Why were TOADs not double-ended?

[jim.snowdon]

If you look back to the 1870s and 80s, the single ended brake van was quite normal across the whole of the British railway network. Double-ended vans crept in but not generally until the early years of the 20th century. Some railways, only ever had fully enclosed vans, the L&Y being a notable example. The GWR simply stands out as the railway that never adopted them, almost - they did build the four double-ended vans for the Pontnewynydd branch, but they were operated in special circumstances. Even then, they had the hand brake column outside on one verandah.

 

Even with double-ended vans on other railways, the hand brake was by no means always inside the van, so the GWR vans were not that unusual in that respect. They simply lasted longer than all of the others, which were invariably of pre-group origin and largely gone by the mid-1950s, submerged in a sea of standard LMS, SR, LNER and, ultimately BR vans.

 

I tink it is as likely as anything that the GWR, having adopted much the same approach as lots of other railways in the 19th century, never saw a need to change. Railways were never hot beds of innovation.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

Even with double-ended vans on other railways, the hand brake was by no means always inside the van, so the GWR vans were not that unusual in that respect. They simply lasted longer than all of the others, which were invariably of pre-group origin and largely gone by the mid-1950s, submerged in a sea of standard LMS, SR, LNER and, ultimately BR vans.

 

I tink it is as likely as anything that the GWR, having adopted much the same approach as lots of other railways in the 19th century, never saw a need to change. Railways were never hot beds of innovation.

 

It's not that the Great Western vans lasted longer, it's that they continued to be built to an outmoded design after other railways had moved on! 

[Steamport Southport]

GWR vans were not well liked by the guards from other regions, once brake vans became common user under BR. The OPC book on SR wagons (when comparing the different Big 4 designs)  describes them as 'hated almost to the point of refusal' or similar. 

 

The brake on the veranda wasn't fun to use in poor weather, or if the veranda end was leading with coal dust etc being blown off the wagons ahead of it. There were also union concerns around safety, with only a single exit in the event of a crash. 

 

I wouldn't take rival company railwaymen's viewpoints on "other" railways seriously.

 

Most of them were more bigoted than the attendees of the Old Firm Derby. Something that still seems to exist amongst enthusiasts and modellers, even though those railways haven't existed for nearly 100 years.

 

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

I wouldn't take rival company railwaymen's viewpoints on "other" railways seriously.

 

Most of them were more bigoted than the attendees of the Old Firm Derby. Something that still seems to exist amongst enthusiasts and modellers, even though those railways haven't existed for nearly 100 years.

 

 

 

Jason

IIRC GWR toads were sufficiently detested elsewhere by BR days (though I'm unsure of the exact dates) for them to be "blacked" by unionised guards on other regions.

 

BR Headquarters evidently sympathised and placed severe restrictions (if not an outright ban) upon their use on inter-regional trains originating on the WR.

 

Some did migrate to other areas in departmental use, but there's a world of difference between working such a van in traffic and using the enclosed portion as a riding van or for messing/dormitory purposes.

 

John

Edited November 10, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

The biggest problem with the GWR single ended brakevans, or indeed any other single ended brakevan, was the safety issue and emergency egress in the event of a collision.  But it should be born in mind that even if a Guard could get out at either end he still needed to know that his van was about to be collided with in such a way as to threaten its destruction and such a collision would involve somebody doing something they shouldn't.

 

The big advantage of the vans was that they were far less draughty than the BR standard examples which replaced them which were atrocious in that respect and would probably be banned on health grounds nowadays.  the GWR pattern vans were finally taken out of use on safety grounds according to what I was told but I have never come across any official references for the reason for their withdrawal from traffic use nor any information of any sort about them being 'blacked' on safety grounds by anyone.

[PhilJ W]

When they went into departmental service the veranda was often enclosed which made them very cosy.

[kevinlms]

OK ... some interesting observations, but we're still no wiser about what the theory was when the thing was designed ...

Agreed.

 

I suspect the design (albeit extended in length & wheelbase over the years), dated back to a time when most goods yards had wagon turntables and so a Toad could be turned too. Thus it wasn't an issue in the early days. Removal of many wagon turntables was a gradual thing and so guards simply couldn't turn them any more.

Whilst many other railways, evolved their designs to make them double-ended, the GWR didn't go down this path.

[hmrspaul]

When they went into departmental service the veranda was often enclosed which made them very cosy.

As  https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e24846f32 https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrbrakevan/e21f492ee  https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brgwrbrakevan/e199d1b95

 

Agreed.

