PO wagons, how did it work in practise?

[The Johnster]

The other potential problem with a long train - particularly with the preponderance of unregulated Private Owner wagons in the early days - was the possibility of a coupling breaking.

 

Yes, especially with the 3-link couplings common on stock build roughly before WW2.  But this was not taken into account in loading or length limits for any particular route; drivers were expected to control the trains with the assistance of the guard using the brake in the brake van.  The aim was to keep the couplings tight throughout the length of the train, and the guard had an interest in this as it gave him a smoother ride.  On an undulating route, where the drawhooks will spring a little when the brakes are released on the van and the wagons will buffer up when the brakes are applied on the loco, this is to all intents and purposes impossible, and the best you can do is minimise it.  Any idiot can drive a passenger express; freight work needs skill!!!

 

Excessive 'snatching' when power is applied on the loco as the train pulls away from the bottom of a bank, or powers up the other side of a dip, is what leads to a broken coupling, and the crew may not be immediately aware of the situation.  If the coupling breaks towards the front of the train, the guard may have some trouble bringing it under control with just the van brake, and it is not unknown for serious collisions to occur when a driver who has become belatedly aware of the situation brings his train to a stand in the section.

 

The use of 'instanter' couplings, very much stronger than 3-link chain, had largely eliminated this by my time on the railway in the 70s, but the terror of a coupling breakage was still apparent among older traincrews.  

[The Johnster]

It would be very rare for coal wagons to find a return load. Most/all had clear return instructions painted on the side. presumably the colliery or merchant would be charged for this empty trip. A win win for the railway.

 

Indeed, but the reason was that the empty wagons were always urgently needed at the colliery, which could have to reduce production, and hence profitability, if there were no wagons at the pit for coal to be loaded into; limited stockpile facilities would be available.

[wagonman]

 

 

The use of 'instanter' couplings, very much stronger than 3-link chain, had largely eliminated this by my time on the railway in the 70s, but the terror of a coupling breakage was still apparent among older traincrews.  

 

 

The instanter couplings weren't inherently stronger – the cast instanter link had ordinary links either side – but they were shorter so there was much less to 'snatch'.

[doilum]

I think the issue here is that leaving aside the question of muck a colliery wagon is shuffling back and forth from the colliery - or the coal factor. On the return journey it can only carry something of interest to the colliery. Where it is very practical is a working which takes coal to the docks and carries imported pit props on the return trip.

 

Empties aren't a problem of course on the private colliery lines because the trips to the staithes and back are so short.

I would be interested to hear from anyone with a working knowledge of traffic from Goole. Were empty coal wagons used for pit prop delveries. I gues not as it would have disrupted the original merry go round syystem

[jamie92208]

Yes, especially with the 3-link couplings common on stock build roughly before WW2.  But this was not taken into account in loading or length limits for any particular route; drivers were expected to control the trains with the assistance of the guard using the brake in the brake van.  The aim was to keep the couplings tight throughout the length of the train, and the guard had an interest in this as it gave him a smoother ride.  On an undulating route, where the drawhooks will spring a little when the brakes are released on the van and the wagons will buffer up when the brakes are applied on the loco, this is to all intents and purposes impossible, and the best you can do is minimise it.  Any idiot can drive a passenger express; freight work needs skill!!!

 

Excessive 'snatching' when power is applied on the loco as the train pulls away from the bottom of a bank, or powers up the other side of a dip, is what leads to a broken coupling, and the crew may not be immediately aware of the situation.  If the coupling breaks towards the front of the train, the guard may have some trouble bringing it under control with just the van brake, and it is not unknown for serious collisions to occur when a driver who has become belatedly aware of the situation brings his train to a stand in the section.

 

The use of 'instanter' couplings, very much stronger than 3-link chain, had largely eliminated this by my time on the railway in the 70s, but the terror of a coupling breakage was still apparent among older traincrews.  

 

Wagon runaways and the potential for them meant that there were a lot more catch points around, just in case, than there are today.   When the WCML was being electrified and re-signalled the catch points were taken out and loose couple trains had to go either over the Settle and Carlisle or round the Cumbrian coast.   One side effect of this was that occasionally there was a runaway and if the line behind was clear these were sometimes allowed to run and come to a stop in a natural dip in the line.   One old signalman, no longer with us told me that on the Settle and Carlisle northbounds that broke away were normally allowed to run.   Apparently they would get beyond Hellifield before stopping and running back.  Long Preston was the low point and sometimes the same raft of wagons, plus the brake van and guard would go through Long Preston several times before they finally came to a stop.   This was far preferable to diverting them off at a catch point and clearing up the subsequent mess.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, especially with the 3-link couplings common on stock build roughly before WW2.  But this was not taken into account in loading or length limits for any particular route; drivers were expected to control the trains with the assistance of the guard using the brake in the brake van.  The aim was to keep the couplings tight throughout the length of the train, and the guard had an interest in this as it gave him a smoother ride.  On an undulating route, where the drawhooks will spring a little when the brakes are released on the van and the wagons will buffer up when the brakes are applied on the loco, this is to all intents and purposes impossible, and the best you can do is minimise it.  Any idiot can drive a passenger express; freight work needs skill!!!

