Brake vans with engines of different livery

[phil-b259]

That was the logic I was working from, the question is more would it be a SR guard in a SR van or a in a GW van, I suspect the latter though modellers license may well make it the former

 

Don't forget that just as drivers could be 'piloted' over a route which they didn't know, the same could apply to Guards!

 

Thus if a GWR freight train was diverted over the Southern route then it could have either:-

 

a GWR driver and Guard who both had the relevant route knowledge

OR 

a SR conductor driver to accompany the GWR driver (as they lacked the required route knowledge) and a GWR guard with the required rote knowledge

OR

a GWR driver with the required route knowledge and SR conductor Guard to provide the necessary route knowledge to a GWR Guard who lacked it.

 

In all cases the actual Guards van used would be a GWR one, just like the loco.

 

In reality however in situations where it was necessary to divert freight away from Dawlish say, I suspect it would have been simpler for the GWR to simply hand the wagons over to the SR who would then use their own resources (locos and guards vans) to move it.

[phil-b259]

Yes, I try to be realistic with my layout but to a point. So I might get more LMS or GWR vans in due course -- no hurry!

 

 

In summary, the only real world situations (apart from a very few pre-grouping era joint lines) where the owner of the Guards van and the owner of the loco would be different are (1) Just after nationalisation or (2) In preservation when the types and liveries of the locos available don't always match that of the serviceable goods vehicles.

 

You can of course invoke 'rule 1' and create your rationale as to whey the loco and brake van might be different but you need to accept that it cannot be backed up be real operations (outside of the 2 situations listed previously)

 

 

That was the logic I was working from, the question is more would it be a SR guard in a SR van or a in a GW van, I suspect the latter though modellers license may well make it the former

 

Guards vans were no different from locos - they were only to be crewed by staff working for their owner. The GWR didn't simply hand over its locos to SR enginemen at Plymouth and get their own staff to pick it up again at Exeter, the GWR crew worked through assisted by a SR conductor driver if necessary - and the same is true of Guards vans.

[Wickham Green]

A loco crew or guard regularly working over another railway's metals, with jobs in their link taking them in that direction, would have to have had and signed for the appropriate route knowledge, and knowledge of the different working practices, equipment, signalling, and rules and regulations of the 'foreign' railway.  The example of the South Devon diversions over the GW for Southern trains, and the corresponding diversion over the Southern via Okehampton for GW,  trains, which were catered for with regular workings over the alternative route for traincrews from each company to maintain route knowledge, largely concerned passenger workings with few freight trains, but when actual diversion took place due to per way possessions, breaches of the sea wall at Dawlish, derailments or other blockages, diverted freight trains ran with their own crews, guards, locos, and brake vans.

While these Exeter-Plymouth workings may well have included ones with matching trains & locos, those which come to mind seem to have used foreign locos with native coaching stock* - and PRESUMABLY a local guard ........... which would SUGGEST that it's only the LOCO crew who were gaining reciprocal route knowledge. I GUESS that a Southern guard wouldn't be let loose with a GWR train - or vice-versa - as he'd need to take on board an awful lot of the appropriate Rule Book in addition to rolling stock differences and learning the road ( The loco crews don't APPEAR to have learnt the other railway's locos.)

 

* possibly these were the only ones that drew the attention of the photographers - but that's unlikely !

[jim.snowdon]

Isn't that one of the reasons for the Big Four rule books being "standardised" under the auspices of the Railway Clearing House?

 

Jim

[Wickham Green]

Isn't that one of the reasons for the Big Four rule books being "standardised" under the auspices of the Railway Clearing House?

 

Jim

When is 'standard' not standard ? ........ in particular where God's Wonderful Railway is concerned .................. there were always differences - though, perhaps, minimised with the 1950 Rule Book..

[The Johnster]

Yes it is.  

 

Loco crews were not expected to 'sign for traction knowledge' on different types of steam loco; once you'd passed out as a Passed Fireman, you were expected to be able to cope with any loco; it's just a matter of locating the various controls; regulator, reverser, vacuum and steam brake, injectors and gauge glasses.  These are pretty obvious, though they may be on the wrong side of the loco if you're used to GW!

 

Drivers and guards are and were piloted over routes they did not sign for, but not firemen, who are under the charge, instruction, and direction of the driver.  The train's own driver and guard are still nominally in charge of the train, and the pilots are there to assist with route knowledge.