Suburban Steam dwell times

[DK123GWR]

I'm trying to put together a basic timetable and need to know how long a suburban train (such as those on the London, Tilbury, and Southend line) would stop at a station for in the steam era (both small stations and larger interchanges). Although I don't need the information right now, I may later need to know how long inter-city trains stopped for at different types of station, namely an interchange on the scale of Reading and a smaller mainline station (perhaps something like Chippenham) so I would be grateful if anybody could provide this information too. Thanks in advance for any help!

[Steamport Southport]

About the same length of time they do now.

 

The only difference I can think of is some might have had a scheduled water stop. 

 

 

 

Jason

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Dwell times for all compartment commuter trains were very short indeed, perhaps 10 or 15 seconds. Look for videos of commuter trains with slam door compartment stock.

 

Inter-city trains stopped far longer because there were fewer doors, and long distance passengers tended to be slower than commuters.

[Compound2632]

Just over 30 seconds in 1897:

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-railway-traffic-on-the-lnwr-1897-online (Not available outside the UK)

Not long enough for the stationmaster to finish his conversation with the guard!

 

[Kris]

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Just over 30 seconds in 1897:

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-railway-traffic-on-the-lnwr-1897-online (Not available outside the UK)

Not long enough for the stationmaster to finish his conversation with the guard!

 

The film looks slightly speeded up, most likely a frame rate issue. So the time might be a little longer, but not massively. 

[ikcdab]

Just depends on the line. LT&S, high frequency commuter line, say 30 secs. But sleepy branch line, longer. And even longer if waiting for another train at a passing loop.

[Wickham Green too]

47 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

Just depends on the line. LT&S, high frequency commuter line, say 30 secs. ....

The neighbouring Great Eastern was probably quicker as the Westinghouse brakes released quicker when the guard gave the 'right away' ......... the Southern with EP brakes tended to be 20 seconds or so. ( This sort of thing relies on your commuters having had several years of training, of course.)

[Jeremy Cumberland]

59 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

The neighbouring Great Eastern was probably quicker as the Westinghouse brakes released quicker when the guard gave the 'right away' ......... the Southern with EP brakes tended to be 20 seconds or so. ( This sort of thing relies on your commuters having had several years of training, of course.)

The OP is talking about the steam era. Depending on the era and local conditions, I would expect the train to held on the locomotive brake, so there would be no waiting for brakes to release down the train.

[Michael Hodgson]

Trains didn't need to be stationary as long with the old slam lock doors as they do with these sliding doors with their safety interlocks.  They were invariably opened by anybody alighting before the train had come to a stand.  Passengers wanting to board didn't have to wait for a door opening button to be released.  The downside with such stock was any inconsiderate types who didn't close the doors again behind them.  Oh yes, and the odd delay caused when over ambitious passengers managed to injure themselves triying to gett on or off while the train was moving.

 

I think WTTs allowed 1/2 minute stop for stations that weren't very busy.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Jeremy C said:

The OP is talking about the steam era. Depending on the era and local conditions, I would expect the train to held on the locomotive brake, so there would be no waiting for brakes to release down the train.

 

On the Great Eastern in particular, and probably elsewhere, the stored energy of the compressed buffer springs between the carriages on stopping provided a handy extra boost to acceleration on getting away - hence the nickname "Buckjumper" for the little 0-6-0Ts that worked the intensive service out of Liverpool Street. This came unstuck with the move from short 4-wheel carriages to bogie carriages - half the number of buffer springs, less stored energy, result: failure to keep time. So bigger engines were needed to run to the same schedules with trains seating the same number of passengers. The Law of Unintended Consequences!

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

Dwell times for all compartment commuter trains were very short indeed, perhaps 10 or 15 seconds. Look for videos of commuter trains with slam door compartment stock.

 

Inter-city trains stopped far longer because there were fewer doors, and long distance passengers tended to be slower than commuters.

And to load/unload parcels and mails. 
 

 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

And to load/unload parcels and mails. 
 

