Light railway working

[HonestTom]

Hi all,

 

At the moment, I'm building a micro-layout inspired by various light railways and tramways in the UK, particularly the Wantage Tramway. The setting is pre-grouping, but I'm fairly non-specific as to exactly when. I have a couple of questions vis-a-vis the rules of light railway working, which online research has failed to answer.

 

1. I recall reading in a magazine article, many years ago, that 0-4-0s weren't allowed to pull passenger trains. Yet I can think of many examples in real life where they did - the Wantage Tramway, the Wisbech and Upwell, more narrow gauge and industrial lines than I can count. Was the article incorrect, or were there particular circumstances under which it was fine?

 

2. I understand that brake vans are a must on any unfitted steam era goods train, yet the Wantage Tramway seems to have got away with no brake vans whatsoever. Was this a light railway thing, a tramway thing, or was there some specific rule for the WT?

 

Many thanks in advance.

[Nearholmer]

You've hit an interesting inspiration, because the WT wasn't a LR, it was a tramway.

 

The legislation and formally accepted practices for LRs are fairly simple to trace, and there is another thread on here somewhere where I gave a rundown on that topic, which many people think started with the 1896 LR Act, but which actually does back earlier.

 

Tramway legislation is, by comparison, dreadfully complicated, the text book on the topic being about 600 pages long, and it evolved progressively, with the WT opening fairly early in that evolution, before the legislation had caught-up with the idea of mechanical, rather than horse, traction.

 

In esssence though, a street tramway, or something not on the street, but built in accordance with that legislation, can be distinguished by (1) 'line of sight' driving, which is to say no block sections, no signals, and the driver keeping a lookout and stopping if he or she sees an obstruction, and (2) strict speed limitation, so that 'line of sight' can work safely. A street tramway was not bound by the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act, which a Light Railway was, which is why a tramway didn't need continuous brakes or a brake van at the back of goods trains ....... a tight speed limit and other provisions dealt with safety. (And, at least one LR had a 'get out clause' regarding brake vans).

 

0-4-0T locos were not, so far as I know, totally banned from passenger use on any railway, although they were frowned upon for use at any substantial speed, and they were completely ordinary on street tramways, largely because such lines often had very tight curves.

 

Does that help, or simply add further confusion?

 

Kevin

 

PS: you can start your light reading here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramways_Act

Edited May 4, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

This is a useful thread about light railways, as opposed to street tramways http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/132712-common-features-of-colonel-stephens-light-railways/

[HonestTom]

That is extremely helpful, many thanks. The backstory of my imaginary railway has it being upgraded from an early 19th century horse tramway (something like the Surrey Iron Railway), and the way I envision it being operated is more-or-less in line with the conditions you describe above re line-of-sight driving. Basically it looks like I can pretty much copy the Wantage Tramway's way of doing things without much fear of inaccuracy. I'm not a rivet counter by any means, but I like my layouts to be reasonably plausible.

[Nearholmer]

The Oystermouth Railway might be one to look at. That was a rare example of your scenario. That predated all I f the relevant legislation!

Edited May 4, 2018 by Nearholmer

[eastglosmog]

Not exactly definitive, but if 0-4-0's were banned from pulling passenger coaches, the Titfield Thunderbolt would never have got its Light Railway Order!

[brack]

North Sunderland used Y7s and an Armstrong whitworth diesel in latter years, trialled a pug near the end.

Having said that I wouldn't use anything they did as a reliable indicator of what the rules were...

[jim.snowdon]

Not exactly definitive, but if 0-4-0's were banned from pulling passenger coaches, the Titfield Thunderbolt would never have got its Light Railway Order!

Except that the Titfield Thunderbolt, aka. Lion, is an 0-4-2, thereby complying with the Railway Inspectorate's edict that locomotives on passenger trains should be six wheeled (or in practice, have at least six wheels).

 

Jim

[Nearholmer]

Jim

 

How was that edict issued, and when? And, what status did it have?

 

[EDIT: Found it! It’s a recommendation, not a firm requirement, in the 1892 editionof the BoT ‘requirements and recommendations’, and it talks about engines of ‘steady character’, which I would have thought was more relevant to their drivers!]

 

There were certainly examples of SG 0-4-0T in passenger services of ‘proper’ railways until ‘quite late’, by which I mean the turn of the C19th/20th, plus the odd LR example in ‘classic’ times, and endless LR examples in preservation.

 

The LSWR buikt four-wheeled passenger locos in the C20th, I’m pretty sure, in the form of the S14 tanks.

 

I’ve never been able to find it written down (I can’t say I’ve searched particularly hard), although I can completely understand that it would be a strong recommendation, and that other restrictions would apply where it wasn’t adhered to.

 

Kevin

Edited May 4, 2018 by Nearholmer

[johnarcher]

The lack of brake vans wasn't unique to Wantage (or tramways), according to the Tonks book the Shropshire and Montgomeryshire didn't use them either, just hung a disc lettered, IIRC, 'LV' (last vehicle) on the rearmost buffer.

[108]

The Loughrea branch in Galway was worked for a while by G Class 0-4-0 diesels on passenger services into the 1970's.

[chris p bacon]

If it was frowned upon for 0-4-0's to pull passenger trains then the Sandy & Potton was stuffed,  Luckily it was a tramway.

 

By co-incidence I have just finished 'Shannon' which started its days on the Sandy & Potton in 1855 and ended as Wantage Tramway no 5 'Jane'

 

In OO she really does rock n roll about as she moves.

