Why did GWR have drivers on the right, when signals were on the left?

[Michael Hodgson]

26 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

Stockton and Darlington are both towns not cities 😉

Stockton is a Canadian City twice the size of the one in County Durham.

There's a Darlington in South Carolina that thinks it's a city though it's less than a tenth of the size.

 

Drivers sit on the left hand side of their cars over there!

[Compound2632]

On early locomotives, with low-pitched boilers and no more by way of cab than a weatherboard, there was no issue with sighting such signals as there were from either side of the footplate. So it was, presumably, natural to drive from the side that was usual for driving horse-drawn vehicles. Sitting on the right, the driver held the reigns with his left had keeping his right hand for the whip.

 

It was only once locomotive boilers became big enough and pitched sufficiently high to obscure the driver's view that there started to be a general move to a left-hand driving position.

 

The curiosity to my mind is how it came about that the Premier Line came to driving from the left of the footplate so early? I suggest the topic title should be changed from "Why was the GWR typical?" to "Why was the LNWR untypical?", in this matter as so many others!

Edited June 4, 2022 by Compound2632

[LMS2968]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The curiosity to my mind is how it came about that the Premier Line came to driving from the left of the footplate so early? I suggest the topic title should be changed from "Why was the GWR typical?" to "Why was the LNWR untypical?", in this matter as so many others!

If you go back to Stephenson's Rocket, that was driven from the left. The reverser, a foot pedal, was on the outer left hand edge of the footplate floor. And, whatever the tramway between Stockton & Darlington, it was the Liverpool & Manchester Railway which began regular intercity train operation and showed main line railways the way.

[rogerzilla]

SR W class was part RHD and part LHD depending on the batch it came from.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

If you go back to Stephenson's Rocket, that was driven from the left. The reverser, a foot pedal, was on the outer left hand edge of the footplate floor. And, whatever the tramway between Stockton & Darlington, it was the Liverpool & Manchester Railway which began regular intercity train operation and showed main line railways the way.

Thank you, I suspected that Rocket would play an important part.

 

Of course the suggestion made earlier that the LNWR was 'untypical', is obviously nonsense. More railways had LHD than RHD. It's just a case of what occurs when you are a pioneer and someone has to make a start and standards come along later.

[JimC]

41 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

More railways had LHD than RHD. 

That was the case in 1945, but would it be so in say 1875?

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Of course the suggestion made earlier that the LNWR was 'untypical', is obviously nonsense.

 

The LNWR was untypical in many ways, nearly all of which contributed to making it the Premier Line, besides which all pettifogging regional companies paled into insignificance.

 

(I should point out that the Midland wasn't a pettifogging regional line, having pretty much the same geographical reach as the LNWR.)

 

42 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

More railways had LHD than RHD.

 

Need a list. I had been under the impression that RHD was more common, before grouping.

 

Perhaps the LMS's adoption of LHD (all those 4Fs and 2Ps built as such) will placate the Crewe types complaining of Derby influence!

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The LNWR was untypical in many ways, nearly all of which contributed to making it the Premier Line, besides which all pettifogging regional companies paled into insignificance.

 

(I should point out that the Midland wasn't a pettifogging regional line, having pretty much the same geographical reach as the LNWR.)

 

 

Need a list. I had been under the impression that RHD was more common, before grouping.

 

Perhaps the LMS's adoption of LHD (all those 4Fs and 2Ps built as such) will placate the Crewe types complaining of Derby influence!

I suggest the LMS decision to adopt left hand drive was more to conform to the majority. The Midland was indeed a big concern and used right hand drive, as did its companion G&SWR and, I think, North Staffs, but the LNWR, L&YR, Caledonian and Highland were all left hand drive. The G&SWR locos were soon eliminated by the LMS, even faster than LNWR ones, so using LHD would be easier to implement.

 

So for once, and for financial reasons, the Midland had to conform.

