bogies (not vehicles) were behind the
one with the handbrake (ie the guard's compartment). When I used to travel
Manchester - Leeds regularly the trains consisted of 4 carriages, with the
brake 2nd in the middle.
There is another practical reason that is probably more important on
stopping and suburban services: the guard looked down the train, blew a
whistle and waved a flag as a signal to the footplate crew that the train
was ready to go, ie all the doors were closed. From the back he could see
the entire train at the same time.
Hmmm.... How to model that?
Anthony
> I suggest you look back through the archives for this NG. The subject
> was done to death last summer. See the thread entitled "Carriage
> rakes" started by David Frith on 16th July. There are 111 messages in
> there so that should hopefully answer the question for you!
Where are the archives now?
The place I used to look at them doesn't seem to exist any more . . .
MartinS
russ...@iinet.net.au
wrote:
So they could go home in the reverse direction with the guard still at
the back.
Russell
Churnet Valley Model Railway Dept.
having two brake compartments?
<Sniped from Mikes original posting> "Why then did the GWR build B-Set
coaches with guards compartments at both ends."
Andy
<russ...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:9fv6uuk37p85sn423...@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 07:09:12 GMT, sp...@notigg.org.uk (Mike Smith)
Roger T.
> Maybe I miss understood the original post, but I read it as the one coach
> having two brake compartments?
The advantage that those of us who were around when British railways ran
real trains, those with locomotives on the pointy end, is that we know that
an ex GWR "B Set" is a two coach set, each coach being a brake with the
brake at the outer end. Even if we're not GWR fans
Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>
And the guard sat at the blunt end and had to have a brake handle to wind down,
whichever way the train was travelling. Pretty simple really. Which leaves
those LMS triple sets with a brake in the middle :((
Ken.
Roger T.
--
"Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>"
> And the guard sat at the blunt end and had to have a brake handle to wind
down,
> whichever way the train was travelling. Pretty simple really. Which
leaves
> those LMS triple sets with a brake in the middle :((
Not really. Three coach trains with only one brake would normally have the
brake as the centre vehicle.
As I wrote before, I'm sure that back in the 1960s, one of the magazines,
Constructor I believe, ran an article on BR train formation "rules".
For those who were not around at the time, all you have to do is look at
photographs and model what is typical, which is a brake at each end of the
rake with strengthening coaches between the brake and the tender.
John Bishop
<roge...@highspeedplus.com> writes
there were carriages with two brake compartments. Well, yes, I'm aware
of one. This was London & South Western Railway No 891, built 1905, and
described as a 56ft Double-Brake Tri-Composite. The concept is not so
stupid as it initially appears, because it was used on West of England
holiday services (the precursor of the Atlantic Coast Express) and
Edwardian holiday makers could take rather a lot of luggage, providing a
use for the leading brake compartment.....
Full information (including photo and drawing in Gordon Weddell's book
"LSWR Carriages in the 20th Century" ISBN 0 86093 555 8 published 2001
by the Oxford Publishing Co.
Unsure about other carriages - if I find any, expect another post!
--
John Bishop
Roger T.
--
"John Bishop" <
> But Roger asks whether
> there were carriages with two brake compartments.
Not me, unless there was another Roger. :-)
MartinS
> --
> "John Bishop" <
>
>> But Roger asks whether
>> there were carriages with two brake compartments.
>
> Not me, unless there was another Roger. :-)
It was Roger the lodger, the sod.
--
Martin S.
Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>
This was London & South Western Railway No 891, built 1905, and
>described as a 56ft Double-Brake Tri-Composite. The concept is not so
>stupid as it initially appears, because it was used on West of England
>holiday services (the precursor of the Atlantic Coast Express) and
>Edwardian holiday makers could take rather a lot of luggage, providing a
>use for the leading brake compartment.....
>Full information (including photo and drawing in Gordon Weddell's book
>"LSWR Carriages in the 20th Century" ISBN 0 86093 555 8 published 2001
>by the Oxford Publishing Co.
