Great feature ,I have a brake tender on my layout .I actually built in in a Signal box when I was a signalman in the 80s .Always found them fascinating .
Adam Savage (mythbusters) has said that when you make something you don't just create something that didn't exist but you are also telling a story and this is a great example, I hope you have pictures of it somewhere online to share with others.
Around Northumberland coalfields where 21 ton hoppers were the order of the day they were common. Cant remember if 2 type 1’s nose to nose or a 37 and brake tender came first. But still they were a common sight going to North Blyth power station and staiths. Glad one is still around.
My peak spotting days were 1961/4 on the now ECML from Doncaster to Tyneside and I never saw one "in the flesh" nor understood how they functioned. I do now, thank you.
2xClass 25 or Class 45 with brake tenders were common in the late 60's on the Midland main line, being used on heavy London-bound coal trains. I can even remember seeing one heavy coal train which included a Class 08 shunter, presumably for a similar purpose.
The 08s had a max speed of about 20mph normally. I think it's more likely that 08 had its coupling rods temporarily removed (allowing haulage at higher speeds) and was being moved between depots?
@@RoamingAdhocrat That is quite possible - not something that would have been immediately apparent from a distance! Could have been transferring them from Toton to Cricklewood, perhaps.
@@geocachingwomble do you have any details of that issue, because I've not seen anything on that issue. There were ride quality issues after 40,000 miles with the original B1 bogies, corrosion problems, especially on the coaches with the window frames inserted from the inside, problems with the steam heating (but that was normal for steam heated stock due to pressure dropping the further you were from the engine), the roof ventilators being reduced to 50% efficiency above smoking compartments, hunting bogies due to having in correcting coning on the wheel treads. But )arkin in his book on the Mk.1 never mentions any issues with the brakes whilst he does mention the other issues.
And much nicer to ride in than many later designs. Mk 1 and early Mk2 coaches were the best ever produced in many ways and far superior to the awful Mk2f and Mk3 stock we had to suffer on so many expresses later (from a passenger experience point of view).
I personally witnessed 2 being propelled, followed by a pair of 37s at the head of a loaded coal train, ca.1977/78. This was at Cardiff Central on a saturday afternoon.
For clarification, the heavy unfitted coal and other types of wagons the combined kinetic weight would cause the loco to skid along the rails making stopping a real issue when moving the huge wagon consists. The brake van likewise would be pulled into skidding instead of applying braking effort. Furthermore, depending on track conditions, an over zealous brake van brake application could case a "taught" line which on a curve could pull a wagon off its flanging and a derailment. Long downhills were also a butt clenching run as freight drivers would retell the tales of the consist pushing hard against the brakes, difficult in normal conditions, add some leaves and damp and a battle against the laws of physics all the way down and a slow fraught chug on the way up because if you got pulled to a stop last thing you wanted was to have your load drag you back down the hill and a brake van/loco was just not enough in those days.
Interesting video, I didn't even know they existed. Used to see a lot of the old unfitted freight stock down near potters bar back in this period, and never knowingly saw anything like them. However the experience helped to understand waves in my later physics lessons, when the teachers described them using unfitted wagons as an example.
I was at Gosforth CarSheds in 1969, we got a brake tender in for overhaul, did a complete overhaul and it was painted Rail Blue -then we were told to scrap it!
Sounds par for the course having worked many years in the Public Sector. Spend all your budget before financial year end..... You can't carry it forward.
Interesting video. I certainly remember them as in the photo of the class 73 (3:30 minutes) with the KH headcode. Both designs of brake tender were a regular sight at Tolworth coal concentration depot (Colmec) around that time. It would involve an additional shunting movement with the depot class 04 to position them at the head of the departing empty wagons. I did also see on very rare occasions a vacuum fitted ex GWR Toad or ex SR Queen Mary brake van used as a substitute for a brake tender. In addition there was the brake van at the rear, either of a 20t BR ex LNER pattern or LMS type. It was possible sometimes to see the guard turning the wheel to apply the van's brakes as it passed through the station, as entry to the depot involved a propelling move (shove in US terms) off the running line beyond the station.
Steam tank locos also were usually deficient in brake power on unfitted trains in comparison with tender locos ,so the term brake tender was very appropriate !
We had them at Tyne yard usually on 37s ,when propelling they were useless, on a greasy rail they just locked up and slid because you couldn’t apply sands to them. They worked better when pulled.
They were a common sight at one time on the freight line which ran past our school playground, usually heading a pair of Class 24s or 37s or a single 47. I assumed initially they were fuel bowsers until being put right by our resident train spotter.
In the US,there were equivalents! Both the N&W,and the SP,used brake sleds in hump yards,for extra capacity! Later,they used[and still do] road and hump slugs,which are motorized,which operate off of Mothers! So that's one area,that the BR didn't get into! Thank for the explanation,I've seen references,but no characteristics on operation! Thank you 😇 😊!
That's because cars going over the hump had their automatic brakes deactivated and, depending on the circumstances, more braking power was needed than the hump locomotive could provide.
Slugs aren't about braking. The point of slugs is that, at low speeds, diesel locomotives can't use their full power because it'll just slip the wheels. Connecting to a slug means that the same amount of power is being spread across more axles, so you can use the mother locomotive's full power without wheelslip. The reason that wheel slip occurs in high-power, low-speed situations is that power = force * speed. If power is high and speed is low, that means you're exerting a large force on the rails. If that force exceeds the maximum friction force between the wheels and the rail, the wheels slip. Adding a slug means that there's less power per axle, but more axles, so you can put more total force through the rail.
At 1.05. you have a picture of Loughborough Midland Station where I worked from 1966 - 1969. An incident occurred which I have recorded on Don Coffey's , ' London St Pancras to Derby '. ( 39 in the comments). Regarding the brake tenders, can't remember seeing them about much on the freight trains which mostly worked out of Toton . I've not seen that particular picture before but it's good to see the area before it was changed and see the 'Peak' Class locos from the time period. Thanks.
A good summary. The last time I saw one was the replica on the Great Central, at Quorn & Woodhouse recently. I didn’t realise that it was a replica, though. A long time ago, I can remember seeing them in use in the North East, around Tyne Yard.
