GWR Autocoach operation.

[Compound2632]

Just now, Poor Old Bruce said:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

How often did it break?

[chrisf]

There is anecdotal evidence that the GW rodding was often stiff and sometimes left uncoupled.

 

Chris

[The Stationmaster]

33 minutes ago, chrisf said:

There is anecdotal evidence that the GW rodding was often stiff and sometimes left uncoupled.

 

Chris

I've worked with people who - in long previous jobs - had done because either the rodding was stiff or because it was considered a bit too much of  a faff to couple the rodding.  I suspect that one reason why it was permitted to carry out shunting with the autocoach attached was probably because someone long ago worked out that if it was uncoupled for shunting at a branch terminus it was possible that it might not to be recoupkled.

[Michael Hodgson]

Were you supposed to sling the passengers out into the rain before you started shunting over unlocked points in the facing direction?

 

Is is true that rural Western Region practice was (when management was safely ensconced in its office) for autotrains to be driven by the Fireman, fired by the Guard while the Driver sat with his feet up in the van?

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Were you supposed to sling the passengers out into the rain before you started shunting over unlocked points in the facing direction?

 

Is is true that rural Western Region practice was (when management was safely ensconced in its office) for autotrains to be driven by the Fireman, fired by the Guard while the Driver sat with his feet up in the van?

 

 

Normal practice meant that - as at Wallingford - shunting would not be taking place with a loaded passenger train at a terminus because it would be carried out after passengers had detrained.  At an intermediate station simple attaching and detaching moves often took place with loaded passenger trains be they push-pull or conventionally hauled and provided the movement complied with the Rules & Regulations there was no need to detrain passengers.

 

I have never heard of anything like your somewhat ridiculous  second suggestion - a Guard would hardly want to get his uniform dirty.  But it was of course the case that the train would effectively br driven by the Firman if a trailer was being propelled without the rod connected.  In any case the Fireman had to do part of the driving even when the rod was connected because the Driver had no control over the reverser or the ejector - but he Driver always had control of the brake.

[slow8dirty]

Stupid question. Was there any provision, however rudimentary for  communication between driver and fireman when separated from each other?

[David Bigcheeseplant]

7 minutes ago, slow8dirty said:

Stupid question. Was there any provision, however rudimentary for  communication between driver and fireman when separated from each other?

I think there was an electric bell system. 

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Given the simplicity of the Midland/LMS vacuum-controlled regulator system, I'm mystified as to why the Great Western persisted with its mechanical system.

Pretty much as I explained in my brief overview; the history of the development of autocoaches continued the original SRM/Trailer setup where that was all that was needed.  As I said, had the system originated in the 20s or 30s, a different method might well have been used, probably vacuum operated, but the LMS and vairous Southern systems did not seem capable of more than 2 or 3 coaches away from the loco, so why bother?  It would take the developemnt of electric and electronic control to enlagre propelled trains to the current situation.  The SNCF used a type of auto working out of Paris Nord with 2-8-2T steam locos propelling long sets of double decker coaches driven from a leading cab on commuter work, but I have no idea how the loco was controlled.                                     

 

But by the 20s the system was established and the SRMs were being slowly replaced.  I imagine the thought occurred at the grouping, when abosrbed stock had to be converted to it, that some thought might have been given to updating it, but that it was probably decided that it was more cost effective to plug on with what you had and accept the odd inconvenience than outlay capital on a new system.  Given the lean years to come, just as well!

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

the LMS and vairous Southern systems did not seem capable of more than 2 or 3 coaches away from the loco, so why bother? 

 

Was the GWR mechanical system capable of being used on longer trains than that?

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, chrisf said:

anecdotal evidence that the GW rodding was often stiff and sometimes left uncoupled.

 

An old  hand Canton driver in the 70s claimed that he'd never seen the gear attached and that most of the time he drove from the loco, only used the front cab when there were 2 trailers, and worked the train by handsignalling the fireman.  I'm sure all this hppened when orforitee was not around,, and he could always go through the motions, literally, of using the regulator handle if he aware of being spotted, but I think he was having me on a bit...

