Pre-grouping goods train maximum speeds?

[dpgibbons]

Of relevance to average speeds - I recall reading that unfitted freight trains were required to stop at intervals for inspection. No doubt the old grease axleboxes were prone to running hot. 

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, dpgibbons said:

Of relevance to average speeds - I recall reading that unfitted freight trains were required to stop at intervals for inspection. No doubt the old grease axleboxes were prone to running hot. 

Yes.  And the distance a train was permitted to run between stops for wagon examination depended on the tyoe of wagons on the train and the Class of the train.  This sort of published restrictions preceded by many years the publication of any sort of speed limitation on different Classes of freight train. 

[MidlandRed]

Following on from the response by @The Stationmaster on inspections of freight trains, the link to the report on the fatal collision at Roade in 1969, below, which involved a down train of empty mineral wagons hauled by an AC electric locomotive where wagon 18 in the consist suffered a broken spring and derailed, ultimately resulting in a collision with an up AM10 unit travelling at 70+ mph (resulting in at least one coach of 071 being wrecked), refers to the inspection of the wagons prior to the journey. A virtually identical collision at virtually the same location occurred for the same reasons in 1967 resulting in the wrecking of at least one vehicle of unit 094. The 1969 accident report refers to the huge increase in broken wagon springs in freight trains over the years from 1966 and the derailments caused by this factor and other issues with short wheelbase wagons (including the rather more famous one (probably because it wrecked the celebrity DP2) at Thirsk being one), and the measures being taken by BR to deal with the problem.

 

Although off topic by time frame, it does point to issues of maintenance, age of equipment and other factors affecting the safety of freight trains beyond average speeds. It might be argued that dieselisation/ electrification had led to more intensive use of wagons and trains running to max allowed speed for longer periods (certainly on the WCML). Additionally there are links to the reports on a series of accidents involving short wheelbase wagons. Click on the link to the Roade 1969 collision report - towards the end there is reference to the measures being implemented by BR to mitigate the issue. 
 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=279

Edited April 19, 2022 by MidlandRed

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, MidlandRed said:

Following on from the response by @The Stationmaster on inspections of freight trains, the link to the report on the fatal collision at Roade in 1969, below, which involved a down train of empty mineral wagons hauled by an AC electric locomotive where wagon 18 in the consist suffered a broken spring and derailed, ultimately resulting in a collision with an up AM10 unit travelling at 70+ mph (resulting in at least one coach of 071 being wrecked), refers to the inspection of the wagons prior to the journey. A virtually identical collision at virtually the same location occurred for the same reasons in 1967 resulting in the wrecking of at least one vehicle of unit 094. The 1969 accident report refers to the huge increase in broken wagon springs in freight trains over the years from 1966 and the derailments caused by this factor and other issues with short wheelbase wagons (including the rather more famous one (probably because it wrecked the celebrity DP2) at Thirsk being one), and the measures being taken by BR to deal with the problem.

 

Although off topic by time frame, it does point to issues of maintenance, age of equipment and other factors affecting the safety of freight trains beyond average speeds. It might be argued that dieselisation/ electrification had led to more intensive use of wagons and trains running to max allowed speed for longer periods (certainly on the WCML). Additionally there are links to the reports on a series of accidents involving short wheelbase wagons. Click on the link to the Roade 1969 collision report - towards the end there is reference to the measures being implemented by BR to mitigate the issue. 
 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=279

Just as a matter of historical accuracy the collision which led to DP2 being written-off did not involve short wheelbase wagons; the Cemflo wagons involved had. a wheelbase of 15ft.    However, irrespective of  their longer wheelbase the wagons involved in that collision had a history of suspension problems including broken springs and cracked frames and the original suspension design was not replicated on the second batch which used a completely different suspension arrangement.    In consequence of the history of broken springs and cracked frames the maximum permitted speed of the wagons when loaded had been reduced, in two bites, from 60mph to 45 mph while empty wagons were authorised a maximum speed of 50mph.

 

The rash of plain line derailments in the 1960s was found to be due to a combination of problems - partially the unsuitablity of short wheelbase wahgons ti run at teh sort of sustained maximum speeds wghich could be achieved by diesel and electric traction (plus suggestions that maximum speeds were n any case readily exceed by the modern traction which could accelerate faster  than steam engines.  The higher sustained speed was aso found to induce oscillations which coupled with cwr could lead to derailments apart from the more obvious causes of components breaking.  

 

Wagon springs had been breaking for years - probably not in vast numbers but broken leaves in springs were not uncommon.  however with lower sustained speeds and slower acceleration the broken springs hadn't really presented the serious problems which emerged in the 1960s leading greater restriction of the maximum speed allowed for short wheelbase vehicles

[dpgibbons]

So would freight trains pull up at stations for inspection - something rarely seen in model form - or would the platform preclude a proper check of the running gear?