Used to have a regular working past our school on the dartford loop line( near Hither Green) in the mid seventies. It was usually an ED with a load of condemned wagons, and brake tenders used to be in the consist. I don’t think they were always right behind the engine either, I seem to remember some had the white X in the white circle signifying condemned.
so its like a Slug that helps with traction and braking but has no actual diesel engine/prime mover (ours has full cabs and controls like a normal locomotive but some don't)
Not really. A slug is basically an extra set of traction motors on a ballasted body, to allow more low-speed tractive effort. A Brake Tender is just a ballasted body with an extra set of air brakes for Unfitted (no air brakes) or Part Fitted (only the front section of the cars have air brakes) trains. A (Fully) Fitted train wouldn't have one, and wouldn't even have a Brakevan if the locomotive had a rear-facing cab. The UK didn't have an equivalent to the US Railroad Safety Appliances Act (passed in 1893, went into effect 1900), which mandated grab irons, electric headlamps for locomotives, automatic couplers, standard drawbar heights, and continuous air brakes, for first enough air brakes to stop a train, then 50%, then 85%, then 100% of cars.
This was an interesting idea as you offer associate tenders with steam locomotives. It is a shame that they didn’t last very long, but for what they were, they are very much appreciated by the community.
These vehicles looked as if they sat on old "Gresley" coach bogies. Seen running into and leaving Tees Yard from close quarters, i.e. the "Engineer's" office on the east end of Thornaby station.
Certainly looks like Loughborough Midland showing the slow goods lines, now occupied by an additional platform after the Ivanhoe line was opened in the 1980's. The Brush Falcon works was off screen to the right. The flat roofed building upper left was an old WW2 cold store converted to a sub regional HQ cold war bunker in the 1960's.
The concept is still in use when a piece of equipment has failed or weak brakes, which usually involves bracketing it with two pieces of equipment with working brakes, whether locomotives or unpowered equipment.
Very interesting and worthwhile video. However, it is not correct to say that Mark I coaches were being scrapped in the early 60s; in fact, this is when the last of them were been being built. As has been noted elsewhere, the depicted coaches were former LMS stock and scrapping of Mk I coaches did not start until the late 60s and after virtually all coaches of pre-BR design had been scrapped.
I'm an American and don't know a lot about British railroad practices or terms and I had to watch this twice and read some of the comments to try to figure some things out. Does the term "unfitted" mean that the wagons didn't have any vacuum or air brakes? In which case all of the braking power of an entire train was just done with the wheels/brakes of a locomotive (before the brake tenders were introduced)? Wouldn't that be nearly impossible to stop a fully loaded train on a descending grade, and also lead to burnt brake pads/shoes and heat damaged wheels on the locomotives...not to mention the wheels constantly sliding and being flat-spotted? I'm pretty sure I know that Britain preferred vacuum brakes over air brakes, but I think I'm learning from this video that there were many hundreds of wagons with no brakes at all even well into the 1960's and 1970's. Are unfitted wagons still a thing in Britain today? Also, 35.5-tons (I presume tonnes)...that is the equivalent, roughly, of one axle on an American train, for comparison. My questions really come from being naive of British trains and not meant to be insulting. Thank you.
Yes. Unfitted wagons (cars) don't have any brakes. The entire train braking is done by the locomotive and the brake van(caboose), which has a handbrake. No they aren't used anymore lasted until the 1980s I think.. unfitted trains didn't travel very fast 30 to 40 mph . They probably just braked alot earlier using less brakes as drivers had to have route knowledge. Also out trains are alot shorter than your equivalent. . I think vacuum brakes were used as a spill over from steam trains as alot of steam engines didn't have the equipment to operate air brakes. But I'm not sure.
@@espeescotty no problem. The difference between British trains and American is quite vast really.. . What braking system did the early steam trains use over there ? Just interested.
@@animaltvi Most have pretty much used a version of the Westinghouse air brakes since the 1890's. It was mandated that all U.S. trains in interchange service have air brakes from 1900 onwards. There are other manufacturers other than Westinghouse, but I think they all pretty much use the same concept. And I don't think vacuum brakes have ever been a thing here.
Today I learned: "The Regulation of Railways Act 1889" required only passenger cars to be fitted with continuous brakes but not freight cars. It wasn't until the 1980s that all freight cars were so equipped. In the USA there was a similar law - "Railroad Safety Appliance Act 1893" except it covered both freight and passenger cars. Question: Why didn't the UK update such laws sooner?
5:19 Ironically , both steam engines on the left-middle of the picture (a Black 5 and what I presume is a 7200) were saved , the tender (of course) wasn’t
A quintessentially british thing. Why fix the problem (fitting your actual vehicles with better brakes) when you can build a giant weight on wheels for the trains to lug around (and thus waste fuel on, and ruin their accelleration with) instead? (Reminds me of the old course in comparative law. Oh my...)
Because modifying well over a million vehicles is insanely expensive and takes a very long time. Adding an extra 35 tons to a 700-ton train doesn't make a huge difference to fuel consumption or acceleration -- it's only about 5% of the total train weight. Also, this was the 1960s -- fuel was so cheap that they just left diesel locomotives idling 24/7.
@@beeble2003 The confounding thing to us non-UK'ers is that when continuous brakes were introduced to the UK it wasn't applied to goods wagons as well as the passenger rolling stock. Goods trains need to be brought to a halt just as much as passenger trains. I know there were a lot of privately owned goods wagons but that is no excuse, a condition of allowing them to be run on the railways of the UK after a certain specified date would be that they had to be continuous-brake fitted.
Was not so much them being lightweights, but diesels had to be able to brake to a stand from their top speed without overheating the wheels. Unfortunately this was not possible, so the brake force had to be reduced and the coaches helped to stop the Locomotives when braking from high speed. It is also the main reason why Diesels were limited to 60mph light engine - without any coaches to help them brake they would not be able to stop in time for the signals! I also have a feeling there were no brakes on the pony truck of the class 40 which would not help much either.
what cop out solution. If you dont have enough braking with just your independent, take some air on the automatic. Relying on your independent is a great way to replace break shoes every week
@@RailRide Correct. At the time, the only brakes on most low-speed freight trains were the locomotive and the brake van (caboose). The reason that brake tenders were phased out in the early 1970s is that, by then, we finally had automatic brakes on a large enough fraction of the rolling stock that we weren't relying on the locomotive brakes any more.