 

I suspect the design (albeit extended in length & wheelbase over the years), dated back to a time when most goods yards had wagon turntables and so a Toad could be turned too. Thus it wasn't an issue in the early days. Removal of many wagon turntables was a gradual thing and so guards simply couldn't turn them any more.

Whilst many other railways, evolved their designs to make them double-ended, the GWR didn't go down this path.

But the wheelbase of the 20th Century design would have been too long for most goods yard turntables - they were a reason why commonly used wagons were being built with only 9 and 10ft wheelbase until c1961 (and I know users didn't want or need high payloads either).

 

Paul

Edited November 11, 2018 by hmrspaul

[The Johnster]

Like Paul, I don't buy the wagon turntable argument.  Goods depots in large towns had them, but country yards, marshalling sidings, collieries, steelworks and so on, where the majority of vans did the majority of their work, didn't.  Wagon turntables were used for handling general merchandise opens and vans in large goods depot, or coal wagons coming off hoists at ports after being tipped into ships, with the aid of winches and capstans; there would never have been a need for a brake van to be in such an area. 

 

The single ended style is, in my view, rooted in the development of goods brake vans; originally an ordinary goods van with side doors that carried payloads, but had accommodation for the guard at one end, with windows and a handbrake.  Evolution disposed of the side doors and provided a balcony by which it was easier for the guard to climb aboard the van; the door to the cabin now moved away from the sides to the balcony end.  This is fundamentally the MR/GW style.  On the NER, SECR, LBSC and elsewhere a double ended balcony style developed; the root of the BR standard brake van is a double balconied short wheelbase 16 tonner and the LNER was still making similar vans quite late.

 

Duckets were another very good idea; they enable the guard to observe the train from a safe and padded seated position, and in a half decent van he can reach the brake wheel from this position as well.  Older WR guards in my time at Canton as a freight guard almost worshipped the GW toads and begged for them back, as did loco crews who could 'rest their eyes' on the long benches when they were looped for hours at a time, frequent occurrence during the war, but I thought they were an awful idea; no duckets and the brake wheel on the veranda so that you had to go out in the cold and the coal dust to do anything .  They were well made though, and by all accounts less draughty than the BR/LNER standard and LMS ones we had.

 

These were pathetic, completely unfit for purpose, rough riding to the point of dangerousness in some cases, and impossible to draught proof or keep the coal dust out.  The LNER?BR type, which should never have been chosen as the standard when a new design could have improved matters, was further compromised by the ballast weight being on the ends, inducing a rocking motion that could shake the lamps out; a van on which you cannot keep the lamps lit after dark is pointless and potentially dangerous.

 

An ideal van would have been better draugthproofed, probably on bogies to improve the ride and increase the braking power, have duckets and a brake inside the cabin.  We are describing a Southern Railway Queen Mary, but I would want lamps capable of being seen to from inside the vehicle's cabin and sanding gear inside the cabin as well.  And more rails to hang on to when the going got rough.

 

When the going gets rough, the tough go up the pub...

Edited November 11, 2018 by The Johnster

[steve1]

This interesting discussion begs a second question. Why didn't GWR vans have duckets when just about every other company did?

 

Incidentally, I have ridden in a real caboose on a working railway in Mexico and they are an excellent vehicle. Roomy, comfortable

and well appointed. The view from the cupola is brilliant!

 

steve

[Mark Saunders]

The GWR single ended design was not suitable for mineral working in the North East as there were many relatively short distance moves and many reversals, plus you could not uncouple them on the move when arriving at many collieries. Even the Southern version was not suitable as the body was too short giving an overlong end platform that meant it was nearly impossible to use a shunting pole .

 

Mark Saunders

[Compound2632]

This interesting discussion begs a second question. Why didn't GWR vans have duckets when just about every other company did?

 

See above - no significant development of design after 1912.

[fallen]

Agreed.

 

I suspect the design (albeit extended in length & wheelbase over the years), dated back to a time when most goods yards had wagon turntables and so a Toad could be turned too. Thus it wasn't an issue in the early days. Removal of many wagon turntables was a gradual thing and so guards simply couldn't turn them any more.

This begs the question "Which was the right way round?"

 

Frank

[robert17649]

remembering a Ebay ad at some time its because there was a steering wheel at one end!

[The Johnster]

I was once told by an old hand guard that the GW deliberately as a matter of policy did not place the brake wheel or sanders inside the cabin, or fit duckets, as the belief was that the guard would perform his duties more diligently and efficiently outside on the verandah; he could look over the side if he wanted to observe the train.  He had to go out there if he needed to exchange hand signals with the loco crew anyway, and to attend to the lamps at that end.  Interestingly, the one way in which the GW toad was streets ahead of everybody else's vans was that the lamps could be attended to from inside the cabin through opening hatches, though only at the cabin end and only the tail lamp on later vans.

