gwr goods sheds and locos running through.

[Moria15]

Greetings all.

 

I have in the back of my mind a rememberance of the fact that Locos were not permitted to run through goods sheds, but I am not sure if this is factual or something I read somewhere that has no verification, so I am wondering about whether this is in fact true,  whether it is true depending on whether senior staff are present and watching, or whether it is true only in certain conditions.

 

I certainly see some track plans that might make it difficult to shunt if this is true, but not impossible, so would be very grateful of learning if there is a standard set of rules for GWR locos and goods sheds around the late 20's, early 30's time period.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Graham

[Right Away]

Just one glowing cinder and .... good-bye goods shed!

[Hal Nail]

https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=52931

[ejstubbs]

There some rather optimistic exaggeration in that thread, IMO: "...in the age of steam, there would always be at least a couple of Clydesdale or Shire horses around the depot that could pull the wagons around."  Yeah, right.

 

The responses in this past RMWeb thread seem to be helpfully considered and nuanced:

 

I suspect that the Stationmaster's initial answer in that thread sums up the situation up fairly well:

 

On 29/11/2015 at 17:45, The Stationmaster said:

Simple answer is 'yes, no, maybe' - for the various reasons outlined above plus in many cases the lack of clearance which left no room for an engine to get through anyway.  Thus in many places it was prohbited while in some it was permitted.

 

As a generalisation I would say avoid it and keep engines clear.

 

I guess if you're modelling a real location then the presence of a prohibition sign would be a strong clue as to the operational rules in effect there.  (Though there could equally well have been staff who believed that "rules are made to be broken"!)

Edited April 19, 2022 by ejstubbs

[Cwmtwrch]

Another possible method is to find a photograph showing the end of the prototype, which should provide an answer, as here: https://shed-arts.co.uk/event/tetbury-train-memories/. There are also instances where the location of the shed on a long siding probably implies that the loco has to pass through the shed, as there is no other access to the rest of the siding.

 

Lack of clearance could be an issue for large outside cylinder locos, which might foul loading banks [the local freight WTT will probably have a list of individual local restrictions, which can be quite extensive at some locations], but it is difficult to visualise a situation in which a van fits in but an inside cylinder loco doesn't.

[Moria15]

Thank you all for the comments and details.

 

I'll position things on the basis that there should be no need, unless or until

 

Thanks again.

 

Graham

[Steamport Southport]

One bloke could move a wagon either by pushing or with a pinchbar.

 

No real need for a horse, that would only be at locations with heavy traffic and a lot of stuff being delivered elsewhere.

 

These are the things I mean. 

 

http://www.pougetrail.com/en/products-page/outillages-a-main/leviers-pousse-wagon/

 

 

Jason

[bécasse]

Pinchbars were used frequently in small goods yards to reposition, or even re-sort, wagons particularly in the latter years when there would rarely have been a horse around that could be "borrowed" to help with the task.

[Siberian Snooper]

I have shifted a 9f with a pinch bar, stopping it, was a different matter. Shifting a 10 ton wagon would be a walk in the park.

 

 

[AMJ]

Most goods sheds would be operated similar to the loading of vehicles onto a ship as there will be a position that the loco should not pass.  To get something from the far end of the shed will need enough vehicles so that the loco remains outside.

 

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Moria15 said:

whether it is true depending on whether senior staff are present and watching,

 

Why, whatever could you be suggesting, Graham? 

 

There were other methods of moving wagons about besides using engines, which were not the ideal thing to have in a goods shed because of the fire risk and the possibility of smoke contamination of goods leading to compo claims from the customers.  In some cases a locomotive would be unable to get inside a goods shed anyway because of the very restricted clearances at the entrances.  I can testify to being able to move an empty mineral wagon (steel 16tonner) on level track on my own by pushing it, and I'm no Incredible Hulk (just incredible!). 

 

If you are shunting into a goods shed with a steam loco, then the use of 'reach wagons', which can be borrowed from the coal road or the mileage road if nobody is working on them, allows the wagons to be 'spotted' in the shed without the need for the loco to entier the building, but at least one 'banksman' is needed to handsignal the shunter who is outside the shed controlling the move. 

 

In some places the goods shed doubled as a loco shed, or the loco was allowed inside it for some other operational reason, and in these cases the goods shed will have been provided with ventilators in the same way as a loco shed.  Fire doors will be kept shut and care taken to limit sparks from the ashpan or chimney, and to keep the loco from blowing off inside the shed.

