304s/310s & 312s

[Magdalia]

The 1962 Ministry of Transport official report into the electrical failures and explosions on the new high voltage AC lines in both East London and Glasgow has definitive maps on the last page of the detail of what was at 6.25kV and what was at 25kV. As the changeover equipment from one to another was at the centre of the investigation, and as the maps show detail of all the voltages of the various lines and the feeder stations (four needed for Shenfield to Southend; just one needed for all of Colchester to Clacton/Walton) and other aspects, I think they are unlikely to be wrong, as at 1962. The changeover to 25kV is shown north of Shenfield on the GEML. This section to Chelmsford had indeed initially been DC, but only had an hourly local service in DC days. Here it is, last page:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_EMUFailures1962.pdf

The report is clear on this.

Paragraph 21 on page 6 includes table 1 which shows Shenfield-Chelmsford as 25kV and converted from 1500 volts DC.

Paragraph 42 on page 9 says:

Following the adoption of the high voltage A.C. system as standard for British Railways, it was decided to convert this overhead D.C. system to A.C. in readiness for the opening of the new A.C. services in November, 1960. It was considered that the clearances already provided for 1,500 volts would be suitable for 6.25 kV A.C., and consequently the major part of the system (all except the Shenfield-Chelmsford line) was converted to this voltage. The Shenfield-Chelmsford line was converted to 25 kV on 20th March, 1961.

Although the report is dated 17 March 1962, it was commissioned on 20 December 1960, and therefore mainly relates to events that took place before that date. Trains changing over between 6.25kV and 25kV at Shenfield wasn't happening in November and December 1960 because the 25kV electric service to Chelmsford did not start until 20 March 1961. There were issues with voltage changeovers at Shenfield and these are covered in Section XVI of the report starting on page 55. Paragraph 262 says:

262. In March, 1961, the Shenfield-Chelmsford extension was electrified at 25 kV and no troubles of any consequence were experienced until 29th May when an air-blast circuit-breaker failed to open while the train was passing through the Shefield voltage changeover section, and this caused a serious failure of the transformer. Several other such failures have occurred at the same place and these are described in the paragraphs that follow.

 

[nw1]

The only short ACL LH slow/stopping 'commuter' train I can think of, at least late 70s and into 80s in west midlands, was the evening peak 17:21 SX Birmingham Euston semi slow (ecs from Oxley) that went from EMU to load 5 vac LH in about 1984 or so, and ran in the same path same timings as 310; stock returned in those timetables 00:10 ex Euston vice EBW AC set (couple of timetables before 0010 SO became the overnight Aberystwyth). It was in effect of the very early days of BR Sectorisation. There was no correspnding a.m. peak working.

I have the London Midland marshalling books for 7 of the 10 years of the 80s, from the BR Coaching Stock groups.io group, which, together with the 1982 GBPTT, gives a bit more detail on this.

Looking at the 1982 BR timetable on Timetable World, this service was actually 1730, not 1721 and was a variation to the normal xx37 pattern for the BIrmingham-Euston semi-slow, departiing earlier due to making extra stops (all stations from Stechford to Leighton Buzzard in 1982). The xx21 service was usually the Coventry stopper though in a small number of hours it was the XC (in these hours, the Coventry stopper was delayed to xx24).

Looking at the marshalling books it appears the 1730 was a hauled set in the 1983 and 1984 timetables only as it is not mentioned in the later marshalling books (1985 and 1987) or the earlier ones (1980, 1981, 1982).

In 1983 it seemed to only work the 0010 down and 1730 up. In 1984 however it also formed the 0647 Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton except on Summer Saturdays. On the latter, interestingly, this local service was formed of air-conditioned stock and would then go on to work the 0818 Wolverhampton to Poole.

Looking at the 1982 timetable, in most hours the 310 would arrive New Street at xx25 giving it enough time to turn around to form the xx37. However in that hour, it arrived at 1728 and the southbound was at 1730, so no time to turn around. Consequently the easiest way to allow the southbound to be formed was presumably to deploy the loco-hauled set, as it was needed in Euston for the 0010 anyway.