 

The idea of having to go outside when the veranda is leading at up to 60 mph on a cold wet night is not an attractive one, nor is it on a dry hot day when the coal dust is coming at you like blasting grit!

 

As well as ensuring that the lamps are lit during the hours of darkness, or during fog or falling snow (or any other conditions of reduced visibility) and for passing through longer tunnels (IIRC those over 440 yards in length), the guard has to remove the red shade from the side lamp (side lamps are carried on part-fitted or unfitted freight trains) on the side nearest the parallel running line in loops or refuge sidings, and on relief lines where main running lines run parallel, so that it shows a white light to the rear, a re-assurance to the driver of an overtaking express that he is not about to plough into 900 tons of stationary coal.  As you approach at night on curves where the perspectives are shifting, this is more necessary than someone who has not experienced that momentary terror might think, and drivers are, um, 'strident' in their criticism of guards who forget, rightly so...

 

So far as refuge sidings and loops go, of course the guard has to go out on the veranda anyway to signal to the signalman, with his handlamp at night, that the train is 'inside clear' and the points can be reset and signals cleared for the train the he has been 'put inside' for. which is probably not too far off and closing rapidly; the signalman wants to set the road and clear signals for it as soon as he can to avoid delaying it.  

 

If you consider the requirements of the guard's duties as well as his comfort and safety, no ideal brake van was ever produced in the UK; the Queen Mary is probably the best, by which I mean the least dreadful, of a significantly useless bunch, but a guard who has to leave his padded seat with the shoulder protection to attend to lamps is at some risk of injury from unexpected bumps and snatches.  The American type caboose is a somewhat different beast; there is less need for braking by their 'conductors' as all of their trains are fully air braked, and the vehicle doubles as the crew's accommodation and messing facility when they are out on the road; relief crews sleep in it while the train is being worked by their colleagues.  'Crew coaches' on modern freights in some countries perform a similar function.

Edited November 12, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

This begs the question "Which was the right way round?"

 

Frank

There isn't one.

remembering a Ebay ad at some time its because there was a steering wheel at one end!

Which would be very confusing on a Per Way 'Shark'...

[Wickham Green]

I was once told by an old hand guard that the GW deliberately as a matter of policy did not place the brake wheel or sanders inside the cabin, or fit duckets, as the belief was that the guard would perform his duties more diligently and efficiently outside on the verandah; ..................................

......... in the fresh air : exactly the same reason that many railways refused even to fit weatherboards to locomotives in the early days and the development of an enclosed cab was woefully slow.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But to actually answer the title question: I would guess that at  some time pre WWII, most TOADs were double ended. If the builds of double ended TOADs by the constituents of what became the LMS and LNER were not sufficient to have achieved this by 1923, then those two group's builds - which between them had near 80% of the UK freight mileage - will have quickly produced this result. (Explanation. 'TOAD' is a telegraphic code for a goods brake van and not an exclusive term restricted to any one UK railway.)

[Spitfire2865]

But to actually answer the title question: I would guess that at  some time pre WWII, most TOADs were double ended. If the builds of double ended TOADs by the constituents of what became the LMS and LNER were not sufficient to have achieved this by 1923, then those two group's builds - which between them had near 80% of the UK freight mileage - will have quickly produced this result. (Explanation. 'TOAD' is a telegraphic code for a goods brake van and not an exclusive term restricted to any one UK railway.)

But the OP wasnt talking about the telegraph code "TOAD" but the typical GWR brake van "TOAD".

So its less a question on who had more vans in traffic and more to why the GWR designers didnt modernize sooner and shift their design strategy to more modern concepts.

Maybe they were just bitter the rest of the country didnt like the Churchward brakes?

Or maybe, being the only company of the grouping to not have undergone a major philosophy shift with the merging companies, they kept to their own tried and trusted methods.  

Edited November 12, 2018 by Spitfire2865

[The Johnster]

Spitfire's comment about the lack of institutional change on the GW, the only company to 'survive' the grouping, is probably pretty close to the mark.  Railways in the UK were very small c conservative, and adopted change slowly, reluctantly, and never unless they were dragged kicking and screaming into it.  There was a real fear of failure, an unwillingness to take chances by trying anything new when you knew what you had worked, and the profits kept rolling in.  In America, virtually all main line stock was bogie, air braked, and fitted with an automatic coupler/buffer long before WW1.

