Inter regional fish traffic

[jamieb]

Hi all 

A simple question really.I have a couple of GWR fish van kits which don't really fit in with anything I'm planning layout wise.

However for the future I'm considering a small Hull dock diorama type layout,with fish traffic.Would a GWR van be seen there,I'm thinking maybe for specialist traffic,such as transporting East Coast herring to the west of the country perhaps,or would all the traffic be handled by local companies,in this case NER/HBR .Era is circa 1921 if that makes a difference.

Should I keep the kits or get rid as non prototypical

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

There was a regular fish train off the GCR route to the Swindon area (latterly to Marston Crossing Yard once it had com into existence).  I don't know without checking through old STTs if it was running as early as 1921 but it was definitely running in Post WWII times and I suspect it probably derived from some sort of earlier although although maybe not a dedicated fish train.

 

Sorry but I haven't got a clue which Company's vehicles were used on it - old photos of various busier fishing ports might well be useful as there was certainly cross-country fish traffic hgoing back quite along way

[Downer]

I have seen one credible reference - can’t remember where - to a regular Lowestoft - Feltham fish train. 

[bécasse]

Given that traditional herring traffic was very seasonal at any one location, the fish moved round the coast as the season progressed and the boats, and the on-shore fisherwomen who processed the catch, moved from port to port in tandem, it seems unlikely that any of the pre-grouping companies would have had sufficient vehicles to match the fleeting demand - and it is unlikely that general vans would have been used because of the lingering smell problem.

 

That suggests to me that, at least for the herring catch, vans from the destination company would have been used, they would have had to move empty in one direction anyway. While this turns the usual practice of the period on its head, I strongly suspect that it would have been a case of needs must. Probably the mongers who ordered the fish, also ordered the vans from their local companies, so the only really unusual thing would have been that it was the outward journey that was empty and the return loaded rather than vice versa.

[jamieb]

Thanks for the replies so far .

I would assume that in general,trains such as the Lowestoft to Feltham would have been bulk trains from the ports to the marshalling yards,where they would have been sorted onto their final destinations

 

Becasse's theory about herring traffic,fits loosely with what I was hoping was the case,that the destination companies supplied the vans,which would give me an excuse to have a couple of GWR vans sitting on a small North Sea dock.

 I've scoured pictures of various Humber docks but pictures of fish vans are surprisingly hard to come by!

 

 

 

[Morello Cherry]

For what it is worth - there is a discussion here about a Grimsby - Whitland Fish train. I have no idea if it ran in your period or if it contained GWR fish vans. However, it is a fish train from Grimsby to GWR territory.

[jamieb]

Thanks,an interesting read but I would guess that fish traffic in BR days was a lot more joined up than it would have been in pre grouping days

I am guessing that the East Coast ports would be quite protective of what would have been a lucrative traffic for them,which is why I'm wondering if 'foreign' fish vans would have been common at rival ports

For instance,I'm sure that the NER or the GCR would have hauled fish trains well into rival companies territories,in fact it would have been essential for the trade to flourish,but would their vans have made it to rival companies fishing ports?

[The Stationmaster]

Don't forget that fish traffic flowed on both direction between various coastal fish sales centres.

[jamieb]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Don't forget that fish traffic flowed on both direction between various coastal fish sales centres.

So in theory,a van load of Cornish pilchards could have been sent by the GWR to a wholesalers in Hull?

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, jamieb said:

So in theory,a van load of Cornish pilchards could have been sent by the GWR to a wholesalers in Hull?

There was definitely fish traffic off the GWR into the northern part of the Midlands and to Sheffield (i.e beyond GWR metals) at one time so fish going to a wholesaler elsewhere would seem quite logical.  Don't forget - as with herring, pilchards and cod - that dfishing for some species was concentrated in particular parts of Britain.  This as already mentioned teh herring fishery moved along teh East Coast as the season progressed, cod was basically a North Sea catch and pilchards were largely a Cornish catch. The same probably went for other species jy ust as soem areas had a particular reputation for the best shellfish of various kinds..

[Morello Cherry]

The fourth photo down is a GCR Fish van at Weymouth in a GWR hauled train.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/416-fish-traffic

 

I see no reason why it could not go the other way. As others have said there are seasonal and local catches.

 

There is a little bit here on fish trains from Milford Haven that include a reference to a train that ran to Manchester via Carmarthen and the Central Wales line and to Sheffield.

 

And to go back to the image and source - Weymouth is a harbour and I find it hard to believe that there would not be locally sourced fish, and yet we have fish from Grimsby in the image and the text mentions fish from Milford Haven going to Weymouth as well.
 

