Jump to content
 

Engine Sheds on BLTs - A revisit


BWsTrains
 Share

Recommended Posts

Note: Follow up to a deleted Topic, where some outstanding questions remained unanswered.

 

The question "should minor Branch Line Terminus settings have Engine Sheds" was being addressed but left incomplete. We had heard that most GWR BLTs did have an Engine Shed, (up to the early 30s at least) and I was keen to know the reason "Why?".

 

Clearly the extra infrastructure and local placement of crew did not come without costs so the GWR must have had good reason for the expenditure. Reasons proposed included:

  • To have a local loco available for the first departing train of the day i.e that was from the BLT rather than Main Line Junction
  • Local Shunting to provide greater flexibility preparing outgoing goods trains

 

Informed opinions will be welcomed as I lack the hard-copy resources over here to do any further research. GWR is my focus but any other information may also be of interest.

 

Regards,

 

Colin

 

Edited by BWsTrains
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
48 minutes ago, Free At Last said:

Why was it deleted, what were the questions?

Yes, I was wondering why the previous thread was deleted.

 

It's really bad form to delete any topic unless it's grossly wrong or contravenes the forum rules because it may contain ongoing discussion (as in this case) or information that might be useful to others in the future.

 

It also makes you question why you bothered to contribute to it in the first place and whether it will be worth helping the OP in the future!

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, BWsTrains said:

Note: Follow up to a deleted Topic, where some outstanding questions remained unanswered.

 

The question "should minor Branch Line Terminus settings have Engine Sheds" was being addressed but left incomplete. We had heard that most GWR BLTs did have an Engine Shed, (up to the early 30s at least) and I was keen to know the reason "Why?".

 

Clearly the extra infrastructure and local placement of crew did not come without costs so the GWR must have had good reason for the expenditure. Reasons proposed included:

  • To have a local loco available for the first departing train of the day i.e that was from the BLT rather than Main Line Junction
  • Local Shunting to provide greater flexibility preparing outgoing goods trains

 

Informed opinions will be welcomed as I lack the hard-copy resources over here to do any further research. GWR is my focus but any other information may also be of interest.

 

Regards,

 

Colin

 

 

A lot of branch lines were originally built by independent companies and, for them, the terminus was quite possibly the focus of their attention, rather than being some distant outpost. So they might feel it important to have a shed at their "base".

 

Many branch lines were built in the Victorian era - a different environment with a different way of thinking:

Manpower was cheap and readily available - so employing men to look after the engine at the terminus was not such a problem as it became in later years. Changes in the cost of manpower and improvements in loco technology resulted in engine sheds at BLTs being closed over time, even while the line was still working.

[Speculation] It may have been felt necessary to provide a shed to deal with minor problems on the early locos to ensure that a reliable service could be maintained.

 

P.S. I don't buy into the Local Shunting reason because many of these branch lines were operated on a "one engine in steam" basis - i.e. only one loco allowed in the station at any time unless special measures were taken. So the branch loco would be the only one doing the shunting and there would be plenty of time to do that built into the timetable.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I had the thread open overnight and there was a notification that the OP had replied, but a reload gave an error.  I think deleting a topic has to be a moderator action but it seems pretty nuclear to me compared to just a note and locking the topic.

 

There was probable copyright material reproduced in the document linked from the OP, but none posted in the thread itself as far as I remember.  

 

The issue of sheds at branch termini has been discussed before and a careful search of this forum would probably find the relevant threads.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Only the most basic maintenance, within the competency of the loco driver and fireman, could be carried out at a small sub-shed like this. The loco would be scheduled to return regularly to the main local shed for repairs with another loco coming out to replace it.

 

The GWR definitely seems to have favoured loco sheds at branch termini. Quite difficult to find one without. Bit more varied on other companies' lines..

 

KESR is an interesting exception with shed in the middle (Rolvenden) but then it was usually worked in two parts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember my own dabblings in GWR in the past, local engine sheds were phased out from BLTs after grouping, with engines being stabled (and serviced) at larger MPDs.  This was a particular practice in South Wales. There might still be  water and / or coal  facilities and in some cases even a turntable if tender engines were used on the branch.