Great video but those aren't Mk1s you show being scrapped. Mk1 scrapping didn't start in the sixties. I recall seeing brake tenders at Woking in 1979 behind a 33. Thanks for covering this obscure subject.
@@acampbell8614I see what you mean but it does give the impression Mk1s are being scrapped in the pics. Why raise Mk1s at all? They were not being scrapped in the mid-sixties.
Interesting, but suspiciously, these look a lot like scale-test cars used over here in the States, where they’re used to check that freight car scales’ readings are accurate. I wonder if any of these brake tenders were constructed with a specified weight so they could be used in a similar manner?
As per many of the other comments, a very interesting film. Out of interest, do,you know where the picture at 30 seconds was taken? It has a similarity to landscape near where I live.
Lovely video , although not an interesting part of railways yet once watching this video interest is stimulated in them along with other bits of railway history that often goes un noticed.
Thanks for the video but the real problem with Brake Tenders I am reliably informed was unreliability, according to older members of my family employed on the Railway at the time when you wanted a Brake Tender their wasn’t any about and when you didn’t need one there were a few stood in a siding.
That's a matter of cost, time and resources. For the same reason that diesels had steam boilers to heat old coaching stock. Cheaper to put a steam generator on a new diesel than change thousands of coaches.
@@spencerhardy8667 why the modernisation plan was such a dismal failure. Post WW2 at nationalisation the railway should have slimmed down, electrified and air raked and electrically heated from that point. I was one of the last drivers to be trained to work trains without any sort of braking (unfitted) in the early 90’s, just ridiculous. I now drive 66’s for freight and they are in my top two of locos I’ve driven in terms of reliability and efficiency. Political decisions have made railway life different for decades.
MARK 1 COACHES An informative and outstanding video Jack.... Well done... Although one point in your commentary does need addressing... There was nothing 'infamous' about Mark 1 Coaches....... Don't know where you got this from....? James Hennighan Yorkshire, England
They’re infamous *now* for being somewhat unsafe as built in derailments, but the remaining examples have mostly been rebuilt to fix this (all of the ones running on the main line in passenger service have).
@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis John George, many thanks for your reply. Permit me to offer a few comments, which by their very nature means a fairly long reply. With regard to MarK 1 coaches. I tend to take the view that the problems with derailments were never as bad as has been suggested. OK, in High Speed Accidents all coaching stock is subjected to forces of an unknown and unpredictable nature, and design has to try to anticipate this, with lessons being learnt from earlier accidents. In fact, this is the history of transport, where we learn from what went before. In many senses the Harrow & Wealdstone Accident actually showed us how coaching stock could stand up to High Speed impacts. Although the loss of life was high much of the coaches stood up reasonably well, with the degree of damage and destruction lessening towards the rear coaches. Obviously the front coaches of the Glasgow Train absorbed most of the impact, but many deaths occurred in the stationary local that was in the platform and hit by the southbound express. The problem was compounded by the late running Liverpool Express which hit the wreckage just strewn in it's immediate path. Clearly deaths occurred in the leading coaches of the Liverpool Express and it is arguable if any coaches would have stood up to this impact. Sadly injured people already scattered around in the wreckage died when the Liverpool Express ploughed into it. In the happen-chance of things, had the Liverpool Express not been delayed with the problem with it's brakes it would have got away from Euston on time and been through Harrow & Wealdstone before the southbound overnight sleeper hit the local train. We also need to look to the more recent 'staged for the media' accident of the Peak and Mark 1's running into the Nuclear Flask. Much if this was a 'false accident scenario' in terms of speed of the train, position of the Nuclear Flask etc, but it has to be said that the Mark 1's stood up extremely well, with only the first vestibule really deforming badly. Had this been a train full of passengers it is possible that any ensuring death toll would have been reasonably low; although here again we face the Happen - Chance component. Rather interestingly we have to look to the Clapham Accident in December 1988, involving 4 trains and resulting in 35 deaths, for a look at what were basically Mark 1 equivalents, as high-density suburbans stock. Obviously here the fact that multiple trains were involved was the major issue. The main issue here wasn't that Mark 1's were inherently dangerous, but that it was common practice on the Southern Region to remove the Bottom Bracket on Buck-Eye Couplings. The Bottom Bracket was the main protection against 'Over-Riding' of coaches in a collision, because it kept them upright and coupled together. This prevented coach bodies over-riding bogies, with the consequent crushing and destruction of the passenger compartments or sections. You will be hard pressed to find reference to the Southern Region practice of removing the Bottom Brackets from Buck-Eye Couplings in any assessment of the Clapham Accident or of the robustness, or otherwise of Mark 1's.... Yet another factor not often considered on looking at Mark 1's was that the wooden flooring was multi-layered and constructed in a herringbone pattern to give it added strength and protection in the event of a collision. In this sense it was a major component in the structural rigidity and integrity of the coaches. Then of course we have the disastrous part played by the Health & Safety at Work Act of 1964, which created the Health& Safety Executive, (HSE), which Executive, (HSE).....who in the immediate run up to and years following Privatisation had responsibility for Railway Safety. Giving Rail Safety to the HSE, a body with no practical experience or understanding of Railway Operations was the daftest and most stupid of any decisions ever taken by Government and The Civil Service......something that admittedly is a long list anyway. Unfortunately, the railways suffered many accidents and deaths as a consequence of the involvement of the HSE after privatisation, although many other aspects of Privatisation also played a part. It is and was, of course, a heresy to suggest that the HSE should be criticised......although it did eventually dawn on sensible people within the railway industry and the unions. The late Gwyneth Dunwoody MP spotted this, but even she had a hard sell to get Government to promote the changes that it eventually did. Let's not forget that fool Jennifer Helen Bacon, Director General of the HSE, (1995 - 2000), and prior to that, Deputy Director General, (1992 - 1995), who in an attempt to burnish her own credentials, described Mark 1's as "...Garden Sheds on Wheels..." With such simplistic, stupid and idiotic an understanding of railways, coaching stock and railway safety, we were all off to the races and Mark 1's were branded as villains in every way. James Hennighan Yorkshire, England P.S. Nothing finer than bowling along in a Mark 1 at 80 plus MPH......preferably behind steam. Having said that I have travelled at 97 MPH behind an English Electric Type 4 on the East Coast Mainline..... Now that's 'whistling' along....!