Wonder what happened to the 310 which arrived at 1728? I would guess it then formed a peak additional from New Street of some kind. Even in 1982 when the loco-hauled set didn't run on this service, I can imagine it would have been used as an opportunity to "swap" 310s between Euston services and West Midlands locals, as the 2-min "turnaround" still applied.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I

Looking at the 1982 BR timetable on Timetable World, this service was actually 1730, not 1721 and was a variation to the normal xx37 pattern for the BIrmingham-Euston semi-slow, departiing earlier due to making extra stops (all stations from Stechford to Leighton Buzzard in 1982). The xx21 service was usually the Coventry stopper though in a small number of hours it was the XC (in these hours, the Coventry stopper was delayed to xx24).

Presumably via Northampton? I don't remember that!

Possibly about the same time (my memory is hazy) and not a short set, but there was an up peak LH train starting at Bletchley and with the usual stops, and this was an inter city set - presumably a Euston based set with a late start; passing it on a Cobbler we envied the 3 declassified Mk1 FO / FK, orange curtains and soft seats, at the front.

 

[nw1]

Presumably via Northampton? I don't remember that!

In the 1982 timetable, yes - though it was presumably a 310 that year as it is not present in the marshalling books.

The marshalling book from 1983 shows "runs via Northampton" so presumably the same route and stopping pattern were observed in its loco-hauled days. (The 1984 marshalling book does not but I would presume that is an omission).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

Possibly about the same time (my memory is hazy) and not a short set, but there was an up peak LH train starting at Bletchley and with the usual stops, and this was an inter city set - presumably a Euston based set with a late start; passing it on a Cobbler we envied the 3 declassified Mk1 FO / FK, orange curtains and soft seats, at the front.

The 1987 marshalling book shows the 0749 Bletchley to Euston, 1A55 but this appears to be non-aircon and formed the 1714 Northampton in the evening peak. However on Summer Sundays it also formed the 2026 Wolverhampton to Euston.

Can't find anything else from Bletchley (checked 1978-85 inclusive as well as 1987).

 

[Merle Haggard]

In the 1982 timetable, yes - though it was presumably a 310 that year as it is not present in the marshalling books.

The marshalling book from 1983 shows "runs via Northampton" so presumably the same route and stopping pattern were observed in its loco-hauled days. (The 1984 marshalling book does not but I would presume that is an omission).

Thanks - of course, there's no reason why it couldn't run via Northampton. I have in my mind the esoteric list of L.H. services that called there and it wasn't on my 'radar', even though it must have been about when I was arriving home on one of the 'Cobblers'.

 

[Taunton]

We're getting away a bit from the subject of the LMR units, but the report linked above does have quite an extensive section on the temporary use of the then new 304s on the GE lines, starting at para 273. Among other things it states only three units were loaned, and that they were also used on services to Hertford/Bishops Stortford (the "North East London lines"), and thus did operate through the voltage changeover point beyond Cheshunt.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The 1987 marshalling book shows the 0749 Bletchley to Euston, 1A55 but this appears to be non-aircon and formed the 1714 Northampton in the evening peak. However on Summer Sundays it also formed the 2026 Wolverhampton to Euston.

Can't find anything else from Bletchley (checked 1978-85 inclusive as well as 1987).

No, that wasn't what I was thinking of, that's part of the regular 'Cobbler' working. The one I have in mind was a short term one, possibly when a couple of 310s had met with an accident.

Mk1 FOs stick in my mind, trying to remember - possibly it was a scratch set entirely of FOs (plus a brake, of course) - definitely Mk1s, and might have had an interesting calling pattern, certainly Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead but possibly not all the others.

 

[nw1]

Thanks - of course, there's no reason why it couldn't run via Northampton. I have in my mind the esoteric list of L.H. services that called there and it wasn't on my 'radar', even though it must have been about when I was arriving home on one of the 'Cobblers'.

No worries! Seems there were more "Cobblers" than I thought, four of them existing in 1983 (1714, 1718, 1745, 1815). I had the idea it was just one or two.

I never visited the southern WCML in this era so my knowledge of exactly went on was limited.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

No, that wasn't what I was thinking of, that's part of the regular 'Cobbler' working. The one I have in mind was a short term one, possibly when a couple of 310s had met with an accident.

Mk1 FOs stick in my mind, trying to remember - possibly it was a scratch set entirely of FOs (plus a brake, of course) - definitely Mk1s, and might have had an interesting calling pattern, certainly Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead but possibly not all the others.

