Jump to content
 

Bishops Road (Paddington) - what do we know?


Nearholmer
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's outside my areas of research and expertise, but I think there may have been a number of analogous places around the early Metropolitan and MDR, the Circle and elsewhere for steam loco changeovers and layovers.  These were maybe just a single siding. water supply and a place for a few baskets of coal.  St James's Park in steam days is one example, I think.   Mansion House was a more substantial location for the MDR almost on a par to Edgware Road.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Aldgate certainly had "refreshment stalls" for steam locos.

I would be surprised if it didn't because it was terminus for some services and if the loco had been condensing in the tunnels (as it was supposed to) it would inevitably need to take water.  having heard more than a little about the sort of problems suffered by later designs of condensing loco I'd be surprised if their forebears were any better.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Excellent!

 

Where was the siding that is mentioned as holding ECS?

 

I got a headache trying to find it on the only track diagram I have seen, but I think it must be where the stock in the photo in the other thread is being collected from. My bet is that photo was taken on a Saturday lunchtime - so many railway photos are Saturdays, because that was when the gricers were on the loose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S1.htm

The sample diagram, though small, shows the 1930s lay of tracks including the western end middle siding.

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/T3026.htm
Bishop's Road 1919 for comparison

 

Undergound News No.571, July 2009 included some comments on the same 1930s photograph.  I've not seen the original edition so can't assess the context, nevertheless the LURS editorial team and contributors work to a high standard and are reliable.  I found the reference via District Dave, which gives an extract:

 

"The Met. loco with coaches photographed west of the [Paddington] station was empty coaching stock in the siding (or just leaving it) and the (electric) loco was ready to begin a journey to the City in the evening peak. One GWR train started up from Paddington siding east to Liverpool Street (Paddington depart 17.50) in the evening peak.

The siding west of Paddington finished in a dead end with access only at the Paddington (east) end, so the empty stock must have been propelled into the siding, unless a locomotive was to remain trapped at the buffers. Short workings of GWR passenger trains between Paddington and Liverpool Street carried passengers in the counterflow direction of the peak".

 

The layout makes sense for the likely moves required.  I'd suggest that GWR engine(s) at the western end of the coaches in the siding would be positioned nicely to take ex-City trains forward. 

 

A former colleague whose father was a Driver's assistant on the electric locos before the Second war, and a loco driver after the war, tells me that the through trains used the inner platform roads at Paddington Suburban.

 

Edited by Engineer
Use of English
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks, that makes sense.

 

The fact that two train came out of the siding on a weekday evening peak suggests that it was two rakes long, so it must have straggled almost as far as Royal Oak.

 

Mysterious that the WTT extract doesnt seem to show any trains going into the siding, unless that’s what it means by “empty to GW line” …… in which case I wonder why it distinguishes in the opposite direction.

 

We need a time machine, again.

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's beyond my area of expertise to know the answers for sure.  The siding may have been long, but there's also large gaps between consecutive trains.  It could be that train sets weren't on top of one another but instead moved in as required, either from remote sidings or from an incoming terminating train, in between.  

 

The previous attachment was a summary of the service by GW trains into the City, rather than a WT extract, which may have a little bit more detail on the Metropolitan side of the action.  As the boundary to the Metropolitan Railway was East of Paddington Suburban, very likely that moves on the GWR side would be in the STT, supported and detailed in the 'Working of Coaches' documents.

 

Summary extract of GWR 'Working of Coaches' for 1935 07 08 ufn in extended  form now attached to later post.

Edited by Engineer
Use of English and move of attachment to later post
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I thought the middle siding was basically only an loco siding where the electric locos were kept although it was probably long enough to hold one set of stock but I doubt it could hold two.  Alas I haven't got any London Division pre WWII coaching programmes so can't help with those but I do have - in front of me at this moment - the GWR  July 1939 Section Service Time Tables (STT).  This would have been the final STT for through trains to the City which I understand ceased on or shortly after the outbreak of WWII and never resumed.

