Did GWR run fully vacuum braked goods train - if so how many wagons?

[GWR_Modeller]

Hi,

Obviously passenger trains and passenger class trains like parcel, mail and newspaper trains were fully vacuum braked throughout.  But what about express goods trains.  Did the GWR run fully fitted goods trains?

 

In late 1930s head code C freights had no less than a third and, I believe, no more than half of the wagons vacuum braked.  Headcode D trains had a minimum of four vacuum braked vehicles at the front and for longer trains it increased.

 

Was there another category which was fully fitted?  

 

Paul

[Brassey]

There were trains that were described in the Working Time table as vacuum goods.  Whether these express goods trains were completely  fitted I do not know.   However, as they ran at night,  nobody is going to come up with a photograph to prove one way or another.  

[bécasse]

I would have expected trains of banana vans from Avonmouth Docks to have run fully fitted. Since the steam heat hoses had to be connected throughout the train there would have been little point in not also connecting up the vacuum hoses.

[The Johnster]

Paging Stationmaster, Stationmaster Mike to the thread for chapter and verse please and to correct any mistakes I'm about to make... 

 

The GW had it's fair share of fast freight traffic; bananas from Avonmouth have been mentioned and you can consider fish from Newlyn, Weymouth, Brixton, Milford Haven etc as well, along with the seasonal Jersey potatoes from Weymouth and the Cornish Brocclii specials.  There was a network of overnight express freight along all the main lines, running to tight times with heavy loads for guaranteed delivery depot to depot or door to door premium traffic, which was profitable and extensively promoted to the customers,  The railway constructed vacuum piped toads, which would have been pointless if there were no fully fitted freight trains for them to be attached to, and while much of what the GW did was a bit strange, it was never pointless (though I'm  at a loss when it comes to left or right handed ventilators on 57' suburbans...). 

 

I have never heard of any class of train that has a maximum percentage of automatic brake fitted vehicles, and there was nothing in the rule book that I am aware of that prevented anyone connecting vacuum hoses to provide an excess of braking power on any train.  The timings were worked out according to the maximum permitted load for each class of loco and the braking distance necessary to stop that load with the minimum allowed amount of brake force; excess brake force did nobody any harm and it was pointless not to use it if it was available. 

 

There is also the matter of 'piped only' stock, which has a through vacuum pipe so may be marshalled in the fitted portion of a train, but is not provided with a vacuum cylinder, so the brakes on that vehicle cannot be controlled from the loco.  I can only quote BR rules, but when these were included in a fully fitted or fitted head of a part fitted train, a minimum of 4 automatically braked axles (two 4 wheel or one bogie) vehicle had to be marshalled behind the piped only vehicle(s).  So it would  be possible to see a train with a vacuum hose connected throughout the length which was not fully fitted in the sense that all the vehicles had an automatic brake.  Brake vans were excluded from the '4 axles' rule because they had a handbrake operating mechanism known as a guard riding in them. 

 

Fitted vans were very rare and were RU for specific duties, so all 'normal' fully fitted trains are actually part fitted if we want to be pedentic because the rear vehicle is piped only toad with a guard in it.  It has to be piped, though, a van without pipes and hoses will not do, and fitted with a brake 'setter' allowing the guard to apply the automatic brake throughout the train if necessary.  He also has a vacuum gauge.

 

Guards on the LMS and in particular the ECML which had very fast fish traffic (and speed merchant drivers!) marshaled up to 2 fitted vehicles behind their van, allowed in the working instructions, to steatdy the ride of the van, but I have never heard of this practice on the GW or Southern, and I spoke to many old  hand guards who I would have expected to mention it during my 1970s railway career.  The Southern used their excellently riding Queen Mary brake vans for this sort of traffic, and the long wheelbase GW toads had a reputation for steady riding at speed.  The LNER vans, adopted as the BR standard design, were noted 'rockers' however.  The worst ride I've ever had was in a piped through SECR designed 20T 'pillbox', horrible little thing!

