Jump to content
 

Little Muddle


KNP
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Are you sure?  My understanding is that having signed, you are required not to divulge that you have.

:-)

Paul.

They do in films?

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

9 minutes ago, Mick Bonwick said:

 

No you haven't. It's right next to the signal box and I can see that quite clearly.

True, but the name is missing so it could be anywhere.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing to another not to be taken too seriously theme, I have pasted this on Clive's Sheffield Exchange thread because of the regional link, but I thought others who read this thread might like the following from today's paper:-

 

"Pretentious Job Title of the Night

McKenzie's a " Performance Ambassador" for Trans Pennine Express(!) ( my italics and exclamation mark!)

We saw him on "The Railway 24/7" (Channel 5) helping people onto trains. It used to be a Porter's job.... but as service gets worse, titles get longer."

 

I have recorded this, but have yet to watch it.

Immediately "Train Manager" (Guard!) came to my mind but I am sure that those of you who have had the privilege (or misfortune!) to work in the industry can tell us of many more instances?

 

However, getting back to my Lower Thames layouts, I thought the following (G)WR Region early 60s modelling observations might be of interest:-

I have been comparing the 1955 and 1961 London Division WTTs looking particularly at Maidenhead, Reading and beyond suburban passenger operations. Previously I had not appreciated how little the train timings changed between 1955 (100% steam apart from the occasional AEC Railcar), and 1961 (Diesel, with Steam only in the rush hours).

This means that on my layout a compromise I can live with is to run outside the rush hours as steam hauled and diesel alternate suburban trains to keep interest up. I just have to be careful not to run a 1955 steam train that had by 1961 had its time significantly altered or even the train removed. Similarly I will aim not to run as steam train timings introduced for the diesel era.

I guess the continuation of the steam timings shows a number of things:-

1) How good at acceleration the 61xxs were with 5 coaches - comparable to one or two three car 117s.

2) Either management didn't trust running the117s too fast (quite likely!), or they thought passengers would prefer the habitual times (quite likely, but I would have thought passenger preferences were not at the front of management's mind!)

3) They wanted to avoid the trouble of recasting and introducing a new timetable. (Very likely and still a trouble today!)

4) They had enough on their plates sorting out loco/unit/coach /staff diagrams without timetable trouble as well (highly likely!)

 

Hope everyone s well and staying safe?

Take care

Cheers

Paul

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the term freight train.

This was used by the GWR when talking about goods trains (or what we call them), not sure when this started but I have seen a poster dated 1925 referring to this class of train.

Here is my headlamp code guide for 1936 taken out of the GW manual

 

1936LAMPCODES.jpg.5581c2b8890992067f8fc811d2b52b91.jpg

 

 

Now the question should be,...

Is this a freight train carrying goods or a goods train carrying freight...…?

Reading the above I think it is a freight train which, I believe, is the term used to cover a train made up covered vans and open wagons when they are not carrying mineral or ballast loads.

So reading the above a train with all coal wagons would be mineral, then gravel, stones etc would be ballast but a wagon with say pit props, crates etc would be freight.

 

Open for debate......

 

 

Edited by KNP
  • Like 8
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, KNP said:

Collett 2251 passing though Encombe Town with the freight train!

 

Actually, Kevin, that's a class J through freight train stopping at intermediate stations. Please try and get it right. Your public expects it of you.

 

:D:D:D

  • Like 2
  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mick Bonwick said:

 

Actually, Kevin, that's a class J through freight train stopping at intermediate stations. Please try and get it right. Your public expects it of you.

 

:D:D:D

 

Or a through train not stopping at this intermediate station,

mind you the photographer said it was going so slow that he wasn't sure if it was stopping or not!

Mainly because it seemed to move with the help of a big hand from the sky!!!!

 

:D:D:D

Edited by KNP
  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
45 minutes ago, KNP said:

So reading the above a train with all coal wagons would be mineral, then gravel, stones etc would be ballast but a wagon with say pit props, crates etc would be freight.

A ballast train is a generic term for an engineers' train, used for maintenance of the line - what later became known as a departmental train and then an infrastructure train.

 

A mineral train carries coal, limestone, granite, etc.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 minutes ago, Stubby47 said:

A single railcar carrying passengers may or may not be a train.

 

A single parcels railcar carrying goods/parcels may also be or not be a train.

On the contrary, they are both trains once they leave station limits and enter the section. Block working regulations reagrd them all as trains, even light engines. We've been here before recently.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, KNP said:

With regard to the term freight train.

This was used by the GWR when talking about goods trains (or what we call them), not sure when this started but I have seen a poster dated 1925 referring to this class of train.

Here is my headlamp code guide for 1936 taken out of the GW manual

 

 

There is also a version post '36 that I try to use and BR changed it again, I think in the early '50s.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

There is also a version post '36 that I try to use and BR changed it again, I think in the early '50s.

The codes on Kevin's chart are the same as those in the 1936 GWR General Appendix. They were changed in 1950 when they were standardised across the different regions (except the Southern) and again in about 1961(?) when the classifications changed from alphabetic to numeric.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, rilksy said:

 :D I was only joking!

 

In that case your comment should have been preceeded and followed with a whole string of laughing emojis, just for the avoidance of doubt.

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D

 

You really must buck your ideas up!

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D

  • Funny 4
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have learnt something as well.

After going from cover to cover of both volumes of the excellent GWR Goods Train Working by Tony Atkins I found  a paragraph in vol 2 page 167 that told me that a ballast train referred to permanent way traffic including earth and other engineering materials plus all trains run for the PW dept were called ballast trains!

So thanks everyone for input most educational!

Excellent series of books, recommend.

Normal disclaimer just a satisfied customer...

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

A ballast train is a generic term for an engineers' train, used for maintenance of the line - what later became known as a departmental train and then an infrastructure train.

 

A mineral train carries coal, limestone, granite, etc.

Thanks for this.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, autocoach said:

Freight Train shows the American influence on the GWR.....The CME's traveled across the Atlantic a lot.

 

There was a whole lot of sharing of railway knowledge across America and Europe in both directions, I could bore you to death with information about stuff you probably already know! :blink:

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

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, autocoach said:

Freight Train shows the American influence on the GWR.....The CME's traveled across the Atlantic a lot.

At one time Goods were the items that were carried and Freight was the charge for carrying them. Then everything got mixed up.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
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...