Guards vans on fully-fitted freights

[AndrewE]

Hello
On Saturday I saw a model railway layout and a train of (just) milk tanks was running, with a guards van. It occurred to me that the tanks would probably have been fully fitted as they were also run in mixed trains (e.g. on branch lines.) If this is the case, would they have even needed a brake van?

(On reflection I suspect the answer is Yes, if only because a guard wouldn't ride on a steam loco footplate, unlike the back cab of a diesel.)

 

[LYradial]

The brake van and guard have many responsibilities to the train, the train and its contents are “traffic” while the loco and crew are “ motive power” and have little to do, in theory, with whatever they are pulling.

in practice there are lots of things, the guard gives the driver details of what is the train consist, makes sure his tail lamp is fitted and lit, and has responsibilities if an incident occurs.

there is lots more

 

[edwin_m]

Up until about 1969, even fully-fitted freight trains had to have a brake van, so that would cover any steam-hauled train. This was partly because the guard had safety duties, such as protecting the train in an emergency, and probably also because of conservatism and union agreements.

Actually the brake van didn't need to be the last vehicle in a fully-fitted train and often wasn't on fast freights as having wagons behind gave a smoother ride. If I recall correctly up to three vehicles were allowed behind, and obviously the van had to be at least piped so the wagons behind could be braked.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

On Saturday I saw a model railway layout and a train of (just) milk tanks was running, with a guards van. It occurred to me that the tanks would probably have been fully fitted as they were also run in mixed trains (e.g. on branch lines.) If this is the case, would they have even needed a brake van?

Doesn't it depend on the the time period depicted? It was sometime in the 1960s that freight trains first ran without guards vans.

 

[Harpo]

Up until about 1969, even fully-fitted freight trains had to have a brake van,

Yes. Covered by the 1969 single manning agreement.

 

[AndrewE]

Up until about 1969, even fully-fitted freight trains had to have a brake van, so that would cover any steam-hauled train. This was partly because the guard had safety duties, such as protecting the train in an emergency, and probably also because of conservatism and union agreements.

Actually the brake van didn't need to be the last vehicle in a fully-fitted train and often wasn't on fast freights as having wagons behind gave a smoother ride. If I recall correctly up to three vehicles were allowed behind, and obviously the van had to be at least piped so the wagons behind could be braked.

That is very interesting and could lead to some discussions about the realism or otherwise of people's model railway train consists!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 12:03 ==

Doesn't it depend on the the time period depicted? It was sometime in the 1960s that freight trains first ran without guards vans.

weren't these the Freightliners where they discovered that you couldn't put a guard in a box on the wagon on the tail? Hence the move to the back cab...

 

[edwin_m]

That is very interesting and could lead to some discussions about the realism or otherwise of people's model railway train consists!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 12:03 ==


weren't these the Freightliners where they discovered that you couldn't put a guard in a box on the wagon on the tail? Hence the move to the back cab...

They were first introduced with a "guard's container" having a Perspex dome in place of a ducket - there was one in the NRM York last time I visited. Then they switched to various coaching stock brake vehicles for a while.

 

[Gloster]

Six or seven of the guard’s containers were built at Derby in 1965, but it appears that only one or two saw any use and that was effectively on a trial basis. They very quickly proved unworkable and were boycotted by the NUR as the guards were hurled about like a leaf in a hurricane. Management very quickly accepted this without demur, which shows how strong the NUR’s argument was, and from mid-1966 former revenue coaches, mostly Mark 1 suburban non-corridor brakes, were included in the consist. From the beginning of 1969 they were surplus as the guards could ride on the loco.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Six or seven of the guard’s containers were built at Derby in 1965, but it appears that only one or two saw any use and that was effectively on a trial basis. They very quickly proved unworkable and were boycotted by the NUR as the guards were hurled about like a leaf in a hurricane. Management very quickly accepted this without demur, which shows how strong the NUR’s argument was, and from mid-1966 former revenue coaches, mostly Mark 1 suburban non-corridor brakes, were included in the consist. From the beginning of 1969 they were surplus as the guards could ride on the loco.