[Wickham Green too]

16 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

.... the myth which is often brought out every time this subject comes up that firemen stand at the side when firing. You stand in the middle. Makes no difference what handed you are. You should be equidistant from the shovelling plate to the firehole doors. ...

From what little firing experience I've had, I feel that I was happier on the left hand side of the footplate than I would have been sharing the right hand side with the driver : yes, collecting the coal from the shovelling plate is more awkward when that's to your right but aiming the coal where you want it in the firebox is easier to your left. ( others may feel otherwise, of course )

 

 

Returning to the original question, the matter of signal sighting was on little consequence when the driver could see over or round a small boiler .... it became an issue when boilers got bigger - though the adoption of taper boilers MIGHT have delayed the impact on the Western.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

So for once

 

Provocation noted!

[Mallard60022]

Only main line Firing at speed I did was in Poland. RH Drive Loco's.

Facing RH Cabside firing was the standard, swivelling on the left foot. Helped that I had/ have quite long legs and also I am quite tall, so Tender to FH door was a little easier for one swing. However, I just copied the Polish Fireman and then did my thing. Usually 6 down the sides and 4 behind the FH door was a 'round'.

Helps having quite spacious Cabs and  Shorty Shovels.

Ukraine in 2005 was basically the same, but ambling along over long distances rather than sprinting between Country Stations.

I was fit back then and even so, it was bloody hard work.

No idea though why GWR were RHD.

P

Edited June 5, 2022 by Mallard60022
Forgot something.

[kevinlms]

32 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Provocation noted!

Just like the GWR, what the Midland did, wasn't always 'right'!

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Just like the GWR, what the Midland did, wasn't always 'right'!

 

Fit for its own purposes, which is right enough. 

[Mallard60022]

I reckon it is so the Driver could see further down the track ahead, on the side where opposing trains are heading towards him, and ahead and behind on the main that he is about to join, after leaving a Station or loop  with a move 'across' to the right to join that main. These were the main moves overall on a Main line, cross country I suspect and IIRC all signal positions were usually confirmed by Fireman if required by Driver?

Just an idea; might be talking rubbish of course.

Phil

[LMS2968]

The driver doesn't move away from the platform unless the signal is Off, and if it is Off, the line ahead is clear; he doesn't need to see along it as he moves away. In all likelihood, he would have checked prior to moving off that there were no obstructions - Pway men, for instance, along the route. Signals were not routinely confirmed by the fireman. Some came into view on the fireman's side before they were visible to the driver, in which case the fireman probably would give advance notice, but these were known from route knowledge and the fireman would make sure he was ready to sight them. In other circumstances where the driver saw them first or at the same time, the fireman would be attending to his other duties and leave signal sighting to the driver.  

 

When leaving a platform with a passenger train, both men would probably be looking back to ensure all was well with the train; they had already ensured from the signals that things were right ahead of them.

[Compound2632]

The thing to remember, though, is that one can't base an explanation as to whether the driver's position is on the right or left on working practices from a time when the steam railway was in its maturity, with lock, block, and brake - the driver's position got established in the very early days.

[kevinlms]

33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The thing to remember, though, is that one can't base an explanation as to whether the driver's position is on the right or left on working practices from a time when the steam railway was in its maturity, with lock, block, and brake - the driver's position got established in the very early days.

Except that driver's position would have been determined, long before 'lock, block and brake'. All of which were introduced compulsorily, far too late for many passengers and employees.

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Except that driver's position would have been determined, long before 'lock, block and brake'. 

 

That's what I was saying.