 

This number of trains the siding could hold seems to agree with my thoughts because I can only find one train SX and one SO (although they are not actually shown as ECS) starting from the siding although several Paddington Suburban terminators were shunted to it which might - once I work what happened to the trains- show it could hold more than one train. (that story will be found below).   The 09.49.30 ex Liverpool St was ECS to West London (BTW the 13.30.30 ex Liverpool St was incorrectly shown as 13.03.30

 

Anyway back to those which came from the siding to run to the Met - these were the 13.05 SO (which would seem to have been formed off the 09.45 arrival from Uxbridge, shunted to siding on arrival) and the 16.44 SX which was formed off 14.02 arrival from Uxbridge - shunted to siding after arrival.   The 12.02 SO was empty from West London and the 17.56 SX was also empty from West London.  

 

However as far as the siding is concerned a second arrival, at c.14.50 is shown as shunted to the siding and and on SX days came out to form the 15.16 to West Drayton (from Paddn Subn) meaning there were tow trains in the siding for about 25 minutes.  BUT there are clearly some errors in the STT as printed with the second train being shown to shunt to the siding before its arrival time at Paddington - an obvious impossibility.  But not having any supplements or alterations to the STT I can't be certain if the double banking of trains actually took pl;ace or if that too was an error especially because on Saturdays the second train to supposedly go into the siding was also the second one to come out:blink:  There was of course a second place to which a stock could be shunted which was the Down E&C Line  - unless the City sets were playing leap-frog on Saturday .   SOLUTION!!!! - Look at the platform working you idiot.  And there it is crystal clear that SX the second train did NOT go to the siding but was turned round in Platform 15 - thus there was only one train in the siding at any one time.  And SO the first train came out of the siding before the second one went in.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm grateful, Stationmaster, for the time taken to add expertise and information to the story, and I've learnt more of the rationale of the area and the workings.  

 

I've made further use of the 1935 'WoC' document to reverse engineer a summary for all SX and SO trains that seem to be relevant to the City service and their use of Royal Oak siding.  I reckon I've accounted for all the moves of the sets involved, though there are a few things to look at, for example what seems to be one longer layover at Aldgate.  

 

Latest version of the summary attached, former version removed from previous post.GWR Working of Coaches London Division extract summary through City services 1935 07 08 R2.pdf

 

An aside:  Interesting to note that the changeover time allowance is around 3 minutes, much the same as the times for changes at Wembley/Harrow or Rickmansworth.  I feel that the layouts at those sites might have been been marginally more favourable for swift, parallel moves compared to Bishop's Road and Paddington [Suburban] - though I guess there are very many factors, checks and balances involved.

 

https://harsig.org/PDF/H_C51.pdf

1951, covers Paddington Suburban area

https://harsig.org/PDF/Rickmansworth195319621996.pdf

Rickmansworth 1953, after re-signalling and loco change facilities still present

https://harsig.org/PDF/Met1933.pdf

1933 overview including a little of the previous Bishop's Road layout, and Rickmansworth with semaphore signalling

 

 

Edited by Engineer
Uae of English and references for layout comparisons added
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

i've now found a little information about Royal Oak Sdg.   the maximum load of trains permitted into Paddington Suburban station in 1960 was 9 coaches but no more than 7 if the trains was required to shunt to Royal Oak Sdg  - the detail does of course depend on the length of a coach but I doubt if it was any longer than 57ft  From what I've come across in a secondary source the City sets were formed of 6 vehicles but the 1935 coach working programme will be the most accurate source for the normal formation of the sets pre-war.

 

Achieving the 3 minutes at the west end was probably not too difficult but at the Edgeware Road end it must have been rather problematic as both the engine coming off and the one going on inevitably had to reverse at some time during the movement ` as a well as both having to occupy the same section of track for part of their movement.   Alas I f do not have a pre-war Appendix for Section 2 of the STT but it would no doubt give some information about the engine changing procedure as i suspect taht steam engines were banned from the east end engine spur as it was wholly underground.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't around to see any steam operations on the Bishop's Road territory but at quite an early age I was shown the spur tunnel where the electric locos had waited.  I thought there had been some kind of opening above and I have found evidence to support this. 

 

Generally, I'd suggest the answer to the spur's usage is somewhere in the middle - the spur was a relatively confined space that could hold engines if necessary but generally tended to be holding space for electric locomotives to be closest to their departure point - when their service was operating. 

