Dual-braked B.R. Standard coaching stock

[Merle Haggard]

The diagram(FG004A etc.) for the first Freight-liner wagons, 601003 up for outers and 602003 up for inners shows them to have two bogies, not articulated. I think that 601001/2 and 602001/2 may have been the first design, 42' 6" instead of the later 62' 6", but these had (I think) buffers etc at each end and so not articulated.
One of the advantages of the cartic was that the flaps to allow cars to drive over the gaps between units within in the sets remained in position during transit (I think!), only the flaps between sets had to be lowered.

 

[D7666]

This could be a real diversion!
It's one of the complexities I'm still trying to understand - pity my interest then was mostly in the number on the cab...
The brakes on the loco could be vac, steam or air(Westnghouse). Reading the RCTS LNER loco 'Green Guide' the LNER / ER converted loco brake power right up to nearly the end of steam.
I can remember that when the Woodford - Banbury 'shuttle' was worked by L1s, the distinctive sound (1,2,......) of the pump could be heard, but I'm pretty sure the Thomson BCK it hauled was vac. and the pump was for the loco. Why didn't I look when they coupled after running round???
And, veering far away I know, when the E.R. introduced AWS widely, the freight locos involved had to have their brakes changed to vac. to respond. That's why an O4 could be used on a (? Mr Pegler's?) railtour right at the end of steam (train brakes were also added on conversion). One Q7 was vacuumed for AWS about 2 weeks before it was condemned...

Thanks for all the responses to my original question. Sometimes, I've had comments (e.g., the clerical effort in proof reading would not have let a typo through - I was there! and that the use of Cartics was for length), but these have been covered by others, thanks again.

Further search shows that the Cartics were introduced on Motor-rail services in 1964 (M95001 up, in the NPCCS series). This was about the time of introduction of AB MGR wagons, but AB diesels must have been rare then.

95001 etc were not around in 1964 :

LTSV Wagons - Profiles

says the prototypes transferred TO motorail in 1966 while the M95ooo series were built 1966/1967.

In terms of the number of available dual braked locos, there is a big difference between 1964 and 1967.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

re the digression in freightliner wagons, the original BR build history is here, and not articulated

LTSV Wagons - Profiles

The freightliner and cartic bogies were both "ridemaster" model but were not identical.

 

[Merle Haggard]

95001 etc were not around in 1964 :

LTSV Wagons - Profiles

says the prototypes transferred TO motorail in 1966 while the M95ooo series were built 1966/1967.

In terms of the number of available dual braked locos, there is a big difference between 1964 and 1967.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

re the digression in freightliner wagons, the original BR build history is here, and not articulated

LTSV Wagons - Profiles

The freightliner and cartic bogies were both "ridemaster" model but were not identical.

Interesting, thank you.
My source of reference was BR Mark 1 and Mark 2 Coaching Stock (Longworth) pub 2013. This gives M95001 etc as Built 1964, diag 821, Lot no. 3518.
Puzzling. But I've found some pretty basic errors in the Longworth pre-nationalisation coach books...
Perhaps the lot number gives a time frame; I've got a diagram book myself, but it doesn't have dates on, and the lot number seem odd; B.R. passenger/NPCCS was in the 30,000s.

And, indeed, the reason I mentioned it was because there weren't many AB diesels about in 1964. Even in 1968, the Kenny Motor-rail was the only train in the L.M. circular requiring an AB loco

 

[Irascible]

Mixing air & vac sounds a horrible idea - did even the SR use that facility much? did they try & match vac brake timings with the air side?

 

[Richard Scott]

Mixing air & vac sounds a horrible idea - did even the SR use that facility much? did they try & match vac brake timings with the air side?

Only have experience of one 73 but if they're all the same then they're horrid on vacuum!

 

[Clarence Yard]

95001-16 and 95051-66 (both dia.821) were ordered under carriage lot 30770 on 14/01/66 and the official lot completion date was 17/06/67. These were built by Pressed Steel.

Wagon Lot 3518 was for Cartic-4 set B909300/1 and B909400/1. This set was built at Ashford.

 

[D7666]

Mixing air & vac sounds a horrible idea - did even the SR use that facility much? did they try & match vac brake timings with the air side?

Never used in revenue traffic no. Concept was to use it and it was tested and allegedly sucessful. But never used. No hard gen on why but suspect it was rather more over taken by operational changes rather than an issue with mixed braking itself.