[The Johnster]

19 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

But also don't forget that some Western sheds had experience on left hand drive engines anyway and there were some Firemen who could be ambidextrous when it came to firing - quite handy when you were firing a Stanier pacific from Paddington to Plymouth which some managed with considerable alacrity/

 

This is a point sometimes overlooked by modellers of post WW2 GWR and BR(W) steam practice, and indeed enthusiasts in general; what the GW/WR locomen called 'Midland' influence was an increasingly common feature from mid WW2 until the end of steam on the WR in 1965.  Swindon built Stanier 8Fs during the war, and they were used on the GW, as were the USARC S160s, which I believe were lhd.  After Nationalisation, locos from the LMR in particular but to an extent the Southern as well were likely to 'work through' where they would have been previously replaced by GW locos, so that by the early 60s at Cardiff, Black 5s and Stanier 8Fs were as likely to be seen approaching from the east having not been replaced at Gloucester or Pontypool Road as Halls or 28xx, and the absorption of Paxton Street LNW shed in Swansea and it's subsequent closure and relocation of locos to Landore (which was almost immedieately closed to steam for rebuiding as a diesel depot) and then Court Sart (Neath) meant that ex-LMS engines became common on the SWML in that area and the Neath-Aberdare-Pontypool Road route. 

 

This was in addition to lhd locos allocated to WR sheds, which as well as the unpopular Brits included the other BR Standards with the exception of the Clans, 4MT mogul, 4MT 2-6-4T (these did appear after the closure of Paxton Street, even at Blaengwynfi on one occasion), and 3MT mogul despite this being a Swindon product.  And of course the Riddles WD 2-8-0s.  There can't have been many WR sheds that did not have extensive experience of lhd locos, and some were very popular, such as the 9Fs.  Steam locomen were not required to sign traction knowledge of classes, and were expected to climb into the cab of any locomotive that turned up and get on with it, despite their complaints and with varying degrees of success.

 

I am beginning to wonder if the purported hatred of Britannias by WR engine crews is an overplayed myth, given that nearly all of the men had approaching a decade of extensive experience of lhd locos by the early 50s.  Old Oak's first Britannia, Iron Duke, named to endear herself to the region by evoking the glory days of the Broad Gauge, was loaned to Stewart's Lane for the 'Golden Arrow' with William Shakespeare and never asked for back, and a top link Laira driver wrote to The Times about what he considered the shortcomings of the type, but Marylebone was having none of this offloading on to other regions after the Iron Duke incident, and the region was 'avin' 'em, like 'em or not (rightly, IMHO).  Swindon wanted to build more Castles, but that was never going to be a realistic goal in the 1950s on a Nationalised railway.

 

So there is a case for a degree of resistance to the Brits by the WR, both at a managerial and a staff level.  But perhaps it was overstated by an enthusiast media keen to promote a sort of mythical (G)WR independence of spirit and culture that was the antithesis of the Marylebone Soviet standarisation; this idea took hold successfully enough to still be apparent 74 years later.  WR sheds got on well enough with the WDs, ex-LMS, and other Standard classes they had to deal with.  The Brits all ended up at Canton, after the Newport Divisional Loco Dept. Manager stated at a meeting that he could use any the other WR sheds didn't want, but this did not mean that the other sheds got rid of Brits from their lives, as diagrams involving Canton locos worked by other sheds meant that the locomen still encountered them, and were expected to just get on with it.

 

So why were they successful at Canton?  A rebellious and perverse culture is sometimes cited, and I certainly remember men of whom this could be claimed, but most sheds had a few of those!  I think the reason is more to do with the way in which the Brits were regarded at the shed, as replacements for Saints.  There is a case for a 2-cylinder engine with a free-steaming boiler at a shed where a lot of the main line express work involved slogging up hills with heavy loads.  Severn Tunnel Bottom to Badminton, the Swansea Road, and the North to West were classic stomping grounds for this sort of thing, and the Brits were as good as Castles at it, so earned a reputation as 'good strong engines if you could stand the draughts and shovel enough coal', capable of doing what was asked of them.  Canton got the engines it had always wanted for the heavy Paddington trains in 1961, Kings, which were superb even if they terrified the firement, but too little too late, and the Brits were all sent to the LMR.