Ah ok, Possible it was not in the marshalling books in that case.

 

[jfollows]

Looking at the 1982 timetable, in most hours the 310 would arrive New Street at xx25 giving it enough time to turn around to form the xx37. However in that hour, it arrived at 1728 and the southbound was at 1730, so no time to turn around. Consequently the easiest way to allow the southbound to be formed was presumably to deploy the loco-hauled set, as it was needed in Euston for the 0010 anyway.

Wonder what happened to the 310 which arrived at 1728? I would guess it then formed a peak additional from New Street of some kind. Even in 1982 when the loco-hauled set didn't run on this service, I can imagine it would have been used as an opportunity to "swap" 310s between Euston services and West Midlands locals, as the 2-min "turnaround" still applied.

2G03 15:02 Euston-New Street a. 17:28.5 platform 6B goes on to work 2G79 17:40 to Wolverhampton.
I have the CE working timetable for 82-83 which is the station working book for New Street essentially.
2A06 17:30 EMU New Street-Euston platform 2 formed from 5A06 17:10 Soho due 17:24.

 

[nw1]

2G03 15:02 Euston-New Street a. 17:28.5 platform 6B goes on to work 2G79 17:40 to Wolverhampton.
I have the CE working timetable for 82-83 which is the station working book for New Street essentially.
2A06 17:30 EMU New Street-Euston platform 2 formed from 5A06 17:10 Soho due 17:24.

OK, many thanks.

I guess the CE WTT must show the platforming at New Street, so you can glean a lot of diagramming information from there.

I wish the "Southern Region" (WG, etc) 90s WTTs available on Network Rail did the same for Waterloo, but sadly not!

 

[jfollows]

OK, many thanks.

I guess the CE WTT must show the platforming at New Street, so you can glean a lot of diagramming information from there.

I wish the "Southern Region" (WG, etc) 90s WTTs available on Network Rail did the same for Waterloo, but sadly not!

The LM had a number of these for a while - CC for Euston, CE for New Street, CN for Piccadilly. They showed platform numbers but also explicitly stated next/previous workings for each train. They showed local ECS workings to/from Soho/Wembley/Longsight which didn't appear in the main WTTs at the time either.

 

[Merle Haggard]

No worries! Seems there were more "Cobblers" than I thought, four of them existing in 1983 (1714, 1718, 1745, 1815). I had the idea it was just one or two.

When the set was formed for the fourth diagram there must have been a shortage of spare 100 m.p.h. Mk1 stock. Not every coach had the brand on the end (but I'm sure it was OK) and it included some SOs* and SK 24006, vintage model. Curiously, when depot stickers were added below the numbers those for 'LL' (Liverpool ?downside?) were applied.
* Passengers were used to squeezing in as a fourth in an SK, always accepted. Sitting in the 2 seat side of an SO a young passenger decided that the two people opposite me were being selfish in space occupation and insisted in inserting themself between them

 

[nw1]

The LM had a number of these for a while - CC for Euston, CE for New Street, CN for Piccadilly. They showed platform numbers but also explicitly stated next/previous workings for each train. They showed local ECS workings to/from Soho/Wembley/Longsight which didn't appear in the main WTTs at the time either.

Ah ok, thanks. A lot of information there!

 

[jfollows]

Ah ok, thanks. A lot of information there!

I also have the equivalent for 72/73, when it was a smaller format than the regular WTTs and therefore easier to carry around.

 

[D7666]

I have the London Midland marshalling books for 7 of the 10 years of the 80s, from the BR Coaching Stock groups.io group, which, together with the 1982 GBPTT, gives a bit more detail on this.

Looking at the 1982 BR timetable on Timetable World, this service was actually 1730, not 1721 and was a variation to the normal xx37 pattern for the BIrmingham-Euston semi-slow, departiing earlier due to making extra stops (all stations from Stechford to Leighton Buzzard in 1982). The xx21 service was usually the Coventry stopper though in a small number of hours it was the XC (in these hours, the Coventry stopper was delayed to xx24).

Looking at the marshalling books it appears the 1730 was a hauled set in the 1983 and 1984 timetables only as it is not mentioned in the later marshalling books (1985 and 1987) or the earlier ones (1980, 1981, 1982).