There was an early Bournemouth line electric diagram on a summer Saturday, an Up Swanage Waterloo, that from Bomo was formed Hap+EDL+TC but of course that's all EP brake. Reason I mention this as it's been quoted before as being an example of a 73 doing brake translation, but in fact it's not, there is no translation here, and it was a 73/1 anyway. This oddball combo only worked in the Up direction, the corresponding Down Swanage was conventional.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

I'd guess to allow interworking of the parcels stock with other regions - the parcels trains went far and wide and weren't confined to the SR.

In general yes that is probably the answer to parcels trains.

Although it is not the answer with specific reference to those early morning newspaper trains that conveyed passenger accomodation (i.e. the ones that were targetted for EMU+73/0+NPCCS); those were purely SR internal workings and tended to have fixed vehicles, the same vans or small pool of vans each night; some were even stencilled for specific workings only; it would have been easy to have air braked those and the LH stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Interesting, thank you.
My source of reference was BR Mark 1 and Mark 2 Coaching Stock (Longworth) pub 2013. This gives M95001 etc as Built 1964, diag 821, Lot no. 3518.
Puzzling. But I've found some pretty basic errors in the Longworth pre-nationalisation coach books...
Perhaps the lot number gives a time frame; I've got a diagram book myself, but it doesn't have dates on, and the lot number seem odd; B.R. passenger/NPCCS was in the 30,000s.

And, indeed, the reason I mentioned it was because there weren't many AB diesels about in 1964. Even in 1968, the Kenny Motor-rail was the only train in the L.M. circular requiring an AB loco

They've obviously muddled the Cartic prototype lot number and date with the TCV lots and dates.

And completely muddled w.r.t. to Mk1\Mk2 stock book subject since neither Cartic nor TCV is a Mk1 or a Mk2.

D01 had a batch of 25s new late 66 \ early 67 [including my namesake 7666]; the last 10 25/3s were so built. So that at least sorts out the Olympia end. 86s were already around, they were dual brake from new, so thats south of Crewe sorted. That just leaves north of Crewe to find one dual brake duff diagram from the entire resources of the LMR, if the train statred running in 1967, i.e. before 50s were around.

 

[randyrippley]

apart from the Class 73 which had some clever Southern home-designed system which allowed them to have vacuum vehicles on one side of them and air on the other in a single train.

I've read elsewhere (forgotten where) that only the 73/0 could do this, effectively acting as a "translator" between the braking systems

 

[D7666]

I've read elsewhere (forgotten where) that only the 73/0 could do this, effectively acting as a "translator" between the braking systems

You might have read it upthread where I wrote it.

 

[Taunton]

Although it is not the answer with specific reference to those early morning newspaper trains that conveyed passenger accomodation (i.e. the ones that were targetted for EMU+73/0+NPCCS); those were purely SR internal workings and tended to have fixed vehicles, the same vans or small pool of vans each night; some were even stencilled for specific workings only; it would have been easy to have air braked those and the LH stock.

On reflection this wasn't always the case; the Raynes Park big newspaper train overturning in our period in 1967, which I have written about before with some oblique contact, was initiated when there weren't sufficient proper NPCCS vehicles available for the service and the driver didn't realise 4-wheel Palvans had been put in the scratch formation. In the normal way of such things this had been an almost nightly event beforehand, but never again afterwards.

 

[hexagon789]

which suggests that a dual braked loco was able to operate both air and vacuum systems simultaneously.

Correct, this was done on a few mixed trains and even across the sea in Ireland with the night mails in the 1980s

wsing through an L.M. Marshalling Circular - the 1968-9 edition retained from when I referred to it at work - I noticed an oddity regarding the 19.15 Kensington O. - Perth Motor-rail service in the Summer of 1968View attachment 87393.
Two Cartic-4 wagons and two Carflats are conveyed at the rear of the train. Presumably because the Cartics are air brake only, all the passenger stock in front is shown as 'air & vac braked'.
The BSO and TSO could be Mark 2s (but even then, I thought they were either air or vac braked, not both) but the other coaches can only be Mk1s. The well-known books devoted to Mk1/2 coaches are silent on brake types; can anyone shed light on this? This train seems to be the only one requiring dual braking - the other LMR Motor-rail trains only conveyed Carflats.

Most dual braked Mk1s were catering vehicles, it was expensive to install and maintain two sets of brake equipment so it was only done where necessary.

In passing, were those steam locos which kept Westinghouse air brakes into the 1960s (Liverpool Street and some of Scotland, or even Isle of Wight) actually dual braked, or air only?

