Passenger train formations in the loco-hauled era

[Cheshire Scot]

Finally, where trains we’re split there was often a contingency in case a portion arrived without a brake.nAn example would be Carstairs where BCK 21269 was held as spare in case a service due to split there arrived from the south without a brake in one portion.

That is interesting, I do remember seeing the BCK standing at Carstairs but didn't realise that was the purpose.

 

[Taunton]

One train which seemed to me very efficient in the provision of limited passenger accommodation whilst maximising van space was the Cardiff Crewe TPO (and 01.47 return)which normally conveyed 1 x POS, 1 x BG, 1 x BSK and 1 x BCK - and being WR stock that would have been 7 x 8 seat compartments 56 in second, plus 12 first class seats.

Hopefully not with 56 actual passengers in second, one of the upsides of old side corridor compartment stock on overnight services was to put the armrests up and use for sleeping, one each side. You almost got the feeling that such formations were deliberately formed with this in mind for typical loads. The overnight services were generally run with their own separate pool of older stock, making just one single journey per day, and were almost wholly compartment stock until this disappeared.

A fair number of military, especially sailors, used the overnights, and it was normal for the guard to allow any officers in the Firsts, and ratings in the Seconds, regardless of ticket held. Particularly on the WofE overnights through Taunton. A good number of the rail staff had been in the military, particularly the Navy in the West Country (and very much so at Plymouth depots), and knew the score.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Hopefully not with 56 actual passengers in second

I don't recall seeing many users at all certainly at the Crewe end, although leaving Cardiff mid evening (and I think the last train of the day), it might have carried decent numbers towards Hereford at least.

 

[copea]

That is interesting, I do remember seeing the BCK standing at Carstairs but didn't realise that was the purpose.

I worked at Craigentinny at the time and we used to bring it back every now and then for maintenance although it was rarely used in anger. It didn’t get much use so battery was usually flat! One of the guys made it his “pet” so apart from the flat battery issue it was pristine inside!

 

[43096]

A further complication was the speed of the train. Trains on older oil box fitted Mk1’s were limited to 90 mph unless they had SM stencilled on the end ( Special Maintenance) in which case they were 100mph. Vehicles on B4/5 and Commonwealth bogies were 100 mph and a few Mk1’s RKB vehicles on West Coast were allowed to go up to 110 mph on B5 bogies. In the early days Mk3 vehicles on West Coast where only allowed up to 100mph on West Coast as their braking was set to be compatible with Mk2 stock, this was later lifted to 110. Obviously a train could only run to the maximum speed allowed for the slowest vehicle in the train.

I wasn't aware that Mark 1 RKBs were permitted 110mph, I'd always thought that the early 110mph sets (and not many West Coast services were 110mph in the first few years) would have had a Mark 3 RUB in the formation. By the time 110mph workings became more widespread catering was all in Mark 3 RFMs. There were also 110mph BGs, running on B4 bogies with special maintenance and re-coded NHA.

Later on, did some of the Motorail vans (former GUVs) get uprated for 110mph?

 

[hexagon789]

I wasn't aware that Mark 1 RKBs were permitted 110mph, I'd always thought that the early 110mph sets (and not many West Coast services were 110mph in the first few years) would have had a Mark 3 RUB in the formation. By the time 110mph workings became more widespread catering was all in Mark 3 RFMs. There were also 110mph BGs, running on B4 bogies with special maintenance and re-coded NHA.

Later on, did some of the Motorail vans (former GUVs) get uprated for 110mph?

My impression was the same as yours, I've never come across anything to say that any Mk1 RKB were maintained for 110mph running.

Certainly the 110mph workings first introduced in May 1984 were all booked as NEA-2 Mk3 FO-Mk3 RFB-5 Mk3 TSO

Also the Mk3 coaches are listed as 125mph vehicles both in the May 1975 marshalling (when they were first introduced on the WCML) and in the May 1984 marshalling.

