Jump to content
 

GWR short and mixed trains (was: "4-wheeler and Toad")


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Long shot, this, but on RMweb there is always hope!

 

A while back I saw two photos of a GWR branchline station in front of which was seen a somewhat unusual train, which consisted simply of a tank loco (850 or 517, I think), a 4-wheeler and a Toad brakevan!

 

However I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw the photos. Spent an hour last night trawling through my books and mags, but no luck. Can't remember what line it was either. It could be the Hemyock branch as I believe this was served by a single 4-wheeler at one time, but that is just guessing.

 

I thought that perhaps the unusual combination of a 4-wheeler and a Toad might trigger someone's memory of where these photos can be found, or what line it might be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Long shot, this, but on RMweb there is always hope!

 

A while back I saw two photos of a GWR branchline station in front of which was seen a somewhat unusual train, which consisted simply of a tank loco (850 or 517, I think), a 4-wheeler and a Toad brakevan!

 

....... It could be the Hemyock branch as I believe this was served by a single 4-wheeler at one time, but that is just guessing.....

 

It sounds like Hemyock, or at least typical of the branch. Although my books, show a 57ft coach a couple of wagons and a Brake. That's not to say it didn't happen, if freight was light that day - maybe!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mikkel,

I suspect it could be any one of several branches where mixed trains were used. Perhaps there was no freight that day or the train was just setting out and would pick up wagons on the route. The only only example I know well is the Camerton branch where, before the 1910 extension to Limpley Stoke and the introduction of 517+autocoach services, mixed trains were normal. Passengers between Hallatrow and Camerton were catered for by a single four wheeler (a U25 T49 or similar) at the front of a train of mostly coal wagons. The engines used were saddle tanks such as the 1854 and 2721 classes and, perhaps, Buffalos. There are some photos showing such trains at Camerton, and one showing the coach at the rear of the train.

Much later, part of the extended line became known as the Titfield to Mallingford Railway and there are many photos of 1401 with a single coach and toad... :O

Nick

ps: for the Culm Valley line there's an interesting series of photos including one of a 14XX, single coach (though not 4-wheel) and toad on this page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be thinking of the 'Kerry Donkey'.2021 class saddle tank No 2075 + 4wheel 5 compt 3rd + outside framed brake van 12022 at Abermule.In CC Greens Cambrian Railways album vol 2 pg 64.I recall seeing the picture in other books too.This was the ex Cambrian Railways Kerry branch.Abermule was the main line junction.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks very much Neal, Nick and Jamie.

 

The missing photos annoyed me so much that last night I took all my books out from the shelf to go through them one by one. And guess what I found hiding at the back: The little "GW branchlines: A pictorial survey" by C.W. Judge, featuring the photos in question! On pages 69 and 70 there are a couple of photos from the Presteign branch, but embarrasingly there are two 4-wheelers and a Toad, not one. Sorry :unsure:. One photo dated c1906 shows a 517 followed by a Toad, a 4-wheel compo with deep eaves panels and a brake compo. Another from 1910 shows the same set-up but with an 0-6-0ST, so it seems to have been a regular formation on that line. The fact that the Toad is next to the loco rather than at the end surprises me a bit, but I suppose the intension is to "top and tail" the train with brake vans. A third photo from 1914 shows a 1701 0-6-0ST without the Toad but with what I think is a 4-wheel compo and a 4 wheel van third - and nothing more.

 

In any event, I am glad I posted this topic, as your answers are very interesting to me. I'm currently putting together a little list of prototypical examples of (very) short trains on the GWR, in order to justify some similar trains on Farthing. So many thanks for your input!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

John,

 

Was it really a mixed train, or a autocoach with tail traffic? The latter appears to have been quite common but I don't recall seeing the former.

Nick

I noticed that hint Nick ;)

In the 1947 timetable (the first to hand) the 06.35 Bourne End to Marlow (Not Advertised) was 'Auto Mixed' and the 09.40 Marlow to Bourne End (Suspended) was also 'Auto Mixed'. Not that such information will answer your question of course because that depends entirely on what vehicles were on the train with the simple clue being the presence (= Mixed) or otherwise (= tail traffic) of a freight brake van.

 

There were a number of instances in the timetables of Auto trains shown as 'Mixed' but how many actually ran in that state must have been a very different situation judging by published photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you stepped in before someone asked what the difference was, Mike :)

Two quick (hopefully) questions.

Did tail traffic have to be vacuum fitted?