 

In a later incarnation, back in the 80s, I was in an exhibiting club, and at one show, with a layout of Bute Road in Cardiff, was accosted by a chap who informed me that 'those trains never had steam locos, they were always diesel'.  It transpired that he'd commuted to Bute Road from Rhiwbina for many years, between 1954 and the late 60s.  All he'd ever seen was the front of the propelled train running in in the morning, or the rear of the departing train he boarded at Bute Road in the evening, and this train always had a coach with 3 windows in the end facing him!   He'd ridden on steam auto trains and 116s for all that time and assumed diesel power.  Why shouldn't he, he had no interest in the locos?

 

Realising what his thought processes were, I asked if he'd ever seen a train with just one central oblong window in a flat end, a Cyclops.  He thought a bit, and came up with 'I think so, once or twice, back a long time ago before the changed the colour form red to green'.  Then I showed him some photos; he was absolutely gobsmacked, and rather pleased that he could tell his grandkids about having been on steam trains.

[57xx]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Was the GWR mechanical system capable of being used on longer trains than that?

 

No, the anecdotal evidence is that two trailers was the most that could be used before slop in the linkages made it unusable, hence the sandwich configuration for 4 trailers.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

No, the anecdotal evidence is that two trailers was the most that could be used before slop in the linkages made it unusable, hence the sandwich configuration for 4 trailers.

 

The Midland vac system was originally operated with the loco sandwiched between two driving trailers; I suspect this was more to do with concerns about propelling than the length of the vac pipe, but I don't know. Certainly three-coach trains were operated with an additional carriage between the loco and one driving trailer. In LMS days two or sometimes three carriage trains were used, all with the loco at one end. Perhaps it was felt to be better practice to have the driver on the loco half the time than leave the fireman to his own devices all day.

[JimC]

17 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Locos were originally fully depreciated small tanks, available at no cost, 2021s, Metros, 517s being typical, both saddle and pannier 0-6-0s with inside and outside frames being used.  

One oddity was that locos from many different pre group classes*, although normally the lower powered ones, were picked for auto working, and the gear seems to have sometimes been taken off again at overhauls, but the new built classes kept their gear for all their lives, and don't seem to have swapped with their non auto fitted cousins, 74s and 58s.

 

*the ones Johnster lists were predominant though. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by JimC

[The Johnster]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Was the GWR mechanical system capable of being used on longer trains than that?

No, 2 coaches from the loco tops.  Read my post from yesterday if you've got time.

 

The John Lewis auto trailer book in the 'overview' section mentions a letter from T Hurry-Riches, CME of the Taff Vale, to his board reporting on a fact finding trip to Plymouth.  He mentions a 4 coach train consisting of 2 auto-coupled sets of SRM and auto trailer coupled together, presumably with the SRM engine ends outwards and the trailer cabs facing each other.  Hurry-Riches knew what he was looking at, he was CME of a working railway and up with all the usual practices, but does not mention how this train actually worked.  It could physically not possibly have had the auto gear coupled between the inward facing trailers, and one doubts that a single SRM engine would manage a trailing 4 coach load which included the weight of the other engine. There are gradients up to Royal Albert and on the Tavistock branch.  The vacuum brake could be connected and worked from the front SRM cab throughout the train in the normal way, of course, but there must have been 2 drivers and 2 firemen, one each in each SRM cab, with the driver of the rear engine responding to buzzer or hand signals from the front driver.

 

This is not the most economical (that would be an economical matter) or efficient way of working a train service, and one wonders about the practicality of it, a whole crew wasted for half a shift each.  Surely loco hauled coaches must have been a better option, or two separate SRM+trailers providing a more frequent service.  I am unaware of it or anything remotely like it anywhere else, and I bet it would attract comment from the rivet counters if you showed it at an exhibition!  Ticket sales must have been pretty healthy to justify it, and proof of the effectiveness or SRMs in their early days. 