 

In the larger sheds, capstans and rope or chain haulage were common and the loco would leave wagons on a road accessible to this equipment, which would be used to position it wherever needed in the building.  At Moor Street, and maybe elsewhere but I know about Moor Street, wagons were taked down to the goods shed level in a wagon lift, and engines stayed upstairs; everything at ground level was moved by electric winches by means of capstans and rope.

 

BR's last shunting horse, Charlie, was employed at Newmarket goods yard, where a major source of traffic was horse boxes, until the mid 60s.  The Railways were one of the main owners of horses in the pre-war years, and had stables, smithys, ostlers, and vets on the staff to look after them.  They were largely used for road delivery and collection (hence their 3-wheeled petrol replacements being known as 'mechanical horses' and taken up enthusiastically by the railways), but some were employed as shunters.  Horses were of course locomotives long before steam engines were.

 

Can't remember if or how this applied differently to diesels.  There were not many small local goods sheds left when I was on the railway in the 70s.  Llanelli was used as the loco shed by 37s, 03s, and 08s including the cut down BPGV locos, as a sub-shed of Landore.  The Brunel TVR shed at Pontypridd was still in business, and we used to shunt into it with Hymeks and, later, 37s, but with extreme care as the doorway was very close to the side of the loco!

 

The arbiter of whether or not locos were allowed into goods sheds would be the relevant Sectional Appendix, which amongst other things contains the restrictions and prohibitions for all track accessible to Railway Company locomotives in the Section.  If you ever get hold of one, book a weekend off-grid, as they are absolutely fascinating windows into a world that no longer exists.  Drivers were responsible for their engines, effectively captains of the ship, and would be held responsible if they were found where they shouldn't be, especially if they'd come to any sort of grief!  Their route knowledge  was expected to encompass such restrictions. 

 

The Potato Siding, mentioned in the linked thread in Hal Nail's post, was situated above a storage cellar and the floor was not capable of handling the weight of an engine, hence why they must not enter it...

[Aire Head]

I can remember reading about them loose shunting into a goods shed near me (think it was Embsay but memory fails me!).

 

One winters day the staff inside the shed shut the door to keep the cold wind out and it wasn't noticed by the shunting team until they slammed a 12T van through the door.

[The Stationmaster]

33 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

I can remember reading about them loose shunting into a goods shed near me (think it was Embsay but memory fails me!).

 

One winters day the staff inside the shed shut the door to keep the cold wind out and it wasn't noticed by the shunting team until they slammed a 12T van through the door.

OOPs!   Loose shunting to sidings etc in buildings was normally prohibited.  As ever it is a simple matter to get something, especially a wagon, moving but the hard part is stopping it - particularly if it has been loose shunted by an engine.  The other problem with loose shunting into a goods shed was that in many (probably most) instances there was no room for somebody to be able to safely chase and apply the brakes on a moving wagon.  Thus GWR Circular No. 1841 issued in April 1909 banned loose shunting into goods sheds, loading banks,  etc  ' ... unless the brakes are so arranged that they can be applied without the risk of the men operating them coming into contact with the structure'.  By 1933 this had become part of RCH Rule 110.

 

 Rule 112 covered shunting into goods sheds but did not prohibit an engine from entering a goods shed, that would be covered by specific instructions for locations (see my earlier response quoted above in the post by EJStubbs).  Thus, for example, while in the 1930s very comprehensive instructions existed for the shunting of the goods shed at Penzance those Instructions did not prohibit engines from entering the good shed.

 

 

 

 

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

instances there was no room for somebody to be able to safely chase and apply the brakes on a moving wagon.

 

Yeah that was my thoughts on why it would be a bad idea too. I can remember the story but I'm a bit hazy on the details sorry!

 

I guess it could have been intended to go elsewhere or stop before the shed and things didn't go to plan. As to why it happened (if indeed it did) I guess they thought no one will ever find out!

[Compound2632]

Following a change in the reporting requirements introduced by the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act 1911, the companies had to distinguish shunting horses from cartage horses in their annual returns of working stock. For 31 December 1913, the Midland Railway reported 140 horses for shunting, which number had fallen to 96 by 31 December 1922.

 

I think that's adequate proof that the idea that every country goods yard had one or two is a flight of fancy.

[Mikkel]

Panniers were allowed in Hockley shed for a while - caption tells the story:  https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrhd724a.htm

 

[bécasse]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I think that's adequate proof that the idea that every country goods yard had one or two is a flight of fancy.

While that is something that I have never doubted, traders' horses were often "borrowed" to help with shunts which would only have taken a few minutes, doubtless on a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours basis".

