Diesel Brake Tender

Why wouldn't it be hauled one way and propelled the other?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was on about our friend Urging the GC to run its goods with a fitted head, rather than the brake tender that seems to be causing him some distress.

 

That's a new one on me!! Yes, there were minfits but I've never heard of the vac gear being removed. Why would the vac cylinders or pipework be damaged when going through a tippler?

 

Also never heard of the brake gear being removed. However I seem to recall that some fitted wagons had push brakes which were OK on end tippers, and others had clasp brakes which were not allowed on end tippers.

I thought the use of brake tenders was not just about being able to stop unbraked trains, but also about being able to run partially braked trains at higher speeds. In the 70s the brake force tables of the working manual for rail staff laid down permitted train speeds according to actual brake power available, not just number of fitted vehicles. Some fitted vehicles had less brake force relative to their laden weight than others. It could make the difference between running at 45mph or 60mph top speed.

 

A group of people get together and actually build something rather than engaging in a lot of wibn and yet what we get on here (amongst this rightly seeing it as a good thing ) is one of the usual suspects moaning about it. No wonder rail enthusiasts have a poor reputation in some parts.

 

I think it more likely that collieries loading to end tipping staithes learned to load push braked wagons to those places, so they were no longer seen there.

The clasp braked wagons would have been re-deployed to work which didn't involve that type of end-tipper. Unfitted wagons were generally only push-braked, but there were fitted wagons with push-brakes too.

 

I like it, the group have done a good job. Personally, I find that period in railway history interesting

 

I remember brake tenders, especially in the North Midlands, and I'm looking forward to seeing this in action.

 

I too find the concept interesting and am looking forward to seeing it in action. Well done to the team that have recreated it!
I hope it is allowed to come out on visits to other railways as well in due course ;p

 

If it wasn't for groups like this, that restore or recreate the bits other than Day to day rolling stock. The history of the full railway scene would be lost forever.
All should applaud what they and others do to keep the forgotten items in the scene as well.

Is it that because it cannot earn its keep in the accustomed manner that no one normally takes these projects on?

 

Yes, OK, fair point.

As for the brake tender, personally I find the changeover years a fascinating period of railway history and I think the failures are just as interesting to preserve as the successes. The preservation movement would be a lot poorer without unsuccessful locos like 71000 or the Co-Bo diesel, for example, or indeed things like the class 14 diesels which were technically successful but unnecessary because the job they were built for disappeared. But also it's not just about preserving artifacts, but methods of operation which is why the DBT is just as valuable a resource as something like the GCR's block signalling system or TPO apparatus.

As for criticisng the 1950s railway for not investing more in wagon brakes, you have to realise that there was a massive investment in replacing elderly wagons post-war and the additional cost of making the new wagons fully fitted was not justified when so many of the locomotives couldn't brake the trains, the wagons had to mix in with older unbraked wagons, speeds and operating methods in many places simply did not require fitted trains, and having to connect up all the brake pipes would be a significant staff/time constraint in many colliery yards (whilst forgetting to disconnect them would result in additional wagon repairs/cost). And given that these wagons had pretty much all gone 30 years later, you have to say that it was the right decision at that time. Some wagons were of course built without vacuum brakes and were converted later in life, including several of the 16T minerals in the GCR's "windcutter" fleet. In fact a study of the different braking arrangements across the "windcutter" fleet is another rather interesting reflection of that changeover period.

The only wagons I've come across which have lost their vacuum braking capability are those sold off into industry, where BR decided to keep some bits for re-use. Indeed I have an LMS van which was built unfitted in the 1930s, fitted with vacuum under BR's 1950s modernisation programme, then stripped of its cylinder and pipework when sold off into private ownership upon withdrawal. At some point I intend to re-fit the vacuum. Interestingly this van would have been grey when built (standard 1934 LMS livery), then bauxite (later LMS standard livery), then grey (BR livery for unfitted wagons), then bauxite (BR livery for fitted wagons). But I digress!