Good question, I want to say air only on the cost/maintenance issue but that would seem very inflexible in most cases particularly once the stock they were designed to haul was withdrawn in favour of BR standard designs which were vacuum braked of course so I think they must've been dual or at least many would need to be.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2020 ==

Mixing air & vac sounds a horrible idea - did even the SR use that facility much? did they try & match vac brake timings with the air side?

Not sure about the SR but the US system employed on Irish diesels effectively treated the vacuum as though it was air, it was slaved to the 26L air brake and through a series of valves and diaphragms proportionally reduced in relation to the position of the brake handle. Presumably the 73s could do something along those lines but with different brake equipment

 

[randyrippley]

You might have read it upthread where I wrote it.

to be honest I missed your post, totally overlooked it
I'll have to teach myself to read more thoroughly...........

 

[D7666]

On reflection this wasn't always the case; the Raynes Park big newspaper train overturning in our period in 1967, which I have written about before with some oblique contact, was initiated when there weren't sufficient proper NPCCS vehicles available for the service and the driver didn't realise 4-wheel Palvans had been put in the scratch formation. In the normal way of such things this had been an almost nightly event beforehand, but never again afterwards.

Irrelevant to what I posted, and you even quoted. I clearly referred to newspaper trains CONVEYING PASSENGER ACCOMODATION. The train you cite did not. The vans used on those trains with passenger accomodation were usually the same ones all the time as they had a different maintenance regime concerning maintaining ETH circuits and so on, and there were even a few odd vehicles like GUVs that were heated (as opposed to through wired) and improved insulation for staff (yes, staff working on board a GUV).

The subject I am refering to was EMU+EDL+NPCCS stock with the EMU for the passenger accomodation and the EDL to do the EP/air to vac translation. The brake translation thing had absolutely zilch to do with a non-passenger van train - the train is entirely vac, no need for any translation at all. Even if hauled by MLV not EDL, still no need for translation as MLV were vacuum braked too, so they just worked them in that mode.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2020 ==

Correct, this was done on a few mixed trains and even across the sea in Ireland with the night mails in the 1980s


Most dual braked Mk1s were catering vehicles, it was expensive to install and maintain two sets of brake equipment so it was only done where necessary.



Good question, I want to say air only on the cost/maintenance issue but that would seem very inflexible in most cases particularly once the stock they were designed to haul was withdrawn in favour of BR standard designs which were vacuum braked of course so I think they must've been dual or at least many would need to be.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2020 ==


Not sure about the SR but the US system employed on Irish diesels effectively treated the vacuum as though it was air, it was slaved to the 26L air brake and through a series of valves and diaphragms proportionally reduced in relation to the position of the brake handle. Presumably the 73s could do something along those lines but with different brake equipment

RE. the last paragraph and the 26L air etc system, I /think/ that IE train vacuum braking systems works on the same principle as the BR EQ vacuum brakes.

 

[Taunton]

One of the issues when the first volume 25Kv ac emus came along around 1960 was a lack of locomotives to haul them off the wires, so they ended up being taken unbraked with a guards' van on the back. In Glasgow it was a continuing issue as for about the first 15 years the north and south side electrifications were not connected, and with the one maintenance depot on the north side it was a daily requirement. Fortunately there were a handful of elderly onetime Caledonian Railway 4-4-0s still around with Westinghouse air brakes, which were suddenly back in favour after diesel and electric had supplanted them. Finally a couple of Class 20 had air brakes installed for this work. BR never built any suburban air brake hauled stock, and I don't think the LMS had done either, so these locos had run with Caledonian carriages to he end.

 

[Merle Haggard]

In passing, were those steam locos which kept Westinghouse air brakes into the 1960s (Liverpool Street and some of Scotland, or even Isle of Wight) actually dual braked, or air only?

I've had a look at photos of ex Caledonian Railway locos with Westinghouse pumps, in B.R. days. Views showing the back of the tender are rare, but looking at front views many had vac only, or vac & steam heat, and I couldn't find any that were air only. but there were some that were still dual - braked:




and 57230 had everything - air vac and steam hoses

 

[hexagon789]

RE. the last paragraph and the 26L air etc system, I /think/ that IE train vacuum braking systems works on the same principle as the BR EQ vacuum brakes.

I think so, yes. I did read a good explanation of how it works on CIÉ locos somewhere.