 

[009 micro modeller]

In esssence though, a street tramway, or something not on the street, but built in accordance with that legislation, can be distinguished by (1) 'line of sight' driving, which is to say no block sections, no signals, and the driver keeping a lookout and stopping if he or she sees an obstruction, and (2) strict speed limitation, so that 'line of sight' can work safely. A street tramway was not bound by the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act, which a Light Railway was, which is why a tramway didn't need continuous brakes or a brake van at the back of goods trains ....... a tight speed limit and other provisions dealt with safety. (And, at least one LR had a 'get out clause' regarding brake vans).

 

 

Doesn't Snowdon Mountain Railway use line of sight to operate trains in pairs at busy times? (And of course with a mixture of 0-4-2 steam and 0-4-0 diesel locos).

[Nearholmer]

I think it does.

 

Goodness only knows how it’s regulated currently, but originally it was built on private ground, without an act, and didn’t require BoT permission to open, which could be why it suffered a nasty accident on inception; HM Railway Inspectors were nd are a smart bunch, and might have spotted the design and construction flaws.

 

Given the speeds, and the multiplicity of fail-safe braking systems that it has, I can’t imagine there’s any risk of collisions.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

I think it does.

 

Goodness only knows how it’s regulated currently, but originally it was built on private ground, without an act, and didn’t require BoT permission to open, which could be why it suffered a nasty accident on inception; HM Railway Inspectors were nd are a smart bunch, and might have spotted the design and construction flaws.

 

Given the speeds, and the multiplicity of fail-safe braking systems that it has, I can’t imagine there’s any risk of collisions.

 

It would now be covered by the provisions of ROGS (Rail and Other Guided Systems legislation).

[009 micro modeller]

I think they have radios and speed restrictions now but it seems odd that line of sight is used on a rack line with comparatively high risks but not on other more conventional lines.

[Nearholmer]

But, as I said, the risk of collision must be vanishingly small, given that the trains creep along, and can ‘stop on a sixpence’. The trains are trapped to the track by the gripper system too.

[wagonman]

Jim

 

How was that edict issued, and when? And, what status did it have?

 

[EDIT: Found it! It’s a recommendation, not a firm requirement, in the 1892 editionof the BoT ‘requirements and recommendations’, and it talks about engines of ‘steady character’, which I would have thought was more relevant to their drivers!]

 

There were certainly examples of SG 0-4-0T in passenger services of ‘proper’ railways until ‘quite late’, by which I mean the turn of the C19th/20th, plus the odd LR example in ‘classic’ times, and endless LR examples in preservation.

 

The LSWR buikt four-wheeled passenger locos in the C20th, I’m pretty sure, in the form of the S14 tanks.

 

I’ve never been able to find it written down (I can’t say I’ve searched particularly hard), although I can completely understand that it would be a strong recommendation, and that other restrictions would apply where it wasn’t adhered to.

 

Kevin

 

 

The Kerry Donkey locos at least had large-ish wheels and a relatively long wheelbase – so might have qualified as "steady" locos, not that speeds were ever likely to be a source of concern.

[dibber25]

I think it's Getty Images which has two or three good photos of the Wantage Tramway, with Shannon in disgrace, across the road at an alarming angle, derailed all wheels. (CJL)

Edited May 6, 2018 by dibber25

[John_Hughes]

I think they have radios and speed restrictions now but it seems odd that line of sight is used on a rack line with comparatively high risks but not on other more conventional lines.

 

This is done on some rack lines in Switzerland, too, and since that's where the original Abt equipment came from it's hardly surprising that the operating practices were derived from the same place.

 

And didn't Abt engineers work on the Snowdon line as well? I'd be surprised if they were less expert than the Railway Inspectorate at testing a rack line, given that they had ample experience of them and the Inspectorate had none at all.

[brack]

The risks on a rack line come from the weather and gradient, not speed or stopping distances. Most rack systems have at least 3 independent braking systems, with all vehicles having a rack brake with ratchet to prevent runaways, locos use the cylinders for braking, and there's usually an overspend brake in case they go too fast. The average speed on a pure rack line is probably only 5mph, and they can stop pretty much instantly. The usual rules don't apply because the situation is so different - on quite a few rack lines there were no couplings.

[The Johnster]

An Abt rack system is very safe indeed, and it is harder to get the trains to move than to get them to stop.  The Snowdon has, however, lost a loco over the edge while the system was being trialled before opening; this engine may have been a contender for world steam loco speed record unless you stipulate that it has to be on the rails.  It did not survive the experience.  The Snowdon has operated with great safety since then and despite visibility issues in bad weather manages perfectly well with 'line of sight'.  The coaches are not coupled to the locos.

[Nearholmer]

It was on the opening day, rather than during trials, and it was that the led me to suggest that HMRI might have spotted the flaw, which was that stones trapped in the rack, could cause derailment with evil consequences. They fitted gripper rails, to trap the trains to the track, after that.

[Guy Rixon]

The LSWR buikt four-wheeled passenger locos in the C20th, I’m pretty sure, in the form of the S14 tanks.

 

Yes, but IIRC these worked the street tramway at Southampton (between Terminus and Town Quay/Royal Pier), so (a) tramway conventions ruled and (b) they never moved much faster than walking pace.

[Nearholmer]

They were built for light passenger service, and operated some odd little shuttles in west London for a while, until it became apparent that they weren’t a good thing.

 

It was all part of the rail motor period, when railways we’re trying by to find cheaper ways of operating lightly used services. Some of the gate stock was originally built to operate with them.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Nearholmer