In a mixed train, were the coaches meant to be marshalled behind the engine? I thought they were but have seen at least one example from around 1910 where the single coach was at the back, behind the toad. The timetable shows a different number of passenger services in each direction, so its possible that this was a positioning move not intended to carry passengers.

 

Also, when I said I hadn't seen an autocoach in a mixed train, I should have added 'on the GWR'. The Wells branch push-pull service on the S&DJR often ran as a mixed train.

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

Was it really a mixed train, or a autocoach with tail traffic? The latter appears to have been quite common but I don't recall seeing the former.

 

Nick

 

 

Nick I used the word mixed in the context of passenger and goods stock (as per the caption) not in the context of mixed freight. I guess its the latter

 

http://www.mdrs.org.uk/wycmaidmarlow.htm link to the photo

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

Mike will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but the photo of 1411 with autocoach and wagons is a mixed train with the goods brake out of shot. The parcels train above behind 5755 appears to have a van at the rear so, presumably, that counts as tail traffic.

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

John,

Mike will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but the photo of 1411 with autocoach and wagons is a mixed train with the goods brake out of shot. The parcels train above behind 5755 appears to have a van at the rear so, presumably, that counts as tail traffic.

Nick

Now that is an interesting one. I don't have a WTT for that year but in 1947 the 3.30pm from Marlow (effectively the same train I would think) was shown as a 'Freight', shame we can't see the lamps on the loco (if there are any!!). So what we have in the pic of 1411 is quite likely a freight train which happens to be conveying the branch auto-trailer (because the working was off a passenger and probably formed a passenger train after detaching the wagons at Bourne End. On the other hand by 1954 it might have become a Mixed Train in the WTT. However the apparent lack of lamps suggests to me that it might possibly be a bit of local initiative (although it could be laziness) and it's a freight train conveying passengers (which it shouldn't of course - but what happened on that branch was sometimes a law only unto those who were local).

 

The train headed by 5755 is a Parcels Train and is carrying the appropriate headlamps for that Class of train so the vans - all of them - are part of the load hence the van at the rear is not tail traffic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm glad you stepped in before someone asked what the difference was, Mike :)

Two quick (hopefully) questions.

Did tail traffic have to be vacuum fitted?

Yes, consistently (or Westinghouse fitted where appropriate of course).

Plus sundry other things regarding wheelbase and axleboxes which varied over the years and at times also depended on other things such as the Class of the passenger train and the distance it ran between stops. These can to some extent be categorised into periods of time but there were also Company differences which blurred strict time boundaries. Basically things were gradually tightened up over the years restricting the vehicles which could run as tail traffic and the trains on which they could run. (And that's one reason why my notes are in a queue behind other jobs as I want to try and make them comprehensive and comprehensible and there are lots of things to check in order to cover the whole 20th century - if I can manage that!).

In a mixed train, were the coaches meant to be marshalled behind the engine? I thought they were but have seen at least one example from around 1910 where the single coach was at the back, behind the toad. The timetable shows a different number of passenger services in each direction, so its possible that this was a positioning move not intended to carry passengers.

The normal Board of Trade/Ministry of Transport requirement for Mixed Trains was that the coaches should be marshalled immediately behind the engine. If the coaches were not immediately behind the engine that put the Railway in breach of the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act in regard to its requirement for a continuous brake on passenger trains. But I too have seen pictures purporting to show the passenger vehicle marshalled at the rear of a Mixed Train and some people have written of such instances. It is possible that in some cases special exemptions were granted for sound operational reasons but that is all I can think of apart from deliberate breaches of the Regulations.

Also, when I said I hadn't seen an autocoach in a mixed train, I should have added 'on the GWR'. The Wells branch push-pull service on the S&DJR often ran as a mixed train.

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Many thanks for your answers to my questions and for correcting my misunderstandings of the Marlow photos. So it appears that not every goods train with a passenger coach is a mixed train and not every van on the back of a passenger train is tail traffic. I hadn't thought to check the head codes!

 

Thinking of which, does anyone have a definitive set of GWR head codes for the period from 1903 until the adoption of the post-grouping RCH standard? I ask because one photo that appears to show a saddle tank running around a mixed (or goods+coach) train at Camerton shows a single light above the left buffer. The photo is said to be c1905, but the engine still has the early lamp sockets. Perhaps the photo is earlier and it Is carrying the pre-1903 relief line stopping goods in daylight code? A light in this position would also be understandable as class K in later years, but both this page and this one suggest a three lamp code to have been used before the later RCH standard was introduced.

