Operation on the Wisbech & Upwell tramway

[stewartingram]

How was this operated? Obviously, in latter day years, one-engine-in-steam (albeit diesel) would suffice. But go back a few years, and more than one train would be on the line. Being goods, the timetable (if any?) would be, shall we say, "approximate", so how did a driver know how to safely proceed to the next passing place. When passenger trams were running, there was a published timetable, how did things happen around that?

 

Stewart

[TravisM]

I believe there was a published timetable but like everything “rural”, it was open to interpretation. It would leave its terminus approximately at the published time and would run the route pretty much as a “whistle or flag stop” to use an American term. I think it was all pretty much was run in a very laid back manner. If you’ve ever watched “The Titfield Thunderbolt”, you’ll understand what I mean lol.

[jonny777]

My advice would be to buy the book - 

 

https://rail-books.co.uk/products/the-wisbech-and-upwell-tramway-9780853616894

[stewartingram]

My advice would be to buy the book - 

 

https://rail-books.co.uk/products/the-wisbech-and-upwell-tramway-9780853616894

 

Got all of those but none actually describe it - or I missed it. And I'm not only thinking of passenger trams.

 

Stewart

[jonny777]

I thought there was something on operation, but maybe I'm confusing that with another tramway history.

[Neil S]

Hi there,

There are certainly pictures of more than one tram standing in the yard at Upwell and, if I remember correctly, a passenger tram passing a goods service at either Boyce's Bridge or Elm Bridge. I've seen the operation of the Wisbech and Upwell described somewhere as a 'shuttlecock service' - I don't know what was meant by that but I would assume that, in the middle of a busy fruit season, more than one tram at any time could proceed down to Upwell, perhaps in a similar way to which a conventional train could follow another through a single line section once the first train had cleared that section. This may be too elaborate but I'm given to thinking the S&D followed a similar principle on busy summer Saturdays - through trains one way in the morning, back the other way in the afternoon or something similar.

[dibber25]

I, too, have wondered about this, as there's no mention in any of the books, of single line tokens or a train staff. However, we have to remember that this was not a railway in the conventional sense, it was specifically a branch line built on the cheap under tramway regulations. Tramways, of course, allowed vehicles to follow one another. You went at a speed which enabled you to stop when you saw an obstruction, or another tram. On the W&U the speed limit was 12mph. Provided the goods offices on the tramway were in touch with Wisbech, they would know when there was no down tram coming and it was safe to release the up tram. 

[roythebus]

There's a video doing the rounds, maybe on youtube of a cab ride on the W&U in diesel days.

[Dungrange]

On 18/01/2019 at 19:18, jonny777 said:

My advice would be to buy the book - 

 

https://rail-books.co.uk/products/the-wisbech-and-upwell-tramway-9780853616894

 

I've noticed that there are a few books that cover the Wisbech and Upwell tramway.  Is that book by Peter Paye the best of them? 

 

I'm principally interested in understanding the operation and traffic conveyed in the late Great Eastern Railway period (ie where goods were imported from and exported to).  I understand that the Great Eastern Railway Society have a copy of an 1899 timetable and that the National Archives have a 1927 timetable, but not sure if that's the one with the last passenger services or the first timetable with the tramway as a goods only line.  These would presumably imply how the line was operated, which I understand was largely sending several trains in one direction and then several in the reverse direction.

 

I understand that the principal traffic was coal inbound (towards upwell) and fruit and potatoes outbound (to Wisbech and beyond) but I'm not sure what else was seen on the line.  A lot of photographs that I've stumbled upon are from BR days, where covered vans seem to dominate ('The Grower's Special' from 1961 that @roythebus highlighted above is one example).  However covered goods vans were much less common in the pre-grouping period, so I'm interested in understanding what wagon types were used for what traffic.

 

I realise that this is a bit of a ramble when asking for a book recommendation.

[Nearholmer]

As a street tramway, my assumption is that it operated like other street tramways,  on “line of sight”, put another way a train could stop if the driver saw one coming the other way, but doubtless use of a combination of the timetable and telephones avoided the need to do that.

 

This “line of sight”, as opposed to block working and signals, was (still is effectively) one of the essential differences between a street tramway and a railway, and only worked safely because the speed of trams was limited very tightly, so they could “stop on a sixpence”.

[Dungrange]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

a train could stop if the driver saw one coming the other way

Agreed, but if they were to meet on a single track section, then one or other train would have to reverse.  I can't see that happening, so the operating practise would have had to try and avoid that scenario occurring.  That would either be by informing the driver that he would have to wait at whatever passing loop for a train travelling in the opposing direction, or where they don't generally meet a train in the opposing direction because you send say three outbound trains and then await three return trains (almost like an extension of the one engine in steam operating practise on a small branch line).