[The Johnster]

Sorry, you asked about train lengths as well.  Lengths were determined by the route the train ran along, and depended on the accomodation available in refuge sidings and loops, along with the clearance overlap distance needed for signalling purposes.  These were measured in Basic Wagon Units (later called Standard Length Units), 1 BWU = one 9 or 10' wheelbase wagon or van with allowance for buffers and coupling.  So a 'Tube' wagon might be 1 and a half BWU, and the guard was responsible for toalling up the length of the train and informing the driver as part of the information on the 'load slip', which he signed, along with the maximum speed the train was allowed (that of the slowest wagon), how many wagons are fitted the automatic brake, and the 'brake force' they provide, and of course the load.

 

Most mainl lines in the UK had a length limit of 60 BWU/SLU, with local instructions allowing longer trains that had to be specially signalled.  For the purposes of express long distance freight we can settle for 60 BWU, and many of the trains had traffic that demanded that they run to the full length.  A fully loaded open weighs 18tons gross, and a van 20, so a 60 BWU train might easily be loaded over 1,000 tons behind the tender drawhook, and run at 60mph if the loco could manage it!  On the GW the locos were usually Halls or Castles, with the 47xx (the loco actually designed for the work) on such 'double red' routes as it was permitted to use.  The express freights were rightly considered amongst the toughest jobs on the railway, and it is significant that what was considered the toughest of all in BR days, the overnight Birmingham/Leeds/Carlisle/Glasgow and it's return working, were given mechanical stoker 9Fs.

[GWR_Modeller]

33 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I have never heard of any class of train that has a maximum percentage of automatic brake fitted vehicles, and there was nothing in the rule book that I am aware of that prevented anyone connecting vacuum hoses to provide an excess of braking power on any train.  The timings were worked out according to the maximum permitted load for each class of loco and the braking distance necessary to stop that load with the minimum allowed amount of brake force; excess brake force did nobody any harm and it was pointless not to use it if it was available. 

 

 

Well that is what puzzled me as well.  Page 173 of the 1936 General Appendix to the Rulebook refers to C class trains and describes "the maximum and minimum proportions of vacuum brake-fitted vehicles required to be connected to the train engine, if the train is to run at its booked speed except in cases where a different proportion is specially authorised........"

 

Basically it is at least a third and less than half eg for a forty wagon train the min is 13 and the max 20.

 

But it also says in short trains of upto 16 wagons all can be vacuum braked.  This does not fit my previous understanding of fully fitted express freights which I expected to be longer.

 

As far as I can tell in trying to understand the purpose of that and other restrictions the problem in a loose coupled train is if you apply the brakes and slow the front of the train too quickly then the rearmost wagons close up without slowing and then impact the wagons in front at an excessive speed difference.    Alot of the rules seems to be about preventing that. 

So there is a sweet spot between adding more braking power to the train as a whole while not causing the problem described above.  And the GWR decided that was a third to a half fitted.  I think that can be inferred?

 

Presumably in a close coupled fully fitted train all the wagons slow at the same time and the problem does not occurs.

 

So my question was about identifying whether there were fully fitted ordinary goods trains or not and how they were identified in timetables since C class is already the fastest class of goods?  

 

You are correct in 1939 for the first time GWR built a batch of fitted, as opposed to piped, brake vans with screw couplings and at about same time completed over a thousand fitted ordinary goods vans with screw couplings.  Presumably for fully fitted ordinary goods trains.  How were they identified in timetables?

[tomparryharry]

The Western built 200  AA21 Toads, which were all vacuum fitted. Not screw coupled, however. (I've never seen one, only in preservation. )  That said, certain Toads were fitted when traffic demanded it. A classic example being one of the Pontnewynydd vans. One is definitely portrayed as being so fitted, or through piped.

 

A screw coupling normally requires 21" buffers on the headstock. For instance you will see screw couplings on a  Fruit C-D, but Instanter on a Mink, which normally   has 18" buffers. By & large, a screw coupling can't tighten up far enough on 18" buffers, and jerk around a bit. 