 

[copea]

My impression was the same as yours, I've never come across anything to say that any Mk1 RKB were maintained for 110mph running.

Certainly the 110mph workings first introduced in May 1984 were all booked as NEA-2 Mk3 FO-Mk3 RFB-5 Mk3 TSO

Also the Mk3 coaches are listed as 125mph vehicles both in the May 1975 marshalling (when they were first introduced on the WCML) and in the May 1984 marshalling.

My impression was the same as yours, I've never come across anything to say that any Mk1 RKB were maintained for 110mph running.

Certainly the 110mph workings first introduced in May 1984 were all booked as NEA-2 Mk3 FO-Mk3 RFB-5 Mk3 TSO

Also the Mk3 coaches are listed as 125mph vehicles both in the May 1975 marshalling (when they were first introduced on the WCML) and in the May 1984 marshalling.

For the May 1984 timetable there was a 110 working out of Manchester which was covered by a diagram with a RKB in it. At the time I worked in the coaching stock section of the LMR CM&EE and I can remember carrying out specific riding tests in traffic to establish the ride quality at 110mph. What I can’t now remember is why one of the 28 RUBs were not used and seem to recall it was a diagraming issue as the problem was only noticed a couple of weeks before the service commenced ( there were also availability issues with RUBs so that could have been part of it)
The loco hauled Mk3’s were fitted with CC distributors as built which gave better compatibility with Mk2 and Mk1’s stock. These had to be modified to CO type ( which was done in the brake test room at Willesden Loco) prior to the introduction of the May 1984 service, This involved changing a spring in the distributor and recalibration it for the higher speed braking. I accept the vehicles probably had 125 stencilled on them but in practice they were not braked for the signal spacing on LMR at speeds higher than 100mph. It was quite a challenge getting sufficient vehicles converted in time.
I was directly involved with both and have the scars although it is a while back now I admit!

 

[hexagon789]

For the May 1984 timetable there was a 110 working out of Manchester which was covered by a diagram with a RKB in it. At the time I worked in the coaching stock section of the LMR CM&EE and I can remember carrying out specific riding tests in traffic to establish the ride quality at 110mph. What I can’t now remember is why one of the 28 RUBs were not used and seem to recall it was a diagraming issue as the problem was only noticed a couple of weeks before the service commenced ( there were also availability issues with RUBs so that could have been part of it)
The loco hauled Mk3’s were fitted with CC distributors as built which gave better compatibility with Mk2 and Mk1’s stock. These had to be modified to CO type ( which was done in the brake test room at Willesden Loco) prior to the introduction of the May 1984 service, This involved changing a spring in the distributor and recalibration it for the higher speed braking. I accept the vehicles probably had 125 stencilled on them but in practice they were not braked for the signal spacing on LMR at speeds higher than 100mph. It was quite a challenge getting sufficient vehicles converted in time.
I was directly involved with both and have the scars although it is a while back now I admit!

There's nothing in the carriage marshalling book listed as 110mph other than two Euston/Glasgow and afai knew 110mph running was not introduced outwith Euston-Glasgow services until the May 1989 timetable change

 

[43096]

For the May 1984 timetable there was a 110 working out of Manchester which was covered by a diagram with a RKB in it. At the time I worked in the coaching stock section of the LMR CM&EE and I can remember carrying out specific riding tests in traffic to establish the ride quality at 110mph. What I can’t now remember is why one of the 28 RUBs were not used and seem to recall it was a diagraming issue as the problem was only noticed a couple of weeks before the service commenced ( there were also availability issues with RUBs so that could have been part of it)

That's the first time I've ever heard mention of 110mph out of Manchester in the 1984 timetable. The only mention of 110mph timings I can find in a timetable review in Rail Enthusiast at the time was of the 0945 and 1650 Euston-Glasgow and 0910 / 1710 Glasgow-Euston.

 

[hexagon789]

That's the first time I've ever heard mention of 110mph out of Manchester in the 1984 timetable. The only mention of 110mph timings I can find in a timetable review in Rail Enthusiast at the time was of the 0945 and 1650 Euston-Glasgow and 0910 / 1710 Glasgow-Euston.