In 1983 it seemed to only work the 0010 down and 1730 up. In 1984 however it also formed the 0647 Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton except on Summer Saturdays. On the latter, interestingly, this local service was formed of air-conditioned stock and would then go on to work the 0818 Wolverhampton to Poole.

Looking at the 1982 timetable, in most hours the 310 would arrive New Street at xx25 giving it enough time to turn around to form the xx37. However in that hour, it arrived at 1728 and the southbound was at 1730, so no time to turn around. Consequently the easiest way to allow the southbound to be formed was presumably to deploy the loco-hauled set, as it was needed in Euston for the 0010 anyway.

Wonder what happened to the 310 which arrived at 1728? I would guess it then formed a peak additional from New Street of some kind. Even in 1982 when the loco-hauled set didn't run on this service, I can imagine it would have been used as an opportunity to "swap" 310s between Euston services and West Midlands locals, as the 2-min "turnaround" still applied.

tx

reading my post again I possibly muddled 17xx with the 1721 to Poole - +40 yrs of brain decay since then

 

[Merle Haggard]

On the subject of AM4 design - I wonder whether the retention of compartments in the MBS of the Liverpool sets was to provide 'Ladies Only' compartments. The D.C. sets certainly retained these up to the Discrimination Act.
And why did AM4s have both a Motor Brake Second and a Driving Trailer Open Brake Second - i.e. two brakes? The diagram's seating plan shoes both vans marked 'Guard' so presumably they had brake handle, bell etc. Trivia - does anyone else remember the particular melodic bells on these sets? Sounded very musical, esp. compared to the 310's. Starting off sounded classy.

 

[jfollows]

On the subject of AM4 design - I wonder whether the retention of compartments in the MBS of the Liverpool sets was to provide 'Ladies Only' compartments. The D.C. sets certainly retained these up to the Discrimination Act.
And why did AM4s have both a Motor Brake Second and a Driving Trailer Open Brake Second - i.e. two brakes? The diagram's seating plan shoes both vans marked 'Guard' so presumably they had brake handle, bell etc. Trivia - does anyone else remember the particular melodic bells on these sets? Sounded very musical, esp. compared to the 310's. Starting off sounded classy.

Both brake vans were used, the guard used the rear-most one, from recollection given that I travelled with a friend who was a Piccadilly Guard in the 1970s and worked his way up the links, when I first knew him he was often working AM4s which also gave me occasional access to empty coaching stock workings such as Longsight-Macclesfield or to Meaford Crossing on Friday afternoons.

I never heard of anyone refer to "Liverpool sets" so it's interesting to see the discussion here. I just know that if I was going home on a busy service I groaned when I saw 001-015 on the end of the unit because it might mean I was stuck in the middle of one of the compartments. They weren't Ladies Only, at least not from 1970 onwards, because I'm definitely not a lady.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Both brake vans were used, the guard used the rear-most one, from recollection given that I travelled with a friend who was a Piccadilly Guard in the 1970s and worked his way up the links, when I first knew him he was often working AM4s which also gave me occasional access to empty coaching stock workings such as Longsight-Macclesfield or to Meaford Crossing on Friday afternoons.

I never heard of anyone refer to "Liverpool sets" so it's interesting to see the discussion here. I just know that if I was going home on a busy service I groaned when I saw 001-015 on the end of the unit because it might mean I was stuck in the middle of one of the compartments. They weren't Ladies Only, at least not from 1970 onwards, because I'm definitely not a lady.

Thanks, informative. From memory when the AM4s worked through Northampton the guard worked from the MBS - used to AM10s and they probably didn't even realise there was another, small, van behind the cab. Might have been some overcarried parcels left in the unused van, though...
,
The only reason I used 'Liverpool sets' (and I've never heard it used either) was as a handy way to distinguish between the two different seating layouts.

 

[D7666]

And why did AM4s have both a Motor Brake Second and a Driving Trailer Open Brake Second - i.e. two brakes?

Were there short platforms anywhere ? Especially where parcels etc were un/loaded. You only need one station affected for that. And or did the steam LH stock AM4 replaced have two vans - that sort of thing was often used as a base ? *** Those are questions not statements.


