BR 60's Train Classification and Speeds

[dimovski]

Hello everyone,

 

 

this is my 1st post on this forum, so please bear with me if I do something icredibly wrong! 

 

I'm interested in train speeds in Great Britian, mostly in the BR period of the 60's and 50's, although every bit of info about this after the 20's is very much appreciated.

 

I've already seen the wikipedia article on Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_reporting_number#Train_classes], but there are still some uncertainties for me here...

 

 

 

1)What was the highest scheduled speed of express trains/class 1s? Were these always allowed to operate at track speed, or?

 

2)What were the speed limits for "ordinary" passenger trains, class 3 trains and class 4 trains?

 

3)If class 4 or 5 trains had coal hoppers built before BR days added to them, was the train limited to 40mph? (I've read somewhere that BR placed a "blanket" speed limit of 40mph for all pre-BR freight rolling stock... Not quite sure if that's correct, however...)

 

 

Thanks for reading.

 

 

Regards,

 

dimovski

[FelixM]

1)What was the highest scheduled speed of express trains/class 1s? Were these always allowed to operate at track speed, or?

Bogie stock was rated at 100 mph, some BR built stock 110 mph. Others can provide more details I am sure. Generally line speeds applied as detailed in sectional appendices to working timetables.

 

2)What were the speed limits for "ordinary" passenger trains, class 3 trains and class 4 trains?

Class 3 trains mainly consisted of bogie stock so see above. Freight trains like class 4 trains had specific top speeds but the rules changed often during the 50s and 60s you mentioned so to be more specific we need more information on period, region etc.

 

3)If class 4 or 5 trains had coal hoppers built before BR days added to them, was the train limited to 40mph? (I've read somewhere that BR placed a "blanket" speed limit of 40mph for all pre-BR freight rolling stock... Not quite sure if that's correct, however...)

The max speed of short freight stock diminished over time as more and more restrictions to them applied. If I remember correctly the accident which caused the withdrawal of DP2 led to a speed restriction of short wheelbased 4 wheeled wagons, however there may have been other dates of rule amendment as well.

 

Train headcodes have not just been used for traffic control, they had a safety aspect as well. When block working was fully interrupted interval working was introduced as a fallback level. For this an indication of how long a train would need for a block section is necessary, this was done by the train headcode. As this rule was still in use in 1973 the first digit of the headcode boxes introduced from 1961 have been used for this. As the train class need to provide a speed information as exact as possible and as there have been major changes in the freight rolling stock in the 50s and 60s (condemnation of ex-POW and retrofitting of unbraked wagons during the 50s, introduction of air braked wagons in the mid-60s) there have been some changes to train classes in this period at least for the mentioned safety reason; the 1960 and 1962 train classification amendments spring to mind.

[Fat Controller]

My recollection was that the imposition of a 45mph restriction on 4-wheel stock with a wheelbase of 10' or less followed a spate of 'plain-line' derailments of freight trains travelling at the 60 mph maximum for fully-fitted freights. The derailments were attributed to a combination of track defects (notably 'Cyclic Top') and the short wheelbase of the wagons, which led to 'hunting', and eventually to the wagons coming off the track.

The wagons involved in the DP2 accident were 'Cemflo' cement tankers ( see http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/cemflo) which seem to have had suspension problems; various experiments were carried out to improve the ride, but the wagons carried a significant speed restriction to their eventual withdrawal.

When the little yellow panels with the matrix for weight and speed appeared in the late 1960s, I recollect them being as follows:-

9' and less (almost entirely minerals) 35 mph

10'                                                      45 mph (with exceptions including Twin-Bolsters and some Iron-Ore Hoppers, which were 35 mph)

12' and above                                     50 mph (this included BR and pre-BR hoppers and minerals and unfitted Plate wagons

15'                                                       60 mph (mainly fitted Plate wagons and their derivatives)

Bogie stock varied between 50 and 60 mph according to brakes, bogies and bearings.

I don't recollect differential speed restrictions on wagons due to their age, as in the example of hoppers, but according to wheelbase, suspension type, bearing type etc. 