 

[CW2]

One particular dual-braked vehicle was 21269, a Mk 1 BCK which for many years was the Carstairs standby vehicle. This was pressed into use if a train arrived from the south for splitting at Carstairs that only had one brake van in the consist. Occasionally in the event of severe late running it would be pressed into service as a one-coach train. It was the coach that had everything:
- Dual braked
- Dual heated
- Dual class
- Brake van

 

[Taunton]

I think so, yes. I did read a good explanation of how it works on CIÉ locos somewhere.

Vacuum brake was not a novelty for GM in the Irish locos; although pretty unknown in North America they had a substantial export business, including countries where British equipment (and thus vacuum) had previously prevailed. Their concessionaire Clyde in Australia had built GM streamlined cab units from the early 1950s with US-style equipment and vacuum brakes. There were others.

 

[hexagon789]

Vacuum brake was not a novelty for GM in the Irish locos; although pretty unknown in North America they had a substantial export business, including countries where British equipment (and thus vacuum) had previously prevailed. Their concessionaire Clyde in Australia had built GM streamlined cab units from the early 1950s with US-style equipment and vacuum brakes. There were others.

Perhaps not, but a slaved-to-air self-lapping vacuum brake must've been a fairly recent creation. I don't believe the 26L was all that old when the 121s were new for instance.

 

[Taunton]

Perhaps not, but a slaved-to-air self-lapping vacuum brake must've been a fairly recent creation. I don't believe the 26L was all that old when the 121s were new for instance.

Brand new in fact. First 26L air brake equipment shipped by GM outside North America was 1961, to New Zealand. The CIE locos were I seem to recall built at the end of 1960. The main operational difference between 24RL and 26L is self lapping.

 

[hexagon789]

Brand new in fact. First 26L air brake equipment shipped by GM outside North America was 1961, to New Zealand. The CIE locos were I seem to recall built at the end of 1960. The main operational difference between 24RL and 26L is self lapping.

Perhaps I'm wrong with the model but the 121s are definitely self-lapping train brakes, the entire 121-141-181-071-201 fleet are pretty much identical in that regard.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

Perhaps I'm wrong with the model but the 121s are definitely self-lapping train brakes, the entire 121-141-181-071-201 fleet are pretty much identical in that regard.

Wouldn't train (as opposed to loco) air brakes have been a retrofit on the 121s (and 141s/181s)? Unless I'm mistaken, CIÉ didn't have any air-braked stock until after the 071s were delivered. (I think the Linke-Hofmann-Busch bogie cement wagons from 1979 were the first.)

 

[hexagon789]

Wouldn't train (as opposed to loco) air brakes have been a retrofit on the 121s (and 141s/181s)? Unless I'm mistaken, CIÉ didn't have any air-braked stock until after the 071s were delivered. (I think the Linke-Hofmann-Busch bogie cement wagons from 1979 were the first.)

Afaik they were fitted but simply not used and for use with the freight stock the air brakes were simply 'commissioned' and brought into use and that applied to the 071s as well when the Mk3s came on the scene in 1984.

The IRRS Journals certainly use the term commissioned rather than fitted when describing which locos were able to work air-braked stock in each issues stock updates.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

I managed to dig out Dan Renehan's 1992 IRRS Journal paper "GM Locomotives - Ten Years On," and he mentions that the 071s had "GM type ABOV 27 LAV air/vacuum system...as fitted on the earlier types 141/181," which seems to confirm that the capability was inherent in the system (presumably also for the 26L system on the 121s - I know the 121 loco braking was troublesome and was modified for the 141s, but I don't know whether this was the reason for adopting an updated train braking system on the latter). Renehan also confirms that the cement wagons were the first air-braked stock on CIÉ and that 189 was "modified" to haul them in 1979, followed by 183 in 1980.

 

[hexagon789]

I managed to dig out Dan Renehan's 1992 IRRS Journal paper "GM Locomotives - Ten Years On," and he mentions that the 071s had "GM type ABOV 27 LAV air/vacuum system...as fitted on the earlier types 141/181," which seems to confirm that the capability was inherent in the system (presumably also for the 26L system on the 121s - I know the 121 loco braking was troublesome and was modified for the 141s, but I don't know whether this was the reason for adopting an updated train braking system on the latter). Renehan also confirms that the cement wagons were the first air-braked stock on CIÉ and that 189 was "modified" to haul them in 1979, followed by 183 in 1980.

My understanding of the 121s was the brake issue was purely down to them only having one block per wheel making them unsuitable for loose-coupled non-continuous braked goods traffic, hence their use mostly on passenger traffic in their early years. The design was modified from the 141 onwards to give two blocks per wheel and a resultant increased brakeforce.