 

For operational practicality it would seem best sense for the incoming GWR engine [off a City-bound train] to move ahead on the running line and then return swiftly to the departure end of the Suburban station, ready for its next work.  Once the Up/Eastbound line is cleared, an electric loco can run from the spur to the running line, then back to the train to couple, brake test, etc.    

 

The am peak service started with electric locomotives arriving from Neasden - in Met times, it would be usual for four locos would be mechanically coupled, leading loco doing the work though all were crewed.  East of Baker Street Outer Rail/Up the lead loco would detach and head to the City.  The remaining three locos would change direction and run together to Bishop's Road.  I'd guess that the locos might reverse via the Royal Oak siding and, among other peak traffic, either make their way to the spur or pick up the first train. 

 

For some other research, I began the slow process of unpicking the electric loco working across the Met for the 1919 era, admittedly pre-dating the loco spur layout.  Findings seemed to suggest that at least one loco reached the City with its GWR train then came back for another train during the morning while others fed in from Liverpool Street and Aldgate loco working.  In a few timetables, two electric locos laid over at Bishop's Road between morning and evening peaks, otherwise the spare locos returned to either Baker Street or Neasden.  More to discover in due course.

 

There is a drawing of the civil construction for the loco spur at Bishop's Road.  It's a concrete arch tunnel and at the 'Buffers' end, there is a sump draining to the cut and cover tunnel  and a vent shaft above with a 17' x 12' grille, which makes me think that provision was made for adequate ventilation if engines used the spur.  It's not entirely clear from the drawing but looks like about 100' of spur, clear of the fouling point, so allowing for signalling installation, maybe space for two electric locos.

 

I've not taken a closer look in modern times, but with much construction at the surface the spur tunnel may have been truncated.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Jeremy C said:

Well, it's possible, but there was no blanket ban. Goods workings to Smithfield were steam-hauled.

Ah but locos working through the tunnelled sections were required to use condensing gear - as was the case with the 97XX (and their predecessors) which worked the trains to/from Smithfield.  The reality was rather different because the Enginemen were not all keen on using the condensing gear (known as 'the chopper') because it caused the water in the side tanks to boil and one Driver I kew had received an almighty 'teling-off' (other terms are available, and more appropriate) from his Driver when he put the chopper in while working his very first trip to Smithfield as a Fireman - after that he never used.  The older men in the Smithfield Link at Old Oak had done the job on engines with open cabs and according to the only one of them whio I've ever met (40 years ago) they much preferred that to the cabs of the newly arrived 97XX.  

 

I only ever saw one Smithfield train on the move underground and that was passing through Baker Street station on a Saturday afternoon.  From the amount of exhaust steam it was putting out I strongly suspect that it wasn't condensing ;)

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

the condensing gear (known as 'the chopper')

 

Any idea why? 

 

Some of Webb's 4'6" tanks - both the 2-4-0Ts and the later 2-4-2Ts - "Mansion House Tanks" - were built with condensing equipment; the former became known as "Chopper" tanks but I've never read a very convincing description of why that name stuck.

 

Maybe the flap that directed the exhaust either up the blastpipe or into the condensing pipes was thought to resemble an axe-head? Or just that it chopped off the blast?

Edited by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Met, enabling ‘weak field’ on EMUs was still called ‘putting the chimney up’ (a corruption of ‘putting it up the chimney’) by some drivers until quite recently, because both were associated with emerging from below ground at Finchley Road and getting ready for the run on the surface.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Any idea why? 

 

Some of Webb's 4'6" tanks - both the 2-4-0Ts and the later 2-4-2Ts - "Mansion House Tanks" - were built with condensing equipment; the former became known as "Chopper" tanks but I've never read a very convincing description of why that name stuck.

 

Maybe the flap that directed the exhaust either up the blastpipe or into the condensing pipes was thought to resemble an axe-head? Or just that it chopped off the blast?