 

Excessive 'snatching' when power is applied on the loco as the train pulls away from the bottom of a bank, or powers up the other side of a dip, is what leads to a broken coupling, and the crew may not be immediately aware of the situation.  If the coupling breaks towards the front of the train, the guard may have some trouble bringing it under control with just the van brake, and it is not unknown for serious collisions to occur when a driver who has become belatedly aware of the situation brings his train to a stand in the section.

 

The use of 'instanter' couplings, very much stronger than 3-link chain, had largely eliminated this by my time on the railway in the 70s, but the terror of a coupling breakage was still apparent among older traincrews.  

 

Coupling strength was taken into account in loading and length limits - hence the requirement in numerous places for assistant engines on freight trains to be marshalled at the rear of the train and not at the front.  In later years coupling strength was a critical element of load calculations - i.e. the calculations that went into preparing the load tables rather than any calculations made using those tables.  Train loading, including the matter of Length Limits and particularly the issue of special Length Limits for individual trains which exceeded the norm for any particular section of route as well as tonnage loads for heavier trains was a far more complex matter than simply looking at gradients and loop lengths etc. 

 

Broken coupling in the old days resulted from numerous causes and far more than a snatch (caused by either the Driver or the Guard) and as often as not were due to material weaknesses in ageing wagons especially in the early Post-War (WWII) years.  As has already been noted the advantage of the Instanter (originally used as a cheaper alternative to screw couplings on fitted and piped wagons) was in reducing the distance between buffer faces and thus potentially reducing the impact of shocks when wagons buffered up.  Strengthened Instanter couplings area much more modern idea that the Instanter of pre WWI days..

[The Stationmaster]

Wagon runaways and the potential for them meant that there were a lot more catch points around, just in case, than there are today.   When the WCML was being electrified and re-signalled the catch points were taken out and loose couple trains had to go either over the Settle and Carlisle or round the Cumbrian coast.   One side effect of this was that occasionally there was a runaway and if the line behind was clear these were sometimes allowed to run and come to a stop in a natural dip in the line.   One old signalman, no longer with us told me that on the Settle and Carlisle northbounds that broke away were normally allowed to run.   Apparently they would get beyond Hellifield before stopping and running back.  Long Preston was the low point and sometimes the same raft of wagons, plus the brake van and guard would go through Long Preston several times before they finally came to a stop.   This was far preferable to diverting them off at a catch point and clearing up the subsequent mess.

 

Jamie

Not entirely correct Jamie.  When the WCML was resignalled for electrification one unusual feature was the conversion of most catch points north of Carnforth to power operation keeping them closed for passing trains but arranged to open after the passage of trains which were not fully fitted.  The ban on loose coupled trains/wagons on that part of the WCML came later.

[Fat Controller]

Coupling strength was taken into account in loading and length limits - hence the requirement in numerous places for assistant engines on freight trains to be marshalled at the rear of the train and not at the front.  In later years coupling strength was a critical element of load calculations - i.e. the calculations that went into preparing the load tables rather than any calculations made using those tables.  Train loading, including the matter of Length Limits and particularly the issue of special Length Limits for individual trains which exceeded the norm for any particular section of route as well as tonnage loads for heavier trains was a far more complex matter than simply looking at gradients and loop lengths etc. 

 

Broken coupling in the old days resulted from numerous causes and far more than a snatch (caused by either the Driver or the Guard) and as often as not were due to material weaknesses in ageing wagons especially in the early Post-War (WWII) years.  As has already been noted the advantage of the Instanter (originally used as a cheaper alternative to screw couplings on fitted and piped wagons) was in reducing the distance between buffer faces and thus potentially reducing the impact of shocks when wagons buffered up.  Strengthened Instanter couplings area much more modern idea that the Instanter of pre WWI days..

Couplings still break; I've known of two such incidents on international freights near (though fortunately not in), the Channel Tunnel. I think one, at least, was a loaded Polybulk.

There was one earlier this month at Hexthorpe Junction, involving a loaded oil train. The break must have been on a quiet bit of line, on a vehicle near the loco, as the number of delay minutes attributed to it was only four.

[TT-Pete]

Couplings still break; I've known of two such incidents on international freights near (though fortunately not in), the Channel Tunnel. I think one, at least, was a loaded Polybulk.