[Nearholmer]

Of course, which is why I mentioned timetable and telephone. But, line of sight, and appropriate speed restriction to allow safe braking within line of sight, is the safety protection, unlike a passenger railway where (traditionally) the safety protection is afforded by block working and at least a few signals.

 

 

[stewartingram]

I wondered about this years ago. But let us not forget that this was a minor - though in its day important - branch line. Going through my stack of relevant books, I found timetables, and perusal of these showed that trains were given a passing place to wait for the next train in the opposing direction. This included the passenger services when they were running. Go to Blackpool today, you will find a very sparse service on their trams compared to the heyday, when (I quote) there was 'Always a tram in sight'.  Today's service is however far more frequent than the W&U ever was! (and they don't have to contend with single track either).

[Nearholmer]

One thing that really amused me the first time I went to ride on the Blackpool Tramway was the way “turnback” services were operated on line of sight. 
 

There is/was a turnback balloon loop at the south end of the prom, and an inspector stood on a small wooden trestle, scanning the length of the prom through binoculars. Based on how many punters he could see waiting at stops going north, and which trams he could see coming south, he would decide when to send a tram out of the loop, and when/whether to turn-back trams heading south, sometimes deciding to “short trip” a car heading further south and turf off the passengers to wait for the next one if things were seriously busy going north.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Dungrange]

On 18/01/2019 at 16:54, stewartingram said:

How was this operated? Obviously, in latter day years, one-engine-in-steam (albeit diesel) would suffice. But go back a few years, and more than one train would be on the line. Being goods, the timetable (if any?) would be, shall we say, "approximate", so how did a driver know how to safely proceed to the next passing place. When passenger trams were running, there was a published timetable, how did things happen around that?

 

The Wisbech & Upwell Tramway, by Peter Paye has the answer to all your questions.  It has working timetables from a number of years including 1897, 1916 and 1927 which all cover the period when both goods and passenger services were working and both the passenger and goods trains are shown in the timetables.  It also has working timetables for 1928, 1937, 1944, 1952 and 1961 which cover the freight only period.  These are all in Chapter 9.

 

Chapter 7 covers the operating instructions, which stated that "This Tramway has passing Loops and Goods Depots at Elm Depot, Boyce's Depot, Outwell Basin, Outwell Village and Upwell, but the crossing stations are Wisbech, Boyce's Bridge and Upwell only".  That is these would be the only three locations where you would have seen more than one tram locomotive under normal operating conditions.  The operating instructions go on to state that "The Trams, which are to cross at Boyce's Bridge are so noted in the Working Timetables and these Booked Crossings must be strictly observed, except as provided for in the last paragraph of this instruction. The man in charge of Boyce's Bridge Depot will be held responsible for unlocking and locking the Points to allow the trams from opposite directions to cross each other."  In effect, this means that the man in charge of Boyce's Bridge Depot acted as a token exchange (although there were no physical tokens), so generally there would only be one tram on the section between Wisbech and Boyce's Bridge and one tram in the section between Boyce's Bridge and Upwell.  The last paragraph of the operating instructions state that "In the event of a Tram having to proceed beyond it's crossing point owing to the cancellation or stoppage of another Tram, the Guard with Hand and Detonating signals, must proceed 900 yards in advance of his Tram."  This was obviously to ensure more than just being able to stop in line of sight.

 

The instructions for working also state that "a telephonic communication is provided between Wisbech and Upwell, with a telephone at Elm Depot, Boyce's Depot, Outwell Basin and Outwell Village".  Clearly these would have been used to ascertain why a booked train hadn't arrived at Boyce's Bridge Depot before the Guard was sent off ahead of his Tram with Hand and Detonating signals.

[Nearholmer]

That is very interesting; I’m going to invest in this book!

 

It would educational to discover whether having a chap walk 900 yards ahead was something the the GER/LNER instituted of their own volition, or whether the BoT/HMRI asked for it. It’s very unusual for a street tramway, and my guess is that it was necessary because of the weights of some of the goods trains, and maybe the fact that the area is prone to a lot of mist and fog in still weather.

[Dungrange]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It would educational to discover whether having a chap walk 900 yards ahead was something the the GER/LNER instituted of their own volition, or whether the BoT/HMRI asked for it. It’s very unusual for a street tramway, and my guess is that it was necessary because of the weights of some of the goods trains, and maybe the fact that the area is prone to a lot of mist and fog in still weather.

