Guards on through trains

[Guy Rixon]

Can anybody tell me how the guard duties were arranged on trains that changed to engines of a different company? Where company A provided the coaches and company B's engine took them forward from a certain point, did company B also provide a guard from that point? Was this matter governed by BoT rules, or just arranged to suit the companies?

 

I'm particularly interested in three cases: Metropolitan electric engines hauling GWR trains to Aldgate; MDR electric engines hauling LNWR "middle circle" trains to Mansion House; and complete through trains that ran through London with a locomotive change. Am example of the latter is the "Sunny South Special" from the LNWR to LB&SC destinations with the loco change at Addison Road.

[Brassey]

Guy

 

I don't have a definitive answer but I raised a similar question a while back about the staff on through dining vehicles for example those running between Liverpool and Plymouth that overnighted at either end.  The answer was that it was likely that the staff would remain on the vehicle and be put up in digs. There were such establishments provided for the use of railway staff.  So GWR dining car staff would have been accommodated in Liverpool and vice versa.

 

Guards may have been treated the same or differently.  The same situation would have arisen at Carlisle when the WCJS break vehicles were handed over to the Caledonian.  In this instance, guards at both ends would be familiar with the "joint" vehicles however, would an LBSC guard be OK on an LNWR vehicle?  Presumably knowledge of the route, the stations and the breaking systems would be a requirement so I would have thought that the guards changed over.  That's my tuppence worth.

 

Peter

[jim.snowdon]

I think I would agree with Peter's assumptions in as much as even a passenger guard has to have some knowledge of the route. They would have changed over at the same time as the loco and its crew, which does not necessarily mean at the company boundary - the Southern regularly worked through to Oxford, presumably having come via the west side of the triangle at Reading, and it would seem entirely logical that a GW guard would take over at that point. Familiarity with the coaching stock would be less of an issue as there is not much difference from one passenger brake to another, other than vacuum vs Westinghouse. Even then, things like the brake continuity test are essentially the same in principle.

 

Dining car staff are a completely different issue as they don't require any specialist knowledge of company operating procedures.

 

Jim

[The Johnster]

I was a guard at Canton in the 70s.  My sphere of operation was determined by my route knowledge, and AFAIK this was always the case.  In pre BR days, and pre-grouping, guards would have worked regular jobs over the rails of companies other than their own and have needed route knowledge in order to do so.  But as far as vehicles were concerned, as in the example of the LBSC/LNWR 'Sunny South Express', the guard would be expected to be able to work with any vehicle using the same brake system, so the Brighton's guard had no problem with the LNWR van or vice versa.  He would simply board the vehicle, look around to see where the handbrake, vacuum setter, and vacuum gauge were and carry on with it.

 

Where railways used Westinghouse air brakes, such as the GER , and were involved in through working, presumably dual braked stock was provided and the same applied; the guard boards the train, identifies the equipment he will be using, and gets on with it.

 

Similarly, in steam days, drivers did not have to have traction knowledge, it being considered that the basic controls of all steam locos would be recognisable to any driver, and there being less specialised knowledge in the form of identifying faults and resetting circuit breakers such as a driver has to be able to do on diesel or electric traction.  

 

I had a great uncle Ted, a bit of a character, who worked as a steward on the Cardiff-Newcastle service on a 'double home' shift, going north one day with the GW restaurant car and returning to Cardiff the following day.  An LNER crew worked a NER restaurant car on the reciprocal service.  The men stayed overnight in Newcastle, either in railway hostels or boarding houses, and the Newcastle crew stayed similarly in Cardiff.  Uncle Ted managed to bigamously marry his Geordie landlady and have 2 kids with her, apparently not especially in that order, and his real wife Auntie Julie did not see the funny side of this when she found out; that was the end of Uncle Ted's job on the GWR...

[The Stationmaster]

I think I would agree with Peter's assumptions in as much as even a passenger guard has to have some knowledge of the route. They would have changed over at the same time as the loco and its crew, which does not necessarily mean at the company boundary - the Southern regularly worked through to Oxford, presumably having come via the west side of the triangle at Reading, and it would seem entirely logical that a GW guard would take over at that point. Familiarity with the coaching stock would be less of an issue as there is not much difference from one passenger brake to another, other than vacuum vs Westinghouse. Even then, things like the brake continuity test are essentially the same in principle.

 

Dining car staff are a completely different issue as they don't require any specialist knowledge of company operating procedures.

 

Jim

 

The old requirement (internal requirement as opposed to the legislative form) was that Guards signed for knowledge of the road although in later years (possibly the 1970s although I'm from certain) it was reduced to 'acquaintance with the route' rather than 'knowledge of the route'.

 

GWR/BR Goods Guards definitely worked over the Met/Circle from Paddington on freight trains but I don't know about the passenger workings after GWR engines ceased to work through.  However back in those days Guards workings were not always synchronised with the footplatemen and it is possible that they did work through in order to avoid Met/LT men travelling to Paddington.  Looking at the 1866 service I would be very surprised of the GWR Guard did not go through as they were GWR trains and they made logical balances whereas relieving at Bishops Road did not make a logical balance.

 

The 1901 service was far more intensive but again I would think it logical that GWR Guards worked through although logic didn't necessarily always come into such things however as the GWR had Running Powers as far as Alfdgate for passenger trains it is quite possible that the Guard worked through even after electrification.   

[The Johnster]

The old requirement (internal requirement as opposed to the legislative form) was that Guards signed for knowledge of the road although in later years (possibly the 1970s although I'm from certain) it was reduced to 'acquaintance with the route' rather than 'knowledge of the route'.