 

For screw couplings on a standard van, I'd surmise they were destined for continental work, where screw couplings were the norm. 

 

Forgot. The AA21 vans were paid for by the government, not the Western.  

[GWR_Modeller]

GWR Goods Wagons (Atkins, Beard and Tourret) and Gwr org both report screw couplings were used on AA21 (batch of 100) and one of them specifically states screw couplings were used on all fitted brake vans.  My understanding is screw couplings and long buffers always go hand in hand.  And I have learned recently when joining screw coupling fitted vehicles to others with instanter or three links, ie with shorter buffers, the screw coupling was not to be used. 

 

I think it is an interesting hypothesis that the brake vans and goods vans built with screw couplings in in 1938/9 and which were government funded were intended for continental work.   Any evidence for that?

Edited December 5, 2020 by GWR_Modeller
Clarity

[lapford34102]

The GWR and WR ran Perpot's, short for Perishable and Potatoes, trains. Out of Weymouth they were for the Channel Islands traffic, these were fully fitted van trains and length  depended  on the loco. From checking a couple of handy pics a Grange 25+Brake, 43XX  18+Brake.

HTH

Stu

[GWR_Modeller]

Just quickly looked through the preserved wagons list for AA21 preserved vans.  Of the sixteen AA21s I found I could see nine with screw couplings on the photo and could not identify the others, ie none with identifiable three link/instanter.  Of the similar number of non AA21 vans with similar build dates about half had screw couplings and half instanter/three link and about a quarter not identifiable.  Obvious caveats -limited sample, 70 years of rebuilds and confirmation bias etc.

[Fat Controller]

10 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

The Western built 200  AA21 Toads, which were all vacuum fitted. Not screw coupled, however. (I've never seen one, only in preservation. )  That said, certain Toads were fitted when traffic demanded it. A classic example being one of the Pontnewynydd vans. One is definitely portrayed as being so fitted, or through piped.

 

A screw coupling normally requires 21" buffers on the headstock. For instance you will see screw couplings on a  Fruit C-D, but Instanter on a Mink, which normally   has 18" buffers. By & large, a screw coupling can't tighten up far enough on 18" buffers, and jerk around a bit. 

 

For screw couplings on a standard van, I'd surmise they were destined for continental work, where screw couplings were the norm. 

 

Forgot. The AA21 vans were paid for by the government, not the Western.  

When you say 'paid for by the Government', was this part of the 'Loan Scheme' which also saw 'Cut Offs' at various locations, new buildings for engine sheds etc? This was always described as a form of job creation, but I've always suspected that it had an element of strategic war-preparation to it.

 

[GWR_Modeller]

31 minutes ago, lapford34102 said:

The GWR and WR ran Perpot's, short for Perishable and Potatoes, trains. Out of Weymouth they were for the Channel Islands traffic, these were fully fitted van trains and length  depended  on the loco. From checking a couple of handy pics a Grange 25+Brake, 43XX  18+Brake.

HTH

Stu

Hi, Can you see the lamp position and type of vans please, also date, is it post or pre war?  Paul

[lapford34102]

1 hour ago, GWR_Modeller said:

Hi, Can you see the lamp position and type of vans please, also date, is it post or pre war?  Paul

I'll have a look a bit later when Strictly's on and I can escape!

Stu

[richbrummitt]

In short, yes and I believe they would have C head code. 
 

My reasoning:
 

I’ve had a look in a STT. No. 3 National Emergency STT Freight Trains dated 5th Feb 1940. 
 

There are a few examples of trains marked perishables, potatoes and fruit, meat. These are all C head code. Some have a symbol that requires them to be composed entirely of vehicles with oil axle boxes. One such has a maximum loading between Paddington and Newbury of 50 class 3 wagons. 
 

I looked here because it is specifically Freight Trains (and so much thinner than the STT) although the war may have changed operations somewhat. 
 

In another STT (no. 3 Summer 1947) both Fish and Milk Empties are C head code but Newspapers and Milk Empties is B head code. 
 