 

Peter Paye's book doesn't definitively answer that question.  It states that "The Regulations under which the tramway was to operate were laid down by the Board of Trade and were very specific on certain points of safety", but the Working Instructions are clearly separate from what the Board of Trade stipulated.  The book goes on to state that "The GER and later LNER also issued Working Instructions for the tramway in addition to the Regulations and Bye-Laws".  I would therefore read this as having been something instituted by the GER.  However, the author notes that the Working Instructions changed over time with many of the instructions being "superseded or modified by the LNER and in 1942, the Regulations, Bye-Laws and Local Instructions were a shadow of the former instructions".  It then notes that "By 1956 BR had further reduced these instructions, which......remained in force until the closure of the tramway in May 1966".  By then it appears that all that was left by way of operating instructions was the paragraphs about crossing stations, the need to convey lamps after dusk, during foggy weather or falling snow, and the need for the guard to proceed ahead of either an assisting engine (ie in the event of an engine failure) or a Tram proceeding beyond the crossing station for any other reason.  Given that this instruction survived through to 1966 it must have been felt necessary to retain it, or it had been included in the Instructions prepared by the GER at the request of another body, who didn't want BR to change it.

 

As for weight of trains, I note that the Working Instructions also state that "No coal or Dead Buffer trucks are to be worked by any of the booked Tram Car trains, but a special trip must be run during the night for the working of such traffic".  There isn't an explanation as to why this was necessary, but presumably weight may have been one factor.  There also isn't any indication of how often these 'specials' were run.  I would assume that they were reasonably frequent, as I think coal was one of the main imported commodities.

 

Unfortunately, reading the Working Instructions leaves me with many questions.  The version from the GER Appendix to Working Timetables 1910 stated:

 

"Not exceeding 2 through trucks from Wisbech to Upwell and from Upwell to Wisbech may be worked in the rear of a Passenger Tram.

The Maximum loads of the Trams are as under: -

• Passenger Trams - 9 vehicles
• Mixed Trams - 10 vehicles, 4 of which may be loaded Goods trucks
• Coal Trams - 4 loaded trucks in winter and 5 in summer.

Note: Tram Cars No 7 and 8 to be counted as 2 vehicles each". 

 

Coal Trams are presumably the 'specials' that operated at night, with weather being the obvious difference between summer and winter - presumably it was precipitation rather than temperature that would have affected haulage / braking.  I'm not sure of the difference between Mixed Trams (of which four could be goods wagons) and Passenger Trams with a 'tail load', (which were restricted to two trucks).  There is no mention as to whether these need to be Westinghouse Brake fitted or whether unfitted wagons and vans were acceptable tail traffic.  The only timetable reference to Mixed Trams is in the one for 1885, which lists both Passenger and Mixed Trams, and only one Fruit/Goods service, but these were early days.

 

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

That is very interesting; I’m going to invest in this book!

 

It is an interesting book, and does contain a lot of information.  Unfortunately, there is always a desire to understand more and the more you seem to find, the more questions seem to be generated.   

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Dungrange

[Nearholmer]

One possible reason for banning heavy, especially dumb-buffered, wagons behind a passenger train might have been their tendency to surge into the back of the train when stopping, and create snatch when starting, which would have thrown people and their possessions about, and might have taxed the draw gear and buffer-planks of the coaches, given how they were offset from the longitudinal members in the underframe, which on a typical vehicle are in direct line with buffing and traction forces.

[Dungrange]

Yes, I can understand that in relation to passenger services for the reasons you highlight, but it's less clear why coal wagons weren't supposed to be in scheduled goods services, because the same goods stock would operate together elsewhere on other branch lines.  I'm also not clear if it was just loaded coal wagons that were supposed to be transported at night, or all coal wagons (laden and unladen) and whether this instruction might have been largely ignored in later years. 

 

There is a photograph in Peter Paye's book with the caption "On the final day of passenger train operation 31 December 1927 'Y6' class 0-4-0 tram locomotive No 7133 passes the snow-clad Boyce's Bridge depot with a down freight train.  In the formation are Coote and Warren and Clay Cross private owner coal wagons".  If I understand this correctly, the down direction would be towards Upwell and the wagons should therefore be loaded with imported coal and therefore shouldn't be in that goods train, since it's clearly a daytime service.  It's possible that the caption is incorrect and the wagons are outbound empties, which may have been allowed in scheduled goods services, but the position of the fence in the picture leads me to believe that the tram was bound for Upwell and the caption is correct.  Both these wagons are at the front of the train immediately behind the tram locomotive.