[LMS2968]

Not at stations; the platform on one side would make inspection difficult. They were usually yards or in specified lay-by sidings, and the place and time allowed was usually given in the WTT..

[H2O]

36 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Not at stations; the platform on one side would make inspection difficult. They were usually yards or in specified lay-by sidings, and the place and time allowed was usually given in the WTT..

I'd guess, where possible, inspections would be combined with another reason to stop.  e.g. pin down brakes, if stopped to let a faster train pass by. Did they allowed staff to do ad-hoc inspections if held up unexpectedly that would count for 'regular' or every 20 miles or so?

[LMS2968]

Not normally. The train would be moved off the running line for booked examinations into a yard or siding, so not when brakes were being pinned down. Ad hoc examinations generally didn't happen: if put inside to allow a faster train to pass, there was always the possibility of being given the road part way though. On the other hand problems such as smoke might be noted as brakes were being pinned down, but more usually by the guard or the Bobby as the train passed his box. The guard could not communicate directly with the engine crew but would take in the tail lamp, hopefully triggering the signalling system at the next box as the 'Train passed without tail lamp' as well as 'Stop and examine' were sent. The other way was to wind the handbrake on and off repeatedly, hoping the surging would be felt by the driver and cause him to stop, or at least look back and see the smoke for himself.

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Not at stations; the platform on one side would make inspection difficult. They were usually yards or in specified lay-by sidings, and the place and time allowed was usually given in the WTT..

The book 'LMS Locoman - Wellingborough Footplate Memories', by George Bushell, starts off with his first job on the railway. It was as a greaser at age 15 and his 3rd day (after 2 days showing him wagon axle box details), was a wet and cold night. He had to fill the axle boxes, with 'thick yellow grease'. It was a March day in 1933.

 

ISBN 0 85153 424 4

[Michael Hodgson]

Jobs like lineside C&W examination of brakes & axleboxes in yards, wheel-tapping in station etc were less than desirable from a safety point of view.  Any safety system which relies on such regular inspection in the field is bound to lead to accidents from time to time as the job is not done as thoroughly as intended in poor light/weather, by staff who aren't up to the job etc.  Not that they had any better alternative back in the day.   

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

The book 'LMS Locoman - Wellingborough Footplate Memories', by George Bushell, starts off with his first job on the railway. It was as a greaser at age 15 and his 3rd day (after 2 days showing him wagon axle box details), was a wet and cold night. He had to fill the axle boxes, with 'thick yellow grease'. It was a March day in 1933.

 

ISBN 0 85153 424 4

Yes, a good book, along with the follow-up, Wlllesden Footplate Memories.

[rodent279]

20 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The higher sustained speed was aso found to induce oscillations which coupled with cwr could lead to derailments apart from the more obvious causes of components breaking.  

ISTR reading somewhere that it was believed that the combination of cwr (continuous welded rail for those who don't know) and higher sustained speeds allowed oscillations to build up that could eventually lead to derailments. Jointed track provided a periodic shock that reduced or killed the oscillations.

[LMS2968]

Yes, the rail joints broke up the inputs from the track and the cycle of resonance, so these had to begin again from scratch, to be broken again at the next rail joint. But it wasn't all of the problem, there were other contributing causes.

[MidlandRed]

23 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Just as a matter of historical accuracy the collision which led to DP2 being written-off did not involve short wheelbase wagons; the Cemflo wagons involved had. a wheelbase of 15ft.    However, irrespective of  their longer wheelbase the wagons involved in that collision had a history of suspension problems including broken springs and cracked frames and the original suspension design was not replicated on the second batch which used a completely different suspension arrangement.    In consequence of the history of broken springs and cracked frames the maximum permitted speed of the wagons when loaded had been reduced, in two bites, from 60mph to 45 mph while empty wagons were authorised a maximum speed of 50mph.

 

The rash of plain line derailments in the 1960s was found to be due to a combination of problems - partially the unsuitablity of short wheelbase wahgons ti run at teh sort of sustained maximum speeds wghich could be achieved by diesel and electric traction (plus suggestions that maximum speeds were n any case readily exceed by the modern traction which could accelerate faster  than steam engines.  The higher sustained speed was aso found to induce oscillations which coupled with cwr could lead to derailments apart from the more obvious causes of components breaking.  