 

In the "prototype  for everything" department, Ventnor on the Isle of Wight railway (all tank engines), originally had a small turntable at the end of the platform roads. This was because the station was in a very cramped location and the turntable took up less room than the end of the passing loop and points would have done.  It was later replaced by a three-way point. (Interestingly the track plan for Ventnor doesn't include an engine shed.)

 

Replicated on a BLT this saves space and allows the running of some tender engines - maybe on a GWR layout 63xx, 22xx or similar length.

Edited by CameronL
Added a bit
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Simple really -

1. As 'Harlequin' has already said many branch lines were built by independent, or nominally independent, companies so they needed an engine shed somewhere and the terminus was most likely to be the place where there was room for it as the land was being newly acquired for the railway..

2. If there is a 'first train' or early departure from the terminus then an engine would be needed to work it so it was logical to have an engine shed at the terminus.

 

To go into this in greater depth what you also need to consider is the whole subsequent question of costs.  Taking our local terminus as an example it retained an engine overnight until dieselisation (after which it still had for some years, a locally stabled bubble car  - single power car/SPC).  But the nearest largeish depot was only 10 miles away - and so we get into cost.  once you've got the siding and the building the maintenance cost of them is minimal although the shed will become increasingly decrepit no doubt.  The staffing cost is also minimal as far as the engine is concerned - simply, in (G)WR terms - the cost of a Shedman plus occasional relief for him from the nearest other depot by either a Passed Cleaner or Fireman.  He coals and waters the engine and looks after the fire overnight plus any occasional cleaning.  The only other things required area wagon of coal (almost zero added cost as it comes in on the freight trip), plus a few barrels of oil and some basic tools etc.

 

The alternative - in our local case - of bringing the engine from the nearest main line shed is 20 miles per day of light engine running, manning of those 20 miles by two men,  and either deleting the first train out (and the last train in at night) or opening two branch signal boxes earlier and closing them later.  So apart from increased engine mileage (140 miles per week) there are increased staffing costs which far outweigh the cost of the Shedman.  So simple economics decide the retention of the shed and that will be more or less inevitable depending on the pattern of train service, and the lack of a shed or depot at or very close to the junction.  

 

3. The shunting thing is a very bright red herring.  The branch engine was there to work trains and in some cases it might also work the freight trip down from the junction, or there'd be mixed trains and the freight trip/mixed train engine would do the shunting when there was shunting to do.  At a branch terminus there was very rarely any shunting to do first thing for the simple reason that there was nothing to shunt.  Such a need would only possibly arise if traffic originated from, say, a private siding overnight or the local goods yard worked at night (almost unheard of outside the major fright depots).  And any overnight freight stuff would in any case probably be dealt with by different engines - say for a colliery etc.

 

The  freight shunting would be done by the freight engine because it is what brings in freight traffic, shunts as necessary and then takes freight traffic away.  Or the branch engine would do that once it had brought in the freight trip or brought it in off a mixed train working.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, CameronL said:

If I remember my own dabblings in GWR in the past, local engine sheds were phased out from BLTs after grouping, with engines being stabled (and serviced) at larger MPDs.  This was a particular practice in South Wales. There might still be  water and / or coal  facilities and in some cases even a turntable if tender engines were used on the branch.

 

In the "prototype  for everything" department, Ventnor on the Isle of Wight railway (all tank engines), originally had a small turntable at the end of the platform roads. This was because the station was in a very cramped location and the turntable took up less room than the end of the passing loop and points would have done.  It was later replaced by a three-way point. (Interestingly the track plan for Ventnor doesn't include an engine shed.)

 

Replicated on a BLT this saves space and allows the running of some tender engines - maybe on a GWR layout 63xx, 22xx or similar length.

 

Evidence for that?

 

If you look at the ET Lyons Engine Shed book for 1947 most, if not all GWR BLTs still have an engine shed and one or two locomotives allocated. So they certainly lasted into the BR era.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/historical-survey-Great-Western-engine/dp/0902888161

 

I think you must be mistaking turntables which were phased out from small sheds around the turn of the century. Notable exception was Princetown.

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Evidence for that?