It seems like a crying shame that no one today has figured out to propose a Battery regen/accumulator brake tender to work with existing diesel electric locomotives...
The C is a clearance code relating to the length of coach. Mk1 and Mk2 coaches and multiple units such as 150s are C1 being 20m long Mk3 and Mk4 coaches and multiple units such as 156s are C3 being 23m long. C1 is based on Mk1 coaches C3 on Mk3 coaches hence the numbers . There is no C2.
Excuse my ignorance...But aren't the carriages equipped with independent brakes that are activated simultaneously? In this case, by distributing the braking over the entire train and not just the locomotive, I don't see what use a wagon with a greater braking capacity could be...
At the time these were built most of our goods wagons had no independent brakes, just a lever operated hand brake. The steam locomotives had more brake force than the diesels had so these tenders increased the brake force to that of a steam hauled train of equal weight rather than running a shorter lighter train when diesel hauled . As more wagons with independent brakes were built the tenders were not needed. Today all vehicles must have an independent brake
America solved this sort of problem with dynamic braking at about the same time. We use slugs to solve a similar traction problem as well, with a very similar look.
No, dynamic brakes would be useless in the situation that brake tenders were designed for. The issue in the UK is that we had a lot of freight trains that had no brakes at all, except for the brake van (caboose) and the locomotive. With a heavy train, anything but the most gentle brake application would cause the locomotive to skid along the rails, pushed by the train behind it. The point of the brake tender is that it had brakes that operated in tandem with the locomotive, providing more overall braking force. Adding dynamic brakes to the locomotive wouldn't have helped. Dynamic brakes are a way of getting stronger brakes on the locomotive, but the locomotive brakes were already strong enough to lock the wheels and skid. Making the locomotive brakes stronger wouldn't have helped anything. They needed more braked axles on the train, instead. This was less of an issue with steam locomotives, because they're heavier and have more axles, which means more friction between the rails and the wheels. And, eventually, the UK moved to fully fitted (i.e., fully braked) trains, so the brake tenders became redundant on revenue trains. They continued to be used on permanent way trains (maintenance of way, in North America) because, like everywhere, the track maintenance guys end up using rolling stock that's been retired from revenue service, so they still had some unfitted wagons in service long after they'd been retired from freight service.
The only way to make them better at braking would be to give them more weight and more wheels. Also, replacing hundreds of locomotives is _much_ more expensive than building 122 brake tenders. (You'd need to replace much more than 122 locomotives, because a brake tender requires very little maintenance, so it can be used essentially 24/7, whereas locomotives at that time typically required at least a day's maintenance for every two days' running.)
Hehe, imagine not having brakes on all your equipment, this post comes from the ICC ruling of 1890 for full application by 1900 of air brakes on all interchange cars.
You keep referring to British Rail but it was British Railways at that time. Mk1 carriages can by no means be described as infamous. Unfortunate errors in an otherwise reasonable account
This is a typical British answer to a typical British problem with regards to their primitive freight train operations of loose coupled trains and non continuous braking, which Britain preserved with years after just about every other country moved onto far more modern practices,these primitive train operations would be the death of the British freight rail industry as it slowed train operations down to a crawl compared to the modern trucking industry.
Great feature ,I have a brake tender on my layout .I actually built in in a Signal box when I was a signalman in the 80s .Always found them fascinating .
Adam Savage (mythbusters) has said that when you make something you don't just create something that didn't exist but you are also telling a story and this is a great example, I hope you have pictures of it somewhere online to share with others.
I was a clerk in Acton TOPS office 1978-80. Brake tenders were still in use between Acton yard and Severn Tunnel Junction.
D6700 is operating with the GCR’s replica brake tender this weekend. Can’t wait to see it in operation
Ironically, I'm there on sunday!
Around Northumberland coalfields where 21 ton hoppers were the order of the day they were common. Cant remember if 2 type 1’s nose to nose or a 37 and brake tender came first. But still they were a common sight going to North Blyth power station and staiths. Glad one is still around.
21 tons? Those are so cute and tiny!
My peak spotting days were 1961/4 on the now ECML from Doncaster to Tyneside and I never saw one "in the flesh" nor understood how they functioned. I do now, thank you.
2xClass 25 or Class 45 with brake tenders were common in the late 60's on the Midland main line, being used on heavy London-bound coal trains. I can even remember seeing one heavy coal train which included a Class 08 shunter, presumably for a similar purpose.
The 08s had a max speed of about 20mph normally. I think it's more likely that 08 had its coupling rods temporarily removed (allowing haulage at higher speeds) and was being moved between depots?
@@RoamingAdhocrat That is quite possible - not something that would have been immediately apparent from a distance! Could have been transferring them from Toton to Cricklewood, perhaps.
Very interesting video but why do you refer to MkI coaches as 'infamous'? For their day, they were a good design with no major flaws.
Many people don't know the meaning of infamous.
The BBC, for instance...@@neiloflongbeck5705
Because in the early days of mark I coaches they were notorious for their first 3 years in operation for having terrible issues with their brakes
@@geocachingwomble do you have any details of that issue, because I've not seen anything on that issue. There were ride quality issues after 40,000 miles with the original B1 bogies, corrosion problems, especially on the coaches with the window frames inserted from the inside, problems with the steam heating (but that was normal for steam heated stock due to pressure dropping the further you were from the engine), the roof ventilators being reduced to 50% efficiency above smoking compartments, hunting bogies due to having in correcting coning on the wheel treads. But )arkin in his book on the Mk.1 never mentions any issues with the brakes whilst he does mention the other issues.
And much nicer to ride in than many later designs. Mk 1 and early Mk2 coaches were the best ever produced in many ways and far superior to the awful Mk2f and Mk3 stock we had to suffer on so many expresses later (from a passenger experience point of view).
I personally witnessed 2 being propelled, followed by a pair of 37s at the head of a loaded coal train, ca.1977/78. This was at Cardiff Central on a saturday afternoon.