[jonny777]

Hello everyone,

 

 

this is my 1st post on this forum, so please bear with me if I do something icredibly wrong! 

 

I'm interested in train speeds in Great Britian, mostly in the BR period of the 60's and 50's, although every bit of info about this after the 20's is very much appreciated.

 

I've already seen the wikipedia article on Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_reporting_number#Train_classes], but there are still some uncertainties for me here...

 

 

 

1)What was the highest scheduled speed of express trains/class 1s? Were these always allowed to operate at track speed, or?

 

 

 

Regards,

 

dimovski

 

 

The highest scheduled speed was somewhat different from the maximum speed, mainly because the schedules were done on a point to point basis.

 

I remember the fuss and competition between regions in the late 50s and early 60s over who ran the most services where scheduled speeds between two stopping points were over 60mph. The WR and ER were the most competitive in this sense as they slowly upgraded the speed limits on long straight sections of track.

 

I'm not sure if you were enquiring about scheduled speeds or just the maximum, but the schedules would take into account the acceleration and subsequent slowing to/from station stops. These would be based on the maximum line speeds in-between stations, but in steam days there were many other variables that could affect the maximum speeds, such as size/quality of coal, ability of the fireman and the experience of the driver; as well as wind speed/direction and the possible variations in train make-up.

 

So the schedules would not assume that the speed limits for any particular stretch of track could be maintained for miles on end without difficulty until high powered diesels came along. An average of 60mph from start to stop and over a many miles was considered to be an excellent performance well into the 1960s, especially with steam power.

[LMS2968]

The maximum speed of short wheelbase wagons eventually was reduced to 35 mph, I think.

 

The problem of derailment on straight track had complex causes, to which track and suspension defects contributed, along with the short wheelbase of the wagons. As the wagon moved along the track, there was always, and had always been, a tendency to 'hunt', i.e. one wheel would move outwards on the rail until the flange came into contact with the rail's inside face, which would send it back the other way until the other wheel flange contacted its running rail, and the process would start again. The shorter the wagon's wheelbase, the greater the angle it would assume relative to the track, thereby increasing the flange forces. Meanwhile, the other axle would be doing the same, but possibly in the opposite direction, i.e. 180 degrees out of phase, causing the wagon to oscillate its way along the track. The problem was what is called 'resonance': each cycle of these double movements was amplified until the contact between the flange and rail was insufficient to retain the wheel on the track, but the forces would cause the flange to climb the rail, run across the rail head and drop down on the wrong side.

 

Resonance happened when no other forces intervened to break the cycle, and from the begining of railway that intervention was rail joints. At each joint, another force would be fed into the wheelset and disturb the movement. It would immediately restart, but the action would be again destroyed by the next rail joint sixty feet further on. There was no opportunity for resonance to build up. The move to cwr though took away this input and allowed resonance to build up, leading ultimately to derailment

[Chris Turnbull]

It is worthwhile remembering that trains didn't always run at speeds laid down the rule books.  Here's an extract from Gerard Fiennes fine book "I tried to run a railway".  If you want to know how railways actually operated both this and "Fiennes on Rails" are both worth reading.

 

"At King’s Cross for the first time I inherited the Gresley middle big end and a failure on an express every day; often more than one.  I inherited also Driver W. Hoole.  Bill and I made a bad start.  In the first month or so we had two cases, one a bomb hoax, in which Bill had been badly away from King’s Cross and had made up 20 or 30 minutes to Doncaster.  I wondered whether Bill did it on purpose for the fun of going on the tear.  Then one morning I noticed in the Express Freight record a tiny sentence ‘2665 Grove Road W/c Talisman’.  Now 266 was our 3.15 p.m. Flying Freight to Scotland but she didn’t ever, couldn’t ever, shouldn’t ever run down the Talisman.  I found that this again was Driver Hoole.  He had been 23 minutes late from Kings Cross Goods after an argument with his injectors.  He then had the 3.40 Leeds express two minutes behind him and the Talisman with only eight coaches, 22 behind.  On 266 Down he had 47 wagons around 450 tons and the usual Pacific diagrammed to work back from Newcastle with the breakfast car train the next morning.  Bill set off and by the time he got to Hitchin, 30 miles out, the 3.40 was well astern.  He then squared his shoulders and ran the 27 miles to Huntingdon in 20 minutes dead, at an average speed of 75 miles an hour.  They stopped him there for a hot axlebox on a wagon, and no wonder.  Bill took his train gently into Peterborough, detached the wagon in Westwood Yard, and was up at the outlet signal whistling.  The signal remained at danger, not only while the 3.40 went by but also the Talisman.  Then the board came off and Bill opened the regulator.  The Talisman averages 80 miles an hour beyond Peterborough.  It took Bill nearly to Retford to run him down.  I began to have doubts about safety." 