I had wondered if passenger rated NPCS such as fish and milk could or would run on A or B if it did not contain passengers. It seems not and the head lamps table in this 1947 STT would not allow for this. However the C lamps have two possible bell signals:

 

5 beats - parcels, fish, meat, fruit, horse, cattle, perishable train composed entirely of vacuum fitted stock with vacuum pipe connected to the engine. 
 

4 - 4 beats - Express freight, livestock, perishable or ballast train partly vacuum fitted with not less than one third vacuum brakes vehicles connected by the vacuum pipe to the engine.

 

I have checked the general appendices to the rule books I have and also Atkins GWR Goods Working vol 1 and although the wording changes a little a fully fitted freight train could carry the same C head lamps from 1918 to the end of the GWR. 
 

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by richbrummitt
additional info

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, GWR_Modeller said:

Just quickly looked through the preserved wagons list for AA21 preserved vans.  Of the sixteen AA21s I found I could see nine with screw couplings on the photo and could not identify the others, ie none with identifiable three link/instanter.  Of the similar number of non AA21 vans with similar build dates about half had screw couplings and half instanter/three link and about a quarter not identifiable.  Obvious caveats -limited sample, 70 years of rebuilds and confirmation bias etc.

 

Aha! Yes! AA21 vans are very highly prized vehicles, being vacuum fitted. Originally, they were produced with standard 18" buffing gear. As these vans were withdrawn from revenue, things like departmental  service saw screw coupling added for person-carrying capability.  If you return to the preserved wagon pictures, you'll see some of the buffers with collars welded on. This will normally be retro-fitted to increase from the original 18", to 21" Depending on what period, or indeed, what work the van was used for, will be a deciding factor. May I refer you to Mike Stationmaster of this parish. He has the very clear definition of RU work, which van was branded, and which van wasn't; and why. 

 

Preservation is a minefield. Preservationists think that somehow, screw couplings are somehow 'superior'.  They look at 'couplings', and not all of them realise that the long & short couplings, (and, the buffer length )  do different jobs.  When I owned AA23 35978, I too substituted instanter for screw couplings, which was a mistake on my part.

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

When you say 'paid for by the Government', was this part of the 'Loan Scheme' which also saw 'Cut Offs' at various locations, new buildings for engine sheds etc? This was always described as a form of job creation, but I've always suspected that it had an element of strategic war-preparation to it.

 

 

It needs checking, but I think there is a high element of truth about it.  My old foundry had blackout blinds fitted in the roof, worked by rod & lever. The steel was all rolled in the USA, and I'm reliably told it was erected in 1938..... Like wise Rhydlafar Hospital needs looking at the build dates. 

[lapford34102]

5 hours ago, GWR_Modeller said:

Hi, Can you see the lamp position and type of vans please, also date, is it post or pre war? 

Hi,

Pics mentioned above both early BR. Lamps on b'beam LH and centre from front. Did though find a pic of a 28XX with 30+ on being banked up Bincombe, lamps LH and top centre.

Vans a right mix though not easy to identify, BR style (irrelevant for you) GW vent and fruit, SR style from roof shape, LNER fruit. Did notice there seemed to be a lot of LMS style sliding door with roof vents. The caveat is this is BR days.

There's one shot in Gerry Beale's book on the Tramway showing a 43XX on a C class, lamps LH and top centre, hauling a Jersey Potatoes out of Weymouth in '35  with what looks to be a fully fitted with  4 tarp'ed opens in the line up. The vans look a pretty mongrel bunch but then I'm no expert.

The above may be of some use.

Stu

[tomparryharry]

I think the general distribution by 10 general use wagons would be :-

 

5-7 LMS

4-6 LNER

3-5 GWR

2-3 SR. 

 

There's no bias towards either company. It's just how the traffic flows and numbers went. Naturally, specialised wagons got priority, because of things like the RCH payments & clearance system.

