Peterborough North

[great northern 124,940]

A very quick visit, as we have sunshine for the first time in days, but apparently it will be replaced by heavy rain before noon, so I'll run some trains while I can see.

 

For some reason, Green Arrow was allowed a six minute stop here, so there was plenty of time for a second photo. She will only have come on at Doncaster, so surely no need for an engine change, in which case, why six minutes?

 

 

[JeffP 4,188]

Not sure they were used until 1962?

Immingham got half a dozen ex GE  ones for express duties. 

Sorry, this was a reply to the question about Brits. 

Edited January 26, 2020 by JeffP

[31A 6,863]

26 minutes ago, great northern said:

 

For some reason, Green Arrow was allowed a six minute stop here, so there was plenty of time for a second photo. She will only have come on at Doncaster, so surely no need for an engine change, in which case, why six minutes?

 

 

Parcels.

[CUTLER2579 1,296]

1 hour ago, JeffP said:

Not sure they were used until 1962?

Immingham got half a dozen ex GE  ones for express duties. 

Sorry, this was a reply to the question about Brits. 

 

Jeffp,

more or less spot on,but 3 went to  40B in December 1960 and 4 more followed in October 1961.

70035,70036 & 70037 then 70038,70039,70040 &70041. 

I must confess I thought it was 1958 from memory, but I was wrong. !!! Oh the pain of such an omission 

[CUTLER2579 1,296]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

Parcels.

 

To meet a connection.

 

The Railway tried to provide a service to passengers in those days. 

 

We were Passengers not Customers and Perhaps profit was not such a criteria.

Coat,Hat,  DOOR

[john new 2,294]

On 24/01/2020 at 12:14, stewartingram said:

I find it quite amazing when watching "The Chase", or similar quizzes on TV, that so many contestants are managers (and usually at a youngish inexperienced age, and often scruffy too). Doesn't anyone actually have a job making things any more?

 

Stewart

Some of it though is just name changing. When I started work (1970), the Admin office team had names like Office Junior, then Clerk, typist, cashier etc; above them in roles with some seniority and minor decision making for task allocation etc., were the Senior Clerk or Cashier  (and very often female despite the masculine role name) leading the small group and above that possibly a Supervisor covering several offices and only the Head of Section would be called the Admin Manager. In our Drawing Office teams and those working out in the field similar names like Tracer, Draughtsman, Technician then up through Engineer and so forth.

 

Now even a basic clerical job doing filing seems to be advertised as a Data Resource Manager. Why? I think firstly due to a recruitment problem, in the years with less school leavers after the baby boomers had got jobs, followed by perfectly valid ideas of making names less male orientated and then changes in the workplace roles, the supervisory roles were renamed into Junior Managers and so on. Combined with that many routine office tasks across all spheres disappeared as the first wave of, cheap, desk-top computers killed off a lot of the repetitive redoing of work meaning a smaller number of lower paid specialists were now needed for things like typing and drawing.

 

Then we had the other changes, first someone cottoned onto the idea of Work Study (a new layer of people), some efficiency savings arose, but in the long-term were they enough to compensate for the cost of the staff? Then as stated H&S, and I do think it is needed but is so often overkill, and now the whole raft of costs and centrally based employees that have come about via IT, as the specialists and equipment for that probably costs more nowadays than the low-level staff cleared out in the 1980s and 1990s ever did. 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by john new
Typos corrected

[St Enodoc 25,898]

19 minutes ago, john new said:

Some of it though is just name changing. When I started work (1970), the Admin office team had names like Office Junior, then Clerk, typist, cashier etc; above them in roles with some seniority and minor decision making for task allocation etc., were the Senior Clerk or Cashier  (and very often female despite the masculine role name) leading the small group and above that possibly a Supervisor covering several offices and only the Head of Section would be called the Admin Manager. In our Drawing Office teams and those working out in the field similar names like Tracer, Draughtsman, Technician then up through Engineer and so forth.