The AM4 DT end with the van appears similar (identical ?) layout to the DT of a Bury DC unit (504); this might just be a case of 'mix and match' car types, especially as both types are LM. Does not answer why though.


*** one reason - of several - BR SR 4Cep units had a van at each end was many of the steam LH stock sets were in 4car or 3car 'sets' each with a van at each end e.g. BSK-CK-(SK)-BSK or equivalent whether Mk1 or Bulleid or other.

 

[AM9]

Losing only three minutes over that distance when limited to 75 mph is impressive. How fast could a 310 actually go? Were they geared differently to the 312s? I recall some fast runs to Liverpool though I never bothered to time them so I don't know how fast they actually went. Suffice to say, they were quite capable of beating the class 158 schedules.

From my memories of a article in one of the Rail Mags at the time, the 312s were higher geared than the 310s, - the former geared to give a max speed of 75mph and the latter a max speed of 90mph. The reason given was that the then normal acceleration rate of outer suburban units was 1.3 mph/s a reduced rate of 1.1mph/s was a fair tradeoff for interleaving with 100mph IC/express services (on both the GEML and the WCML). This certainly worked well with them running between the class 309s with their 0.9mph/s and the class 47+11 Norwich services that really suffered if they were checked.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

I found the same bouncing behaviour on the 504s, between Manchester and Bury.

This was common on all the 60ft Gresley bogied outer suburban stock (304, 305 & 308) but the metro types 303 and 311 seemed to handle the bumps. The 309s of course had commonwealth bogies and the 310/312s had MK1Vs which designed for 100mph service, rode much better.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When the Class 304 were four-car units, there was a small 6-seat first class compartment immediately situated behind the drivers cab and there was a corridor connection to a toilet.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This was common on all the 60ft Gresley bogied outer suburban stock (304, 305 & 308) but the metro types 303 and 311 seemed to handle the bumps.

Particularly noticeable when travelling on AM4s on the up slow between Piccadilly and Stockport, the vertical movement was very large and seemed to be enhanced by jointed track (which possibly had dipped joints). It seemed that there were harmonic frequencies between the various parts of the suspension - even the soft seat cushions seemed to have a re-inforcing frequency - and the timing of rail joints - I certainly remember lifting above the cushion, the vertical movement increased over time at constant-ish speed. Perhaps the others did not 'cruise' at exactly the right speed for rail joints to have this effect, the AM4s were slow (???40 - 50) along there.

 

[jfollows]

When the Class 304 were four-car units, there was a small 6-seat first class compartment immediately situated behind the drivers cab and there was a corridor connection to a toilet.

The TCsoL was the second or third coach in a set of 4, first class wasn’t in the driving trailer. I think I had a ticket allowing me to use it once before the coach was removed in the mid-80s to turn the units into 3-car sets.
It was the AM10/310 with first class behind the cab.

EDIT See http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/CS/Book_CS_(EMU)_CM_web.pdf

Trailer Composite semi-open Lavatory

 

[nw1]

tx

reading my post again I possibly muddled 17xx with the 1721 to Poole - +40 yrs of brain decay since then

Could well be, there was indeed a 1721 to Poole in 1982 with the Coventry stopper delayed until 1724. XCs also used the paths at 1321 and 1621 - this was before there was a consistent clockface departure for Reading-bound XCs from Birmingham. I think the 1983 timetable brought a more consistent pattern, though whether it was xx21 every hour, I'm not sure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

When the set was formed for the fourth diagram there must have been a shortage of spare 100 m.p.h. Mk1 stock. Not every coach had the brand on the end (but I'm sure it was OK) and it included some SOs* and SK 24006, vintage model. Curiously, when depot stickers were added below the numbers those for 'LL' (Liverpool ?downside?) were applied.
* Passengers were used to squeezing in as a fourth in an SK, always accepted. Sitting in the 2 seat side of an SO a young passenger decided that the two people opposite me were being selfish in space occupation and insisted in inserting themself between them

On another matter the early-80s timetable for the WCML 310s is somewhat unbalanced in the sense that there was the xx02 Birmingham (limited-stop to MKC and after Rugby) and xx35 to MKC (all stations after Watford). Thus the former caught up the latter; the faster service was just 14 behind the slower by MKC.

