RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted June 21, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 21, 2017 Following on from the fascinating thread about rough riding locos, what were the roughest riding freight vehicles? (Maybe no one will want to own up to ever riding in one! I haven't, for the record, but someone must have done on official business, even if only for testing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Given how quickly they were removed from service, the BR Pallet Van (Dia. 1/211) must be a contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Some years ago a mate of mine (Gillingham Driver) whilst working a Kemsley bound MGR train managed to persuade his guard that due to a brake defect that had occurred on the 4th HAA wagon from the back that he would have to ride on the rear wagon in case of a breakaway (complete b*llocks of course). The lad swallowed it H,L & S and proceeded to ride wrapped up in his guards long flasher coat propped up against the ladder on the rear wagon for the last 15 miles of the trains journey ............ all happened in the dead of night of course .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Practically anything with worn wheel treads, particularly 16T Minerals and others which were restricted to 35 MPH in later life. I've seen some Guards Vans doing a lively dance as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Ones hit by a Tornado (windy kind !!) Brit15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted June 21, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 21, 2017 Never ridden on one but TTA tanks with leaf springs ride very badly the conversions into box opens are equally as bad. I've had two running line derailments and both were TTAs on slightly defective track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Some of the suspensions with coil springs were pretty bad; IIRC, the PGAs were taken off the stone workings from Buxton to Northwich because of complaints about the noise from the wagons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold highpeakman Posted June 21, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 21, 2017 Ones hit by a Tornado (windy kind !!) Brit15 Heck! The sight of that tank wagon coming at the loco would be enough to make me run rather rapidly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killian keane Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 I don't think chauldron wagons had springs did they? They have no sprung buffers or tightenable couplings so would be fairly rough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Near derailment - no exaggeration either! https://youtu.be/L4ntnt4DL60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Nobody has mentioned Pacers yet (built on freight wagon chassis....). Stewart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Is the end nearly here for pedestal wagons yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePipersSon Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Sounds as if this thread should be in a magazine such as 'What Hobo', or 'The Which Guide to Traveling the Rails around the USA'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 21, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) As I have posted before, brake vans in the 70s could be a pretty rough environment. The BR standard design, which as far as I could see only differed from a LNER standard 20tonner in the design of the stove (the LNER's was better) had ballast outboard of the axles, which gave it a tendency to hunt, setting up a rocking motion that was sometimes quite violent. When recently out of shops they weren't bad, and I once rode in one with coil springs which was excellent, but once a bit of wear had set in... The rocking 'worked' the wooden cabin body so that draughts came in everywhere, which had to be sealed with old newspaper, and the lamp brackets would eventually shake loose, sometimes to the extent that the lamp would be shaken out and you'd have to be continually relighting it; with 3 including the side lamps you'd soon run out of matches and I used a petrol lighter. I rode to Hereford one night on the 03.15 Cardiff Long Dyke-Carlisle, 7M49, in an SECR pillbox which, according to it's builder's plate, had been put together (built is too strong a term) in 1913, the oldest and by far the worst railway vehicle I have ever ridden in while I was working for BR, and the only one in which I was genuinely worried about my safety. This was, I think, the winter of 72/3. It was pure misery all the way when it wasn't being pure terror. It was impossible to stop the draughts, and despite a good stove fire i was freezing as soon as the train moved. One of the window panes cracked en route, and we were stopped at every box from Llantarnam up by reports of lights out; it was impossible to keep them lit for more than a few seconds at a time, and my driver was not sympathetic. I tried to get the vehicle removed from the train at Hereford, unsuccessfully, and advised the man relieving me to do the same; an old timer who made some remark about kids today not knowing what real men had to put up with in the old days, which he apologised for when I saw him again a few weeks later. I do not now remember the van's number, but for some time kept a note of it in case I encountered it again; I fully intended to set fire to it in the interests of general railway safety even if I was sacked for it. AFAIK it still exists on some heritage line somewhere, proof that I have never knowledgeably encountered it since or it would be a smouldering ruin, but at least now it is hopefully restored to a condition in which it runs properly and is in any case restricted to 25mph, which would still have been too fast for it when I rode on it. I have ridden gravity on unsprung narrow gauge Hudson tippers that were better than this specimen. Edited June 21, 2017 by The Johnster 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Cemflo PCV's were pretty bad. One of the diagrams had such poor riding qualities that they derailed and caused DP2's demise at Thirsk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 21, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 21, 2017 DP2's accident was, IIRC, one of several that led to the restriction of 10' wheelbase stock to 45mph, it having previously been 60, though the Cemflo's high centre of gravity did them no favours. Short wheelbase hoppers such as the presflos were not good either, and should have, in my view, have been restricted to the 35mph of iron ore hoppers. In fact I would have argued strongly for the imposition of a 35mph limit on all 9' wheelbase wagons as well, which would have meant the entire mineral 16ton fleet, still considerable in 1967 and for some time to come, with major consequences for timings and headways, which is of course why it wasn't done. Even at 35mph these could bounce around quite alarmingly, and once wear had set in, the situation was self-worsening. In the event there were more problems caused by broken axles, with which the connection to poor riding, if there is one, is less clear. But a poor riding vehicle is A Bad Thing, as it causes damage to cargo, increases it's own maintenance costs, and punishes the track; in fact, it is not in any way a life enhancing thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 I've ridden BR Tube open's during trough laying and Parrots during cable laying - no issues other than a tendency for the Tube's to nod