For the benefit of those of us without a copy, does it say whether or not
there were two brake standards? Or was it really just a twin luggage
compartment vehicle with one standard. I can't see any point in doubling up
on a corridor vehicle. A 56footer with two brake/luggage comps. leaves
precious little room for three classes, unless it was intended for use by
wealthy families, rather like the family saloons with servants compartments.
Ken.
Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>
>> And the guard sat at the blunt end and had to have a brake handle to wind
>down, whichever way the train was travelling. Pretty simple really. Which
leaves those LMS triple sets with a brake in the middle :((
>Not really. Three coach trains with only one brake would normally have the
>brake as the centre vehicle.
Exactly. Why did the GWR think the B sets necessary whilst the LMS used only
one brake to three vehicles? I seem to recall reading that the only official
requirement was that if a brake vehicle was "inside" a train, no more than eight
axles could follow it., which would limit a train to five vehicles per brake
unless it could be turned at each end of the journey. There must have been
some operating advantages to the different policies of the companies, or is
that being too optimistic?
Ken.
Alan P Dawes
Ken Parkes <cbuffer@<remove-this>clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Why did the GWR think the B sets necessary whilst the LMS used only
> one brake to three vehicles?
I think you have missed the point, the GWR made the decision to build B
sets for purely commercial reasons not because two brakes were required
for safety reasons.
Alan
--
--. --. --. --. : : --- --- ----------------------------
|_| |_| | _ | | | | |_ | alan....@argonet.co.uk
| | |\ | | | | |\| | |
| | | \ |_| |_| | | |__ | Using an Acorn RiscPC
John Bishop
<cbuffer@?.co.uk> writes
standard (and duckets) in each guards' compartment - which were about
six foot long. One lav was connected by a corridor to the 1st
compartments, the other to the 2nd and 3rd compartments. My thoughts
are a portion of a West of England express - maybe the Bude coach -
which might be taken as a single coach to the terminus rather than
connected to the branch train. Maybe, just maybe, the LSWR was thinking
of inter company journeys to a company which locked the first couple of
compartments: but why the full width duckets, so I think it unlikely.
The LSWR had already built 10 56ft Brake Tri-Composites (one preserved
at York) with a lavatory for each of the six compartments. My
calculations are these had three more seats than the Double Brake coach.
One can speculate which would have been the prefered option, except that
the company chose that moment to progress to corridor coaches.
--
John Bishop
Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, it was written:
There was also the fact that at the branch terminus, the station building
and canopy were by the buffers. Any parcels etc would be loaded and
unloaded at that brake end where they were sheltered from the weather.
Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>
>There was also the fact that at the branch terminus, the station building
>and canopy were by the buffers. Any parcels etc would be loaded and
>unloaded at that brake end where they were sheltered from the weather.
Yes, but since there would be, logically, more loading and unloading during the
journey than at either end, your reasoning would lead to parcels being loaded
in the middle of the train, since most intermediate stations had short canopies.
Ken.
Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>
>In article <1038763276...@news.clara.net>,
> Ken Parkes <cbuffer@<remove-this>clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why did the GWR think the B sets necessary whilst the LMS used only
>> one brake to three vehicles?
>
>I think you have missed the point, the GWR made the decision to build B
>sets for purely commercial reasons not because two brakes were required
>for safety reasons.
What purely commercial reason would dictate two brake systems if only one were
needed? Aren't you forgetting that the GWR had large numbers of luggage
compartmented vehicles? So why not :-
[ Passenger comps , luggage comp ] - [ Brake comp , Passenger comps ]
if you see what I mean?
Ken.
Graeme
<cbuffer@?.co.uk.invalid> writes
Hmm. I thought the sun always shone on the GWR - or was that the
Southern? :-)
--
Graeme
Alan P Dawes
server has only just delivered it along with 2000 other items from various
groups going back to August!
In article <1038955371...@news.clara.net>,
Ken Parkes <cbuffer@<remove-this>clara.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002, Alan P Dawes wrote:
> >In article <1038763276...@news.clara.net>, Ken Parkes
> > <cbuffer@<remove-this>clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Why did the GWR think the B sets necessary whilst the LMS used only
> >> one brake to three vehicles?