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

No, 2 coaches from the loco tops.  Read my post from yesterday if you've got time.

 

I did. I was merely making a rhetorical point: citing the supposed unsuitability of the vac system for longer trains, when the GW mechanical system couldn't be used for longer trains either, doesn't work as a reason for the GW being unwilling to change to an otherwise superior system.

 

Still, it's the quaintness of the GW's ways that is much of its appeal, as far as I'm concerned.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, 57xx said:

 

No, the anecdotal evidence is that two trailers was the most that could be used before slop in the linkages made it unusable, hence the sandwich configuration for 4 trailers.

Not just anecdotal; this was the instruction in the General Appendix.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Perhaps it was felt to be better practice to have the driver on the loco half the time than leave the fireman to his own devices all day.

Sounds like a manning issue, but my knowledge of Midland and LMS practice is woeful.  The GW used passed firemen on auto duties, who understood the workings of the reverser and injector that they were now tasked with using while the driver was absent from the footplate.  The jobs were manned by 'Auto Links' in the fireman's grade that could only be applied for by passed men.  If no passed fireman was available, a junior driver would be pressed into service and if he was not available, the train was hauled conventionally, which must have led to some ad hoc jiggery pokery by roster clerks (these guys were passed masters at this sort of jiggery pokery) to ensure that turns with turnarounds at termini based on an auto driver changing ends were given priority over jobs that could be conventiolally loco hauled with the run around procedure not impacting the timetable too much. 

 

For those who think this might not have been necessaary on the bucolic grass chewing branches associated in most modellers' minds with auto work. I refer you to the 1960 WTT for the Riverside Branch in Cardiff. double track but a single platform, all paths occupied from about 08.15 to 09.10, turn arounds booked at 1 minute for autos and 3 for loco hauled trains; seconds counted, and this was all repeated at 17.00.  Consider a fireman's job on a Bute Road-Coryton working, trailer/loco/traler/trailer, flat out blast off from Queen Street to get as much spped as you could before tackling the 1 in 90 starting at Crwys Road bridge and all the way to Heath Junction.  Ok, it's only a mile but in peak periods there's a Rhymney (period spelling) champing at the bit behind you and he must not sniff a distant 'on' at Heath because he needs a clear run for the rest of the 5 miles to Wernddu, You need to fire strenuously, but your driver will complain about wasted steam if you blow off in the platform at Heath Low Level; you have your work cut out, no time for chewing grass!

[Miss Prism]

[Compound2632]

That's the first time I've seen a driving trailer milk tank!

[Rivercider]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Pretty much as I explained in my brief overview; the history of the development of autocoaches continued the original SRM/Trailer setup where that was all that was needed.  As I said, had the system originated in the 20s or 30s, a different method might well have been used, probably vacuum operated, but the LMS and vairous Southern systems did not seem capable of more than 2 or 3 coaches away from the loco, so why bother?  It would take the developemnt of electric and electronic control to enlagre propelled trains to the current situation.  The SNCF used a type of auto working out of Paris Nord with 2-8-2T steam locos propelling long sets of double decker coaches driven from a leading cab on commuter work, but I have no idea how the loco was controlled.                                     

 

But by the 20s the system was established and the SRMs were being slowly replaced.  I imagine the thought occurred at the grouping, when abosrbed stock had to be converted to it, that some thought might have been given to updating it, but that it was probably decided that it was more cost effective to plug on with what you had and accept the odd inconvenience than outlay capital on a new system.  Given the lean years to come, just as well!

I would agree that there was not a pressing need to develop the auto coach/railmotor concept in the 1920s.

 

The LSWR opened a number of halts in the Exeter area in 1906/7/8, they were served by railmotor service. Some of the halts were little used, one closed in 1923, another in 1928, the railmotor service itself had ceased by the grouping. The other halts remain open, (the marvellously named Lions Holt Halt became St James Park), and served by traditional trains. 

 

cheers  

[45655]

The Dart Valley Railway is known to have run 5 coach auto trains in the early days, with a 14xx in the middle. One wonders how the drivers got on with 3 coaches leading.