 

 

 

 

[jamieb]

Thanks to Morello and Stationmaster for your information.The Steve Banks site is new to me,but I shall have a good peruse of it.

The GCR van at Weymouth is just the sort of confirmation I was hoping for,and I can justify,to myself at least,the presence of a Western fish van at an East Coast port

[Compound2632]

@bécasse has mentioned the seasonal nature of some fish traffic. There were certainly instances of one company hiring its seasonally-excess fish trucks out to another that needed more to meet demand - I'm afraid I haven't attempted to track down the details, I think it's in one of the various topics (or topic drifts) on pre-grouping fish traffic here on RMWeb. I think the particular companies mentioned were the LNWR and NER but I can't recall which way round the hire was. Sorry to be so vague (you'll have to go searching the site) but this might give you that glimmer of an excuse you need!

[Artless Bodger]

20 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

The fourth photo down is a GCR Fish van at Weymouth in a GWR hauled train.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/416-fish-traffic

 

I see no reason why it could not go the other way. As others have said there are seasonal and local catches.

 

There is a little bit here on fish trains from Milford Haven that include a reference to a train that ran to Manchester via Carmarthen and the Central Wales line and to Sheffield.

 

And to go back to the image and source - Weymouth is a harbour and I find it hard to believe that there would not be locally sourced fish, and yet we have fish from Grimsby in the image and the text mentions fish from Milford Haven going to Weymouth as well.
 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the link, have just perused it. I find it surprising that fish vans were coupled at the front of passenger trains - pity the poor passengers inhaling the slipstream! I'd have thought it was preferable to put them on the rear to keep passengers ahead of the smell. Was there an operational reason for coupling them in front?

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

Was there an operational reason for coupling them in front?

 

If fish vans were to be detached at intermediate stations, they would be most conveniently marshalled at the front of the train. But they could equally well be at the rear; the marshalling instructions for the Lincoln-Tamworth TPO (which continued to Birmingham New Street after meeting the West Coast Postal) c. 1920 specify a Midland and a Great Central fish van from Grimsby at the rear. 

 

There was an accident on the West Highland Railway the cause of which was the derailment of a lightly-loaded four-wheel fish truck at the tail of the train - being, I think, more susceptible to imperfections in the track. The recommendation was that a full six-wheeler should always be the rear vehicle. But I doubt that that one instance affected general practice. 

[jwealleans]

I have a suspicion that it's also to do with where motive power changed; if you have to attach a loco and four fish vans, you have them all standing together then it's only one manoeuvre, couple and brake test instead of two.   Remembering that these changes were often timed to happen in under 5 minutes, you'd expect them to take any option to save a few seconds.

 

I recall reading instructions about tail traffic and a maximum number of axles in rear of the last brake vehicle, but nothing about non-passenger traffic at the head of a train.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

I have a suspicion that it's also to do with where motive power changed; if you have to attach a loco and four fish vans, you have them all standing together then it's only one manoeuvre, couple and brake test instead of two.   Remembering that these changes were often timed to happen in under 5 minutes, you'd expect them to take any option to save a few seconds.

 

I recall reading instructions about tail traffic and a maximum number of axles in rear of the last brake vehicle, but nothing about non-passenger traffic at the head of a train.

Tail traffic could normally be attached either front or rear of a passenger trains as necessary to suit intermediate marshalling requirements.  

 

Prior to the introduction of the XP system on 30 Septr 1938 there was a fairly similar list to the XP  qualifications of what was required on freight vehicles in order to allow them to be attached to a passenger train.  The most notable change at the introduction of XP was an increase from 9ft to 10ft for the minimum permitted wheelbase for vehicles attached to express passenger trains however certain LNER fish trucks with a wheelbase between 9ft and 9ft 11" were still permitted to be attached to Class A passenger trains until 1 June 1939.  Wagons with a wheelbase greater tha at least 9fy were still permitted to be conveyed on Class B passenger trains.

 

Various changes followed with further restrictions appearing in 1941 and 1946 applying to vehces conveyed in trains carrying Class A lamps.

 

Incidentally the Instructions stated that 4 wheel vehicles should normally be attached at the rear of passenger trains - and then went on to allow an exception and attaching them at the front if traffic conditions so required!

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Prior to the introduction of the XP system on 30 Septr 1938 there was a fairly similar list to the XP  qualifications of what was required on freight vehicles in order to allow them to be attached to a passenger train.

 

But recalling that up to the late 30s and beyond, fish trucks and vans were, on most lines, passenger-rated stock, not goods stock. 

[The Stationmaster]

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But recalling that up to the late 30s and beyond, fish trucks and vans were, on most lines, passenger-rated stock, not goods stock. 