For clarification, the heavy unfitted coal and other types of wagons the combined kinetic weight would cause the loco to skid along the rails making stopping a real issue when moving the huge wagon consists. The brake van likewise would be pulled into skidding instead of applying braking effort. Furthermore, depending on track conditions, an over zealous brake van brake application could case a "taught" line which on a curve could pull a wagon off its flanging and a derailment. Long downhills were also a butt clenching run as freight drivers would retell the tales of the consist pushing hard against the brakes, difficult in normal conditions, add some leaves and damp and a battle against the laws of physics all the way down and a slow fraught chug on the way up because if you got pulled to a stop last thing you wanted was to have your load drag you back down the hill and a brake van/loco was just not enough in those days.
Interesting video, I didn't even know they existed. Used to see a lot of the old unfitted freight stock down near potters bar back in this period, and never knowingly saw anything like them. However the experience helped to understand waves in my later physics lessons, when the teachers described them using unfitted wagons as an example.
that is such a fascinating holdover from the transition from steam to diesel.
I was at Gosforth CarSheds in 1969, we got a brake tender in for overhaul, did a complete overhaul and it was painted Rail Blue -then we were told to scrap it!
Beaurocracy
Sounds par for the course having worked many years in the Public Sector. Spend all your budget before financial year end..... You can't carry it forward.
For modeling these could be used for additional electrical pickup, to prevent locomotives to stalling on points.
Interesting video.
I certainly remember them as in the photo of the class 73 (3:30 minutes) with the KH headcode. Both designs of brake tender were a regular sight at Tolworth coal concentration depot (Colmec) around that time. It would involve an additional shunting movement with the depot class 04 to position them at the head of the departing empty wagons. I did also see on very rare occasions a vacuum fitted ex GWR Toad or ex SR Queen Mary brake van used as a substitute for a brake tender. In addition there was the brake van at the rear, either of a 20t BR ex LNER pattern or LMS type. It was possible sometimes to see the guard turning the wheel to apply the van's brakes as it passed through the station, as entry to the depot involved a propelling move (shove in US terms) off the running line beyond the station.
Steam tank locos also were usually deficient in brake power on unfitted trains in comparison with tender locos ,so the term brake tender was very appropriate !
I got one of these as an OO model. it's very good to find out more history about them.
We had them at Tyne yard usually on 37s ,when propelling they were useless, on a greasy rail they just locked up and slid because you couldn’t apply sands to them. They worked better when pulled.
I remember them running in some coal trains out of Healey Mills.
I have a pair on my layout (early 60s North Eastern). They look great with diagram 100 hoppers!
Fascinating insight into a forgotten corner of British Railways operation. Excellent video.
They were a common sight at one time on the freight line which ran past our school playground, usually heading a pair of Class 24s or 37s or a single 47. I assumed initially they were fuel bowsers until being put right by our resident train spotter.
I guessed, wrongly, that they were an extra vacuum tank.
The vid doesn't explain, but presumably these were phased out as unfitted freight stock was removed from the network?
Seems so clearly were something of an improvised stop gap
Correct. And they continued in departmental use for longer because the track maintenance guys are always last in the queue for new rolling stock.
The brake power of a light diesel loco is alot less than when hauling train,so have to run at reduced speed when running light.
In the US,there were equivalents! Both the N&W,and the SP,used brake sleds in hump yards,for extra capacity! Later,they used[and still do] road and hump slugs,which are motorized,which operate off of Mothers! So that's one area,that the BR didn't get into! Thank for the explanation,I've seen references,but no characteristics on operation! Thank you 😇 😊!
BR had Class 13 - a pair of Class 08s, one with the cab removed.
That's because cars going over the hump had their automatic brakes deactivated and, depending on the circumstances, more braking power was needed than the hump locomotive could provide.
@@christopherisherwood4967the 13s were A-B sets, with both unit’s powered, unlike slugs, though.
Slugs aren't about braking. The point of slugs is that, at low speeds, diesel locomotives can't use their full power because it'll just slip the wheels. Connecting to a slug means that the same amount of power is being spread across more axles, so you can use the mother locomotive's full power without wheelslip.
The reason that wheel slip occurs in high-power, low-speed situations is that power = force * speed. If power is high and speed is low, that means you're exerting a large force on the rails. If that force exceeds the maximum friction force between the wheels and the rail, the wheels slip. Adding a slug means that there's less power per axle, but more axles, so you can put more total force through the rail.
From the other side of the pond, it's a wonder that air brakes were required on all rolling stock.
A family friend is the engineer responsible for these.
At 1.05. you have a picture of Loughborough Midland Station where I worked from 1966 - 1969. An incident occurred which I have recorded on Don Coffey's , ' London St Pancras to Derby '. ( 39 in the comments). Regarding the brake tenders, can't remember seeing them about much on the freight trains which mostly worked out of Toton . I've not seen that particular picture before but it's good to see the area before it was changed and see the 'Peak' Class locos from the time period. Thanks.
Gone the way of diesel connecting doors, and EE Type 1 running cab back because crews were used to a boiler in front.
EE Type 1 ran with the cab wherever it happened to be.
@@tooleyheadbang4239 I read early crews who were used to steam haulage preferred the engine in front. This was when EE type 1s ran singly.
There used to be one of these in Crofton CMEE yard under the trees/weeds until the late 70s at least
A good summary. The last time I saw one was the replica on the Great Central, at Quorn & Woodhouse recently. I didn’t realise that it was a replica, though. A long time ago, I can remember seeing them in use in the North East, around Tyne Yard.
Used to have a regular working past our school on the dartford loop line( near Hither Green) in the mid seventies. It was usually an ED with a load of condemned wagons, and brake tenders used to be in the consist. I don’t think they were always right behind the engine either, I seem to remember some had the white X in the white circle signifying condemned.
so its like a Slug that helps with traction and braking but has no actual diesel engine/prime mover (ours has full cabs and controls like a normal locomotive but some don't)
Not really. A slug is basically an extra set of traction motors on a ballasted body, to allow more low-speed tractive effort. A Brake Tender is just a ballasted body with an extra set of air brakes for Unfitted (no air brakes) or Part Fitted (only the front section of the cars have air brakes) trains. A (Fully) Fitted train wouldn't have one, and wouldn't even have a Brakevan if the locomotive had a rear-facing cab.
