GWR front Banker/Pilot policy - was it really necessary to have the banker/pilot behind the train engine?

[B15nac]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

How so?

They believed at times it would be pushing as well as pulling an as it pushed it put excess weight on the leading driving Axle

 

Regards Neil 

[DCB]

1) The most photographed  double heading on the (G) WR was over the South Devon Banks and there was a dispensation allowing the pilot loco to lead the train loco there.

2)  Normal GWR practice was for the train engine to be the leading engine but this was not something regularly photographed,  Also it was normal for Bogie engines to lead and where both locos had bogies it was the practice for one with a 4 cone ejector to lead.  This in practice meant a Manor would have to be coupled inside any other GWR 4-6-0.

The photos on the Cambrian have the  train engine, Manor, up front and the assistant, 43XX 2251 etc inside. 

3) There were fairly few places on the (G) WR a pilot loco was attached to the leading end of a passenger train for a short distance as opposed to assisting throughout apart from South Devon. The Bristol Birmingham expresses  took a pilot for the stretch from Stratford on Avon (?) to Snow Hill and when they were the usual  22XX  they were invariably coupled inside the train engine.

4) The dispensation allowed the assisting  engine to be coupled ahead of the train engine over the South Devon Banks, as long as a few boxes were ticked, a bogie was required on the assisting loco if it was to be coupled ahead of a bogie equipped train loco,  But unlike elsewhere there was no requirement for the  loco with a 4 cone ejector to lead if one loco had a 4 cone ejector and the other did not. That was why or because Bulldogs and Manors were used as pilots.  There are pictures of 2-6-2T's as leading engine  but they do seem to be on uphill sections and may have come off at Dainton summit as did the rear bankers on freights.  The 2-6-2Ts banked at the rear of the trains and dropped off at the summit and returned light.

5) There were other dispensations including one allowing 43XX to double head unfitted freights over the MSWJR from Cheltenham to Southampton allowing up to 80 wagon trains to be hauled.  Pictures of Double headed GWR freights are very very rare.

6) Pilot engines were also run ahead of Royal Trains, as in ten minutes or a block ahead, probably to warn the Stationmaster to line all his staff up along the platform to Bow and scrape to their betters.

Edited February 2, 2023 by DCB

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

There was a head on collision at night between trains on a single line at Delabole in Cornwall back in the 19th century caused by the tragi-comic result of a Signalman shouting 'Right Away, Dick' to a guard, who promptly gave the 'right away' signal to his driver, who correctly started into the next section.  Unknown to the signalman, the guard of a train in the other direction was also called Dick, and he assumed that the signalman's instruction was intended for him, so promptly gave right away to his driver, who set off into the section without checking the starter signal, much like a buzz-buzz go SPAD, with disastrous consequences.  You have to be careful what you say and who you say it to, sometimes...

 

I thought that was Menheniot?

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

 6) Pilot engines were also run ahead of Royal Trains, as in ten minutes or a block ahead, probably to warn the Stationmaster to line all his staff up along the platform to Bow and scrape to their betters.

No idea about GWR practice but on the Caledonian Railway they were run to warn signalmen that no conflicting routes were to be set nor other trains accepted on potentially conflicting routes, that shunting operations alongside the route were to cease, that public level crossing gates were to be closed and maintained against road traffic and that men stationed at user-worked crossings were to padlock the gates etc etc. No doubt it also gave the lined-up staff a chance to give their toe caps a final rub on the backs of their trousers. If I ever remember where I read that lot I'll post the reference. 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I thought that was Menheniot?

 

And, yet more senior moment fun from The Johnster, thinking of changing his username to 'Dodderyoldgit'.  Yes, it was Menheniot; Delabole is where the slate comes from!

[The Johnster]

55 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

No idea about GWR practice but on the Caledonian Railway they were run to warn signalmen that no conflicting routes were to be set nor other trains accepted on potentially conflicting routes, that shunting operations alongside the route were to cease, that public level crossing gates were to be closed and maintained against road traffic and that men stationed at user-worked crossings were to padlock the gates etc etc. No doubt it also gave the lined-up staff a chance to give their toe caps a final rub on the backs of their trousers. If I ever remember where I read that lot I'll post the reference. 