Again same here, the dates I have are:

May 1984 - 110mph running introduced, 2 EUS-GLC each way

May 1985 - 110mph applied to all EUS-GLC

May 1989 - The Manchester Pullman services and the sole southbound only Birmingham Pullman are booked for all Mk3 plus Mk1 NHA formations and timed for 110mph running

 

[copea]

That's the first time I've ever heard mention of 110mph out of Manchester in the 1984 timetable. The only mention of 110mph timings I can find in a timetable review in Rail Enthusiast at the time was of the 0945 and 1650 Euston-Glasgow and 0910 / 1710 Glasgow-Euston.

I can specifically recall picking services up from Manchester to ride test RKB’s for 110 mph running-but that would have been prior to timetable commencement. I can’t recall the specific service at this point other than it was early morning. I can specifically recall that it was a “last minute” issue discovered a couple of weeks before timetable commencement. Where did the stock for the 0910 Glasgow come from...did it work in from elsewhere? It would have been before the commencement of new timetable that they were ridden as I seem to recall special arrangements had to be made to run at 110 although it was certainly a normal service train. I am sorry I wish I could throw more light on this but without a copy of the diagrams it’s a challenge to remember the exact circumstances but it certainly happened with some RKBs ( specificly RKBs not RBRs) As I say RUB availability was not always strong which could have been connected with a short term availability issue although from memory it was something more deep seated in the diagramming that had initially been overlooked.
I will certainly ponder this further-I can certainly recall doing tests and it being difficult to find a place in a RKB to adequately assess the ride ( no seats of course and busy train) so I know it happened but can’t recall exact circumstances that made it necessary.

 

[Taunton]

Much as there was effort for this extra 10mph on the WCML, I can recall back in 1962, a quarter of a century before, getting up to 100mph and maybe beyond with Mk 1 vacuum braked stock on B1 bogies. This was the Plymouth to Liverpool day train, fairly straightforwardly diesel hauled into Crewe in the afternoon, where the loco and the first two carriages through to Glasgow were detached, then the electric loco came on and always made a lightning start up the dead-straight line north to Weaver Junction.

 

[30907]

Where did the stock for the 0910 Glasgow come from...did it work in from elsewhere?

Was that the set that worked an Ayr commuter train? In any case, it would have berthed at Polmadie (or wherever the carriage sidings were then).

 

[copea]

Again same here, the dates I have are:

May 1984 - 110mph running introduced, 2 EUS-GLC each way

May 1985 - 110mph applied to all EUS-GLC

May 1989 - The Manchester Pullman services and the sole southbound only Birmingham Pullman are booked for all Mk3 plus Mk1 NHA formations and timed for 110mph running

I have been racking my memory over this! It’s a long time ago now with a lot of water under the bridge however two things I am sure of..
1)All brake distributors on Mk3 coaches had to be modified prior to 110mph running.
2)There was a late issue with RKBs and last minute tests were done to clear some for 110.
Where I think I have got it wrong is the brake issue had to be sorted out for the 1984 timetable but the RKB issue may have been when the diagrams increased for the 1985 timetable change.
We did tests on a early Manchester starter before the timetable commenced where there was special dispensation to run at 110 (south of Rugby) although in the event there was very little 110 sampled. I am certain that the issue was identified only shortly before timetable commencement as it was all hands to the pumps to sort it out. It may not have been a problem every day of the week and I am certain only affected one diagram which for some reason had been overlooked hence it’s late notice. It may have only been for a short while why diagrams were adjusted but it did happen.
I think that’s all I can say really.