 

In theory, with off-centre mechanical rodding working fore and aft, one would expect the regulator opening to vary when the train goes round corners.  I have been assured by an SVR driver familiar with auto working that this is not in fact so, and I can only assume that this is because of the amount of slop in the system.

 

3 coaches leading was the maximum allowed with the SR (ex-LBSC) air control system.  I believe that this limit was imposed by the Ministry of Transport, but I’m happy to be corrected on that.  In practice this probably didn’t happen very often - most p-p sets were 2 coaches and there were very few air fitted loose coaches - but the SR did have some air fitted four wheel luggage vans which could be formed between the loco and a 2 coach set.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

No, 2 coaches from the loco tops.  Read my post from yesterday if you've got time.

 

The John Lewis auto trailer book in the 'overview' section mentions a letter from T Hurry-Riches, CME of the Taff Vale, to his board reporting on a fact finding trip to Plymouth.  He mentions a 4 coach train consisting of 2 auto-coupled sets of SRM and auto trailer coupled together, presumably with the SRM engine ends outwards and the trailer cabs facing each other.  Hurry-Riches knew what he was looking at, he was CME of a working railway and up with all the usual practices, but does not mention how this train actually worked.  It could physically not possibly have had the auto gear coupled between the inward facing trailers, and one doubts that a single SRM engine would manage a trailing 4 coach load which included the weight of the other engine. There are gradients up to Royal Albert and on the Tavistock branch.  The vacuum brake could be connected and worked from the front SRM cab throughout the train in the normal way, of course, but there must have been 2 drivers and 2 firemen, one each in each SRM cab, with the driver of the rear engine responding to buzzer or hand signals from the front driver.

 

This is not the most economical (that would be an economical matter) or efficient way of working a train service, and one wonders about the practicality of it, a whole crew wasted for half a shift each.  Surely loco hauled coaches must have been a better option, or two separate SRM+trailers providing a more frequent service.  I am unaware of it or anything remotely like it anywhere else, and I bet it would attract comment from the rivet counters if you showed it at an exhibition!  Ticket sales must have been pretty healthy to justify it, and proof of the effectiveness or SRMs in their early days. 

Couldn't the two sets have been coupled loco end to loco end?  Firemen on locos, one driver at leading loco end only?  Probably need 2 drivers to keep unions happy though.

 

Running two SRM sets coupled could just about be economical if it had to be split into two trains for separate destinations which both desired a through service (big town to the junction, two branches thence).  Not worth the bother unless pathing was an issue, but seems unlikely in the West - I could see pathing maybe as an issue on the Taff Vale with a lot of coal traffic

[chrisf]

I thought that Miss Prism's photo depicted the railtour of May 1960 until I spotted the milk tank.  It was taken at Saltash.  If that was a service train it would have taken some shunting to put the tank into the milk depot siding, which trailed into the other platform.

 

Chris 

[Miss Prism]

9 minutes ago, chrisf said:

I thought that Miss Prism's photo depicted the railtour of May 1960 until I spotted the milk tank.  It was taken at Saltash.  If that was a service train it would have taken some shunting to put the tank into the milk depot siding, which trailed into the other platform.

 

The other platform????:

 

[chrisf]

Yes.  The auto is in the down platform.  The milk depot post-dates the plan and is/was approximately where the dock is.  A book published a few years ago suggests thst loaded milk trains from the Penzance direction picked up at Saltash.  Not so: the tanks were attached to an auto, probably because a milk train would have got in the way if it stopped to attach traffic.  In a 1962 issue of Modern Railways there is a pic of a pair of bubble cars hauling two tanks across the Royal Albert Bridge.

 

Chris

[Miss Prism]

10 minutes ago, chrisf said:

Yes.  The auto is in the down platform.

 

OMG.  It's obvious now you point it out. I had always assumed the water column was on the up side!

 

suitably chastened, but educated, and happy to know quite a bit of shunting was involved (I've always thought Saltash would make a great model)

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Miss Prism