Same difference when it came to attaching them to passenger trains as exactly the same restrictions applied and of course from late 1938 onwards they would be marked 'XP' (assuming they qualified of course)

[Artless Bodger]

5 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

I recall reading instructions about tail traffic and a maximum number of axles in rear of the last brake vehicle, but nothing about non-passenger traffic at the head of a train.

Thanks for this, I'd forgotten the limit on axles behind the last brake, despite reading about it on a thread here not too long ago.

[Morello Cherry]

If anyone is interested I came across this article which is discussing the impact of railways on various industries - primarily fish and dairy.

 

https://sciendo.com/es/article/10.2478/host-2018-0005

 

It has an interesting quote from 1863 that points to some destinations for fish traffic from Hull.

 

Quote

fish from Hull is selected by all the principal towns in England in preference to fish even from London and all other parts. A very large quantity (...) brought to Hull goes to Bath, Cheltenham, and even to Exeter, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, and all the midland towns.”

 

So it seems that if you are modelling locations quite away from Hull you can probably include a GCR fish van.

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

So it seems that if you are modelling locations quite away from Hull you can probably include a GCR fish van.

 

Not exclusively so. Midland fish boxes were marked for return to Grimsby, so I suspect that quite a lot of fish for the Midlands, routed via Lincoln, would travel in Midland vehicles worked back to Grimsby for the purpose. The only other specific instruction I'm aware of on a Midland fish vehicle was for return to Ramsden Dock, Barrow-in-Furness - also off the Midland system. 

 

On the other hand, the Lincoln - Tamworth TPO (going on to Birmingham) was conveying a GC bogie fish van by the 1920s.

[Morello Cherry]

For sure but to go back to the OP the question was 'would a GWR vehicle have been seen in Hull' - the quote tells us that there is traffic from Hull to Bath, Cheltenham and Exeter and fleshes out the reach of the Hull fish trade. So whether that is a GWR vehicle in Hull, or a GCR vehicle in Exeter we can't know at the moment but based on the evidence so far you can have a fish van going between the South West to Hull, even if at first glance it seems counter-intuitive based on our expectations.

 

Also, there is the subsequent quote on the next page again from 1863:

 

Quote

For the last 17 years I have been travelling all over England, Scotland, and Ireland at the expense of the North-Eastern Railway Company to open markets. In many towns I went to there was not a fishmonger’s shop and never had been; and it was just a chance to have a few fish brought in by a hawker travelling with a donkey. There are now four, six, or more fishmongers in such towns, all of them getting a living, and all of them taking their fish from Hull.

 

I am curious as to how fish from Hull would work its way to Ireland in the 1860s using the NER.

 

The article points out that the railways resulted in a decline in fish routed via London and the decline in London as a fish market. The quotes and analysis on p.122 of the article I linked to makes for interesting reading

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Morello Cherry

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

For sure but to go back to the OP the question was 'would a GWR vehicle have been seen in Hull' - the quote tells us that there is traffic from Hull to Bath, Cheltenham and Exeter and fleshes out the reach of the Hull fish trade. So whether that is a GWR vehicle in Hull, or a GCR vehicle in Exeter we can't know at the moment but based on the evidence so far you can have a fish van going between the South West to Hull, even if at first glance it seems counter-intuitive based on our expectations.

 

Well, the route to Cheltenham and Bath would be Midland; Exeter possibly a Midland fish van working through. One has to look at the costs involved in terms of vehicle hire - from Hull or Grimbsy to any point west of Bristol, the greatest proportion of the mileage would be over the Midland.

[Rivercider]

6 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

For sure but to go back to the OP the question was 'would a GWR vehicle have been seen in Hull' - the quote tells us that there is traffic from Hull to Bath, Cheltenham and Exeter and fleshes out the reach of the Hull fish trade. So whether that is a GWR vehicle in Hull, or a GCR vehicle in Exeter we can't know at the moment but based on the evidence so far you can have a fish van going between the South West to Hull, even if at first glance it seems counter-intuitive based on our expectations.

 

Also, there is the subsequent quote on the next page again from 1863:

 

 

I am curious as to how fish from Hull would work its way to Ireland in the 1860s using the NER.

 

The article points out that the railways resulted in a decline in fish routed via London and the decline in London as a fish market. The quotes and analysis on p.122 of the article I linked to makes for interesting reading

 

 

 

Reference the trade in fish. My great great grandfather was born in 1831, he was born in Bridford in the Teign Valley on the edge of Dartmoor. He became a carter and a regular job (weekly or fortnightly?) was to take the cart to Brixham to load up with fish which he then delivered on the journey back to Bridford. My great grandfather Richard Puddicombe (b 1876) remembered going with him on the cart as a child, and sleeping on the cart overnight.

 

cheers