 

Was there not also a security element to this, that the Royal Train pilot would find out the hard way if there were any obstructions, bombs, sabotaged rails, bridges, tunnels, and so on.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 

Was there not also a security element to this, that the Royal Train pilot would find out the hard way if there were any obstructions, bombs, sabotaged rails, bridges, tunnels, and so on.

There was a Giles cartoon about this, showing a driver chucking all manner of obstacles off his engine with a caption along the lines of "Next time you pick a driver to clear the line for the royal train, try not to pick a republican".  Rreasonable resemblance to a Jinty if memory serves.

[The Johnster]

It always amused me that, during my time as a guard at Canton in the 70s, our senior guard at the depot (who therefore automatically got the Royal Train gig whenever it came up) was a character by the wonderful name of Royston Lillywhite, who was a card-carrying communist.  I am sure that Special Branch must have been fully aware of this; he never hid it and was completely open on the matter, but he must have presumably been 'cleared' (one would be concerned if it was by the same people who had cleared Burgess or McLean), and no doubt pretty thoroughly investigated in the  process.  TTBOMK, Her Majesty never expressed a view on the matter, that is if she ever knew anything about it!

 

Whatever his political convictions, I could not imagine Royston ever setting out to do any harm to anyone for any reason, he just wasn't that sort of bloke.  He was justifiably proud of his record and senior status, and took Royal Train work in his stride.

Edited February 3, 2023 by The Johnster

[Tom Burnham]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Was there not also a security element to this, that the Royal Train pilot would find out the hard way if there were any obstructions, bombs, sabotaged rails, bridges, tunnels, and so on.

I believe there was a Canon Victor L Whitechurch short story attempting to carry out a dastardly act of sabotage in the interval between the pilot engine and the Royal train. It was of course foiled by the hero of the story.

[Welchester]

I just happened to glance at the report of the 1890 Norton Fitzwarren accident, where it states

Quote

The narrow-gauge goods train was assisted from Taunton by a broad-gauge pilot engine

How could that have been done?

[Compound2632]

22 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Can we look at the facts please instead of well worn, inaccurate, nonsense spouted forth in some cases over many years often by folk who should know better and frequently by those who haven't bothered to check the facts or even look at photographs.

 

Biggest piece of nonsense - 'the train engine always had to go on the front'.  

 

15 hours ago, DCB said:

2)  Normal GWR practice was for the train engine to be the leading engine but this was not something regularly photographed,  Also it was normal for Bogie engines to lead and where both locos had bogies it was the practice for one with a 4 cone ejector to lead.  This in practice meant a Manor would have to be coupled inside any other GWR 4-6-0.

The photos on the Cambrian have the  train engine, Manor, up front and the assistant, 43XX 2251 etc inside. 

 

I have quote selectively from both these posts but considering the full content of both, I find considerable discrepancies. From his previous posting history, I have built up considerable confidence in Mike @The Stationmaster as a fund of accurate information. I think it therefore behoves @DCB to provide references to official documentation for the points at which he is at variance with Mike, lest he give the impression that he is one of those mentioned in the preamble to Mike's post.

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, Welchester said:

I just happened to glance at the report of the 1890 Norton Fitzwarren accident, where it states

How could that have been done?

 

One might imagine that the force couple due to the misalignment between the centre line of the broad gauge engine and the standard gauge train would result in one or both being dragged sideways off the rails. In fact, if one does the calculation, with reasonable assumptions for the weights involved, one finds that the transverse force is negligible compared with the downward force on the rails. 

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

If I've understood correctly, in this case a pilot engine conveying the pilotman back over the section to enable him to conduct two service trains in the same direction successively?

 

But wouldn't all this be done by staff and ticket - and indeed isn't the pilotman (or his distinguishing armband or whatever) the single-line token himself?

NotTS&T. Pilot engines were sometimes (but not always) used when Single LIne Working (SLW) was in. operation - i.e the working of trains over only one running when the other line (on a double line railway) was blocked for engineering work or by something such as a derailment of banks lip,  Eul 189 in the old Rules, Section N of the 1972 Rule Book.

 

The normal reason for usinga pilot engine was if the trainservice was unbalanced and the Pilotman needed to get back to the opposite end of the single line in order to allow the next train onto the single line.  Doing this mimised any delay taht could be involved waiting for the next train from the end where the Pilotman was .

