GW Manors at Banbury

[timbowilts]

On 27/02/2019 at 19:05, The Fatadder said:

Are there many photos from the post war pre nationalisation period?

 

in particular 7804

Sorry for the delay in replying to this, we are preparing to relocate to Swansea!

The only 1940’s photos are of 7805, 7806, 7807, 7808, 7811, 7814, 7817, 7818 & 7819, none of 7804 in that period.

 

Tim T

[eastglosmog]

On 05/03/2019 at 00:32, The Stationmaster said:

It seems to have become something of an old wives' tale in a certain Railway Modelling magazine a good many years ago and may well have spread from there.  The odd thing about it is that even going back a century (from now) it wasn't right although there were certain circumstances when it was required , all very strange.

Rolt quoted it in his book "Red for danger", so I expect many people (like me) took it as gospel. 

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

Rolt quoted it in his book "Red for danger", so I expect many people (like me) took it as gospel. 

I recently re-read 'Red For Danger' and there are a surprising number of very basic mistakes (like that) in the book.  Another thing about it is that a number of the descriptions of incidents have been altered a bit to provide a. presumably, more interesting or readable account of what happened.   And one oddity is that the railwaymen involved in more recent incidents are not usually named whereas they are if you go further back - very strange when you realise that some of those who were named were still working on the railway when the book was written.

 

But it is a darned good read all the same although it is now rather dated.

[DCB]

I'm not sure that Tom Rolt mentioned the GWR double heading in Red for Danger.    I have seen this mentioned re other railways by railwaymen particularly the North British and NB area of the LNER.  "Toram Beg" a railwayman quoted the pilot requiring to be coupled inside the train loco in articles relating to the WW2 era.  The Manor's limitation was the lack of a 4 cone ejector making blowing the brakes off a slow business and I understand they were limited to trains of 10 coaches or less for this reason. I understand in South Devon the driver of the train engine released the brakes on a signal from the pilot where the pilot was a Manor (or Bulldog presumably)  Putting the pilot inside was just too much hassle for Devonians but their colleagues at Stratford had to put their 2251s inside after presumably, their Bulldogs were withdrawn. Probably wasted more time than not taking a pilot.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I'm not sure that Tom Rolt mentioned the GWR double heading in Red for Danger.    I have seen this mentioned re other railways by railwaymen particularly the North British and NB area of the LNER.  "Toram Beg" a railwayman quoted the pilot requiring to be coupled inside the train loco in articles relating to the WW2 era.  The Manor's limitation was the lack of a 4 cone ejector making blowing the brakes off a slow business and I understand they were limited to trains of 10 coaches or less for this reason. I understand in South Devon the driver of the train engine released the brakes on a signal from the pilot where the pilot was a Manor (or Bulldog presumably)  Putting the pilot inside was just too much hassle for Devonians but their colleagues at Stratford had to put their 2251s inside after presumably, their Bulldogs were withdrawn. Probably wasted more time than not taking a pilot.

In view of the fact that both 'Manors' and 'Bulldogs'  were officially permitted to assist front a 'King' between Newton Abbot and Devonport (later amended to Keyham, date unknown), or between Newton Abbot and Goodrington, nobody was avoiding any hassle - they were simply applying what was in the Instructions.  Incidentally 2-6-0s, and 2-6-2Ts with large driving wheels, were also permitted to assist front a 'King' in a number of places - including Newton Abbot to Brent

 

By the 1930s, and subsequently, 0-6-0s were not permitted to assist front unless they were the more powerful engine of the two in which case they had to assist front.

[eastglosmog]

On 16/03/2019 at 02:14, DavidCBroad said:

I'm not sure that Tom Rolt mentioned the GWR double heading in Red for Danger.    I have seen this mentioned re other railways by railwaymen particularly the North British and NB area of the LNER.  "Toram Beg" a railwayman quoted the pilot requiring to be coupled inside the train loco in articles relating to the WW2 era.  The Manor's limitation was the lack of a 4 cone ejector making blowing the brakes off a slow business and I understand they were limited to trains of 10 coaches or less for this reason. I understand in South Devon the driver of the train engine released the brakes on a signal from the pilot where the pilot was a Manor (or Bulldog presumably)  Putting the pilot inside was just too much hassle for Devonians but their colleagues at Stratford had to put their 2251s inside after presumably, their Bulldogs were withdrawn. Probably wasted more time than not taking a pilot.

It's in the chapter on Drivers Errors in the preamble to the 1940 Norton Fitzwarren derailment.  Took me ages to find it.  I knew I had read it somewhere but could not remember where.

 

On 15/03/2019 at 19:28, The Stationmaster said:

I recently re-read 'Red For Danger' and there are a surprising number of very basic mistakes (like that) in the book.  Another thing about it is that a number of the descriptions of incidents have been altered a bit to provide a. presumably, more interesting or readable account of what happened.   And one oddity is that the railwaymen involved in more recent incidents are not usually named whereas they are if you go further back - very strange when you realise that some of those who were named were still working on the railway when the book was written.

 

But it is a darned good read all the same although it is now rather dated.

I wish I could write half as well as he did.