 

Chris Turnbull

[LMS2968]

I doubt the fireman was particularly amused!

[Chris Turnbull]

I doubt the fireman was particularly amused!

 

And I don't suppose the guard had a comfortable ride either.

 

Chris Turnbull 

[TheSignalEngineer]

The Bill Hoole story reminded me of a Control Log meeting in the 1970s. The Euston to West Midlands newspaper train was maximum speed 80mph, as it carried packing staff. They had complained of rough riding the previous night. On investigation it transpired that it had been 20 late from Euston and 3 early at Coventry, beating the point to point time for expresses permitted 110mph.

[The Stationmaster]

I doubt the fireman was particularly amused!

I understand (from one of their number) that quite a lot of KX Fireman didn't like firing for Bill Hoole as he had something of a reputation for thrashing engines.  However on the other hand I understand that even in the late '50s/early '60s an A4 in top nick was not a difficult job for a Fireman in even the fastest timings particularly on the Down if they had the fire just right before leaving the Cross.

[Fat Controller]

I understand (from one of their number) that quite a lot of KX Fireman didn't like firing for Bill Hoole as he had something of a reputation for thrashing engines.  However on the other hand I understand that even in the late '50s/early '60s an A4 in top nick was not a difficult job for a Fireman in even the fastest timings particularly on the Down if they had the fire just right before leaving the Cross.

That would accord with something I heard from one of my (long-retired) drivers, who had worked out of Top Shed for a while.

[LMS2968]

I understand (from one of their number) that quite a lot of KX Fireman didn't like firing for Bill Hoole as he had something of a reputation for thrashing engines.  However on the other hand I understand that even in the late '50s/early '60s an A4 in top nick was not a difficult job for a Fireman in even the fastest timings particularly on the Down if they had the fire just right before leaving the Cross.

I'd heard that too, Mike, I just didn't like to say!

 

It's true about others, too.These hellfire drivers just had to sit in their seat and drop the lever down, it was the fireman who was the real hero. A mate of mine was the same, but fortunately on diesels and electrics. Thank God for OTMR when he graduated to pendelinos!

[Reorte]

The problem of derailment on straight track had complex causes, to which track and suspension defects contributed, along with the short wheelbase of the wagons. As the wagon moved along the track, there was always, and had always been, a tendency to 'hunt', i.e. one wheel would move outwards on the rail until the flange came into contact with the rail's inside face, which would send it back the other way until the other wheel flange contacted its running rail, and the process would start again. The shorter the wagon's wheelbase, the greater the angle it would assume relative to the track, thereby increasing the flange forces. Meanwhile, the other axle would be doing the same, but possibly in the opposite direction, i.e. 180 degrees out of phase, causing the wagon to oscillate its way along the track. The problem was what is called 'resonance': each cycle of these double movements was amplified until the contact between the flange and rail was insufficient to retain the wheel on the track, but the forces would cause the flange to climb the rail, run across the rail head and drop down on the wrong side.

I assume that this doesn't affect bogie vehicles in the same way (they seem to have the highest speed ratings), but I can't see how a pair of bogies aren't just two fairly short wheelbase vehicles coupled together by something large. Lack of weight of the bogie?