 

[hexagon789]

I have been racking my memory over this! It’s a long time ago now with a lot of water under the bridge however two things I am sure of..
1)All brake distributors on Mk3 coaches had to be modified prior to 110mph running.
2)There was a late issue with RKBs and last minute tests were done to clear some for 110.
Where I think I have got it wrong is the brake issue had to be sorted out for the 1984 timetable but the RKB issue may have been when the diagrams increased for the 1985 timetable change.
We did tests on a early Manchester starter before the timetable commenced where there was special dispensation to run at 110 (south of Rugby) although in the event there was very little 110 sampled. I am certain that the issue was identified only shortly before timetable commencement as it was all hands to the pumps to sort it out. It may not have been a problem every day of the week and I am certain only affected one diagram which for some reason had been overlooked hence it’s late notice. It may have only been for a short while why diagrams were adjusted but it did happen.
I think that’s all I can say really.

There is one EUS-GLC diagram booked as Mk3 with a Mk1 RKB rather than RFB in the 1986 marshalling but it's not down as 110mph service

Was that the set that worked an Ayr commuter train? In any case, it would have berthed at Polmadie (or wherever the carriage sidings were then).

When first introduced it was 0755 off Ayr then forming the Royal Scot to Euston. In May 1985 it was pushed back to start at 0745 from Ayr.

 

[copea]

There is one EUS-GLC diagram booked as Mk3 with a Mk1 RKB rather than RFB in the 1986 marshalling but it's not down as 110mph service


When first introduced it was 0755 off Ayr then forming the Royal Scot to Euston. In May 1985 it was pushed back to start at 0745 from Ayr.

OK thanks. Unfortunately all the people who were involved (with one possible exception) have passed on. If I uncover anything to add will post.

 

[Mag_seven]

I came across this photo of what I suspect is a booked 110mph working but would be limited to 100mph due to the presence of a BSO rather than a 110mph Mark 1 brake at the front:

Wishaw Central and Ravenscraig | 87031 'Hal o' the Wind' pas… | Flickr

(Photo Credit: Bob Avery ("Goremirebob") on flickr)

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

I have been racking my memory over this! It’s a long time ago now with a lot of water under the bridge however two things I am sure of..
1)All brake distributors on Mk3 coaches had to be modified prior to 110mph running.
2)There was a late issue with RKBs and last minute tests were done to clear some for 110.
Where I think I have got it wrong is the brake issue had to be sorted out for the 1984 timetable but the RKB issue may have been when the diagrams increased for the 1985 timetable change.
We did tests on a early Manchester starter before the timetable commenced where there was special dispensation to run at 110 (south of Rugby) although in the event there was very little 110 sampled. I am certain that the issue was identified only shortly before timetable commencement as it was all hands to the pumps to sort it out. It may not have been a problem every day of the week and I am certain only affected one diagram which for some reason had been overlooked hence it’s late notice. It may have only been for a short while why diagrams were adjusted but it did happen.
I think that’s all I can say really.

Would have been due to the fact that RKB kitchen output was far greater than RUB; you can get 126 breakfast out of RKB in 2 ½ hours but not from RUB; much smaller kitchen.. assume it was 0705 off Picc ?

 

[d9009alycidon]

As has previously been mentioned the BR Coaching stock group https://brcoachingstock.groups.io/g/main is an amazing resource. It is free to join and once in there, navigate to "files" then select "List of carriage working PDFs on Google Drive" you can then download a vast range of marshalling books for all regions and several different years.

 

[copea]

As has previously been mentioned the BR Coaching stock group https://brcoachingstock.groups.io/g/main is an amazing resource. It is free to join and once in there, navigate to "files" then select "List of carriage working PDFs on Google Drive" you can then download a vast range of marshalling books for all regions and several different years.

Good shout.

Would have been due to the fact that RKB kitchen output was far greater than RUB; you can get 126 breakfast out of RKB in 2 ½ hours but not from RUB; much smaller kitchen.. assume it was 0705 off Picc ?

Yes the RKBs were capable at producing meals than the RUB particularly breakfasts!

 

[Taunton]

OK thanks. Unfortunately all the people who were involved (with one possible exception) have passed on.