[sandra]

The goods shed at Mouldsworth on the CLC had a notice on it which specifically prohibited locomotives from entering the shed. This would seem to imply that there may have been locations on the CLC where engines could enter a goods shed.

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, sandra said:

The goods shed at Mouldsworth on the CLC had a notice on it which specifically prohibited locomotives from entering the shed. This would seem to imply that there may have been locations on the CLC where engines could enter a goods shed.

 

Or that that was a standard fitting on CLC goods sheds?

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, bécasse said:

While that is something that I have never doubted, traders' horses were often "borrowed" to help with shunts which would only have taken a few minutes, doubtless on a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours basis".

 

As ever, and neither meaning at all to give offence or doubting the truth of what you write, I find myself impelled to ask what the evidence is for this statement. The further we go in time from the demise of the "traditional" railway, the more important it becomes, to my mind, to distinguish truth from supposition and speculation, as the latter multiply.

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As ever, and neither meaning at all to give offence or doubting the truth of what you write, I find myself impelled to ask what the evidence is for this statement. The further we go in time from the demise of the "traditional" railway, the more important it becomes, to my mind, to distinguish truth from supposition and speculation, as the latter multiply.

The simple answer, as with so much from that era, is that there is probably no evidence, at least within the current precise meaning of the word, to support the statement. Even if one found mention recorded in one of the many books of railwaymen's reminiscences there is nothing to prove that the author didn't make the story up.

 

That said, I am old enough to have talked to many railwaymen who worked on the railway in the inter-war years, some even prior to the grouping, and have heard it mentioned from time to time. What I know for absolute certain is that railwaymen were experts in finding the easy (but safe) way to do a job and using a horse to move a wagon even fifty yards was much easier than using a pinchbar which was the alternative. In those days, working men supported each other (they still do where I live now) and it would absolutely normal for a trader with a horse to offer to loan it for a few moments to make someone else's life easier. Doubtless the favour would be returned in one way or another, helping to load items, particularly bulky or heavy ones, on to the trader's cart for example.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As ever, and neither meaning at all to give offence or doubting the truth of what you write, I find myself impelled to ask what the evidence is for this statement. The further we go in time from the demise of the "traditional" railway, the more important it becomes, to my mind, to distinguish truth from supposition and speculation, as the latter multiply.

A good point.  If a wagon needed to be moved surely the first thought would be to use a pinchbar - with 2 or 3 staff around it was hardly a difficult task in most places to get a wagon rolling.  Apart from the fact that a horse not used to shunting work might easily be spooked, or injured, there was the question of liability which teh railways tended to take very seriously.

 

While I canot finda specific Instruction prohibiting the use of non-railway owned horses for shunting that doesn't necessarily mean that the practice was prohibited and in any case if a wagon didn't the b nec essary solebarhole or a towing loop the tow had to be attached to an axleguard and that was only permitted to be done to move a single wagon - you might just as well bar it! 

[Michael Hodgson]

Welwyn North had a shunting horse by the name of Tom, not retired until 1947.  It had to cope with East Coast expresses hurtling by on the opposite line though it wasn't allowed onto DIgswell Viaduct, and presumably not into Welwyn South Tunnel.

[Michael Hodgson]

 

 

1 hour ago, bécasse said:

Doubtless the favour would be returned in one way or another, helping to load items, particularly bulky or heavy ones, on to the trader's cart for example.

 

Every railway station had a nearby hostelry at which favours could always be returned in liquid form.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, bécasse said:

That said, I am old enough to have talked to many railwaymen who worked on the railway in the inter-war years, some even prior to the grouping, and have heard it mentioned from time to time. What I know for absolute certain is that railwaymen were experts in finding the easy (but safe) way to do a job and using a horse to move a wagon even fifty yards was much easier than using a pinchbar which was the alternative. In those days, working men supported each other (they still do where I live now) and it would absolutely normal for a trader with a horse to offer to loan it for a few moments to make someone else's life easier. Doubtless the favour would be returned in one way or another, helping to load items, particularly bulky or heavy ones, on to the trader's cart for example.

 

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Apart from the fact that a horse not used to shunting work might easily be spooked, or injured, there was the question of liability which teh railways tended to take very seriously.

 

I hear both sides of the discussion! I can imagine* that the degree to which concerns of liability applied might depend on the location; likewise the risk in using a horse unused to railway work. There might, I imagine, be quite a bit of difference between a quiet country station on a secondary line, where the coal merchant's wagon needed moving into position and his cart-horse was to hand, and a station on a busy main line. 

 

*Note my choice of words indicates that I am entering the realm of speculation.