The UK didn't have an equivalent to the US Railroad Safety Appliances Act (passed in 1893, went into effect 1900), which mandated grab irons, electric headlamps for locomotives, automatic couplers, standard drawbar heights, and continuous air brakes, for first enough air brakes to stop a train, then 50%, then 85%, then 100% of cars.
Clever solution, and yes, they do look like something from WW-II.
This was an interesting idea as you offer associate tenders with steam locomotives. It is a shame that they didn’t last very long, but for what they were, they are very much appreciated by the community.
Unfitted freight trains, what a fantastically dangerous concept!
I was one of the last drivers to be taught how to do this.
These vehicles looked as if they sat on old "Gresley" coach bogies. Seen running into and leaving Tees Yard from close quarters, i.e. the "Engineer's" office on the east end of Thornaby station.
01:05 Loughborough midland station?
Certainly looks like Loughborough Midland showing the slow goods lines, now occupied by an additional platform after the Ivanhoe line was opened in the 1980's. The Brush Falcon works was off screen to the right. The flat roofed building upper left was an old WW2 cold store converted to a sub regional HQ cold war bunker in the 1960's.
The concept is still in use when a piece of equipment has failed or weak brakes, which usually involves bracketing it with two pieces of equipment with working brakes, whether locomotives or unpowered equipment.
Very interesting and worthwhile video. However, it is not correct to say that Mark I coaches were being scrapped in the early 60s; in fact, this is when the last of them were been being built. As has been noted elsewhere, the depicted coaches were former LMS stock and scrapping of Mk I coaches did not start until the late 60s and after virtually all coaches of pre-BR design had been scrapped.
I remember these being used on any rake that was hauled by class 17s or class 2 locos.
I'm an American and don't know a lot about British railroad practices or terms and I had to watch this twice and read some of the comments to try to figure some things out. Does the term "unfitted" mean that the wagons didn't have any vacuum or air brakes? In which case all of the braking power of an entire train was just done with the wheels/brakes of a locomotive (before the brake tenders were introduced)? Wouldn't that be nearly impossible to stop a fully loaded train on a descending grade, and also lead to burnt brake pads/shoes and heat damaged wheels on the locomotives...not to mention the wheels constantly sliding and being flat-spotted? I'm pretty sure I know that Britain preferred vacuum brakes over air brakes, but I think I'm learning from this video that there were many hundreds of wagons with no brakes at all even well into the 1960's and 1970's. Are unfitted wagons still a thing in Britain today? Also, 35.5-tons (I presume tonnes)...that is the equivalent, roughly, of one axle on an American train, for comparison. My questions really come from being naive of British trains and not meant to be insulting. Thank you.
Yes. Unfitted wagons (cars) don't have any brakes. The entire train braking is done by the locomotive and the brake van(caboose), which has a handbrake. No they aren't used anymore lasted until the 1980s I think.. unfitted trains didn't travel very fast 30 to 40 mph . They probably just braked alot earlier using less brakes as drivers had to have route knowledge. Also out trains are alot shorter than your equivalent. . I think vacuum brakes were used as a spill over from steam trains as alot of steam engines didn't have the equipment to operate air brakes. But I'm not sure.
@@animaltvi Thank you for the additional information. I think it is fascinating.
@@espeescotty no problem. The difference between British trains and American is quite vast really.. . What braking system did the early steam trains use over there ? Just interested.
@@animaltvi Most have pretty much used a version of the Westinghouse air brakes since the 1890's. It was mandated that all U.S. trains in interchange service have air brakes from 1900 onwards. There are other manufacturers other than Westinghouse, but I think they all pretty much use the same concept. And I don't think vacuum brakes have ever been a thing here.
@@espeescotty interesting, thanks.
Today I learned: "The Regulation of Railways Act 1889" required only passenger cars to be fitted with continuous brakes but not freight cars.
It wasn't until the 1980s that all freight cars were so equipped. In the USA there was a similar law - "Railroad Safety Appliance Act 1893"
except it covered both freight and passenger cars. Question: Why didn't the UK update such laws sooner?
5:19
Ironically , both steam engines on the left-middle of the picture (a Black 5 and what I presume is a 7200) were saved , the tender (of course) wasn’t
A quintessentially british thing. Why fix the problem (fitting your actual vehicles with better brakes) when you can build a giant weight on wheels for the trains to lug around (and thus waste fuel on, and ruin their accelleration with) instead?
(Reminds me of the old course in comparative law. Oh my...)
Because modifying well over a million vehicles is insanely expensive and takes a very long time. Adding an extra 35 tons to a 700-ton train doesn't make a huge difference to fuel consumption or acceleration -- it's only about 5% of the total train weight. Also, this was the 1960s -- fuel was so cheap that they just left diesel locomotives idling 24/7.
@@beeble2003 The confounding thing to us non-UK'ers is that when continuous brakes were introduced to the UK it wasn't applied to goods wagons as well as the passenger rolling stock. Goods trains need to be brought to a halt just as much as passenger trains. I know there were a lot of privately owned goods wagons but that is no excuse, a condition of allowing them to be run on the railways of the UK after a certain specified date would be that they had to be continuous-brake fitted.
I've seen class 40's with brake tenders. I wouldn't call them lightweights.
Was not so much them being lightweights, but diesels had to be able to brake to a stand from their top speed without overheating the wheels. Unfortunately this was not possible, so the brake force had to be reduced and the coaches helped to stop the Locomotives when braking from high speed. It is also the main reason why Diesels were limited to 60mph light engine - without any coaches to help them brake they would not be able to stop in time for the signals! I also have a feeling there were no brakes on the pony truck of the class 40 which would not help much either.
@@Titan604 also, Class 45's were notorious for dropping their brake blocks when worn.
what cop out solution. If you dont have enough braking with just your independent, take some air on the automatic. Relying on your independent is a great way to replace break shoes every week
According to a reply a couple of comments above, typical UK freight cars at the time did not have air brakes, hence no 'automatic' to take air on.