 

If you look at the ET Lyons Engine Shed book for 1947 most, if not all GWR BLTs still have an engine shed and one or two locomotives allocated. So they certainly lasted into the BR era.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/historical-survey-Great-Western-engine/dp/0902888161

 

I think you must be mistaking turntables which were phased out from small sheds around the turn of the century. Notable exception was Princetown.

 

 

Jason

Thanks. It's more than a few years since I modelled GWR. I remember being taken to task about engine sheds because my own BLT design had one, and the person in question emphatically told me I shouldn't.

 

In case you were wondering,  I applied a large helping of what I thought at the time was Rule 1 and left it in 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have been thinking on this one for several hours now, not having access to any reference books.

 

Outside of South Wales, where traffic was rather different, I have really struggled to find a BLT without an engine shed at the terminus.

 

Falmouth is one (but arguably not a BLT, the branch being to Penzance.).

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

South Wales almost goes out of it's way to be different.

 

As a very sweeping generalisation, about half the routes in the area were GW prior to the grouping, and consisted of the Tondu branches, some of the Llantrisant network, the Vale of Neath/Aberdare-Pontypool Road route, and the Western Valley and low level route of the Eastern Valley in Gwent, then Monmouthshire of course.  The GW had centralised loco depots for these routes at Ebbw Jc, Pontypool Road, Neath Court Sart, Aberdare GW, Llantrisant, and Tondu either off their own bat or by taking over and developing previous comanies' sheds as at Tondu.

 

And there were not very many branch termini in the area either, at least in the traditional sense of the term, with buffer stops at  the end of a platform.  Cowbridge's original passenger terminus fits the traditional sense definition, and was pretty bucolic to boot, but the later extension of this Taff Vale branch to Aberthaw brought it more into line with 'normal for South Wales' practice.  Porthcawl's 'new' passenger station was a 'traditional' buffer stop/end of the line terminus, as was Barry Pier, though this staion never had a regular timetable service and was used to connect with steamer sailings, and Clarence Road in Cardiff's Docklands (an anomaly in that it was a GW branch on which passenger services were operated by the Barry and Taff Vale) comes close but connected to a canal company owned branch that continues south of the station.   Merthyr is a proper terminus, but one would hardly describe a multi-platfom terminus serving 5 routes owned by 5 different companies from what was, at the time of it's construction, the largest town in Wales, as a branch terminus.  I cannot think of another terminus station anywhere in the UK which served as many companies.  The original Taff Vale station, later the goods depot at Plymouth Road, was a 'proper' terminus as well.  Nantymoel is pretty much at the northern limit of that branch but the rails run a few yards further to complete a run around loop and loco headshunt.  All the others, and there  are many, continue past the terminal passenger station to collieries or steelworks further up the valley  (e.g. Maerdy, Blaengarw, Abergwynfi), or connect end on to other routes (e.g. Treherbert, Rhymney, Tredegar).

 

The independent companies made their own arrangements, and sited sheds where it was convenient for traffic purposes.  The Rhymney, for example, had a main loco depot at Cardiff East Dock, but had sheds at Rhymney (contemporary spelling) and Dowlais Cae Harris as well.  The latter can be regarded as a branch terminus, but with very heavy traffic connected with the GKN Dowlais steelworks, which needed loaded iron ore trains to be double headed and banked in the upper reaches of the Bargoed Rhymney valley, so had a particular heavy requirement for locomotives.  The Barry maintained sheds at Barry, Pontypridd, and Bridgend Coity.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Original thread is back - possibly just hidden by mistake? NOT

 

I heard a whisper that it was reinstated by Admin after its deletion and after I'd started this new one in lieu to get to the discussion I'd hoped to be able to follow in the first place!

Edited by BWsTrains
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I have been thinking on this one for several hours now, not having access to any reference books.

 

Outside of South Wales, where traffic was rather different, I have really struggled to find a BLT without an engine shed at the terminus.

 

Falmouth is one (but arguably not a BLT, the branch being to Penzance.).

I think that Clevedon never had a loco shed, the loco for the branch was shedded at the junction at Yatton.

Did Hemyock ever have a shed?

 

cheers  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rivercider said:

I think that Clevedon never had a loco shed, the loco for the branch was shedded at the junction at Yatton.

Did Hemyock ever have a shed?