 

Incidentally, in The Camerton Branch, Colin Maggs discusses the unbalanced passenger/goods workings in the late 19th and eary 20th centuries and the need to return the coach to Hallatrow at the back of a goods train. He also mentions a slight accident at Hallatrow on 22/4/1895 when a passenger train from Camerton hit the buffers:

"The train in question was being improperly run as a mixed train and was moreover incorrectly marshalled, the coach probably being coupled to the rear of the goods brake van."

The use of "probably" suggest Maggs' interpretation rather than something from his source. He continues:

"A number of similar incidents are recorded around this period on other GWR branch lines which would seem to indicate a generally poor standard of working."

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

Thinking of which, does anyone have a definitive set of GWR head codes for the period from 1903 until the adoption of the post-grouping RCH standard? I ask because one photo that appears to show a saddle tank running around a mixed (or goods+coach) train at Camerton shows a single light above the left buffer. The photo is said to be c1905, but the engine still has the early lamp sockets. Perhaps the photo is earlier and it Is carrying the pre-1903 relief line stopping goods in daylight code? A light in this position would also be understandable as class K in later years, but both this page and this one suggest a three lamp code to have been used before the later RCH standard was introduced.

 

Nick

Alas all I've got prior to the 1920 General Appendix is the July 1918 revision of headcodes (which, subject to checking, is probably the same as the 1920 G.A.) plus some oddments in the 1892 and 1879 Service Timetables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I thought at first this was West Bay on the Bridport Branch but quickly realised it wasn't, however see this photo and you will see why I thought it (third photo on this link)

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport_west_bay/

 

but the chimneys are wrong.

 

jayell

 

They were both engineered/designed by William Clarke, as were the Bristol & North Somerset, the Ledbury & Gloucester line and the Abbotsbury branch. Any more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought at first this was West Bay on the Bridport Branch but quickly realised it wasn't, however see this photo and you will see why I thought it (third photo on this link)

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport_west_bay/

 

but the chimneys are wrong.

 

jayell

One might say that the chimneys, or rather the chimney pots, at West Bay are wrong :O  The chimneys themselves are pure William Clarke but these were normally finished with the simple vertical angular pieces as seen in Simon's Presteigne photo. The tall pots at West Bay (see also here) were presumably added at an early date, maybe because of the winds at its coastal location. They are seen in one of the photos on jayell's link dated 1906, but this photo is almost certainly a few years earlier. Firstly, none of the wagons in the foreground carries the post-1903 large GW livery and, secondly, the loco appears to be one of the ex-Monmouthshire Railway & Canal Co 4-4-0T numbered 1304-7 by the GWR. The last of these were withdrawn in November 1905.

 

Nick

 

ps. note the spelling: William Clarke

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is very late in view of the date when this thread started, but has anyone considered the Van Branch (off the Cambrian main line) which seems to have had very short trains, including a goods brake van, I believe. (It may possibly have been a 'road van' although I can't be certain without looking it up).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I too am very late in responding to this topic but I have just looked again at the the disused stations link I posted earlier and there is a 1905 photo of a train in West Bay with what appears to be two wagons between the saddle tank loco and the first passenger carriage (the usual make up for the branch being four four-wheelers) The guards ducket on the first coach is clearly visible and the last vehicle would seem to be of the same type. I cannot make out any headcode on the loco though.

 

I am fairly certain the first train of the day from Maiden Newton to Bridport was a mixed one and if there were wagons to be shunted into the (single ended) sidings at Toller and Powerstock they would need to be between the engine and carriages as I cannot image the shunting being done with passenger coaches still attached.

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport_west_bay/

 

jayell 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I too am very late in responding to this topic but I have just looked again at the the disused stations link I posted earlier and there is a 1905 photo of a train in West Bay with what appears to be two wagons between the saddle tank loco and the first passenger carriage (the usual make up for the branch being four four-wheelers) The guards ducket on the first coach is clearly visible and the last vehicle would seem to be of the same type. I cannot make out any headcode on the loco though.

 

I am fairly certain the first train of the day from Maiden Newton to Bridport was a mixed one and if there were wagons to be shunted into the (single ended) sidings at Toller and Powerstock they would need to be between the engine and carriages as I cannot image the shunting being done with passenger coaches still attached.

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport_west_bay/

 

jayell 

 

The Regulations required passenger vehicles on Mixed Trains to be marshalled next to the engine.  The Regulations also stated that 'where practicable' the passenger vehicles were to be stood aside when shunting - I doubt it was 'practicable to do so at either Toller or Powerstock ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...