[clecklewyke]

The max speed of short freight stock diminished over time as more and more restrictions to them applied. If I remember correctly the accident which caused the withdrawal of DP2 led to a speed restriction of short wheelbased 4 wheeled wagons, however there may have been other dates of rule amendment as well.

 

 

 

I understand that most steam goods engines had no speedometer, so all this fine tweaking of goods train speeds was rather academic.

 

Ian

[cheesysmith]

The difference between 4 wheeled wagons and bogied stock is the fact that the oscillation of the axle builds up, with the mass of the wagon above moving with it until it derails. Bogied stock the oscillation in the bogies is damped out so the mass of the body doesn't contribute. The main problem with the old 4 wheel stock was the lack of lateral damping. Modern 4 wheeled stock has a allowance for lateral movement of the wheel set, but this movement will be controlled with dampers/springs.

 

Also, the longer the wheelbase of the bogie or 4 wheel stock, the more stable it is at speed.

 

Edited to add- the HSFV ( high speed freight vehicle) developed by the RTC was run at 100mph on the main line and 125mph on the rolling road and was perfectly stable. The pacers use the same 4 wheeled chassis as the HSFV and run perfectly stable at speeds above what the old freight trains ran at.

[Reorte]

 

I understand that most steam goods engines had no speedometer, so all this fine tweaking of goods train speeds was rather academic.

Could be that an experienced driver would be able to have a reasonable estimate of his speed without a speedometer. I may be wrong but I get the feeling that exact compliance to the very letter wasn't anywhere near as expected in the past as it is now too.

[LMS2968]

Could be that an experienced driver would be able to have a reasonable estimate of his speed without a speedometer. I may be wrong but I get the feeling that exact compliance to the very letter wasn't anywhere near as expected in the past as it is now too.

There were ways of judging speed. In those days: it was nearly always jointed track, so the rate of the wheels passing over these was a guide. So too was the rate at which telegraph poles went past.

 

Most men could make a pretty accurate estimate of what speed they were doing; after all, they did have a schedule to maintain. Alas, though, not all.

[The Stationmaster]

There were ways of judging speed. In those days: it was nearly always jointed track, so the rate of the wheels passing over these was a guide. So too was the rate at which telegraph poles went past.

 

Most men could make a pretty accurate estimate of what speed they were doing; after all, they did have a schedule to maintain. Alas, though, not all.

Judging by the various statistics - which admittedly look at things from a rather different angle - freight trains seem to have generally had no problem running at the appropriate timings, which effectively meant roughly the correct speeds.  And for precisely the reasons set out in the post above.  and let's not forget exactly the same situation applied to a very large number (at one time all) passenger trains as well.

 

Now there clearly were occasional problems in the steam age with freights running too fast although the far bigger problems related to shunting errors and bad braking practice on falling gradients.  The crop of 'high speed' plain line derailments of short wheelbase wagons really came about during the diesel age - on trains worked by loco with speedometers.

[Chris Turnbull]

Now there clearly were occasional problems in the steam age with freights running too fast although the far bigger problems related to shunting errors and bad braking practice on falling gradients. 

 

On a trip round Springburn works a few years ago (then Railcare, I think) we were told that the majority of repair work was due to low-speed bumps in loco depots and the like.

 

Chris Turnbull

[BigAndy]

Footplate men of yesteryear were indeed a special breed. It amazes me to read books such as the H.Gasson series ( he was a Western region fireman and then a Signalman ) about how trains were run pre and post WW2.

 

Old school Drivers did not have the luxury of a speedometer fitted to Steam engines back then, yet because of their immense skill in handling their engines plus intimate knowledge of the road, they could keep time! This was a skill borne over many years of footplate work, from grafting day after day as a fireman before they even got to move over the footplate to the driver's side - many years of an apprenticeship if you like.

All that has gone out of the window nowadays.

 

I was only reading last night, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation's report into the 1955 Crash of a Brittania hauling an excursion train from Treherbert to Paddington at Milton near Didcot. Basically, the Driver forgot that there was a Speed restriction of 10mph from the Main Line into the Milton loop due to Engineering and came tearing into the crossover at line speed. Only at the last few moments did he realise the mistake and made an emergency brake application, but even then the loco and train left the rails at about 50mph, ending up at the bottom of the embankment - 11 people lost their lives that day.