 

Wagon springs had been breaking for years - probably not in vast numbers but broken leaves in springs were not uncommon.  however with lower sustained speeds and slower acceleration the broken springs hadn't really presented the serious problems which emerged in the 1960s leading greater restriction of the maximum speed allowed for short wheelbase vehicles

Although we’re off topic, and recognising the ongoing issues with the Cemflo wagons, there are some important points concerning the Thirsk derailment in the context of the Cemflo wagons which are not covered accurately in that response:- 

 

1) The wagon which initially derailed was one of the second (Metro-Cammell) batch of wagons

2) There were multiple factors which caused the derailment but the main one was the diameter of the wheels which derailed (the back axle of the first wagon to derail), where the nearside wheel had worn at a greater rate than the right hand wheel and was out of tolerance - combined with uneven flange wear - the wagon had been ‘crabbing’ and subject to excessive hunting. 
3) The derailment occurred at a point where an irregularity of track occurred (though it was still in tolerance) - effectively creating a reverse curve.

 

The combination of these issues resulted in the initial derailment of the 12th wagon. Tests were carried out on springs from the wagons post accident at Doncaster and the inspector was confident spring failure hadn’t caused the accident. 

 

4) The speed limit of these wagons, when loaded, was reduced to 35 mph as a result of post accident tests carried out to ensure the wagons, when loaded, did not oscillate outside a safe limit. 
 

Various other measures were implemented to avoid a recurrence including initiating checks on the tolerances of wheels on the same axles on the Cemflo wagons to avoid excessive hunting, and altering the design of the suspension, and questioning the suitability of the buffers to avoid oscillation. There was also mention of the suitability of wagons with the same suspension type used for other types of wagons (particularly oil tankers where vastly increased mileage was experienced before significant wear (80k miles v 5k miles for the Cemflo) and a question whether the cement residue on the wagons caused greater friction and thus wear on components (anyone who has visited Cliffe would attest to the fact the entire landscape including buildings and vehicles contained a white residue!!). However this would not be dissimilar to that experienced with aggregates traffic? 
 

The inspection of the train is referred to (almost back on topic!!!), which occurred at York where the class 33 locos were changed to a class 40 - Kent to Glasgow is an extremely long journey. I’m guessing this is similar to earlier steam days although potentially more intermediate yard stops would have occurred in steam days? 
 

Finally, although these were not 10’ wheelbase wagons (15’), the accident is listed in the timeline for accidents involving SWB wagons on the railway archive website - these wagons were actually longer than the traditional 10’ items. There was also an excessive spring component wear with these wagons. 
 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by MidlandRed

[Mark Saunders]

When was cyclic top recognised as a problem! 

[Tankerman]

On 15/04/2022 at 20:23, Penlan said:

First on the Central Wales Line - Possibly LMS, rather than LNWR...

...... and then just outside Liskeard on the Looe Branch (From photo taken 50+ years ago by me)
 

 

There was a sign very similar to the second one, it had the additional text "and pin down the wagon brakes", at the top of the incline from Penryn at Four Cross near Penryn. This point was between the two road over bridges on the Truro and Falmouth roads. 

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

When was cyclic top recognised as a problem! 

Effectively in the 1960s with the trials that were carried out into the derailment of short wheel base 4 wheelers but I'm not sure if it was referred to by that name at the time.  The trials were carried out on a section of the Cheltenham -Stratford route which was by then out of use and I seem to recall that something was done to the track in one place in order to see if that would create a specific riding problem for short wheelbase wagons - it did, they derailed.

[Aire Head]

16 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

However this would not be dissimilar to that experienced with aggregates traffic? 
 

 

There would be a degree of similarity however Cement is very nasty stuff where not only do you have the abrasive effect from the particles but you also have the issue that it is also very corrosive which increases any wear/damage further.

 

As an example with my job I can be working away with aggregates to my heart's content without much issue. As soon as I start handling cement in any significant volume it will almost inevitably start to disintegrate my boots before long.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Aire Head

[MidlandRed]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Effectively in the 1960s with the trials that were carried out into the derailment of short wheel base 4 wheelers but I'm not sure if it was referred to by that name at the time.  The trials were carried out on a section of the Cheltenham -Stratford route which was by then out of use and I seem to recall that something was done to the track in one place in order to see if that would create a specific riding problem for short wheelbase wagons - it did, they derailed.

Are you sure on the dates, or possibly the route, @The Stationmaster - Cheltenham to Stratford closed in 1976, ironically as a result of track damage caused by a mineral train derailment (Toton to Severn Tunnel Junction). 

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Effectively in the 1960s with the trials that were carried out into the derailment of short wheel base 4 wheelers but I'm not sure if it was referred to by that name at the time.  The trials were carried out on a section of the Cheltenham -Stratford route which was by then out of use and I seem to recall that something was done to the track in one place in order to see if that would create a specific riding problem for short wheelbase wagons - it did, they derailed.