@@RailRide Correct. At the time, the only brakes on most low-speed freight trains were the locomotive and the brake van (caboose). The reason that brake tenders were phased out in the early 1970s is that, by then, we finally had automatic brakes on a large enough fraction of the rolling stock that we weren't relying on the locomotive brakes any more.
Strange that Britain ran non air braked freights into the modern era.
Very informative. Thank you.
Now the diesel will now complains “Tender Engines do not shunt”
This comment wins!
Why was the BR mk1 coach infamous? As far as I can tell it is and was well regarded.
Great video but those aren't Mk1s you show being scrapped. Mk1 scrapping didn't start in the sixties.
I recall seeing brake tenders at Woking in 1979 behind a 33.
Thanks for covering this obscure subject.
I think it was intended to show where the brake tender's bogies came from- scrapped LNER and LMS coaches.
@@acampbell8614I see what you mean but it does give the impression Mk1s are being scrapped in the pics. Why raise Mk1s at all? They were not being scrapped in the mid-sixties.
Interesting, but suspiciously, these look a lot like scale-test cars used over here in the States, where they’re used to check that freight car scales’ readings are accurate. I wonder if any of these brake tenders were constructed with a specified weight so they could be used in a similar manner?
They look like yard slugs as well.
Are you sure they were built on former coach underframes? Citation needed.
In the US they were rare but I have heard called "brake sleds" or just "sleds". Powered units for extra tractive effort are known as "slugs"
Shades of Sturrock!
Great video, thank you. Very, very interesting. 👍👍👍
... on coal or ore trains... Could be seen behind or in front of (typically) an English Electric "Type 3" as these locos were then known as.
As per many of the other comments, a very interesting film.
Out of interest, do,you know where the picture at 30 seconds was taken? It has a similarity to landscape near where I live.
Lovely video , although not an interesting part of railways yet once watching this video interest is stimulated in them along with other bits of railway history that often goes un noticed.
Extremely interesting
Interesting video, many thanks.
Thanks for the video but the real problem with Brake Tenders I am reliably informed was unreliability, according to older members of my family employed on the Railway at the time when you wanted a Brake Tender their wasn’t any about and when you didn’t need one there were a few stood in a siding.
The which works in Glasgow?
Guessing he means Cowlairs which, I think, is pronounced much closer to the actual spelling!
@@modelrailpaulcee correct! It’s 5 miles away and I triple checked other videos in case I’d missed something in its pronunciation all these years.
@@craigmacdonald6601 Yeah, Wikipedia says it's pronounced exactly as it's spelled. The local pronunciation might be different, though?
It’s ridiculous that they were even needed! As soon as steam had gone, everything should have been converted to air brakes.
That's a matter of cost, time and resources. For the same reason that diesels had steam boilers to heat old coaching stock. Cheaper to put a steam generator on a new diesel than change thousands of coaches.
@@spencerhardy8667 why the modernisation plan was such a dismal failure. Post WW2 at nationalisation the railway should have slimmed down, electrified and air raked and electrically heated from that point. I was one of the last drivers to be trained to work trains without any sort of braking (unfitted) in the early 90’s, just ridiculous. I now drive 66’s for freight and they are in my top two of locos I’ve driven in terms of reliability and efficiency. Political decisions have made railway life different for decades.
@@22pcirish Hindsight is a wonderful attribute.
@@spencerhardy8667 Correct.
@@spencerhardy8667some people think things can all be changed just like that if only life was so easy
Does anyone know what determined where the brake tender would be compared to the locomotive?
MARK 1 COACHES
An informative and outstanding video Jack....
Well done...
Although one point in your commentary does need addressing...
There was nothing 'infamous' about Mark 1 Coaches.......
Don't know where you got this from....?
James Hennighan
Yorkshire, England
They’re infamous *now* for being somewhat unsafe as built in derailments, but the remaining examples have mostly been rebuilt to fix this (all of the ones running on the main line in passenger service have).
@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis
John George, many thanks for your reply. Permit me to offer a few comments, which by their very nature means a fairly long reply.
With regard to MarK 1 coaches. I tend to take the view that the problems with derailments were never as bad as has been suggested.
OK, in High Speed Accidents all coaching stock is subjected to forces of an unknown and unpredictable nature, and design has to try to anticipate this, with lessons being learnt from earlier accidents.
In fact, this is the history of transport, where we learn from what went before.
In many senses the Harrow & Wealdstone Accident actually showed us how coaching stock could stand up to High Speed impacts.
Although the loss of life was high much of the coaches stood up reasonably well, with the degree of damage and destruction lessening towards the rear coaches.
Obviously the front coaches of the Glasgow Train absorbed most of the impact, but many deaths occurred in the stationary local that was in the platform and hit by the southbound express.
The problem was compounded by the late running Liverpool Express which hit the wreckage just strewn in it's immediate path.
Clearly deaths occurred in the leading coaches of the Liverpool Express and it is arguable if any coaches would have stood up to this impact.
Sadly injured people already scattered around in the wreckage died when the Liverpool Express ploughed into it.
In the happen-chance of things, had the Liverpool Express not been delayed with the problem with it's brakes it would have got away from Euston on time and been through Harrow & Wealdstone before the southbound overnight sleeper hit the local train.
We also need to look to the more recent 'staged for the media' accident of the Peak and Mark 1's running into the Nuclear Flask.
Much if this was a 'false accident scenario' in terms of speed of the train, position of the Nuclear Flask etc, but it has to be said that the Mark 1's stood up extremely well, with only the first vestibule really deforming badly. Had this been a train full of passengers it is possible that any ensuring death toll would have been reasonably low; although here again we face the Happen - Chance component.
Rather interestingly we have to look to the Clapham Accident in December 1988, involving 4 trains and resulting in 35 deaths, for a look at what were basically Mark 1 equivalents, as high-density suburbans stock.
Obviously here the fact that multiple trains were involved was the major issue.
The main issue here wasn't that Mark 1's were inherently dangerous, but that it was common practice on the Southern Region to remove the Bottom Bracket on Buck-Eye Couplings.
The Bottom Bracket was the main protection against 'Over-Riding' of coaches in a collision, because it kept them upright and coupled together. This prevented coach bodies over-riding bogies, with the consequent crushing and destruction of the passenger compartments or sections.
