Brake Vehicles on Horsebox Specials

[ten0G]

 

Having taken some time to study the picture on the Farish 370-185 'A Day at the Races' set box,  I've started to wonder what type of brake van or coach would be used at the end of the consist portrayed, and whether the inclusion of passenger coaches in the train would have any bearing on the matter. 

In my case, I'd be concerned with BR(WR) practice, but it may be useful information for other region's modellers.

[martyn]

A hunt special in 1957 on the Eye branch (Suffolk) consisted of a D16/3, ten horse boxes and two brake seconds. However, I think by then such a long train was very rare.
Most photos I have are a single box coupled next to the engine of a branch or cross country 'stopper'; but I suspect that if a longer dedicated train was run, it would have a brake second for the guard and any personnel associated with the horses being conveyed.
A large number of horsebox specials were run in the period up to WW2, but after the war, the practice seems to have fairly quickly become another victim of road transport.
Martyn

[Karhedron]

Brake 2nds seem common vehicles as they provided accommodation for the guard as well as other personnel. Here are some example formations.

[Dorsetmike]

Presumably horse boxes being passenger rated would be vacuum or Westinghouse braked so technically would only need some form of passenger brake vehicle for the guard, the horse boxes had acomodation for grooms. Interestingly in the days of cavalry troops, only the officers horses travelled in horse boxes, the other ranks horses went in cattle trucks.

[port perran]

Interesting.
I've usually run horse box trains with a brake van at the rear. Looks like a brake 2nd might be more realistic.

[martyn]

As an aside, I think that in LNER days, a passenger bogie van was used (not necessarily as the last vehicle) on the fast fish trains, especially those on the ECML which ran at high speed. It was to give a better ride quality to the guard-this wouldn't apply to horsebox specials!

Another point; were the horseboxes coupled next to the loco, and the brake at the rear? Or vice versa? Karhedron's photos seem to show both variations.

Martyn

[Karhedron]

Another point; were the horseboxes coupled next to the loco, and the brake at the rear? Or vice versa? Karhedron's photos seem to show both variations.

Since all vehicles were continuously braked, it probably would not make much difference. Milk trains were the same, you often saw the BG midway through the rake depending on where the tankers were being collected.

The rules about putting brake vans at the rear only applied when part of the train was not continuously braked IIRC.

[martyn]

Another point; were the horseboxes coupled next to the loco, and the brake at the rear? Or vice versa? Karhedron's photos seem to show both variations.

Since all vehicles were continuously braked, it probably would not make much difference. Milk trains were the same, you often saw the BG midway through the rake depending on where the tankers were being collected.

The rules about putting brake vans at the rear only applied when part of the train was not continuously braked IIRC.

Hi Karhedron;
I was just vaguely remembering that a BR working rule was that vehicles carrying livestock had to be marshalled next to the engine-or is that wrong? Was that only applicable in partially fitted freight trains?
Obviously, it would not apply to milk or other fully fitted trains-eg, it was common for the guard's accommodation in a parcels train to not be at the rear. It was the livestock part I was interested in.
Martyn

[Carmont]

Another point; were the horseboxes coupled next to the loco, and the brake at the rear? Or vice versa? Karhedron's photos seem to show both variations.

Since all vehicles were continuously braked, it probably would not make much difference. Milk trains were the same, you often saw the BG midway through the rake depending on where the tankers were being collected.

The rules about putting brake vans at the rear only applied when part of the train was not continuously braked IIRC.

Hi Karhedron;
I was just vaguely remembering that a BR working rule was that vehicles carrying livestock had to be marshalled next to the engine-or is that wrong? Was that only applicable in partially fitted freight trains?
Obviously, it would not apply to milk or other fully fitted trains-eg, it was common for the guard's accommodation in a parcels train to not be at the rear. It was the livestock part I was interested in.
Martyn

I have seen that as well, livestock next to the engine. Ostensibly it was for the comfort of the animals, there being less 'jolting' adjacent the locomotive. Lord knows how the poor beasts got on with the whistle and industrial noise from a steam locomotive, however....

[PLD]

On a dedicated 'Horse' train, in theory any passenger rated brake vehicle would be acceptable. LMS seems to have commonly use Full brakes usually on the rear. there were plenty of variations however. for example one of the more interesting I've seen is a photo of a train of around a dozen horse boxes with a 6-wheel Stove-R on each end.

In a mixed Freight, a Horse Box MUST be in the fitted head with the brakes connected, and immediately behind the loco is most common (for the comfort of the animals as above).

When attached to a passenger train, a Horse box could be on either end of the passenger stock (but would not in between passenger vehicles) usually whichever was most convenient for shunting at the destination.

[martyn]

Thanks, Paul.
You have confirmed what I had thought, but couldn't find reference to, about the position of livestock vehicles in trains, both passenger and freight.
Martyn

[port perran]

I've been running a few trains this morning including a horsebox special :

Seen passing through Port Perran station. In view of this thread I've added a passenger brake (carrying jockeys and grooms in comfornt no doubt).
I don't usually go for B&W but think this looks OK.

[ten0G]

Brake 2nds seem common vehicles as they provided accommodation for the guard as well as other personnel.

Thank you.  Am I correct in thinking that a Mk1 horsebox had accommodation for the groom as well as up to three horses?  I don't know if pre-Mk1 types had the equivalent facilities though. 

I wonder what other personnel would have been travelling with the horses, so a BSK seems to only have been justified on very long trains. 

[Cooper]

Don't forget the needs of the Guard. I'd guess most if not all Horseboxes were at least through piped for steam heat, but if not, then the Guards accommodation if a Brake Second would need to be next to the loco for the steam heat. Stove R vehicles were more flexible, like a passenger rated Brake Van, and with their own stove not dependant on the steam heat pipe for keeping the Guard warm. (Hence their use in parcels trains along with long wheelbase Goods Brake vans, where a non steam heat through piped vehicle would often turn up).

[ten0G]

Presumably horse boxes being passenger rated would be vacuum or Westinghouse braked so technically would only need some form of passenger brake vehicle for the guard, the horse boxes had acomodation for grooms. Interestingly in the days of cavalry troops, only the officers horses travelled in horse boxes, the other ranks horses went in cattle trucks.

Presumably this would have been most likely on troop trains, with 1st class for officers and 3rd class for the men.  But I wonder if the horses in cattle trucks were accompanied or not.