 

As well as the management conservatism, there was a general attitude of acceptance that things were as they were and written in stone among the lower orders as well.  What was good enough for the previous generation is good enough for you, stop moaning you wimp and get on with your work.  The first generation of freight guards rode on the buffers and were found frozen to death at the end of the journey, consider yourself lucky to have a draughty, dangerous, unsuitable brake van and be grateful you've got a stove!

 

Conditions in passenger stock guard's compartments before steam heating days must have been pretty grim as well; no seat warmers for the guard!  There is very much a parallel in the reluctance to provide loco crews with weather protection, and remember that the crews themselves resisted the first cabs because they compromised forward visibility and hindered the driver's access to the running plate so that he could leave the cab at high speed and clamber round the loco to oil it (at least the GW provided it's broad gauge engines with handrails for this).  

 

I have never seen any figures for deaths caused by this highly dangerous practice, but the report into the Ais Gill accident in 1913, long after express locos were fitted with wick lubricators, mentioned that the crew of the second train missed a signal at danger because the driver was out of the cab unnecessarily oiling around his wick lubricated loco because he'd always done that, and the fireman was distracted by a problematic injector (nobody ever seems to have designed one that worked properly).  The Midland' cabs look spartan to us, but were by no mean the worst in those days; Churchward had a few years earlier fitted a very good GER style cab to a County 4-4-0 and the drivers complained most stringently about it; nothing more was done at Swindon until the Castles in 1923, ridiculed by the drivers for having seats!

 

The GW never went in for double ended vans after the broad gauge era AFAIK, and neither company nor employees ever saw any need to.  

[Chris M]

I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it applied. Sounds like the Toads were better made than most others

[Compound2632]

I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it applied. Sounds like the Toads were better made than most others

 

There's also no incentive to fix it if you don't know its broke.

[The Johnster]

GW toads were certainly very solidly built, which accounts for their superior draughtproofing, but I cannot avoid the conclusion that Swindon would never had changed the basic concept however long they had to think about it.  They just wouldn't have thought about it.  It is the design concept that they didn't think was broken, not the actual vans.

 

Most brake vans lasted a very long time in service; they were in general looked after better (by which I mean less badly) than other freight vehicles, and many pre-grouping examples lasted until the end of the 50s.  The older, short wheelbase ones were usually to be found on trip work where they didn't have to go very far or fast, but they were still being used until the flood of new BR standard vans along with declining traffic meant that they were more or less wiped out in the very early 60s.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Spitfire's comment about the lack of institutional change on the GW, the only company to 'survive' the grouping, is probably pretty close to the mark.  Railways in the UK were very small c conservative, and adopted change slowly, reluctantly, and never unless they were dragged kicking and screaming into it.  There was a real fear of failure, an unwillingness to take chances by trying anything new when you knew what you had worked, and the profits kept rolling in.  In America, virtually all main line stock was bogie, air braked, and fitted with an automatic coupler/buffer long before WW1.

In fairness to British railways, some of them built similarly advanced stock for their own use. For example the LSWR had vacuum braked bogie ballast wagons well before WW1, and the LMS bogie coal wagons that fed their own power stations were many generations ahead of the 4 wheel wagons that they built to transport coal for third parties.

 

Some of the blame for the conservatism has pointed at British industry as a whole - how many collieries were there that couldn't take anything bigger than a 16t mineral wagon?

[The Johnster]

A lot, and, driven by profit and the desire to reduce costs, the railways tried very hard to change the situation, but the 9' wheelbase wagon was standard fare almost everywhere until the introduction of MGR traffic for the power stations.  The collieries argued that their screens and loading equipment was designed for that type of wagon, which had been introduced to them by the railway in the first place, and were unwilling to spend money on replacing this equipment.  As they mostly owned their own wagons for many years, there wasn't much that the railway could do, though they tried various ideas including lower rates for 21ton wagons and hoppers.  

 

You probably couldn't find a more diverse bunch of traffics or corporate cultures than the American railroads, but they had no difficulty seeing that bogie air braked stock was the way to go, something we have yet to accomplish over a century later in the UK.  Since the end of WW1 a century ago the continual bleat has been lack of capital, and fair enough, but there is and has been a reluctance to innovate for fear of coming unstuck behind it.  Compare us to the Belgians in the 1870s and 80s; all sorts of wacky ideas, mostly failures that would not have been tolerated here, but it led to the Belpaire firebox and Walchearts valve gear.  The last steam locomotives built for use here were the Hunslet so called 'austerities',  Robert Stephenson would have recognised every feature of them, most if which he used himself on the long boilered goods of the 1840s and 50s; indeed, some locos of that type for the NCB were supplied by RSH in 1953!

Edited November 12, 2018 by The Johnster