You will be hard pressed to find reference to the Southern Region practice of removing the Bottom Brackets from Buck-Eye Couplings in any assessment of the Clapham Accident or of the robustness, or otherwise of Mark 1's....
Yet another factor not often considered on looking at Mark 1's was that the wooden flooring was multi-layered and constructed in a herringbone pattern to give it added strength and protection in the event of a collision. In this sense it was a major component in the structural rigidity and integrity of the coaches.
Then of course we have the disastrous part played by the Health & Safety at Work Act of 1964, which created the Health& Safety Executive, (HSE), which Executive, (HSE).....who in the immediate run up to and years following Privatisation had responsibility for Railway Safety.
Giving Rail Safety to the HSE, a body with no practical experience or understanding of Railway Operations was the daftest and most stupid of any decisions ever taken by Government and The Civil Service......something that admittedly is a long list anyway.
Unfortunately, the railways suffered many accidents and deaths as a consequence of the involvement of the HSE after privatisation, although many other aspects of Privatisation also played a part.
It is and was, of course, a heresy to suggest that the HSE should be criticised......although it did eventually dawn on sensible people within the railway industry and the unions.
The late Gwyneth Dunwoody MP spotted this, but even she had a hard sell to get Government to promote the changes that it eventually did.
Let's not forget that fool Jennifer Helen Bacon, Director General of the HSE, (1995 - 2000), and prior to that, Deputy Director General, (1992 - 1995), who in an attempt to burnish her own credentials, described Mark 1's as "...Garden Sheds on Wheels..."
With such simplistic, stupid and idiotic an understanding of railways, coaching stock and railway safety, we were all off to the races and Mark 1's were branded as villains in every way.
James Hennighan
Yorkshire, England
P.S.
Nothing finer than bowling along in a Mark 1 at 80 plus MPH......preferably behind steam.
Having said that I have travelled at 97 MPH behind an English Electric Type 4 on the East Coast Mainline.....
Now that's 'whistling' along....!
It seems like a crying shame that no one today has figured out to propose a Battery regen/accumulator brake tender to work with existing diesel electric locomotives...
That’s basically how the GE/Wabtec Flxdrive is being used, although it has a cab and can also be charged with a cable.
Is that tender smiling at us?
Can anyone explain the difference between the various classes of coaches such as c1,c2,c3. I'm 63 and still do not understand the difference
The C is a clearance code relating to the length of coach.
Mk1 and Mk2 coaches and multiple units such as 150s are C1 being 20m long
Mk3 and Mk4 coaches and multiple units such as 156s are C3 being 23m long.
C1 is based on Mk1 coaches
C3 on Mk3 coaches hence the numbers . There is no C2.
Are these the equivalent of a slug in North America
Not quite, as these don’t have traction motors, although road slugs with dynamic brakes do also increase braking power.
Excuse my ignorance...But aren't the carriages equipped with independent brakes that are activated simultaneously? In this case, by distributing the braking over the entire train and not just the locomotive, I don't see what use a wagon with a greater braking capacity could be...
At the time these were built most of our goods wagons had no independent brakes, just a lever operated hand brake. The steam locomotives had more brake force than the diesels had so these tenders increased the brake force to that of a steam hauled train of equal weight rather than running a shorter lighter train when diesel hauled . As more wagons with independent brakes were built the tenders were not needed. Today all vehicles must have an independent brake
So why did they stop using them?
Because, by the 1970s, enough freight stock was equipped with vacuum or air brakes, so they weren't needed any more.
America solved this sort of problem with dynamic braking at about the same time. We use slugs to solve a similar traction problem as well, with a very similar look.
No, dynamic brakes would be useless in the situation that brake tenders were designed for. The issue in the UK is that we had a lot of freight trains that had no brakes at all, except for the brake van (caboose) and the locomotive. With a heavy train, anything but the most gentle brake application would cause the locomotive to skid along the rails, pushed by the train behind it. The point of the brake tender is that it had brakes that operated in tandem with the locomotive, providing more overall braking force. Adding dynamic brakes to the locomotive wouldn't have helped. Dynamic brakes are a way of getting stronger brakes on the locomotive, but the locomotive brakes were already strong enough to lock the wheels and skid. Making the locomotive brakes stronger wouldn't have helped anything. They needed more braked axles on the train, instead.
This was less of an issue with steam locomotives, because they're heavier and have more axles, which means more friction between the rails and the wheels. And, eventually, the UK moved to fully fitted (i.e., fully braked) trains, so the brake tenders became redundant on revenue trains. They continued to be used on permanent way trains (maintenance of way, in North America) because, like everywhere, the track maintenance guys end up using rolling stock that's been retired from revenue service, so they still had some unfitted wagons in service long after they'd been retired from freight service.
I don't get it. Did anybody else around the world ever had the need for such brake waggons? Never saw or heard something about them anywhere?
Probably the rest of the world had already realised that putting brakes on the freight wagons is a good idea!
Well why didn t br take the locomotives and change there design to help them to be better at braking
The only way to make them better at braking would be to give them more weight and more wheels. Also, replacing hundreds of locomotives is _much_ more expensive than building 122 brake tenders. (You'd need to replace much more than 122 locomotives, because a brake tender requires very little maintenance, so it can be used essentially 24/7, whereas locomotives at that time typically required at least a day's maintenance for every two days' running.)
Hehe, imagine not having brakes on all your equipment, this post comes from the ICC ruling of 1890 for full application by 1900 of air brakes on all interchange cars.
i would love to see this as a Thomas the tank engine character 😆
You keep referring to British Rail but it was British Railways at that time. Mk1 carriages can by no means be described as infamous. Unfortunate errors in an otherwise reasonable account
From stalling
Tender
This is a typical British answer to a typical British problem with regards to their primitive freight train operations of loose coupled trains and non continuous braking, which Britain preserved with years after just about every other country moved onto far more modern practices,these primitive train operations would be the death of the British freight rail industry as it slowed train operations down to a crawl compared to the modern trucking industry.
Very interesting. By the way, it's Cow-lairs (equally stressed), not Collars.
Man, the British are really weird
I don't understand why they had brake tenders
Nice video. Like me.
When the govt are too tight to pay to fit wagons with brakes.
360p? Seriously?