The term I seem to recall was that the wagons were said to be "hunting".  Nothing to do with toffs going to the Highlands for the Glorious Twelfth or purpose-built Hound Vans as used by the Master of Foxhounds.

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Are you sure on the dates, or possibly the route, @The Stationmaster - Cheltenham to Stratford closed in 1976, ironically as a result of track damage caused by a mineral train derailment (Toton to Severn Tunnel Junction). 

Yes certainly quite early and there was no booked traffic on some of the route although it was still used for booked diversions until 1968, the passenger service had gone in 1960.   Cheltenham Racecourse station remained in use until 1976 

[roythebus1]

On 17/04/2022 at 09:54, bécasse said:

I rather wonder whether any locomotive was fitted with a speedometer pre-grouping or even pre-nationalisation. Ever in the BR era, to give an example, the Southern Region's huge fleet of EPB suburban trains (built from the early-1950s onwards) wasn't fitted with speedometers, something that ASLEF exploited in 1974 by turning a "work to rule" into an effective strike in which the drivers still got paid on the not-unreasonable basis that drivers couldn't adhere to speed limits if the train wasn't fitted with a speedometer.

 

As Michael Hodgson said, it was down to drivers' judgement - and, given that the loco almost inevitably rode more roughly than the train, that judgement wasn't difficult to make.

I'd say you're right there David. From what the old steam drivers told me very few were speedo fitted until the mid to late 1950s. Drivers had to use their experience to judge speeds, some used a stop watch and timed between telegraph posts or mileposts which was a bit easier. On the SR the 4SUB units didn't have speedos fitted. I was taught that "series" on the 4SUB would take you up to about 25 mph. However, working one of the old Broad Street units converted to battery locos for the GN electrification, the driver got one up to about 55mph in series on battery power on the Hertford loop.

 

The steam men I worked with at Rugby would tell of working unfitted freights and speeds were not particularly high with the trains being "looped" for hours at a time.

[The Stationmaster]

Delving into a few GWR STT times from 1910 -

 

6.45pm Oxley - Reading 'Goods & Coal' was booked 35 minutes start to stop for the 15 miles from Didcot  East End to Reading West Jcn, an average speed of a shade over 25 mph.  That was 5 minutes longer than the booked time for a Goods train.

 

However the 4.10 am Bordesley Jcn - Southall  'Coal'  (maximum load 70 wagons for this section of its journey) was booked 40 minutes start to stop from Dicot to Reading West Jcn so an average speed of  22.5 mph.  Similarly the 1.35am Cannock Rd - Reading  'Goods & Coal' was also booked 40 minutes.  Similarly the 6.19 am Severn Tunnel Jcn - Old Oak Common 'Coal. was booked 40 minutes  over this stretch but in this case it was a pass to stop timing.   But the 1.40am Rogerstone - Reading 'Goods' was booked 45 minutes start to stop..

 

The 12.30 am Pontypool Rd - Oxford 'Coal' was booked 15 minutes from Yarnton Jcn - Oxford start to stop, a distance of c.4 miles so c.16mph.

 

Only one of these timings takes any account of the loads of the train involved and the booked load could well have made a difference  but I get the impression that it might not have been significant.  What is significant is the 6.45 Oxley which was probably more of a Goods than a coal train has it had a slightly higher speed while the purely coal trains were definitely timed at lower average speeds.  it should also be noted that Didcot to Reading is basically a falling gradient - albeit at in excess of 1 in 1000 - for most of the distance so any train starting from Didcot would have a little assistance from gravity.

 

[Compound2632]

35 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Delving into a few GWR STT times from 1910 -

 

it should also be noted that Didcot to Reading is basically a falling gradient - albeit at in excess of 1 in 1000 - for most of the distance so any train starting from Didcot would have a little assistance from gravity.

 

 

Are you able to give timings for the equivalent down (gently uphill) goods and mineral empties trains?

Edited April 22, 2022 by Compound2632

[MidlandRed]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes certainly quite early and there was no booked traffic on some of the route although it was still used for booked diversions until 1968, the passenger service had gone in 1960.   Cheltenham Racecourse station remained in use until 1976 

I think the tests may be a bit later than you thought as the last timetabled passenger train using the route was in March 1968 (regular Leamington to Gloucester service - run by Tyseley class 122 bubble cars - and possibly one reason why Tyseley lost three to the ScR in 1968); the last passenger train over the northern section was in 1969, when the Stratford to Worcester service ceased. 
 

The route was used for freight and diversions until the derailment in 1976.

 

The timeline of the route is on the attached link from the GSWR - under the heading ‘decline’ are listed pertinent dates. The local stopping passenger service closed early on, as you’ve said. 
 

https://www.gwsr.com/enthusiasts/History/Railway_Timeline.html

Edited April 22, 2022 by MidlandRed