[GWR_Modeller]

16 hours ago, lapford34102 said:

Hi,

Pics mentioned above both early BR. Lamps on b'beam LH and centre from front. Did though find a pic of a 28XX with 30+ on being banked up Bincombe, lamps LH and top centre.

Vans a right mix though not easy to identify, BR style (irrelevant for you) GW vent and fruit, SR style from roof shape, LNER fruit. Did notice there seemed to be a lot of LMS style sliding door with roof vents. The caveat is this is BR days.

There's one shot in Gerry Beale's book on the Tramway showing a 43XX on a C class, lamps LH and top centre, hauling a Jersey Potatoes out of Weymouth in '35  with what looks to be a fully fitted with  4 tarp'ed opens in the line up. The vans look a pretty mongrel bunch but then I'm no expert.

The above may be of some use.

Stu

Hi, The GWSG site has pages of two 1938/1939 notices about specials from Weymouth Quay to transport Jersey new potatoes and French and Cornish brocolli.  The main points I took from these notice are:

- the special trains were Class c*, Class C and class D, where * is the funny spoked wheel symbol used to indicate no foreign grease or hair filled axle boxes.

- the notice specifically states pages 172, 173 and 174 of the general appendix are to be observed.

- it specifies how variuos trains are to be marshalled into vac and non vac parts for different destinations including Cardiff, Crewe London, all the big hubs.

- it mentions that trains with ten wagons less than the standard load can travel faster but not more than 45 mph.

- and intriguingly mentions wagons joining a meat train from the SW to Acton at Westbury.  It says if the wagon numbers on the train now exceeds 35 it must proceed as a partly fitted vacuum implying that it may have been fully fitted before hand.

 

The two lamp positions you mention in BR days are i) C and ii) D which are respectively i) "....composed entirely of vehicles conforming to coaching stock requirements" or "express freight..... piped fitted throughout with automatic brake operative on not less than half...." and ii) "express freight ....... partly fitted with automatic break operative on not less than a third.......".

 

[The Stationmaster]

Right I'd better start by correcting something where the Johnster is way adrift - an SLU (Standard length Unit =  21 feet)  was and is a unit of length measurement, a BWU (Basic Wagon Unit) was, for a while, a measurement of wagon weight and can generally be disregarded in any discussion about the GWR which used a numerical system (1, 2, and 3) to categorise wagon weights for train load calculation for freight trains.  Trains of passenger rated traffic had their loads calculated in tons.

 

Now train classifications and how they were used.  The General Appendix defined the classification of trains and so far as freight trains were concerned also explained the required number/proportion of vacuum braked vehicles.  it should be noted that siome of these things changed over the years with headcodes (i.e. train class) being altered (most changes being post 1948) anf d the number of vacuum braked vehicles also changing - again mostly, if not entirely post 1948.  

 

Any railway operating document - but especially things like the Rule Book and General & Sectional Appendixes (Appendices?). should always be regarded as a snapshot showing how things were at the date they were published, and even then in a few instances things were immediately altered by supplement or special notice.  The full story can only be discovered if you have all the amendments and can quote changes, ideally with dates, as I did in an earlier post in this thread.  For example in the classification of trains the descriptions of what composed Classes j and K was altered in March 1937; Class E was altered in October 1948; there were major changes to freight train classifications in May 1950; while the proportion of vacuum braked vehicles on Class D (1950 version) was altered in September 1954.

 

So the General Appendix gives you the basics although it could well be amended by items in the Sectional Appendix.  An extreme example of a Sectional Appendix amplification was for trains running to/from the GWR goods depotat Smithfield on which one third of vehicles were required to be vacuum fitted, all wagons except those with Instanter couplings were required to be double coupled, and a specially branded short drawbar brakevan had to be used.

 

The next thing was the STT (Service TimeTable - the GWR term for a Working timetable).  In GWR times  and for some years later this was a source, in later years, of not only train times but loading information for freight trains and length limits although these were in those days expressed as a number of wagons.  Categories of information varied over the years so at one time some of the Smithfield information I have mentioned above appeared instead in the No.2 STT.