This is making me wistful. At this period, early 1980s, I was a regular on the very trains described, 6am or 7am Manchester to Euston. One particular snowy day, possibly December 1981, I'd just managed to get the 6am, it was about an hour late into Euston but was seen as quite an achievement in my meeting, where several relative locals had not made it in at all! I think the 6am stopped at Rugby. The Meeting arranger signed off my breakfast expenses claim with great flourish, saying it was well deserved. Wonder which sort of kitchen it came from.

 

[CW2]

The Carstairs standby coach 21269 was a superb vehicle: dual braked, dual heat, dual class, two toilets (one for each class!) and a brake van. The only thing it lacked was a buffet. I hope it lives on somewhere?

The various trains which divided at Carstairs were often booked to have the stock turned on arrival at Glasgow. So if a portion from (say) Manchester arrived with the brake van leading to Glasgow, the ECS loco would then drop on the back of the train on arrival, and run via Shields and Polmadie to turn the stock. That way teh brake van would be extreme front on departure, with the same loco that it had arrived with (thus reducing shunting). There wasn't any comparable performance with the Edinburgh portions - whatever came in went back in the opposite direction / formation, although (as noted above) the practice was that the Edinburgh portion would be attached to the rear of the Glasgow portion at Carstairs. (To do it any other way would have involved a lot of unnecessary shunting).

 

[Taunton]

The various trains which divided at Carstairs were often booked to have the stock turned on arrival at Glasgow. So if a portion from (say) Manchester arrived with the brake van leading to Glasgow, the ECS loco would then drop on the back of the train on arrival, and run via Shields and Polmadie to turn the stock. That way teh brake van would be extreme front on departure, with the same loco that it had arrived with (thus reducing shunting). There wasn't any comparable performance with the Edinburgh portions - whatever came in went back in the opposite direction / formation, although (as noted above) the practice was that the Edinburgh portion would be attached to the rear of the Glasgow portion at Carstairs. (To do it any other way would have involved a lot of unnecessary shunting).

Once mid-1970s a Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh I was taking on from Preston arrived with the two portions the opposite way round, Edinburgh at the north end. Not sure how this had happened, but it had. Station announcer was very specific that it was running in "reverse formation", a bit of a railway term. At Carstairs on the Down platform it was divided, the electric loco moved the Edinburgh portion forward, backed it into Up platform, then returned itself back onto the Glasgow portion while the diesel came on to the other end of the Edinburgh. Both left simultaneously in opposite directions.

 

[Beebman]

The Carstairs standby coach 21269 was a superb vehicle: dual braked, dual heat, dual class, two toilets (one for each class!) and a brake van. The only thing it lacked was a buffet. I hope it lives on somewhere?

It's in the Riviera Trains fleet:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/railwayscene/19001524575/

 

[hexagon789]

I came across this photo of what I suspect is a booked 110mph working but would be limited to 100mph due to the presence of a BSO rather than a 110mph Mark 1 brake at the front:

Wishaw Central and Ravenscraig | 87031 'Hal o' the Wind' pas… | Flickr

(Photo Credit: Bob Avery ("Goremirebob") on flickr)

19th April was a Saturday, so a Saturday divert with a likely inflated schedule where the Mk2 restricting running to 100mph wouldn't likely matter

Nevertheless in the marshalling the 1505 ex-GLC is down as "Mark 3, 110mph"

There is one thing that always got me with the original 110mph services was that they were slower than the original 100mph electric service introduced in May 1974. And those were heavier trains as well booked for a Maximum Timing Load of 455 tonnes against just 385 tonnes for the 1984 onwards 110mph workings.

OK thanks. Unfortunately all the people who were involved (with one possible exception) have passed on. If I uncover anything to add will post.

No problem, it's difficult obtaining this sort of information - I did find out about the distributor settings being adjusted. In fact it seems that as introduced in 1975 they were set for 125mph braking rates, as the Mk3s were introduced in greater numbers and with no sign of 100+ running being introduced it made sense to treat the Mk2F and Mk3 fleets as one pool.