There was one earlier this month at Hexthorpe Junction, involving a loaded oil train. The break must have been on a quiet bit of line, on a vehicle near the loco, as the number of delay minutes attributed to it was only four.

Or in the USA...

[Caledonian]

I would be interested to hear from anyone with a working knowledge of traffic from Goole. Were empty coal wagons used for pit prop delveries. I gues not as it would have disrupted the original merry go round syystem

 

Pit props were certainly imported through Goole in considerable quanties. The present Goole Marina was originally a storage pond for them and the "merry go round" system was very much a matter of coal out, pit props in on the same wagons.

[doilum]

Look on u tube for "innocent railway last train."

1968 coal . Amazing wealth of information for modelers.

[Fat Controller]

Pit props were certainly imported through Goole in considerable quanties. The present Goole Marina was originally a storage pond for them and the "merry go round" system was very much a matter of coal out, pit props in on the same wagons.

Common practice in the coal ports in South Wales. Cardiff had a huge stocking area at Wentloog, where the Freightliner terminal is now; wagons heading up the Valleys after tipping coal at Cardiff would pick up back-loads there. In the same way, the ships that brought in props would return to Scandinavia with coal. 

[The Johnster]

The instanter couplings weren't inherently stronger – the cast instanter link had ordinary links either side – but they were shorter so there was much less to 'snatch'.

 

In the 'short' position, yes.  The advantage of the instanter was that it could be used in the same way as a 3-link in yards, on docks, collieries or other situations where there may be very sharp curvature, but 'shortened' when marshalled into a train to run on the main line at speed.  For class 9 work (in South Wales at least) in the 70s, they were used in the 'long' position to assist shunting; the unbraked trains were speed limited to 25mph and Radyr drivers were famous for approaching signals against them at a crawl so that the train did not have to actually stop and couplings were kept under tension.  Us Canton men reckoned that they were scared of speeds over 15mph, but that suited their work very well!

[Wickham Green]

The instanter couplings weren't inherently stronger – the cast instanter link had ordinary links either side – but they were shorter so there was much less to 'snatch'.

The first G.W.R. 'Instantas' were just an oddly-shaped link of exactly the same steel bar as the top & bottom ones .......... the later cast Instanter certainly LOOKED stronger - but that may have had more to do with preventing distortion under load !

[The Stationmaster]

In the 'short' position, yes.  The advantage of the instanter was that it could be used in the same way as a 3-link in yards, on docks, collieries or other situations where there may be very sharp curvature, but 'shortened' when marshalled into a train to run on the main line at speed.  For class 9 work (in South Wales at least) in the 70s, they were used in the 'long' position to assist shunting; the unbraked trains were speed limited to 25mph and Radyr drivers were famous for approaching signals against them at a crawl so that the train did not have to actually stop and couplings were kept under tension.  Us Canton men reckoned that they were scared of speeds over 15mph, but that suited their work very well!

 

Instanter couplings were not used in the long position in Class 9 trains in order to assist in shunting!   They were used in the long position because, with the earlier exception of cattle wagons, they were only required to be in the short position when used in fitted trains or fitted head or when attached to a passenger trains when a screw coupling was not available - the whole point of the short link was to give a cheaper and simpler alternative to a screw coupling on a fitted vehicle.  There was no need at all to shorten Instanters in unfitted portions of freight trains or in an unfitted train because it provided no advantage on a train otherwise fitted with 3 link couplings.

 

The process of lengthening or shortening an Instanter was something easily done with a shunting pole and thus avoided the need for Shunters, Guards, or Train Preparers to do between vehicles in order to deal with screw couplings although obviously when a train was first formed there was still a need to go in for the purpose of joining vacuum pipes.  Apart from being safer the process of lengthening or shortening Instanters was far, far, quicker than having to adjust screw couplings.  The only time, apart from the aforementioned cattle wagons, when an Instanter would be shortened on unfitted wagons was when they were used as barrier wagons with tank cars marshalled in Mixed trains (although there was possibly a Sectional Appendix item as I never saw it written down anywhere).

[Compound2632]

Wagon runaways and the potential for them meant that there were a lot more catch points around, just in case, than there are today.   When the WCML was being electrified and re-signalled the catch points were taken out and loose couple trains had to go either over the Settle and Carlisle or round the Cumbrian coast.   One side effect of this was that occasionally there was a runaway and if the line behind was clear these were sometimes allowed to run and come to a stop in a natural dip in the line.   One old signalman, no longer with us told me that on the Settle and Carlisle northbounds that broke away were normally allowed to run.   Apparently they would get beyond Hellifield before stopping and running back.  Long Preston was the low point and sometimes the same raft of wagons, plus the brake van and guard would go through Long Preston several times before they finally came to a stop.   This was far preferable to diverting them off at a catch point and clearing up the subsequent mess.