In "theory" in the back cab - often , in the front.

 

[thesignalman]

weren't these the Freightliners where they discovered that you couldn't put a guard in a box on the wagon on the tail? Hence the move to the back cab...

Until the late 1960s, all Freightliner services that I saw had a BG marshalled into the formation - either at the front or rear - for the guard to travel in. So at this date there was no restriction (mentioned elsewhere) on how many vehicles could be marshalled behind the brake van. The introduction of permitting guards to travel in the rear cab (after considerable trade union negotiation) rendered the provision of these BGs unnecessary.

John

 

[Ploughman]

They were first introduced with a "guard's container" having a Perspex dome in place of a ducket - there was one in the NRM York last time I visited. Then they switched to various coaching stock brake vehicles for a while.

We have one on the NYMR at Newbridge yard.

 

[matchmaker]

Six or seven of the guard’s containers were built at Derby in 1965, but it appears that only one or two saw any use and that was effectively on a trial basis. They very quickly proved unworkable and were boycotted by the NUR as the guards were hurled about like a leaf in a hurricane. Management very quickly accepted this without demur, which shows how strong the NUR’s argument was, and from mid-1966 former revenue coaches, mostly Mark 1 suburban non-corridor brakes, were included in the consist. From the beginning of 1969 they were surplus as the guards could ride on the loco.

I saw one of these brakes going through Arbroath on a Freightliner in 1967. From what I recall it was painted white or cream and badged "Air braked, gas heated".

 

[AndrewE]

Until the late 1960s, all Freightliner services that I saw had a BG marshalled into the formation - either at the front or rear - for the guard to travel in. So at this date there was no restriction (mentioned elsewhere) on how many vehicles could be marshalled behind the brake van.

So that's another unusual but true-to-prototype train formation for the perverse modeller to run, what a surprise this thread has turned out to be!
Thanks all.
A

 

[75A]

That's why I love this site.

 

[6Gman]

In "theory" in the back cab - often , in the front.

I'm aware of a serious (fatal) accident where the presence of the guard in the front cab was felt to have been a contributory factor.

Which prompts a question. If a single Class 20 worked a fully-fitted freight what was the official policy?

 

[Acathater]

Until the late 1960s, all Freightliner services that I saw had a BG marshalled into the formation -

Maroon, blue or blue/grey?

 

[AndrewE]

I'm aware of a serious (fatal) accident where the presence of the guard in the front cab was felt to have been a contributory factor.

Cowden? Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowden_rail_crash says

The cabs were so badly damaged that it was impossible to determine who had been driving 2E27.

Which prompts a question. If a single Class 20 worked a fully-fitted freight what was the official policy?

Provide a brake van? Or turn a blind eye to an extra person in the cab (which might have been at the back of the loco.) Or maybe cancel the train until a pair of 20s were available...

 

[Hairy Bear]

Which prompts a question. If a single Class 20 worked a fully-fitted freight what was the official policy?

Brake van required, same applies to an 08. Even a pair of 20's required a brake van until the mid 80's when a brake valve was added to each class 20 cab, this then allowed the guard to ride on the 2nd loco with the ability to apply the train brake if required.

 

[thesignalman]

So that's another unusual but true-to-prototype train formation for the perverse modeller to run, what a surprise this thread has turned out to be!
Thanks all.
A

Make sure you model them so dirty that you can barely see the colours underneath, they never got washed!

John

 

[Brightonboy]

I don't recall seeing brake vans attached to the coal hopper trains that pairs of 20s regularly rumbled through Nottingham in the late 70s?

 

[eastwestdivide]

Mid-1980s there were regular coal trains from the Wigan area (?) to Fiddlers Ferry near Warrington, formed of double-headed 20s, merry-go-round HAA coal hoppers and an air-piped (actually dual-piped) CAR brake van. The route involved a double reversal to reach the westbound lines under Warrington BQ from the southbound lines through that station. The brake van enabled a propelling move from S of Warrington BQ past all the yards to reach the E-W lines. Somewhere I’ve a photo of the guard looking out during the propelling move.

[edited for clarity and typos!]

 

[ChiefPlanner]