The braking rates were adjusted for 100mph running and this is why the Mk3s then appear as 100mph vehicles in some of the late-1970s/early 1980s marshalling books.

With the eventual introduction of 110mph running the braking rates were adjusted back to suit the higher speed, though as they would continue to run with Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles in mixed sets until 1989 (when the fixed formations came in) it begs the question why the braking rates were adjusted in the first place?

Was it simply to reduce a propensity for increased brake pad wear that might have resulted from the better braked Mk3s doing more of the useful braking than the Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles in the set or something along those lines?

 

[AJP62]

Once mid-1970s a Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh I was taking on from Preston arrived with the two portions the opposite way round, Edinburgh at the north end. Not sure how this had happened, but it had. Station announcer was very specific that it was running in "reverse formation", a bit of a railway term. At Carstairs on the Down platform it was divided, the electric loco moved the Edinburgh portion forward, backed it into Up platform, then returned itself back onto the Glasgow portion while the diesel came on to the other end of the Edinburgh. Both left simultaneously in opposite directions.

With the way things worked at Carstairs it meant the portions had to be switched round again at the southern end. In this case perhaps there wasn't time to do this at Duddeston before heading north again.

From my Carlisle days I don't recall the Glasgow portion being reversed - there was often a BG mid train heading south and a catering vehicle very near the front.

The Glasgow portion usually had an FK, near the catering vehicle, as there would be a lot of buffet bound traffic that a corridor reduced disruption for those in 1st.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

There is one thing that always got me with the original 110mph services was that they were slower than the original 100mph electric service introduced in May 1974. And those were heavier trains as well booked for a Maximum Timing Load of 455 tonnes against just 385 tonnes for the 1984 onwards 110mph workings.

Did these 110mph trains make more calls? In the 1974 TT most trains called Carlisle and Preston only plus in some cases Motherwell or Watford.

Also, during certain hours trains had a weave allowance for slow line running which I think was 12 minutes which often resulted in very early Euston arrivals - my first Royal Scot run (Preston only) in 74 was 4 hrs 51.

 

[copea]

19th April was a Saturday, so a Saturday divert with a likely inflated schedule where the Mk2 restricting running to 100mph wouldn't likely matter

Nevertheless in the marshalling the 1505 ex-GLC is down as "Mark 3, 110mph"

There is one thing that always got me with the original 110mph services was that they were slower than the original 100mph electric service introduced in May 1974. And those were heavier trains as well booked for a Maximum Timing Load of 455 tonnes against just 385 tonnes for the 1984 onwards 110mph workings.


No problem, it's difficult obtaining this sort of information - I did find out about the distributor settings being adjusted. In fact it seems that as introduced in 1975 they were set for 125mph braking rates, as the Mk3s were introduced in greater numbers and with no sign of 100+ running being introduced it made sense to treat the Mk2F and Mk3 fleets as one pool.

The braking rates were adjusted for 100mph running and this is why the Mk3s then appear as 100mph vehicles in some of the late-1970s/early 1980s marshalling books.

With the eventual introduction of 110mph running the braking rates were adjusted back to suit the higher speed, though as they would continue to run with Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles in mixed sets until 1989 (when the fixed formations came in) it begs the question why the braking rates were adjusted in the first place?

Was it simply to reduce a propensity for increased brake pad wear that might have resulted from the better braked Mk3s doing more of the useful braking than the Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles in the set or something along those lines?

With the way things worked at Carstairs it meant the portions had to be switched round again at the southern end. In this case perhaps there wasn't time to do this at Duddeston before heading north again.

From my Carlisle days I don't recall the Glasgow portion being reversed - there was often a BG mid train heading south and a catering vehicle very near the front.

The Glasgow portion usually had an FK, near the catering vehicle, as there would be a lot of buffet bound traffic that a corridor reduced disruption for those in 1st.

With the way things worked at Carstairs it meant the portions had to be switched round again at the southern end. In this case perhaps there wasn't time to do this at Duddeston before heading north again.