 

The same photograph appears in The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway Centenary Album, by Andrew C Ingram, which has the caption "Coal was the main incoming traffic.  LNER Y6 7133 with wagons from Coote and Warren and Clay Cross on the passing loop at Boyce's Bridge Depot in 1927".  That caption doesn't state the direction of tram, but reference to incoming traffic also suggests a tram heading to upwell that clearly has coal wagons in a scheduled service despite the Working Instructions stating that this wasn't allowed. 

 

Perhaps it wasn't allowed in GER days, but reviewed by the LNER as no longer relevant with the ending of passenger services, which could have made the photographed service one of the first to have coal wagons.  A footnote in the 1927 Working Timetable states "No coal trucks are to be worked by any of the above tram-car trains.  A special trip is to be run for the working of such traffic".  However, there appears to be no such footnote on the 1928 working  timetable.

[stewartingram]

I have all the books mentioned above, but can't at the moment get at them. But a while back I did some extensive photo checks and came to the conclusion that all locos worked the same way round - steam and diesel - so it is easy to check which direction the train is heading. I think it was chimney first to Upwell?

Best to check though. Other things I noted included the passenger brake at the same end, never changing ends to return.

Also as a local, I recognise all the scenes in the pics. I remember the line in existence, saw wagons in the depots, but never a moving train nor a loco!

[D9020 Nimbus]

On 18/02/2023 at 17:04, Nearholmer said:

This “line of sight”, as opposed to block working and signals, was (still is effectively) one of the essential differences between a street tramway and a railway, and only worked safely because the speed of trams was limited very tightly, so they could “stop on a sixpence”.

Electric trams could stop very quickly as they had electromagnetic track brakes — effectively dropping an electromagnet onto the track.

[Nearholmer]

Not sure how fast a horse stops.

[JeremyC]

On 13/10/2023 at 12:20, Dungrange said:

............

I'm not sure of the difference between Mixed Trams (of which four could be goods wagons) and Passenger Trams with a 'tail load', (which were restricted to two trucks).  There is no mention as to whether these need to be Westinghouse Brake fitted or whether unfitted wagons and vans were acceptable tail traffic.

.........

My understanding of the terminology is that a passenger train with tail load must consist entirely of fitted vehicles whereas a mixed train has unfitted goods vehicles behind the passenger carriages and there must be a brake van with guard at the rear.

(I'm assuming that although the W&U was a tramway the operating company was applying the normal definitions to these terms)

Edited October 16, 2023 by JeremyC

[Dungrange]

On 16/10/2023 at 11:55, JeremyC said:

My understanding of the terminology is that a passenger train with tail load must consist entirely of fitted vehicles whereas a mixed train has unfitted goods vehicles behind the passenger carriages and there must be a brake van with guard at the rear.

 

That terminology makes sense in the context of a mainline railway, where passenger trains normally travelled at a higher speed and therefore all vehicles in the passenger train would have to be suitable for that higher speed running, which would necessitate them being fitted vehicles.  However, on the W&U Tramway, all trams (passenger and goods) were limited to a maximum speed of 8 mph (later increased to 12 mph). 

 

My line of thinking is that a passenger tram can have up to nine fitted vehicles (of which two may not be passenger coaches), whereas a mixed train can be ten vehicles (ie one extra vehicle, which means more weight), yet this can have unfitted vehicles.  That seems counter-intuitive.  However, if the passenger trams only had the one brake coach (No 16), which, as far as I can tell always seems to have been marshalled at the Upwell end, and the mixed trams conveyed a second goods brake van as well, then I suppose that does provide additional braking and therefore explains why a longer train was permitted.

 

Unfortunately, I'm still looking for a picture of a Mixed Tram on the W&U, but I suspect that these only operated in the initial years and by the dawn of the 20th century, all of the trams were either Passenger or Goods and the reference to Mixed Trams was just a historic reference.  As such, I think I'm just looking for pictures of fitted tail traffic in a passenger train.

[adanapress]

AS the author of a private press limited edition small book about the line - the first book on the line  I believe, I can say that Mr Paye's book is 'the' definitive work  - academic research of the very highest standard.   I had a cab ride on the line  (laid on by the Rev, Awdry) in the later diesel days, and I can say that operation was indeed laid back.  The ride was very rough indeed.   The load was two or three 21 ton coal wagons, all for Upwell,  and  nothing to come back, (this was January, so very mcuh out of season), The crew said that whilst coal inwards was vastly less now that the fens pumping station were all now oil fired,  the fruit outwards still held up in season,  tho' not the very  very long van trains of previous years.  I noticed that the points at Outwell Village to the wharf road, still had a locking key rusted solid in position.