 

 

To say nothing of attaching and detaching through carriages, horseboxes, etc. or changing engines. Let alone lunch, in the days before dining cars.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

On the Great Eastern in particular, and probably elsewhere, the stored energy of the compressed buffer springs between the carriages on stopping provided a handy extra boost to acceleration on getting away - hence the nickname "Buckjumper" for the little 0-6-0Ts that worked the intensive service out of Liverpool Street. This came unstuck with the move from short 4-wheel carriages to bogie carriages - half the number of buffer springs, less stored energy, result: failure to keep time. So bigger engines were needed to run to the same schedules with trains seating the same number of passengers. The Law of Unintended Consequences!

I didn't know this. Did they use a two-pipe system?

 

I cannot imagine this working with vacuum brakes; the reaction time is too slow.

[Right Away]

12 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

..... This sort of thing relies on your commuters having had several years of training, of course.)

.... and if they were unfortunate enough to be travelling on a Dartford, were also suitably adept at entraining/detraining from 4DD stock. 
“Mind your head/feet!”

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Jeremy C said:

I didn't know this. Did they use a two-pipe system?

 

I cannot imagine this working with vacuum brakes; the reaction time is too slow.

 

I was responding to your suggestion that the train would be held on the locomotive brake only. If the train brakes were applied, I doubt one would get sufficient compression of the carriage buffer springs. Bear in mind that this mode of operation probably originated before the adoption of continuous brakes - even well after 1889, the usual instruction for terminal stations was that they should be approached at a speed low enough to stop the train using the hand brake alone, indicating that the expectation was that drivers would continue to work their trains as if they had only the engine's brakes.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

I didn't know this. Did they use a two-pipe system?

 

I cannot imagine this working with vacuum brakes; the reaction time is too slow.

The GE used Westinghouse air brakes. 

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

I didn't know this. Did they use a two-pipe system?

 

I cannot imagine this working with vacuum brakes; the reaction time is too slow.

 

Not quite. The vacuum is is nearly always 'making'. Once a train came to a halt, the steam brake was on, and could hold the train steady. You can make vac very quickly in the 15-20 seconds of station time.  If not,  the driver would make a report.

[The Stationmaster]

4 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Not quite. The vacuum is is nearly always 'making'. Once a train came to a halt, the steam brake was on, and could hold the train steady. You can make vac very quickly in the 15-20 seconds of station time.  If not,  the driver would make a report.

Exactly so.  With a vacuum brake you should always come to a stand at a station stop on a rising brake, i.e. it is already releasing before the train comes to a stand and the vacuum is being re-created through the train.  Thus the train is held on the loco brake until given the rightaway by which time the brakes will most likely be completely released on the train.  You only really need to destroy the vacuum completely after coming to a stand in a terminus where another engine is to be attached at the rear of the train  (and in many cases that will be after the train engine has been detached so the train needs to have the brakes applied).

 

If you're compressing buffers when stopping a passenger train I suspect something isn't right somewhere because it implies that the engine is actually managing to brake the train more effectively than the automatic brake on the coaching stock whereas normally it's the other way round.  So stock shouldn't really buffer up very much unless the Driver does it on purpose.

 

 

[Compound2632]

32 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

If you're compressing buffers when stopping a passenger train I suspect something isn't right somewhere because it implies that the engine is actually managing to brake the train more effectively than the automatic brake on the coaching stock whereas normally it's the other way round.  So stock shouldn't really buffer up very much unless the Driver does it on purpose.

 

Maybe not under "modern" conditions but that certainly seems to have been how the Great Eastern was working its suburban trains in the late 19th / early 20th century. 

[Nearholmer]

My understanding is that a significant time advantage of Westinghouse over vacuum in the urban/suburban application came from the stopping style. An air braked train can be braked to a stand from a decent coasting speed within its own length, so the length of a platform, whereas the way I understand vacuum the train has to be got down to a pretty low speed by the time it ‘hits the platform’, and travels the length of the platform at a pretty pedestrian pace.