 

GWR/BR Goods Guards definitely worked over the Met/Circle from Paddington on freight trains but I don't know about the passenger workings after GWR engines ceased to work through.  However back in those days Guards workings were not always synchronised with the footplatemen and it is possible that they did work through in order to avoid Met/LT men travelling to Paddington.  Looking at the 1866 service I would be very surprised of the GWR Guard did not go through as they were GWR trains and they made logical balances whereas relieving at Bishops Road did not make a logical balance.

 

The 1901 service was far more intensive but again I would think it logical that GWR Guards worked through although logic didn't necessarily always come into such things however as the GWR had Running Powers as far as Alfdgate for passenger trains it is quite possible that the Guard worked through even after electrification.   

 

I signed most of my roads during 1970 and 71, and IIRC signed for knowledge rather than acquaintance, but there was much talk of men signing for routes 'back cab only', which was a nonsense and much derided (rightly) by footplate staff; I don't know if this was a myth or referred to signing 'acquaintance', but there were contemporaries of mine at Canton who would avoid brake van work because it scared the bejaysus out of them; a minority, but they were there all right.  I personally would not have signed for a road unless I thought I was competent to deal with anything that came up while I was working it, and insisted on route learning in brakevans where possible, an issue with the Swansea District line which we worked over with our Llanelli workings, which were all fully fitted oil trains and back cab jobs.  The only train I ever worked over this route in a brake van was a continuous welded rail special, speed restricted and fully fitted anyway; I never worked over it loose-coupled, but like to think I could have done so if needed.

 

Route learning was done during daylight hours, which I alway thought was a bit lax, as working a loose coupled train in the dark, especially in poor visibility, is another game entirely!  You were given a week on most routes and left to fend for yourself; I would try to get at least one run in each direction in a brake van and one in a driving cab, which gave you the perspective from guard and driver's point of view.  I would simply turn up at a depot, explain what I wanted, and was always happily accommodated by both guards and footplate staff who often seemed amazed that one of the new, off the streets, 'back cab jockeys' was apparently taking it seriously!

 

When I was transferred against my choice into the Valley passenger links, in 1975, I was asked to sign for acquaintance and had little choice in the matter, so presumably the change came in sometime between 1971 and 75.  I  could most certainly not have engaged in colliery or incline working up there like your Radyr boys did, Mike.

 

I once worked a Waterston-Buildwas special of air braked bogie oil tanks with a 47 from Canton to Shrewsbury, only signing the road to Hereford.  We were given a clear run through Hereford and were halfway up Bayston by the time I'd made my way through the engine room to the front cab to inform the driver and secondman that I did not know the road (though I had a vague idea that it might be uphill to Church Stretton and downhill after that).  The driver commented that it didn't matter as he and the secondman, an old hand who had also signed the road, could act a pilotmen for me, and that anyway there was nothing I could do about it!  Of course, there wasn't, and I had a trip to Salop, but I am still unconvinced of the 'legality' of the affair if something had gone wrong...

Edited May 5, 2017 by The Johnster

[roythebus]

Sounds like a sensible solution to a problem there Johnster!

 

A guard certainly did have to know the road in the days of unfiited freight. I'd say there were very few freight guards on the Met/LT, so the "big railway" guards would work through.

[The Johnster]

Sounds like a sensible solution to a problem there Johnster!

 

A guard certainly did have to know the road in the days of unfiited freight. I'd say there were very few freight guards on the Met/LT, so the "big railway" guards would work through.

 

Don't know how those trains were manned, but I would imagine Met/LT freight trains were manned by their own guards, while BR through freight would be manned by BR men with LT route knowledge. 

[Brassey]

I have always assumed that each through carriage in pre-grouping days had its own guard.  These were generally break thirds of break composites, often non-corridor, and self-contained and therefore would have needed a guard to apply the brakes every time the vehicle was marshalled.  Corridors were originally introduced so that the guard could get through the train not the passengers.

[D854_Tiger]

One of my old neighbours had an uncle that worked as a sleeping car attendant and they used to work all the way, in his case to Scotland, stay overnight (day) and then return the next evening.

 

He was quite the worst car driver I ever experienced, my neighbour told me how he had failed his driving test five times, eventually he booked a test somewhere up in the West Highalnds, encountering nothing more complex to negotiate than a Halt sign, he then passed the test whereupon he was unleashed upon the national road network.

[RJD]

In Gone with Regret by George Behrend on pa. 155, he writes about a journey on 7th October 1946 from York to Swansea.  At Banbury the LNER 2-6-2 came off and a GWR 4-6-0 came on.  He writes" The elderly guard who took over the train was resplendent in a gold-braided peaked hat, and one noticed for the first time that the LNER guard had no gold braid."  So the GWR guard took over.  

[The Stationmaster]

Sounds like a sensible solution to a problem there Johnster!

 

A guard certainly did have to know the road in the days of unfiited freight. I'd say there were very few freight guards on the Met/LT, so the "big railway" guards would work through.

 

The GWR/WR freights over the Met/Circle were worked by Old Oak Common Guards (where virtually all the trains started or teminated) although some Acton men might also have signed the road.  Masses of Special Instructions plus you very definitely needed to know exactly where you were in order to comply with some of those Instructions.

 

Enginemen in later years were only from the 'Smithfield Link' at old Oak although I think it probable that other depots had been involved back in the days of the really intensive steam worked passenger trains although I know that before the Smithfield Link was blessed with their 97XX fleet they definitely had passenger work although it wasn't over the Met but in the opposite direction in order to give them some Sunday turns with their own engines.  I wouldn't be surprised if Southall men worked through in pre WW1 days and no doubt those jobs would have been in the same link as their work to Victoria (but alas I never came across any Southall men who had worked those trains as even retired Pre-Grouo men were pretty thin on the ground in my time).