Could well be and I think the term went back along time at Old Oak where the Smithfield Link was always something which those who had been in it brought into the conversation without a second thought - whatever you were talking about.  when i had long chat with 'Billy' Wells - who drove the 28XX in the 1948 loco exchanges - it should be pretty obvious what interested me about his career but he spent a lot of the time getting back to the days when he was firing in the Smithfield Link and how they had a Sunday turn to Windsor on one of their regular engines - which didn't have a cab.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So did the "Steam on the Met" enthusiast specials of more recent times using condensing gear?  I imagine management would be watching those quite closely and would not be any too keen on any residual pollution.   

 

The preserved Class E 0-4-4T does not have condensing gear - being one of those classes of Met engines built for working the surface lines. The preserved Class A 4-4-0T does have the gear but is not, as far as I'm aware, in working condition. I'm not aware of any operational preserved locomotive with condensing gear. The London Transport 57xx 0-6-0PTs never had it.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The preserved Class E 0-4-4T does not have condensing gear - being one of those classes of Met engines built for working the surface lines. The preserved Class A 4-4-0T does have the gear but is not, as far as I'm aware, in working condition. I'm not aware of any operational preserved locomotive with condensing gear. The London Transport 57xx 0-6-0PTs never had it.

Does make me wonder why LT didn't acquire some 97xx's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

imagine management would be watching those quite closely and would not be any too keen on any residual pollution.   


The big issue is the propensity of steam locos to set off the very sensitive station fire detection systems, which will sniff-out even a whisp of combustion products. IIRC, technicians had to be in attendance to ‘babysit’ the fire detection as the steamer chuffed past.

 

My only experience of ‘real steam’ on the Met was also at Baker Street, as a small boy, on the way back from a visit to the zoo with an uncle.  A loco and trucks came through, surprising everyone and filling the place with steam. Whether it was a WR or an LT train I have no idea, but I think we were on the circle line platform. We lived ‘out in the sticks’, so the underground was always mysterious and exciting, that doubly so!

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Does make me wonder why LT didn't acquire some 97xx's.

If you'd ever seen one with a side tank off and suspended bya gantry crane you'd quickly know one reason why - the tanks were prone to developing leaks.   The low cab 57XX had a couple of other advantages - they were lighter so had better route availability (which probably didn't matter much) and werein any case mainly going to be used on surface lines so unreliable condensing gear and the Weir pump weren't needed but would add to maintenance work.  So why buy the complicated one when the simpler one would do the work you had in mind? 

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

Going back to various earlier discussions I recently dug ut some TT information in respect of through trains to the City via Bishops Road/Paddington Suburban and hereare copies of my two post on the new Dapol City sets thread.  Note that information in respect of Aldgate changed as I further delved, note also that the 1901 service is the latest one I have any timetable information when it was throughout steam working by GWR engines.  Incidentally possibly contrary to the '1907' date I show below for the end of GWR through steam engine working the GWR analysis Book shows that electric working on the Hammersmith & City (between Paddington and Hammersmith) commenced on 5 November 1906 - it is of course possible that the engine working for through trains didn't change from that date.   The RCTS history (Metro Tanks) implies that the through main line trains were converted to electric haulage beyond Bishops Road by January 1907.

 

The 1925 'cull'  refers to the action taken by the Met to greatly reduce the number of through trains from the GWR.  Apologies for my usual crop of typos.

 

Initial post  

1365529179_Throughs1.jpg.f44bea49477ba20739bf698597a49999.jpg

 

Second Post

 

802872398_throughs2a.jpg.7685ef2343865196c27104aa4286492f.jpg

 

Supplementary to the above the GWR through trains from the main line ('Windsor and other stations' according to MacDermot)  commenced in October 1863 and lasted until December of that year and then resumed, permanently, from May 1864, running to and from Farringdon Street.  MacDermot goes on to say that both the main line and Addison Road trains were extended to/from Aldersgate (Street) on 1 March 1866 and to Moorgate (Street) 1 July of that year.

 

Something which crosses my mind is that GWR passenger trains to Moorgate (Street) clearly never used the Widened Lines.  The GWR only had Running powers over those lines as far as their Smithfield goods depot and in any case didn't have powers for passenger trains on those lines but did - obviously - have Running Powers over the Met as far as Aldgate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...