gently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trog Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Sharks could be quite amusing while unloading ballast, if they were at the back of a decent rake of hoppers. The driver would set off picking the wagons up one by one and could get to a reasonable speed by the time all the couplings were tight and the Shark started to move. It would then almost instantly accelerate from stationary to say 20MPH. The old hands would all be wedged in the corners of the veranda watching the new starters casually looking over the back end of the van, and wondering if they were going to disappear over the back end as the van pulled away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 DP2's accident was, IIRC, one of several that led to the restriction of 10' wheelbase stock to 45mph, it having previously been 60, though the Cemflo's high centre of gravity did them no favours. Short wheelbase hoppers such as the presflos were not good either, and should have, in my view, have been restricted to the 35mph of iron ore hoppers. In fact I would have argued strongly for the imposition of a 35mph limit on all 9' wheelbase wagons as well, which would have meant the entire mineral 16ton fleet, still considerable in 1967 and for some time to come, with major consequences for timings and headways, which is of course why it wasn't done. Even at 35mph these could bounce around quite alarmingly, and once wear had set in, the situation was self-worsening. In the event there were more problems caused by broken axles, with which the connection to poor riding, if there is one, is less clear. But a poor riding vehicle is A Bad Thing, as it causes damage to cargo, increases it's own maintenance costs, and punishes the track; in fact, it is not in any way a life enhancing thing. The Cemflo's wheelbase was a bit more than 10'- 4572mm or 15 feet; IIRC,the rough riding which led to the derailment was partially attributed to cement dust between the leaves of the springs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evertrainz Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Given how quickly they were removed from service, the BR Pallet Van (Dia. 1/211) must be a contender. I had always read about this, that the normal Palvan design was very prone to derailment. Was this caused by the asymetric design that put more weight on one end? The underframe/brakes/solebar seem standard so I'm quite sure it was asymmetry. Were these not 11' WB, and larger wheelbases are more stable at speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I had always read about this, that the normal Palvan design was very prone to derailment. Was this caused by the asymetric design that put more weight on one end? The underframe/brakes/solebar seem standard so I'm quite sure it was asymmetry. Were these not 11' WB, and larger wheelbases are more stable at speed? The initial Palvan design was 10' wb; later ones, which had fully-opening sides, had 11' wb. It seemed to be the initial design which were prone to derailment; a 'shock' version of the original design didn't seem to have the same problems, and neither did some of the original wagons when fitted with modified suspension in conjunction with air-brake trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted June 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 22, 2017 Sounds as if this thread should be in a magazine such as 'What Hobo', or 'The Which Guide to Traveling the Rails around the USA'. "Brave Dave" on Youtube did a 4 part video on crossing Canada by freight trains. He described one type of container carrier wagon as a "suicide wagon" because it is just an open frame holding the container in place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Some of the suspensions with coil springs were pretty bad; IIRC, the PGAs were taken off the stone workings from Buxton to Northwich because of complaints about the noise from the wagons. The noise would not affect the vehicle riding properties. Pedestal suspensions do not allow the wheelsets to yaw (take up a position radial to the track on curves) so that there is a propensity for the complaining wheels to produce flange squeal on curves. Having said that, the rubbing faces should be dry to provide damping for the springs. At one time there were three derailments in four days of a group of wagons which had got oil on the rubbing faces, I don't think it was ever established whether it was accidental or (misguided) deliberate. DP2's accident was, IIRC, one of several that led to the restriction of 10' wheelbase stock to 45mph, it having previously been 60, though the Cemflo's high centre of gravity did them no favours. Short wheelbase hoppers such as the presflos were not good either, and should have, in my view, have been restricted to the 35mph of iron ore hoppers. In fact I would have argued strongly for the imposition of a 35mph limit on all 9' wheelbase wagons as well, which would have meant the entire mineral 16ton fleet, still considerable in 1967 and for some time to come, with major consequences for timings and headways, which is of course why it wasn't done. Even at 35mph these could bounce around quite alarmingly, and once wear had set in, the situation was self-worsening. In the event there were more problems caused by broken axles, with which the connection to poor riding, if there is one, is less clear. But a poor riding vehicle is A Bad Thing, as it causes damage to cargo, increases it's own maintenance costs, and punishes the track; in fact, it is not in any way a life enhancing thing. As Fat Controller says, Cemflos were 15ft wb. The Cemflo's wheelbase was a bit more than 10'- 4572mm or 15 feet; IIRC,the rough riding which led to the derailment was partially attributed to cement dust between the leaves of the springs. Many Cemflos were fitted with UIC Double Link suspension. When the links were new the idea was that they provided friction to damp out any lateral movement of the wagon from track irregularities. When the side faces of the links were worn they effecively formed blunt knife-edges which did not damp out the lateral movement. If such movement is not damped out before the next input, it can be compounded and exaggerated. I have come across wagons (think size of wagon) which I (little me!) could rock from side to side just by pushing the solebar at the right cyclic frequency. Continental railways are thought to have got away with it by using screw couplings which brought the wagon buffers into contact which provided aditional lateral damping but BR did not necessarily appreciate this factor. Further to my above comment on pedestal suspensions, UIC Double Link suspension had lots of yaw freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 "Brave Dave" on Youtube did a 4 part video on crossing Canada by freight trains. He described one type of container carrier wagon as a "suicide wagon" because it is just an open frame holding the container in place! That's a fair description of many container wagons since the early Freightliner ones; why carry more weight than you need? As an American aircraft designer once said- 'simplificate and add lightness' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted June 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 22, 2017 I've ridden BR Tube open's during trough laying and Parrots during cable laying - no issues other than a tendency for the Tube's to nod gently In approval, presumably... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now