 

Excellent post. I also find the steam/diesel era, and the early all diesel era very interesting, and if only things which were successes were preserved you do not get the full picture. A Webb Compound was an unsuccessful design but wouldn't we like to have seen one?

 

I recall the sense of shock when I read that right up to the sixties freight trains were trundling around with almost no brakes , reliant on their really slow speeds to stop more than anything. The Railways were really neglecting their services and not responding effectively to the treat of road services. No wonder they needed a huge shake up.

 

When did unfitted freights finally end on BR? in the 70s?

 

Partially fitted trains were still running on the Southern Region in the mid 70s when I transferred from Wimbledon to work at Hoo Jn.
I recall one train off the Grain branch which had a fitted head of 102t GLW air-braked bogie hoppers, followed by 20 vac braked opens and a brake van. Since this train was sand and gravel from Cliffe, it would have been a rather gritty ride for the guard. The different wagon types went forward from Hoo Jn by separate fully fitted trains.

I seem to recall that it was about 1980 when the region became 'fully fitted only', but partially braked trains were still running on some of the other regions.

I went (from BRB at Melbury House) to Willesden in about 1989, by then all the revenue freights were fitted on the LMR as well, although I think some engineers trains still occasionally (but rarely) ran part fitted.

 

Very interesting posts because I've learnt something I've never considered, even though I had an involvement with them. Tipplers were a common part of workingat some collieries but, until now, I've never thought of the effect on oil boxes and I certainly never heard of or came across anyone charged with refilling them after being tippled. Although not unknown, tippling of BR owned wagons at collieries was not the norm as the collieries had their own fleets of internal user wagons for internal transfer traffic. BR wagons would only be used if there was a shortage of empties because of demurrage concerns. Away from the pits, I spent many a happy hour watching wagons being tipped into the coaling tower at Holbeck and I can't recall any specific actions with the tipped wagons once they were returned to ground level. Admittedly it was a long time ago, though.
I've also been thinking about clasp brakes and why these were not allowed in end tipplers. Again, it is something I never saw any instruction about. If it was a problem, why were end doors provided on them? I'd be grateful to learn why and what the problems were?

 

I've never watched wagons being end tipped. However as I understand it, some end tipping mechanisms restrained the wagons by upturned rail ends which pressed against the wheel treads. Obviously with clasp brakes they would press against the outer brake blocks and hangers, whereas with push type brakes the blocks and hangers were safely between the wheels.
Some types of end tipping mechanisms presumably restrained the wagons without pressing against the wheels on this way. Apart from 16t minerals there were also wooden bodied end tipping wagons designed for clay traffic, these had longitudinal floor boards to allow free flow instead of the transverse boards used on most wooden wagons.

I don't think much oil would leak out during the brief upending, or indeed the complete rollover of a tippler. Although standard 16t minerals could be end tipped or side tippled, there were also similar looking wagons (with 20t capacity?) designed specifically for tippling of heavier loads such as iron ore, these had no doors at all and could only be tippled (or indeed in later engineers service grab-discharged)

{as I understand it, a tippler is designed to rotate a wagon completely, the load dropping out before the wagon returns to upright, whereas a wagon tipper needs only raise the wagon to about 45degrees to allow the load to slide out more slowly}

 

Although it is possible to end tip with just a crane, all the end tipplers I've come across were fixed installations and had retractable stops that made contact with the buffers.. On some tipplers, you could only tip in one direction so there was a wagon turntable to allow the wagon to be turned to face the correct way. These had a permanent buffer beam. With end tippling and a door, you didn't need to tip the wagon too much to discharge the contents (45-50 deg) whereas side tipplers had to tip about 135 deg

 

They were 27T capacity (heavier duty springs and I think possibly journals) and many also had roller bearings. There are a few preserved, we have B385782 on the GCR: http://www.palbrick.com/gc/open/DSCF5688.JPG (my photo, from 28/10/12).