 

cheers  

Clevedon GWR does not appear to have had one but it was hardly needed being so close to the nearest available. Of course Clevedon WC&PR did but that's another story :)

 

Hemyock did, and that is where this whole enquiry of mine started as it happens.

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Engineman's working hours affected things, as did an appetite for later trains, and increasing range of the locos used.

Most panniers could take over 3 tons of coal, I think some could take 4 tons so longer forays from depots became feasible.  It was sensible to operate from the terminus when trains were planned by a independent company, this was often swallowed by a larger neighbour before opening but with the engine shed built and a couple of blokes happy to work 14 hours at a stretch with Sundays off except for a bit of engine cleaning and boiler wash out, and maybe a shed man and  the job was sorted.

Trouble was folk got lazy and started to want leisure time. Sunday services really put the kybosh on it and suddenly they needed  two sets of blokes to run the service.   And a spare engine to cover washouts rather than to just cover repairs.

So gradually the basing of the loco at a central location made sense,  saving the cost of a shed man and the rates on the loco shed,  The loco could often work a local from shed to junction before a light engine trip or ECS trip to the Terminus,  and the terminus sheds fell into disuse. I believe Princetown kept its in full use until the end in 1955,  but generally with the 48 hour week etc post WW2 if sheds were present they were not in use for overnight stabling.  The pit might be handy for oiling round between trips. 

 

Edited by DavidCBroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

South Wales almost goes out of it's way to be different

But South Wales was different - in general, its railways were dominated by industry (mainly coal and steel), to which many of the lines owed their existence. The passenger traffic was almost incidental, certainly in the earlier days that established the dense network of lines.

 

The "classic" BLT was a very rare beast in South Wales. Take Aberdare (Low Level) as an example - originally the terminus of the Taff Vale Railway in that valley, but a terminus only with respect to passenger traffic for Pontypridd, Cardiff and points south. However, the TVR double track line used to sweep past the station northwards over a level crossing that caused traffic snarl ups in the town centre. On the north side, there were connections to various collieries and other industrial works and a simply huge marshalling yard which used to be filled with lines of coal wagons - empty and full. I remember walking across the footbridge over the centre of this yard as a five year old and simply marvelling at the sight.

 

Many other terminus stations were similarly dominated by the industrial side of the railway throughout South Wales. I could not imagine anything further removed from the rural tranquillity of a BLT like Moretonhampstead! Aberdare probably dealt with more traffic in an hour than visited Moretonhampstead in multiple days.

 

For anyone who wants to get a real flavour of the railways in South Wales, I can recommend the book "Rails in the Valleys" by James Page.

 

Yours, Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

Engineman's working hours affected things, as did an appetite for later trains, and increasing range of the locos used.

Most panniers could take over 3 tons of coal, I think some could take 4 tons so longer forays from depots became feasible.  It was sensible to operate from the terminus when trains were planned by a independent company, this was often swallowed by a larger neighbour before opening but with the engine shed built and a couple of blokes happy to work 14 hours at a stretch with Sundays off except for a bit of engine cleaning and boiler wash out, and maybe a shed man and  the job was sorted.

Trouble was folk got lazy and started to want leisure time. Sunday services really put the kybosh on it and suddenly they needed  two sets of blokes to run the service.   And a spare engine to cover washouts rather than to just cover repairs.

So gradually the basing of the loco at a central location made sense,  saving the cost of a shed man and the rates on the loco shed,  The loco could often work a local from shed to junction before a light engine trip or ECS trip to the Terminus,  and the terminus sheds fell into disuse. I believe Princetown kept its in full use until the end in 1955,  but generally with the 48 hour week etc post WW2 if sheds were present they were not in use for overnight stabling.  The pit might be handy for oiling round between trips. 

 

So why did quite a number of branch sheds (if not most) remain in use well into the 1950s and in many cases until dieselisation or line closure for passenger trains?  The 8 hour day and the 48 hour week were introduced just after the end of the Great War and the working week wasn't reduced to 44 hours until the early-mid 1950s (which then meant that men got one Rest Day per fortnight, the 48 hour week obviously required no Rest Day cover).  In many cases the 48 hour week did not add much to cost of  basic employment because a day length in excess of 12 hours had been ruled out before the Great War.  Rest Days could in any case be covered from another depot which had sufficient strength of Spares to cover Rest Days at sub-sheds and the only additional cost would be Lodging Allowance (where travel wasn't possible - which had always been the case for covering leave and sickness at small/sub-sheds) and paying that was considerably cheaper than running in and out light engines.