 

The next, and very signifcant. document for freight working was the marshalling instructions which again changed over the years.  Pre 1914 a lot of this information was shown in the STT  but generally that hac deceased to be the case by the 1930s.  if we lpook at the late eriod these instructions showed the train class, loco power group (or even specific class of engine in some cases), and marshalling of traffic on the train.  It was quite common too for these instructions to contain information which would allow the classification of a train to be altered depending on traffic circumstances and the wagons actually on offer for that train.  This is one place where change of classification comes as there is a clause there allowing it to happen or in the case of some trains very specific instructions not allowing it to be changed - especially on the overnight services.  the change of class would of course often involve a change of speed and timings and this would be wired forward from wherever the change occurred although in some cases the class was booked to change at an intermediate yard based on traffic booked to be detached or attached at that yard.

 

In extremis Control might authorise a change of class or would decide to run a special to clear traffic which the train could not take and at many places there were manned Control engines and brakevans that could be used for that purpose or to deal with surplus or special traffic.

 

The next planned layer below the STT and marshalling instructions were train notices - 'GWR Modeller' has quoted an example of this above in taht particular case being notices for a planned season of special traffic which the published sTT did not cater for.  In addition train notices were issued on a weekly or daily basis  to deal with known short term alterations to the freight timetable and sometimes marshalling arrangements.   By the time I became involved in WR freight train planning in the latter half of the 1960s we were publishing both a regular weekly programme of changes plus a daily notice as well but a lot of this reflected customer requirements for block loads rather than alterations to booked trains although that still happened, particularly with plans for weekend extras to clear surplus traffic.  When I was in charge of WR freight train planning (for the final 3 years of the Region's existence) I refined the system considerably but we still issued a weekly notice which even occasionally included changes to marshalling instructions plus a daily notice although that wasn't issued every day by then.

 

So that is I hope an overall summary which puts some things into their wider context.

 

Train handling is a whole different area and in the steam age a lot of it was down to experience and skill plus intimate knowledge of the road.  When i was working in the South Wales valleys there was quite a lot of disdain for fitted trains which were generally regarded as being difficult to control on steep gradients (there was quite a lot of truth in that!).  Whereas main line depots in England hada lot more time for vacuum fitted heads on freights because they could greatly increase brake power and make fast running feel a lot safer - and don't forget that engines didn't have speedos and Drivers weren't issued with watches so speed was solely a matter of judgement.   As ever the big problem wasn't so much deceleration because unless the Driver was rough with the brake speed loss wasn't rapid and any unfitted wagons gradually buffered behind the fitted ones.  The bigger problem was when the brakes were released because although release was gradual back through the train a rough Driver could open up too early and cause a snatch - which was the most likely time for a Guard to be injured because the snatch would be a majotr jerk when it reached teh back of a train.   Wagon coupling and drawbar breakages occurred when a train increased speed or there was a snatch and the results depended on the age and construction of wagons - steel underframes and drawbars were far more resistance to damage than the older wooden components.

 

[rprodgers]

=It I am hoping this is okay as it is a “part” of a photo from the RC Riley collection... quite a well known one?

 

It is a fish train, hauled by loco 5347, with what I take to be six Bloaters, a Tadpole and passenger brake van* in early 1920s?

 

* It’s hard to for me to see but it looks like a 4 wheel brake van of what type I do not know?

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by rprodgers

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, rprodgers said:

=It I am hoping this is okay as it is a “part” of a photo from the RC Riley collection... quite a well known one?

 

It is a fish train, hauled by loco 5347, with what I take to be six Bloaters, a Tadpole and passenger brake van* in early 1920s?

 

* It’s hard to for me to see but it looks like a 4 wheel brake van of what type I do not know?

 

 

So being horribly pedantic according to the 1920s train classifications it is actually a Class C Fish Train and not a Class C Fully Fitted Freight Train. (although both were signalled using the same ( 5 beats) bell code and carried the same headlamps.