 

Jamie

 

No doubt an alarming experience for the guard but far preferable to being derailed at speed with several hundred tons of train piling up on top of you. John Thomas, The West Highland Railway, has a similar tale about a guard who slept through such an experience - on being woken by the Bridge of Orchy stationmaster and being told where he was, he replied "Ach, don't be daft, we were there two hours ago". And as for D.L. Smith's tales of the high speeds run downhill by lose coupled goods trains on the GSWR, to keep the engine(s) ahead of the train and the couplings taut - well, one's hair stands on end!

Edited March 26, 2018 by Compound2632

[jamie92208]

No doubt an alarming experience for the guard but far preferable to being derailed at speed with several hundred tons of train piling up on top of you. John Thomas, The West Highland Railway, has a similar tale about a guard who slept through such an experience - on being woken by the Bridge of Orchy stationmaster and being told where he was, he replied "Ach, don't be daft, we were there two hours ago". And as for D.L. Smith's tales of the high speeds run downhill by lose coupled goods trains on the GSWR, to keep the engine(s) ahead of the train and the couplings taut - well, one's hair stands on end!

Funnily enough I read an RAIB report about a track maintenance vehicle that suffered a complete brake failure and ran away and did something very similar only recently. I think it was somewhere in the North of England and apparently the occupants went through one location several times.

 

Jamie

[Edwin_m]

Funnily enough I read an RAIB report about a track maintenance vehicle that suffered a complete brake failure and ran away and did something very similar only recently. I think it was somewhere in the North of England and apparently the occupants went through one location several times.

 

Jamie

There have been two reports on runaways of engineering vehicles recently:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-032018-trailer-runaway-near-hope-derbyshire

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-012018-runaway-of-a-maintenance-train-near-markinch

 

Plus several others in the not too distant past, including one that killed several track workers near Tebay. 

[Fat Controller]

No doubt an alarming experience for the guard but far preferable to being derailed at speed with several hundred tons of train piling up on top of you. John Thomas, The West Highland Railway, has a similar tale about a guard who slept through such an experience - on being woken by the Bridge of Orchy stationmaster and being told where he was, he replied "Ach, don't be daft, we were there two hours ago". And as for D.L. Smith's tales of the high speeds run downhill by lose coupled goods trains on the GSWR, to keep the engine(s) ahead of the train and the couplings taut - well, one's hair stands on end!

I witnessed several runaways when I lived at the bottom end of the L&MMR, along with several near-misses. On one of the latter, the brake-shoes on the van had got so hot, the oil in the axleboxes caught light, quickly followed by the lower bodywork.

There was an account I read once, of a broken coupling of a goods train on the line via Girvan to Stranraer. The rear portion of the train ran back and forth past the station several times during the night, before running out of momentum. In the morning, a passenger, who had been staying in the neighbouring hostelry, commented that there seemed to be a lot more overnight traffic than he'd been led to believe; he was a Board of Trade Inspector.

[Compound2632]

I witnessed several runaways when I lived at the bottom end of the L&MMR, along with several near-misses. On one of the latter, the brake-shoes on the van had got so hot, the oil in the axleboxes caught light, quickly followed by the lower bodywork.

There was an account I read once, of a broken coupling of a goods train on the line via Girvan to Stranraer. The rear portion of the train ran back and forth past the station several times during the night, before running out of momentum. In the morning, a passenger, who had been staying in the neighbouring hostelry, commented that there seemed to be a lot more overnight traffic than he'd been led to believe; he was a Board of Trade Inspector.

 

That is indeed in D.L. Smith, Tales of the Glasgow & South Western Railway.

[The Johnster]

I once set fire to a brake van by overheating the brakes on a hairy down run from Hereford to Newport; I reckon we were doing about 70 past the box at Abergavenny with a loaded coal train.  I'd offered to pin brakes at Llanvihangel on seeing the limited brake force available at Hereford, but my driver thought he was up to the job and knew better than me.  He wasn't, and he didn't; the 47 was failed at Canton with brake shoes worn through

[Fat Controller]

I once set fire to a brake van by overheating the brakes on a hairy down run from Hereford to Newport; I reckon we were doing about 70 past the box at Abergavenny with a loaded coal train.  I'd offered to pin brakes at Llanvihangel on seeing the limited brake force available at Hereford, but my driver thought he was up to the job and knew better than me.  He wasn't, and he didn't; the 47 was failed at Canton with brake shoes worn through

Driver's seat cushion also required replacement, I imagine.

[The Johnster]

If it did, he was embarrassed enough to clean the mess up by the time I secondmanned him from Ebbw Jc, where the train was abandoned, to Canton.  He did not speak to me for the whole journey, or ever again.  Some blokes were like that!