From my Carlisle days I don't recall the Glasgow portion being reversed - there was often a BG mid train heading south and a catering vehicle very near the front.

The Glasgow portion usually had an FK, near the catering vehicle, as there would be a lot of buffet bound traffic that a corridor reduced disruption for those in 1st.

19th April was a Saturday, so a Saturday divert with a likely inflated schedule where the Mk2 restricting running to 100mph wouldn't likely matter

Nevertheless in the marshalling the 1505 ex-GLC is down as "Mark 3, 110mph"

There is one thing that always got me with the original 110mph services was that they were slower than the original 100mph electric service introduced in May 1974. And those were heavier trains as well booked for a Maximum Timing Load of 455 tonnes against just 385 tonnes for the 1984 onwards 110mph workings.


No problem, it's difficult obtaining this sort of information - I did find out about the distributor settings being adjusted. In fact it seems that as introduced in 1975 they were set for 125mph braking rates, as the Mk3s were introduced in greater numbers and with no sign of 100+ running being introduced it made sense to treat the Mk2F and Mk3 fleets as one pool.

The braking rates were adjusted for 100mph running and this is why the Mk3s then appear as 100mph vehicles in some of the late-1970s/early 1980s marshalling books.

With the eventual introduction of 110mph running the braking rates were adjusted back to suit the higher speed, though as they would continue to run with Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles in mixed sets until 1989 (when the fixed formations came in) it begs the question why the braking rates were adjusted in the first place?

Was it simply to reduce a propensity for increased brake pad wear that might have resulted from the better braked Mk3s doing more of the useful braking than the Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles in the set or something along those lines?

Although a higher braking rate on some vehicles would mean they did a greater amount of the braking I would have though pad wear difference would be marginal. There would however be more braking shocks. and in the days of unreliable WSP possibly more flats. I seem to recall that when the braking was increased there was talk of adjusting the Mk2’s and Mk1’s to compensate but this never went anywhere and would have meant all sorts of practical problems and there was a cost so it was not done.

With the way things worked at Carstairs it meant the portions had to be switched round again at the southern end. In this case perhaps there wasn't time to do this at Duddeston before heading north again.

From my Carlisle days I don't recall the Glasgow portion being reversed - there was often a BG mid train heading south and a catering vehicle very near the front.

The Glasgow portion usually had an FK, near the catering vehicle, as there would be a lot of buffet bound traffic that a corridor reduced disruption for those in 1st.

I worked at Duddeston carriage for a short while in the late 70’s and I seem to recall that the set was split to put it in the shed so reversing it was the norm. I guess there could have been circumstances where it didn’t make Duddeston or there was some technical issue (failed 08) whereby it wasn’t reversed but don’t recall that but not saying it didn’t happen. An anomaly I recall with these trains was that they had a SO dining vehicle (not a TSO or FO)

 

[Taunton]

An anomaly I recall with these trains was that they had a SO dining vehicle (not a TSO or FO)

They did, and on Liverpool-Edinburgh this was my favourite vehicle. It wasn't normally laid out for many places, sometimes only a couple of bays, as there wasn't a lot of demand for table service dining on the trains - maybe one steward and one chef, who also covered items at the buffet. The SO vehicles, 2+1 standard class seating, 48 seats, were original Mk 2 vacuum braked ones, so once the trains moved on to air brake they were gone. I wonder where they got used then.

 

[copea]

They did, and on Liverpool-Edinburgh this was my favourite vehicle. It wasn't normally laid out for many places, sometimes only a couple of bays, as there wasn't a lot of demand for table service dining on the trains - maybe one steward and one chef, who also covered items at the buffet. The SO vehicles, 2+1 standard class seating, 48 seats, were original Mk 2 vacuum braked ones, so once the trains moved on to air brake they were gone. I wonder where they got used then.

I don’t know what happened to them as they were not that popular in very busy trains as less seating in them. I guess they were ideal on the Midland Scot and Liverpool Scot service as only a few places would be laid up as you say.