 

What astonished me was the the Britannia class Loco was built without a Speedometer fitted, even in the early 1950's - as indeed were the vast majority of Steam locos. In fact the Inspectorate made a strong reccomendation that ALL Locomotives built pre 1952, be fitted with Speedometers as a result of this horrendous derailment. It was only after 1952, that locos were built with Speedometers as per the British Transport Commission's policy.

Ok, this was Driver error and in fact it was noted that the previous speed slacks had been adhered to perfectly - he just forgot that this one was in force.

 

It's interesting to note though, that although Speed restriction signs were in place all over the BR network back then, Driver's could by and large, guess their speed to within a few mph either way - again, the years of footplate training making this possible.

 

With regard to the OP's question, this is far from my 'field' and the only limited knowledge I have of it is gleaned from books of the period, but it would appear to me that even though main line speed limits were in existance, many trains ( except the top link expresses ) couldn't get anywhere near these limits anyhow - so it didn't really matter that speedometers were not fitted to locos.

 

The other thing to note, is that there was a restriction placed  - as far as I know - on how fast trains could run during the second World War, but someone with much better knowledge than I would be better placed to state exactly what these restrictions were.

 

cheers

 

Andy

[Fat Controller]

Judging by the various statistics - which admittedly look at things from a rather different angle - freight trains seem to have generally had no problem running at the appropriate timings, which effectively meant roughly the correct speeds.  And for precisely the reasons set out in the post above.  and let's not forget exactly the same situation applied to a very large number (at one time all) passenger trains as well.

 

Now there clearly were occasional problems in the steam age with freights running too fast although the far bigger problems related to shunting errors and bad braking practice on falling gradients.  The crop of 'high speed' plain line derailments of short wheelbase wagons really came about during the diesel age - on trains worked by loco with speedometers.

The spate of 'plain-line' derailments seemed to coincide with the widespread use of long/continuously-welded rail, with some types of wagon being more prone to it than others; the most notorious being the Diagram 1/211 12t Palvan. These were implicated in so many incidents that they were initially limited to a low maximum speed (was it 25 or 35 mph?) which limited their usefulness, then relegated to internal users. Curiously, their closely related brethren, the Vanwide and Palvan Shock, didn't suffer in the same way. All sorts of explanations were put forward, such as uneven loading, were put forward, but no conclusive reason was found. Mostly likely, it was a combination of factors, acting together, that made these wagons such a singular failure- I believe this is sometimes called the 'Swiss Cheese' effect.

I believe that wartime 'expresses' were limited to 60 mph; this wasn't derailment-related, but for reasons of fuel-economy, and possibly pathing; the narrower the spread of maximum speeds, the more capacity you can squeeze out of a given route.

[LMS2968]

 

I believe that wartime 'expresses' were limited to 60 mph; this wasn't derailment-related, but for reasons of fuel-economy, and possibly pathing; the narrower the spread of maximum speeds, the more capacity you can squeeze out of a given route.

From memory (of what I've read, I wasn't there at the time!), I think the speed limit was initially 45mph, but it was soon realised that this was totally unrealistic to cope with the increased demand, so went up to 60mph for the duration and, in fact, quite a while afterwards.

[AberdeenBill]

Hi all,

 

This accident report: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=829  has some interesting information.

 

Bill

[Fat Controller]

Curiously, some of the incidents did not involve SWB vehicles, most notably that with the ferry vans at Sittingbourne, and with the six-wheel milk tanks at Chipping Sodbury. This remark caught my eye as well:-

The initial derailment followed the characteristic pattern of previous derailments involving short wheelbased wagons, occurring on plain track where there were minor irregularities within the permitted tolerances and a subsequent examination of the wagon revealed no serious faults which could in themselves have caused a derailment, though there were indications that it might have had a tendency to oscillate laterally."

It echoes some comments made recently about derailments in recent years, most usually involving bogie container wagons of various types.