 

Now even a basic clerical job doing filing seems to be advertised as a Data Resource Manager. Why? I think firstly due to a recruitment problem, in the years with less school leavers after the baby boomers had got jobs, followed by perfectly valid ideas of making names less male orientated and then changes in the workplace roles, the supervisory roles were renamed into Junior Managers and so on. Combined with that many routine office tasks across all spheres disappeared as the first wave of, cheap, desk-top computers killed off a lot of the repetitive redoing of work meaning a smaller number of lower paid specialists were now needed for things like typing and drawing.

 

Then we had the other changes, first someone cottoned onto the idea of Work Study (a new layer of people), some efficiency savings arose, but in the long-term were they enough to compensate for the cost of the staff? Then as stated H&S, and I do think it is needed but is so often overkill, and now the whole raft of costs and centrally based employees that have come about via IT, as the specialists and equipment for that probably costs more nowadays than the low-level staff cleared out in the 1980s and 1990s ever did. 

 

Many years ago our office secretary went on a course. When she came back, she told us that she was now a "Team Organiser". We asked her what that meant. "About two grades" she replied.

[great northern 124,940]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

Parcels.

But it is considerably longer than any other train which didn't have an engine change Steve. Presumably some of the others would have had parcels transfers as well?

[great northern 124,940]

49 minutes ago, CUTLER2579 said:

 

To meet a connection.

 

The Railway tried to provide a service to passengers in those days. 

 

We were Passengers not Customers and Perhaps profit was not such a criteria.

Coat,Hat,  DOOR

I agree with your sentiments Derek, but there was nothing around that time to connect with.

[great northern 124,940]

3 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Gilbert

 

A very nice composition to the photo of 60800, it’s just a-cured to me all the excellent photos you have published over the years but  I cannot remember seeing a photo of a Britannia class locomotive running on Peterborough North?

 

Regards

 

David

There was one for some years David, which was supposed to be used on the E.Lincs expresses. However, as later posts point out, the Brits didn't arrive at Immingham till 1960. I know that, and so it bugged me whenever it appeared. Eventually, it just sat and did nothing. I have details of at least three seen at KX in August 58, so I suppose I could have used it that way, but at the time they were going for silly money on E Bay, so off it went. And yes, I did get silly money for it.

[stewartingram 5,483]

49 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Many years ago our office secretary went on a course. When she came back, she told us that she was now a "Team Organiser". We asked her what that meant. "About two grades" she replied.

When my wife was still at work, as an assembler in a small electronics factory nearby, they had a visit from a youngish guy. When they asked him what he was doing there, he replied "Vision Technician".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turned out he was the window cleaner.....

 

Stewart

Edited January 26, 2020 by stewartingram

[31A 6,863]

3 hours ago, great northern said:

But it is considerably longer than any other train which didn't have an engine change Steve. Presumably some of the others would have had parcels transfers as well?

 

I'm sure they did; in fact most passenger trains would in those days, but some carried more than others!

 

[jazzer 1,230]

5 hours ago, great northern said:

A very quick visit, as we have sunshine for the first time in days, but apparently it will be replaced by heavy rain before noon, so I'll run some trains while I can see.

 

For some reason, Green Arrow was allowed a six minute stop here, so there was plenty of time for a second photo. She will only have come on at Doncaster, so surely no need for an engine change, in which case, why six minutes?

 

 

 

Long station stops on the ECML have always puzzled me .  According to my 1960 timetable almost everything that went through PN stopped for around 3-5 minutes  even without an engine change, and it wasn’t only PN. A train stopping at PN, Grantham Retford and Newark might easily have over 12or 13 minutes journey time standing at stations before it got to Doncaster. They weren’t all waiting for parcels, and any connecting services would be timed to arrive before the mainline train, and anyway it doesn’t take 5-6 minutes to load a few parcels in the guards van. 

