RMweb Premium OnTheBranchline Posted October 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 2, 2015 Hello everyone, When the 64xx Class would do passenger turns, how often would these turns with just normal coaches (i.e. non auto-train), for example just having a 64xx Class pulling a B Set? Thank you in advance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted October 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 2, 2015 It would depend on a couple of factors. First what the duty was e.g. Saltash rail motors, which had very tight turn around time so normally only auto coaches would be used. Second whether the allocated auto coach(es) were available, as some services don't warrant such tight turn around times. Lastly and probably the most important, whether the fireman was auto trained or not, as lots weren't. So lots of possibilities for you. Kind regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted October 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 3, 2015 Nick, do you know if the Laira based 64xx ran on other trains other than autos please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted October 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 3, 2015 Nick, do you know if the Laira based 64xx ran on other trains other than autos please. Hi Robin, Yes they did. I've got a couple of shots of 6414 running towards the Launceston branch with three ex GWR coaches in tow, dated 1952. And... 6400 on a freight working outside Coryton in the early 1960s. This train I have to model! It's just too good not to! Kind regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 3, 2015 It would depend on a couple of factors. First what the duty was e.g. Saltash rail motors, which had very tight turn around time so normally only auto coaches would be used. Second whether the allocated auto coach(es) were available, as some services don't warrant such tight turn around times. Lastly and probably the most important, whether the fireman was auto trained or not, as lots weren't. So lots of possibilities for you. Kind regards, Nick. 'Auto-trained Fireman'? Interesting that - a former colleague of mine was a Cleaner, then a passed Cleaner, then Fireman at Slough. The first passenger turn he ever worked as Fireman was on the Marlow Donkey, it was also the first time he had ever been on an auto-train (and I wouldn't mind betting that he wasn't the first to find himself in that situation) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted October 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 3, 2015 'Auto-trained Fireman'? Interesting that - a former colleague of mine was a Cleaner, then a passed Cleaner, then Fireman at Slough. The first passenger turn he ever worked as Fireman was on the Marlow Donkey, it was also the first time he had ever been on an auto-train (and I wouldn't mind betting that he wasn't the first to find himself in that situation) Well it is something that I didn't think of at all, until reading Tails of a Laira fireman by P Rundle. He wasn't "auto trained" (as he put it!) and therefore he wasn't given the auto trains as a duty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 3, 2015 Well it is something that I didn't think of at all, until reading Tails of a Laira fireman by P Rundle. He wasn't "auto trained" (as he put it!) and therefore he wasn't given the auto trains as a duty. Interesting. I suspect there was far more to it than that although the Plymouth - Saltash trains were tight workings so maybe it was thought the Fireman needed a bit of experience? But I'm far more inclined to suspect some kind of 'closed shop' and carefully protected work for a selected group of Firemen who had their own link and it might well not have been a strictly progressive link. Such links were not uncommon in steam days - for example Old Oak had a special 'Smithfield Link' which also had a few 'mainline' jobs in order to give them some Sundays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Andy Kirkham Posted October 3, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 3, 2015 Something I sometimes wonder: why did the GWR introduce two entirely different types of auto-fitted tank engine at about the same time - 48XX and 54XX? They were both classified 1P by BR, so how did their capabilities differ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 From my old memory hard drive, I have seen 64XX PTs on local goods and inter yard work as there were some at LA most of the time Couldn't tell you about the rest of the system. Don't know about 48xxs though, didn't come to LA till later. Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted October 4, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 4, 2015 Something I sometimes wonder: why did the GWR introduce two entirely different types of auto-fitted tank engine at about the same time - 48XX and 54XX? They were both classified 1P by BR, so how did their capabilities differ? 14xx I think was designed more for 'light duties', whereas the 54xx and later 64xx were happier with steeper routes. But bar that I, I'm not sure. Water capacity and tractor effort was better on the 54xx than the 14xx and they had a larger water tank, so longer range. But it does seem odd that two locos were designed for the same job. Kind regards, Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 14xx I think was designed more for 'light duties', whereas the 54xx and later 64xx were happier with steeper routes. But bar that I, I'm not sure. Water capacity and tractor effort was better on the 54xx than the 14xx and they had a larger water tank, so longer range. But it does seem odd that two locos were designed for the same job. Kind regards, Nick. Could it be that the 14xx/48xx were 'rebuilds' (of the GWR 'homeopathic' variety) of earlier types, or at least like-for-like replacement of older engines? Where the two types were based in the same areas, did thay carry out the same duties, or did each type cover discrete rosters? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePipersSon Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The 14XX had a Traction effort (@85%) of 13,900lb and the Route classification was 'uncoloured'. The 54XX had a Traction effort quoted as 14,780lb, the 64XX had 16,510lb and the 74XX 18.010lb. All had the route classification 'yellow'. The above was taken from Peto's register of GWR locos vol 3, and Pannier papers no 7. The book on the 14XXs has only one photo of an 14XX pulling more than 2 coaches, and that is in preservation. The 54XX and 64XX locos regularly ran with up to 4 autocoaches. Incidentally, the Pannier papers book has a lot of photos of 54XX and 64XX locos working with non-autocoaches Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Andy Kirkham Posted October 4, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 4, 2015 The 14XX had a Traction effort (@85%) of 13,900lb and the Route classification was 'uncoloured'. The 54XX had a Traction effort quoted as 14,780lb, the 64XX had 16,510lb and the 74XX 18.010lb. All had the route classification 'yellow'. The above was taken from Peto's register of GWR locos vol 3, and Pannier papers no 7. The book on the 14XXs has only one photo of an 14XX pulling more than 2 coaches, and that is in preservation. The 54XX and 64XX locos regularly ran with up to 4 autocoaches. Incidentally, the Pannier papers book has a lot of photos of 54XX and 64XX locos working with non-autocoaches Thanks. My question was prompted by having seen lots of photos of auto-fitted panniers performing similar duties to 14XX's, leading me to suppose that they were regarded as interchangeable. But on reflection, perhaps the panniers were only used on branch lines late in their careers, after they had been displaced by DMU'S from suburban workings such as Plymouth-Saltash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 4, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 4, 2015 14xx I think was designed more for 'light duties', whereas the 54xx and later 64xx were happier with steeper routes. But bar that I, I'm not sure. Water capacity and tractor effort was better on the 54xx than the 14xx and they had a larger water tank, so longer range. But it does seem odd that two locos were designed for the same job. Kind regards, Nick. Basically 'yes'. The 48XX were effectively replacements for older 0-4-2Ts intended for light work while the 54XX/64XX were intended for more arduous duties. Really is as simple as that. Perhaps the 48XX might logically have not been needed but in terms of accountancy and counting the pennies on the capital programme they made sense and work existed for them - in fact of course suitable work existed for both types/wheel arrangements although i always wondered about the 58XX and their relatively early demise no doubt told a tale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The 58XX were built in 1933 and the first withdrawals were in 1957 and the last in 1961. The first 14XX were withdrawn in 1956 and 6 had gone by the end of 1956 mainly from the 1932 and 1933 builds though 11936 loco also went. The 14XX were more versatile but the last 2 were retained for branch goods working, obviously it made sense to standardise the Auto fitted 14XX if a shed had Auto workings even though some rosters could have been filled by 58XX Hemyock mixed and Milk trains being one example where a 58XX might have seemed a better choice. K.J.Cooks book Swindon steam related the gestation period of the little Auto engines and relates how a great degree of standardisation was employed across the range of 14XX 54XX, 58XX, 64XX 74XX. and the later 16XX. The 54XX was a 64XX with bigger wheels and splashers and buffers at the bottom of the buffer beam. The prototype started as a 2021 class with Auto gear which was retrofitted with 5' 2" wheels instead of 4'0" The 54XX and 64XX dont seem to have had the turn of speed the 14XX had, 80 mph being clocked whereas panniers seemed to max out at 60 ish. The Auto training for Firemen must have been a necessity at Laira as the Driver would be driving from the Auto Trailers coupled behind and in front of the loco and hardly being in the footplate at all. The fireman would have to adjust the reverser to keep time while the driver merely shoved the regulator wide open. The Marlow Donkey was rather different with a driver on the footplate one way to keep an eye on things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I thought the 48xx was a non auto fitted variant of the 14xx? Gordon A Bristol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I thought the 48xx was a non auto fitted variant of the 14xx? Gordon A Bristol No. The 48xx were renumbered as 14xx to clear the number series for 28xx converted to oil burning. Perhaps you are thinking of 58xx? Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted October 5, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 5, 2015 I was always under the impression that auto trains used a passed fireman as the fireman and thus was qualified to drive and would progress to a driving link when a suitble one became available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 5, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 5, 2015 I was always under the impression that auto trains used a passed fireman as the fireman and thus was qualified to drive and would progress to a driving link when a suitble one became available. Possibly a theory but certainly not the practice at a number of depots. See my previous comment about the chap I knew (one of my supervisors in later years) and his 'introduction' to such work. Similarly the relevant Instructions make no mention at all of the need for a Passed Fireman simply stating that 'The Driver should satisfy himself that the Fireman properly understands the working of the reversing gear, vacuum brake, lubricator and sanding gear, and the management of the fire and boiler.' - this Instruction applied, unaltered from the 1930s until the end of auto train working on the WR. And when you think about it some depots, such as Laira, would have required a quite large number of Passed Firemen to be able to put one on every auto-train turn when there would in any event be other demands for such men as part of normal work coverage of Drivers who were not available for any particular reason. The question then follows about how such men would be paid - Firemen on auto trains were clearly undertaking a Fireman's duties and if they were Passed men they would potentially be penalised by not being available for Driving turns or when they were given a Driving turn they would have to be covered by a similarly qualified man meaning there would have to be more Passed men available to cover Passed men. If the man was used to cover another Passed Man on an auto train turn then logically he would have been available for the driving turn and could legitimately claim payment for it - so you end up with two passed Firemen paid Driver's rate and both earning a qualifying day to advance their rate of pay. Somehow I can't see any management accepting that sort of situation where you would be paying Driver's rate for Fireman's turns - it was bad enough dealing with claims at the best of times let alone injecting this sort of situation. So - as I mentioned above - I could quite understand a situation at Laira where there might have been a particular link for auto train Firemen, and it might or might not have been progressive, but it wouldn't in any case have been the senior link hence those in it were less likely to be Passed men on seniority grounds alone. It was always the case at GW/WR depots (and no doubt elsewhere) that the senior links got the best earning work in steam days which would have meant Mileage and Lodging turns, not local workings. I know there was a movement from, probably the 1930s (if not earlier) but certainly the 1940s for the staff side of LDCs to seek equalisation of earnings but it seems more likely to have been met - as far as possible - through sharing of Sunday work rather than Mileage work and that definitely happened, for example. at Old Oak where the Smithfield Link had Sunday passenger turns from an even earlier date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolmy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Hi, My operational query that I mentioned in the Bachmann Hawksworth Autocoach thread got lost amongst the seat colour discussion, and it was probably in the wrong place anyway, so I'll try again here if I may please?... On the 12":1ft railway, how much more difficult is coupling/uncoupling the auto-fitted loco, compared to any other type of loco hauled stock? Does it need any special additional equipment that would preclude coupling/uncoupling within a station? To service the loco/coach, would they generally be separated so the loco goes 'on shed, and the auto-coach is shunted away to a carriage siding. Or do the ensemble stay together as much as possible? I'm most interested in current operation on the preserved SVR, but the historical context would be interesting too please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePipersSon Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I have seen photographs of the auto-train at Churstan (Brixham branch) shunting wagons with the coach still attached. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I seem to remember seeing photos of 14xx on shed at Ashburton with the auto trailer still attached. Ray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 16, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 16, 2015 Hi, My operational query that I mentioned in the Bachmann Hawksworth Autocoach thread got lost amongst the seat colour discussion, and it was probably in the wrong place anyway, so I'll try again here if I may please?... On the 12":1ft railway, how much more difficult is coupling/uncoupling the auto-fitted loco, compared to any other type of loco hauled stock? Does it need any special additional equipment that would preclude coupling/uncoupling within a station? To service the loco/coach, would they generally be separated so the loco goes 'on shed, and the auto-coach is shunted away to a carriage siding. Or do the ensemble stay together as much as possible? I'm most interested in current operation on the preserved SVR, but the historical context would be interesting too please? Normally they would only be separated when an engine went to shed at the end of its turn - no need to separate them for things like taking water and in fact on the Greenford autos from Ealing Broadway the car park siding at Ealing Broadway even had a pit at one time so the engine could be oiled in service although I don't know if they also used it for ash. It was permissible for auto train engines to shunt with the trailer attached and there are a number of published photos showing this taking place including a well known one of wagons being shunted at Wallingford. Crews would be very wary indeed of splitting the engine and car in service as it could be a bit of a performance connecting the regulator control rod and it wasn't unknown in 'more remote' (from authority) places for the rod not be connected at all and the Fireman to do all the driving part of the job and not just handle the reverser - the driver of course still had full control of the brake in such a situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.