 

In 1955 Canton's Polar Star went down the embankment at Milton, near Didcot, on an up excursion that had started at Treherbert and driven by an Old Oak man.  He complained that his view of the signals that he had misread, so that he was running on a loop rather than the through running line he thought he was on, had been compromised by the position of the handrail on the smoke deflector, with the result that the WR modified some of it's Brits with oblong grab holes with brass beading instead of the handrails, and very nice they looked too when they were polished up.  The LMR modified some of it's Brits with the sort of grab recesses found on LMS locos with smoke deflectors, but many Brits made it to withdrawal with the original handrails still in place.

 

However, and this is inexplicable to me, similar handrails on smoke deflectors were provided on the Clans, Duke of Gloucester, rebuilt Bullieds, and the 9Fs, the latter seeing extensive use on the WR.  TTBOMK, nobody ever claimed that sighting signals was an issue with any of these locomotives' smoke deflector handrails.  I assume the Milton driver's claim was checked out and found to be genuine, but one would have thought that the modifications would have then applied to the other classes as well.  I would guess that what actually happened was that nobody at a mangerial level made the link between these classes, and nobody driving them ever had an issue, but I would have expected some action on this matter; not even all the offending class, the Brits, were altered.  Granted the Clan, DoG, Bullieds, and 9F boilers were all different to the Brits and each other, so the exact line of sight angles would not have been identical, but surely they would have been very close!  Railway culture is pretty safety-concious, but this one seems to have slipped through the net.  It's always bothered me, and still does, given that DoG, Britannia, and several Bullieds are still running about the network in this condition.

Edited June 5, 2022 by The Johnster

[Morello Cherry]

On 04/06/2022 at 09:12, dpgibbons said:

The usual explanation for the GWR and some other pre-grouping railways adopting right-hand drive was that it's easier for a right-handed fireman to wield the coal shovel from the left-hand side of the cab.

 

But if you are a right handed driver isn't it easier to drive from the left hand side?

 

I find it hard to imagine that when they were laying out the cabs in the very early days that they were thinking 'hmmm, what is easiest for the right handed fireman'.

 

Also, given the hostility towards left handers, I wonder how many left handed firemen there actually were. (My grandmothers were not allowed to write with their natural left hand when at school in the 1920s)

[Wickham Green too]

12 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

But if you are a right handed driver isn't it easier to drive from the left hand side? ....

 

(My grandmothers were not allowed to write with their natural left hand when at school in the 1920s)

I think you're working on the position of the regulator which is normally pivoted in the centre of the backhead ......... the real dexterity when driving is more concerned with the reverser and brake. [ Of course the word 'dexterity' stems for the Latin for 'right' ! ]

 

My father was naturally left handed, too, and he had to write right-handed at school in the '20s/'30s ... a habit he never lost.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Wickham Green too

[JimC]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I assume the Milton driver's claim was checked out and found to be genuine, but one would have thought that the modifications would have then applied to the other classes as well.  

Yes, the inspector who did the accident report did footplate trips to examine visibility. 

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Milton1955.pdf

 

Isn't signal siting on the modern railway going to be very different? And presumably the larger crews on modern mainline steam makes a difference too.

Edited June 5, 2022 by JimC

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

But if you are a right handed driver isn't it easier to drive from the left hand side?

 

The reverser, whether lever or screw, was generally up against the cab side sheeting, so would be at the driver's right hand in a RHD engine. Although I expect that in practice both hands would be needed to work it, except for those engines fitted with steam reverser. EDIT: as @Wickham Green too says.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Compound2632

[JimC]

14 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

But if you are a right handed driver isn't it easier to drive from the left hand side?

The standard GWR layout has the reversing lever to the right hand, but it has to be said that the virtues of the GWR layout were more about its consistency across classes than its ergonomic sophistication.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, JimC said:

but it has to be said that the virtues of the GWR layout were more about its consistency across classes than its ergonomic sophistication.

 

True of most of the pre-grouping companies. (The GWR was unexceptional in many ways.) There only started to be footplate unhappiness after the grouping, when drivers used to one layout were faced with engines from another constituent that had things laid out differently.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Compound2632