I have no explanation for these long stops but I do sometimes wonder if it was just lethargy by those making the timetables. We spoke earlier about the effect on morale as a result of poor management in the ‘50’s. Were they just making the timetables on auto pilot because it had always been done that way with no thought for improvement ?  It was certainly the case, for example that some trains on the Southern and Western were scheduled for stops of up to 10 minutes when milk churns had to be loaded then these long stops remained in the timetable for no good reason long after milk churn traffic ceased, because it never occurred to anybody to change it or maybe there was some obscure working directive that was never rescinded.

 

I don’t suppose we will ever know the real answer but at a time of motorway building and loss of traffic to road transport it is rather surprising that so much time was wasted standing in stations.

[great northern 124,940]

4 hours ago, jazzer said:

 

Long station stops on the ECML have always puzzled me .  According to my 1960 timetable almost everything that went through PN stopped for around 3-5 minutes  even without an engine change, and it wasn’t only PN. A train stopping at PN, Grantham Retford and Newark might easily have over 12or 13 minutes journey time standing at stations before it got to Doncaster. They weren’t all waiting for parcels, and any connecting services would be timed to arrive before the mainline train, and anyway it doesn’t take 5-6 minutes to load a few parcels in the guards van. 

I have no explanation for these long stops but I do sometimes wonder if it was just lethargy by those making the timetables. We spoke earlier about the effect on morale as a result of poor management in the ‘50’s. Were they just making the timetables on auto pilot because it had always been done that way with no thought for improvement ?  It was certainly the case, for example that some trains on the Southern and Western were scheduled for stops of up to 10 minutes when milk churns had to be loaded then these long stops remained in the timetable for no good reason long after milk churn traffic ceased, because it never occurred to anybody to change it or maybe there was some obscure working directive that was never rescinded.

 

I don’t suppose we will ever know the real answer but at a time of motorway building and loss of traffic to road transport it is rather surprising that so much time was wasted standing in stations.

But it was a slower pace of life back then wasn' it?  Besides which, main line trains could load up to 13 or more cars, and that meant at some stations they would have to pull up twice. That certainly happened at PN on the Down which could only hold 11. Then add in the fact that it was necessary to let down the window before opening the doors, and I can remember that could be fiddly and time consuming, and four minutes doesn't seem so unreasonable.

 

Then we have splitting of portions, and addition of cars to services which were known to be full before getting to their next port of call, and of course some engine changing. As I recall, it was the addition of loads of recovery time which slowed things down, and gave crews little incentive to run hard.

[great northern 124,940]

Time for the return of the empties from Little Barford, with our borrowed 04/8, running tender first now. We have two angles as it moves along the Down slow.

 

Very poor light conditions, so black and white seems the best option.

[31A 6,863]

1 hour ago, great northern said:

But it was a slower pace of life back then wasn' it?  Besides which, main line trains could load up to 13 or more cars, and that meant at some stations they would have to pull up twice. That certainly happened at PN on the Down which could only hold 11. Then add in the fact that it was necessary to let down the window before opening the doors, and I can remember that could be fiddly and time consuming, and four minutes doesn't seem so unreasonable.

 

Then we have splitting of portions, and addition of cars to services which were known to be full before getting to their next port of call, and of course some engine changing. As I recall, it was the addition of loads of recovery time which slowed things down, and gave crews little incentive to run hard.

 

10 mins 25 sec - 12 mins approx:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1b9yprvXHA

 

 

[7APT7 2,105]

Hi great northern

 

Yes, I love to see B&W Photos they seem so have an atmosphere all of there own, Great photo.

 

Regards

Jamie

[great northern 124,940]

6 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

10 mins 25 sec - 12 mins approx:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1b9yprvXHA

 

 

No more than a minute and a half then?  Very thought provoking. And a lot was done during that time.

[cctransuk 7,127]

3 minutes ago, great northern said:

No more than a minute and a half then?  Very thought provoking. And a lot was done during that time.

 

But that was a highly edited sequence - in fact, it may not all be of the same train.

 

It doesn't really tell us anything about the duration of station stops.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[31A 6,863]

25 minutes ago, great northern said:

No more than a minute and a half then?  Very thought provoking. And a lot was done during that time.

 

19 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

But that was a highly edited sequence - in fact, it may not all be of the same train.

