Talk:Brake van

USA
See Talk:Caboose. Biscuittin (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

UK-centric?
This article is completely UK centric! Why isn't there a big section on the caboose - you go to the caboose article and there's all sorts of crap about the whatever this car is called again and then a big crappy talk section diatribe about how that article is so U.S. centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "How to win friends and influence people"
 * The article is intentionally UK-centric since there are many differences between the design and operation of (US) cabooses vs (UK) brake vans, and it is far simpler to describe them separately.
 * Your contribution to the effort of improving the articles is anticipated.
 * EdJogg (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See below - this part of the discussion is picked up in the 'Massive Duplication' section below
 * Jpmaytum (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Detail of Article
Some details in the UK section may be misleading, "Whilst most brake vans had two axles with four wheels, many railway companies built brake vans with three axles and six wheels. The Great Northern Railway built a few eight-wheelers for very heavy coal trains, the only rigid eight-wheeler vehicles built in the UK.". Other companies including the GWR and Metropolitan built rigid eight-wheeled passenger coaches; the Wikipedia article Coaches of the Great Western Railway mentions the GWR coaches, while there are a few references to Metropolitan coaches online. 46.208.70.247 (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to a drawing: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/4-rstock/04arstock7.htm
 * Of course they weren't the only 8 wheelers. However the coaches had their axles arranged in two pairs, close to the ends. The GNR brakes were, I think, the only rigid 8 wheelers with equally spaced axles. As the axles were so closely spaced, it didn't affect their minimum curve radius much, compared to a 6 wheeler (Most long 6 wheeler coaches were using Cleminson articulation too).  There might have been some 8 wheeler steel plate trucks or exceptional heavy load wagons (Totems or Pollens etc.), but all I can think of were 6 wheeled as rigid units, then articulated beyond that.
 * It's worth noting why the GNR used four axles. It wasn't to increase the wheels or the weight (it was still only a 20 ton brake van), it was to increase the number of brake blocks. Each axle was braked (so twice as many as usual) and the brakes were also two-shoe clasp brakes, not the usual wagon brakes. This gave four times as many brake blocks and four times as much heat dissipation as a conventional design. It didn't have any more braking effort than usual (still just 20 tons), but it could slow a heavy coal train down a long hill with less risk of overheating.
 * If you want to clarify the text, then go for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ballast - only concrete?
Article now states use of concrete as ballast (to increase the braking force). Wasn't scrap iron used by some companies instead? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both were used. Some Southern(?) brake vans started WW2 with cast iron ballast and had it removed and replaced with concrete as part of one of those "Great Leap Forwards" scrap drives. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the confirmation. Have added cast iron to article. I had always imagined 'scrap iron' ballast as a pile of bits of mangled, rusty steel, but a properly shaped cast lump sounds much more plausible! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very cheap to sand cast cast iron from scrap (which might include some steel) and produce something that's a good ballast weight (often with convenient locating holes and carry handles). It's far more difficult to make something that has a well-behaved and trustworthy metallurgy. So cast iron is a favoured material for low-cost ballast weights (and weightlifting weights), but you'll get a shock if you then try to turn one up into a flywheel! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Their use today
saying that they are required for "track maintenance trains," is rather vague and not really true, this needs editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brake van. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125000554/http://kesr.org.uk/stock-register/wagons/119-104.html to http://kesr.org.uk/stock-register/wagons/119-104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Massive duplication
Nearly the entire section at Country overview - Great Britain is a duplicate of British railway brake van, or vice-versa. Seems wrong to me to have one-third of this article duplicating one-half of the other. Shenme (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worth moving most of the Country Overview (Great Britain) section to the British railway brake van page - removing the duplication between the two pages and making this page less UK centric. Jpmaytum (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)