 

If that is correct, it will make seconds of difference in the decelerate-dwell-accelerate cycle, and in this sort of operation every second counts.

[Compound2632]

Going back to the BFI Bushey 1897 film, I think we see the vacuum-braked train coming into the station at a steady, low speed, supporting what @Nearholmer says.

[DK123GWR]

Thank you for the help, and I'm glad to see that the question provoked a wider discussion.

[The Johnster]

I have a 1960 WTT for Cardiff Valleys Division which has some revealing stuff; remember, this is the working timetable, not the fictional work hawked to Joe Public, the railway was supposed to run to this.  At Clarence Road, a Cardiff Docklands branch terminus busy in the rush hours, there were booked turnarounds for some auto services of 2 minutes, and loco hauled services were allowed only 5 to run around, couple back on, do a brake continuity test, and blow the brakes off again; these were 5 coach sets, and the guard would have to close the doors as well!  Unusually for a terminus, Clarence Road had no loco water facilities.  Cardiff General was only a mile away, but I suspect the real reason was the fear that some driver would want water there and mess up the tight schedule...

 

In suburban work, running in slowly encourages the punters to open the doors before the train stops.  We used to have fairly firm stops and departures as smart as possible to help prevent this and discourage any late platform runners.
 

 I used to love leaving these behind, seeing the hope die in their little eyes as the 116s settled into second gear and dug in; must have been even more fun with a 56xx!   But if you lost 10 seconds at each departure from Treherbert to Queen Street, that’s 160 seconds, 2 minutes and 40 seconds late at Queen Street where there was only one island platform a available in those days for Treherbert, Merthyr, Coryton, and Rhymni peak traffic; if you lost your path at Pontypridd or Crockherbtown that was 6 cars of high density jam packed, all late for work because of selfish platform runners.  

Edited September 27, 2020 by The Johnster

[Jeremy Cumberland]

8 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

Not quite. The vacuum is is nearly always 'making'. Once a train came to a halt, the steam brake was on, and could hold the train steady. You can make vac very quickly in the 15-20 seconds of station time.  If not,  the driver would make a report.

That was my point. You would blow the train brakes off while the train was standing in the platform, not when you got given the right away. However, if you do this, you could not make use of any stored energy in the buffer springs, which is what @Compound2632 was talking about, because there wouldn't be any.

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

My understanding is that a significant time advantage of Westinghouse over vacuum in the urban/suburban application came from the stopping style. An air braked train can be braked to a stand from a decent coasting speed within its own length, so the length of a platform, whereas the way I understand vacuum the train has to be got down to a pretty low speed by the time it ‘hits the platform’, and travels the length of the platform at a pretty pedestrian pace.

 

If that is correct, it will make seconds of difference in the decelerate-dwell-accelerate cycle, and in this sort of operation every second counts.

Not exactly the case - a lot depends on driving and braking style.  You can use a vacuum brake in exactly the same way as an air brake but the stopping distances can be longer, especially with older vacuum systems.  However a vacuum brake with direct admission valves on the vehicles will stop in a much shorter distance than a VB train without DA valves (the very reason why the GWR quickly developed a DA valve following the 1900 collision at Slough) and can be braked in almost the same way as an air brake just using a single application for a station stop instead of 'rubbing' the brakes to reduce speed before applying the brake to bring the train to a stand.  The actual stopping distance of course depends on a lot more things than the type of brake - the weight of the train and the speed it was travelling at before applying the brake being the most obvious - braking a heavy train running at 90+mph is rather different from braking one which is coasting at much less than half that speed.

 

As for slowing in a platform it all depends on how safe you want it to be and whether or not you want to give the passengers a good ride instead of a 'short sharp shock' when bringing a train to a stand.  Coming to a stand on a rising brake gives the passengers a much smoother ride but depending on the length of the platform you can still enter it at a reasonable speed and definitely be going faster than walking pace along part of its length as you gradually slow to a halt.