> >
> >I think you have missed the point, the GWR made the decision to build B
> >sets for purely commercial reasons not because two brakes were required
> >for safety reasons.
> What purely commercial reason would dictate two brake systems if only
> one were needed?
As I tried to say, I don't think in the case of these coaches that taking
one item ie 2 hand brakes in isolation explains their design. However I
can think of one good reason why these sets did have 2. Remember that
these B coaches were originally designed in the 1920s, not for a rambling
branch line that we now seem to picture them for, but only for the Bristol
division (I think regions 1 - 9 in that area) to replace / strengthen
specific old 4 or 6 wheel Bset formations on mainly suburban services,
where the availability of all stock for the morning and evening 'rush
hour' was essential (competition from road transport fueled by cheap ex
service vehicles and army trained drivers and mechanics from the Great
war). In order to run a fixed formation, in this case a B set (but would
equally apply to the other GWR fixed formations eg A to D, M, W) there
needs to be at least one hand brake as well as the normal continuous
braking system, generally these old sets had a brake at each end thus if
one became faulty in service the set was still allowed to run as one hand
brake was still working until there was a lull in traffic later in the day
or in the evening when a fitter could repair it. Thus for the same reason
one of the specifications for the replacement was that the new B set would
have 2 hand brakes.
The impression I have got from reading this thread is that it is thought
that the cost of a new B set of 2 brake composite coaches would be more
than a new composite plus a brake composite set, but I don't think that
there would be any significant difference. All coaches had to have
continuous braking so the extra cost of the ironmongery to add a hand
brake is small. The cost of the rather spartan brake compartment would be
less than that of an upholstered passenger compartment. There would only
be the cost of one design, set of drawings etc rather than 2. The saving
in mass producing one batch of coaches to one design rather than 2 batches
each of half the number to different designs would be significant. Of
course it could be argued that the loss of a passenger compartment would
reduce revenue, but if the stories from the 1940s and 50s are true, at
peak passenger times eg last train on Saturday night etc one or sometimes
both brake compartments would be packed with standing passengers - more
than you could have got in an extra passenger compartment.
The new B sets were a commercial success being liked by passengers and
staff alike with their reliability, multipurpose use, very high
availability and lower running costs compared to the old sets that they
replaced 'endearing' them to the running department. The first batch of 14
coaches to lot 1327 of 1924 were resplendent in mock painted on panelling
to match the 'corporate image' of the old B set suburban formations they
were replacing / supplementing.
After 6 years of successful use of the 28 B coaches (built in 3 lots to 3
diagrams) in the Bristol division the GWR management were so convinced of
their commercial viability that another 234 were built in 8 lots to 3
diagrams (including both flat and the more familiar bow ended design) and
many were used in other regions and branch lines. These were completed
between 1930 and 1936 and thus had been ordered at the height of the
depression when commercial viability was paramount.
> Aren't you forgetting that the GWR had large numbers
> of luggage compartmented vehicles? So why not :-
> [ Passenger comps , luggage comp ] - [ Brake comp , Passenger comps ]
> if you see what I mean?
I am sure that these sort of formations of older stock were used - B sets
made up only a small proportion of new coaches built by the GWR and I
think for the majority of branch lines that our perception of the 'new' B
sets being the norm for branchline use in the 1930s is plain wrong.
There's also confusion caused by a) the use of the term B set as this can
refer to old fixed formations often of 4 wheel coaches (such obsolete 4
wheel coaches were still being used on workmens trains in the Welsh
valleys until their closure in BR days), b) GWR publicity photos showing
shiny 'new' B sets or new auto coaches on idyllic branch lines going to
holiday destinations rather than the clapped out stock often used, c) in
more recent times the model manufacturers Airfix, Dapol and Hornby have
used the similar images to sell their B sets (to diagram 147 from lots
built in 1934/5 I think) and also auto coaches so that our perception is
that every GWR branch line had a B set of this type.