 

If you had a branch shed with two sets of men they would most likely work alternate Sundays - unless there was a greater demand for Sunday trains where some could be worked by other sheds and the main reason for s woer rking Sundays was financial - even a Driver's basic Pre WWII wage, and certainly his 1950s wage - made a the chance of the earning power of a Sunday turn very attractive.   Shedmen of course cost very little - again far cheaper than all the alternatives with the exception of removing early and late trains.  

 

So just how many branch terminus sheds on the Western had their crews taken away prior to dieselisation and how did that affect costs?   Wallingford was definitely one - it closed three years before the passenger service ended;  and Staines was another as it went in 1952 .  But those are the only ones on the Western that I can immediately find in the BR era.  Far more survived until either dieselisation or closure.  How many went between teh wars apart from those which had to be closed to make way for various layout alterations?

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

So just how many branch terminus sheds on the Western had their crews taken away prior to dieselisation and how did that affect costs?   Wallingford was definitely one - it closed three years before the passenger service ended;  and Staines was another as it went in 1952 .  But those are the only ones on the Western that I can immediately find in the BR era.  Far more survived until either dieselisation or closure.  How many went between teh wars apart from those which had to be closed to make way for various layout alterations?

I am struggling to find any which stabled locos overnight after 1955.    Moorswater for Looe probably and Kingsbridge possibly 

Edited by DavidCBroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I am struggling to find any which stabled locos overnight after 1955.    Moorswater for Looe probably and Kingsbridge possibly 

By the late 1950s some had definitely gone but in 1958 Marlow still had an engine overnight although part of the branch was worked by an engine from Slough; the Wallingford branch was worked by Didcot after the shed closed in 1956 (with a fairly limited service); there were still Drivers based at Henley  (branch service dieselised - and still part worked by Reading - but the had shed remained in use stabling one engine overnight until dieselisation).   Aylesbury also had a 14XX there overnight for the branch from Risboro until that working was dieselised (but it also dealt with engines on the GCR).  In 1958 Fairford also clearly had at least one engine there overnight as a train started from there first thing,   In the West of England most of the branch sheds remained until either dieselisation or closure - Helston and St Ives being definite examples, and KIngsbridge probably so.  Cardigan remained open until the branch closed although it might have changed earlier if the freight services were drastically pruned.  Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven also survived until traffic reductions and dieselisation led to them no longer being needed.

 

As always closure only happened where it was economic to do so for instance when service hours were reduced or traction modernisation brought about the change

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new station at Portishead opened in 1954, presumably the loco shed at Portishead closed with the old station?

 

I believe Moretonhampstead shed closed before the passenger service was withdrawn, though the shed still stands to this day. The 1955 service showed a light engine from Newton Abbot to Moretonhampstead  to work the first train of the day.

Minehead was another shed that closed before the line was dieselised,

 

cheers  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 08/08/2021 at 12:03, CameronL said:

If I remember my own dabblings in GWR in the past, local engine sheds were phased out from BLTs after grouping, with engines being stabled (and serviced) at larger MPDs.  This was a particular practice in South Wales. There might still be  water and / or coal  facilities and in some cases even a turntable if tender engines were used on the branch.

 

In the "prototype  for everything" department, Ventnor on the Isle of Wight railway (all tank engines), originally had a small turntable at the end of the platform roads. This was because the station was in a very cramped location and the turntable took up less room than the end of the passing loop and points would have done.  It was later replaced by a three-way point. (Interestingly the track plan for Ventnor doesn't include an engine shed.)

 

Replicated on a BLT this saves space and allows the running of some tender engines - maybe on a GWR layout 63xx, 22xx or similar length.

 

Ventnor never had an engine shed, and the turntable wasn't used to turn locos (there wasn't one at the other end of the line), purely as a loco release to save space - more like a sector plate that just happened to have it's pivot in the middle. Bembridge also had one, which lasted until the end as there was no space to replace it. In both cases locos were always stabled at the main depot at Ryde.

Edited by Nick C
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...