 

It doesn't really tell us anything about the duration of station stops.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

The narrative says "all within ten minutes".

[great northern 124,940]

6 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

 

The narrative says "all within ten minutes".

Ah, I shouldn't have taken my hearing aids out before watching it then?

 

26 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

But that was a highly edited sequence - in fact, it may not all be of the same train.

 

It doesn't really tell us anything about the duration of station stops.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Oh dear, Very gullible, aren't I?  That never occurred to me.

[Metropolitan H 999]

7 hours ago, jazzer said:

 

Long station stops on the ECML have always puzzled me .  According to my 1960 timetable almost everything that went through PN stopped for around 3-5 minutes  even without an engine change, and it wasn’t only PN. A train stopping at PN, Grantham Retford and Newark might easily have over 12or 13 minutes journey time standing at stations before it got to Doncaster. They weren’t all waiting for parcels, and any connecting services would be timed to arrive before the mainline train, and anyway it doesn’t take 5-6 minutes to load a few parcels in the guards van. 

I have no explanation for these long stops but I do sometimes wonder if it was just lethargy by those making the timetables. We spoke earlier about the effect on morale as a result of poor management in the ‘50’s. Were they just making the timetables on auto pilot because it had always been done that way with no thought for improvement ?  It was certainly the case, for example that some trains on the Southern and Western were scheduled for stops of up to 10 minutes when milk churns had to be loaded then these long stops remained in the timetable for no good reason long after milk churn traffic ceased, because it never occurred to anybody to change it or maybe there was some obscure working directive that was never rescinded.

 

I don’t suppose we will ever know the real answer but at a time of motorway building and loss of traffic to road transport it is rather surprising that so much time was wasted standing in stations.

Another feature of the station stops - particularly of "Down" long distance trains - at Peterborough North, that sticks in my memory, were the attention of the "Wheel tappers" with their long hammers checking that each wheel was "Sound as a bell". This would occupy a number of minutes.

 

Now most coach wheels are of the monobloc type and are subject to regular Ultrasonic or other "Non Destructive Testing" as part of depot maintenance - but in the 1950s most wheels had separate shrunk-on tyres and the availability of modern NDT methods (beyond the long-handled hammer and the wheel-tapper's ear) were well in the future.

 

Regards

Chris H

[jazzer 1,230]

7 hours ago, great northern said:

But it was a slower pace of life back then wasn' it?  Besides which, main line trains could load up to 13 or more cars, and that meant at some stations they would have to pull up twice. That certainly happened at PN on the Down which could only hold 11. Then add in the fact that it was necessary to let down the window before opening the doors, and I can remember that could be fiddly and time consuming, and four minutes doesn't seem so unreasonable.

 

Then we have splitting of portions, and addition of cars to services which were known to be full before getting to their next port of call, and of course some engine changing. As I recall, it was the addition of loads of recovery time which slowed things down, and gave crews little incentive to run hard.

 

So have you answered your own question as to why  Green Arrow was allowed a six minute stop when there was no need fo an engine change ?

If, as you say , the engine only came on at Doncaster , the train would almost certainly have originated in Hull and and therefor is very unlikely to have been loaded to anything like 13 coaches , probably more like 9, hence V2 haulage unlike the heavier Leeds trains that usually had Pacific’s.  I fully agree that if it came on at Doncaster it wouldn’t have been changed at PN. In fact there was at least one diagram where KX men rode “Down “ to Doncaster “on the cushions” and brought the afternoon Up train all the way back.

Lots of speculation about “ station movements “ but I don’t think we’ll ever know the true answer. 

[great northern 124,940]

Culture shock! First golf with a new group who tee off just when I'm usually thinking about getting out of bed. Here is gleaming 60054 with the Up Ripon, while I continue trying to wake myself up.

 

 

 

Oh yes, and before that 62530 was arriving at the old engine shed area, passing 61630 as it went.

 

 

 

 

 

[phil.c 2,938]

Phosphor bronze or painted steel rail?