I did a quick search on the net for relevant info but didn't find much
although www.tventon.freeserve.co.uk/bset.htm gives a history of the B
sets. I also found chapter 3 of Great Western Branchline Modelling part 2
useful particularly in warning that B sets and auto coaches were not
ubiquitous to GWR branch lines. I also referred to the 'lot list' at the
end of Great Western Coaches from 1890, a Pictorial Record of Great
Western Coaches and p188 in an encyclopedia of the GWR. What would be
interesting would be references to costs of coach building etc but I
assume that I'd need to visit the libraries at York, Didcot or Swindon
museums to find this.
Alan P Dawes
news server has again had problems this afternoon at about the time I sent
it and it hasn't appeared even though items I have sent later to other
newsgroups has.
I've only just seen your reply of 3Dec in this thread as the Argo news
server has only delivered it to me yesterday along with 2000 other items
from various groups going back to August!
In article <1038955371...@news.clara.net>,
Ken Parkes <cbuffer@<remove-this>clara.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002, Alan P Dawes wrote:
> >In article <1038763276...@news.clara.net>, Ken Parkes
> > <cbuffer@<remove-this>clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Why did the GWR think the B sets necessary whilst the LMS used only
> >> one brake to three vehicles?
> >
> >I think you have missed the point, the GWR made the decision to build B
> >sets for purely commercial reasons not because two brakes were required
> >for safety reasons.
> What purely commercial reason would dictate two brake systems if only
> one were needed?
As I tried to say, I don't think in the case of these coaches that taking
> Aren't you forgetting that the GWR had large numbers
> of luggage compartmented vehicles? So why not :-
> [ Passenger comps , luggage comp ] - [ Brake comp , Passenger comps ]
> if you see what I mean?
I am sure that these sort of formations of older stock were used - B sets
made up only a small proportion of new coaches built by the GWR and I
think for the majority of branch lines that our perception of the 'new' B
sets being the norm for branchline use in the 1930s is plain wrong.
There's also confusion caused by a) the use of the term B set as this can
refer to old fixed formations often of 4 wheel coaches (such obsolete 4
wheel coaches were still being used on workmens trains in the Welsh
valleys until their closure in BR days), b) GWR publicity photos showing
shiny 'new' B sets or new auto coaches on idyllic branch lines going to
holiday destinations rather than the clapped out stock often used, c) in
more recent times the model manufacturers Airfix, Dapol and Hornby have
used the similar images to sell their B sets (to diagram 147 from lots
built in 1934/5 I think) and also auto coaches so that our perception is
that every GWR branch line had a B set of this type.
I did a quick search on the net for relevant info but didn't find much
although www.tventon.freeserve.co.uk/bset.htm gives a history of the B
sets. I also found chapter 3 of Great Western Branchline Modelling part 2
useful particularly in warning that B sets and auto coaches were not
ubiquitous to GWR branch lines. I also referred to the 'lot list' at the
end of Great Western Coaches from 1890, a Pictorial Record of Great
Western Coaches and p188 in an encyclopedia of the GWR. What would be
interesting would be references to costs of coach building etc but I
assume that I'd need to visit the libraries at York, Didcot or Swindon
museums to find this.
Alan
Ken Parkes clara.co.uk>
>As I tried to say, I don't think in the case of these coaches that taking
>one item ie 2 hand brakes in isolation explains their design.
.........................snip
>
>I did a quick search on the net for relevant info but didn't find much
>although www.tventon.freeserve.co.uk/bset.htm gives a history of the B
>sets. I also found chapter 3 of Great Western Branchline Modelling part 2
>useful particularly in warning that B sets and auto coaches were not
>ubiquitous to GWR branch lines. I also referred to the 'lot list' at the
>end of Great Western Coaches from 1890, a Pictorial Record of Great
>Western Coaches and p188 in an encyclopedia of the GWR. What would be
>interesting would be references to costs of coach building etc but I
>assume that I'd need to visit the libraries at York, Didcot or Swindon
>museums to find this.
Thank you Alan. You present a very persuasive case. I must confess that I
had succumbed to the idea that '30s B sets were ubiquitous, while not able to
recall positively their presence in the areas I knew. A salutory lesson.
Ken.