Looking at the pattern, it almost seems as if they planned to have a second semi-fast per hour at xx32, immediately in front of the xx35, yet it was never introduced.

It also seems strange that a place as large as Northampton had just a single train per hour in each direction off peak. Two from London seems to better fit the size of the town so I'm wondering whether there was at one point a plan to have two semi-fasts at xx02 and xx32.

 

[Taunton]

And why did AM4s have both a Motor Brake Second and a Driving Trailer Open Brake Second - i.e. two brakes? The diagram's seating plan shoes both vans marked 'Guard' so presumably they had brake handle, bell etc. Trivia - does anyone else remember the particular melodic bells on these sets? Sounded very musical, esp. compared to the 310's. Starting off sounded classy.

There was an old Board of Trade (Transport ministry predecessor) requirement that only two (braked) vehicles could be in a braked train behind the guard's vehicle. This drove a number of formation arrangements until some time (it seems) in the 1960s when it was cancelled. These 4-car AC emus may have been envisaged to haul a van behind them (old expectations died hard) which would not have been possible if the brake was in car 2 - and as one would not know which way round the set was, it could not be scheduled at all. Whether they were ever used as such, or not, is another matter. They were air braked, and certainly at the start air braked vans were almost unknown.

It went way back. The LBSCR 5-car electric trains had a motor luggage van in the middle, with two trailers either side. That was as much as they could do.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The TCsoL was the second or third coach in a set of 4, first class wasn’t in the driving trailer. I think I had a ticket allowing me to use it once before the coach was removed in the mid-80s to turn the units into 3-car sets.
It was the AM10/310 with first class behind the cab.

EDIT See http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/CS/Book_CS_(EMU)_CM_web.pdf

Apologies...I was sure that it was in the place that I thought it was...

Memory playing me false. It was a unit on the Styal line.

 

[jfollows]

Apologies...I was sure that it was in the place that I thought it was...

Memory playing me false. It was a unit on the Styal line.

Oh, my memory too. So although I was reasonably sure I checked elsewhere also before I posted. But it was a bit of a funny first class, from my memory, as I say I actually only used it once.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There was an old Board of Trade (Transport ministry predecessor) requirement that only two (braked) vehicles could be in a braked train behind the guard's vehicle. This drove a number of formation arrangements until some time (it seems) in the 1960s when it was cancelled. These 4-car AC emus may have been envisaged to haul a van behind them (old expectations died hard) which would not have been possible if the brake was in car 2 - and as one would not know which way round the set was, it could not be scheduled at all. Whether they were ever used as such, or not, is another matter. They were air braked, and certainly at the start air braked vans were almost unknown.

It went way back. The LBSCR 5-car electric trains had a motor luggage van in the middle, with two trailers either side. That was as much as they could do.

Indeed, so could have been relevant. That's why Pull-Push trains composed of more than 2 coaches had the coaches distributed either side of the loco. Not sure when (or if!) it was officially abandoned but trains that divided en route e.g. Euston - Blackpool/Barrow, from memory, had the brake in the middle of each porti9on, and max 5 + 5 quite recently.

It then went to the other extreme - one of the 'Cobbler' sets had only one brake (BSK always) with 11 or 12 on and it was at one end - 35455 can be seen in the Milton Keynes 1988 video above.

 

[43096]

On the subject of AM4 design - I wonder whether the retention of compartments in the MBS of the Liverpool sets was to provide 'Ladies Only' compartments. The D.C. sets certainly retained these up to the Discrimination Act.

I would question that the MBS of the Liverpool sets (016-035) had compartments. They had the wider windows between the doors, which are incompatible with a compartment arrangement. They also retained the original type seats, unlike sets 001-015 which had new seats (from memory, the suburban version of the IC70) installed when the compartments were removed in the early/mid-1980s.

 

[Taunton]

Indeed, so could have been relevant. That's why Pull-Push trains composed of more than 2 coaches had the coaches distributed either side of the loco. Not sure when (or if!) it was officially abandoned

I think the change must have come about 1961. The first trains I can think of that broke the old rule were the final 4-car Class 123 Inter-City dmus on the Western Region, which came the following year, and had just one brake compartment in one of the driving cars, and thus when this was leading would have three cars behind.