 

Regrettably over the years more than a few authors - some of them pretty good and accurate otherwise -have failed to distinguish between Single Line Working (a Rule Book and signalling Regulations procedure carried out on double or multiple lines when only one line was available for use) and methods of signalling movements over a single line stretch of railway (in brief 'Signalling [a] Single Lin ).  

 

But it was for many years also the practice to appoint a Pilotman in lieu of a failed single signalling system such as the electric token system.  it is of course conceivable that a pilot engine might be needed in such circumstances but as the service normally tends to balance anyway over a single line there would rarely be a need for it.    BTW every method of working a single line, including SLW, allows for successive trains in the same direction before a train comes in the opposite direction.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, DCB said:

1) The most photographed  double heading on the (G) WR was over the South Devon Banks and there was a dispensation allowing the pilot loco to lead the train loco there.

2)  Normal GWR practice was for the train engine to be the leading engine but this was not something regularly photographed,  Also it was normal for Bogie engines to lead and where both locos had bogies it was the practice for one with a 4 cone ejector to lead.  This in practice meant a Manor would have to be coupled inside any other GWR 4-6-0.

The photos on the Cambrian have the  train engine, Manor, up front and the assistant, 43XX 2251 etc inside. 

3) There were fairly few places on the (G) WR a pilot loco was attached to the leading end of a passenger train for a short distance as opposed to assisting throughout apart from South Devon. The Bristol Birmingham expresses  took a pilot for the stretch from Stratford on Avon (?) to Snow Hill and when they were the usual  22XX  they were invariably coupled inside the train engine.

4) The dispensation allowed the assisting  engine to be coupled ahead of the train engine over the South Devon Banks, as long as a few boxes were ticked, a bogie was required on the assisting loco if it was to be coupled ahead of a bogie equipped train loco,  But unlike elsewhere there was no requirement for the  loco with a 4 cone ejector to lead if one loco had a 4 cone ejector and the other did not. That was why or because Bulldogs and Manors were used as pilots.  There are pictures of 2-6-2T's as leading engine  but they do seem to be on uphill sections and may have come off at Dainton summit as did the rear bankers on freights.  The 2-6-2Ts banked at the rear of the trains and dropped off at the summit and returned light.

5) There were other dispensations including one allowing 43XX to double head unfitted freights over the MSWJR from Cheltenham to Southampton allowing up to 80 wagon trains to be hauled.  Pictures of Double headed GWR freights are very very rare.

6) Pilot engines were also run ahead of Royal Trains, as in ten minutes or a block ahead, probably to warn the Stationmaster to line all his staff up along the platform to Bow and scrape to their betters.

There was no need for dispenstion for the assisting engine to lead over the South Devon bamsk - read wja hat I wrote - 4-4-0s were al;;owed to assisr vfeongt anywhere (except where assisting was prohibited.

Your Item 2 take us back to some of the nonsene this thread started wieth - read what I wrote in a bid to dispell that nonsense - which also explains that certain types of wheel arrangemnt had to go inside the train engine.  there was no general ruling on the GWR that the train engine had toi lead and an assisting engine had to go inside. In fact in certain sitiations a 2251 could assist a 'Castle' marshalled in front of the 'Castle'.

An assisting engine (not a 'pilot' - that was something very different when we get away from the vernacular) could under v certain circumstances assist anywhere.

 

It would help id f you read my post about the general situation and authorities for assisting before going into specifics - some of which simply say the same as I did.  By all means add detail for specific places etc that v can be useful. But at times I really, truly wonder why I bother if people can't be bothered to read what I have very carefully cjecked before posting.

[Cwmtwrch]

23 hours ago, Cwmtwrch said:

The other way there was a goods banker from Tavistock Junction Yard up Rattery

I should have said Hemerdon, of course, not Rattery. Sorry. I also overlooked the bank from Torquay to Torre, where summer passenger trains were banked in rear, with the assisting engine not coupled. They stopped just beyond Torre, returning to the box wrong road before crossing to the Down line.

 A couple of Peter Gray's photos show Class C trains passing Aller loop in 1955 and 1959 respectively; the first has 4988 with 2262 coupled inside, the other has 4174 leading 5028. 

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Welchester said:

I just happened to glance at the report of the 1890 Norton Fitzwarren accident, where it states

How could that have been done?

Sounds odd but it was permitted practice on the GWR although I'm not sure for how many years it went on.  I've an idea that there might have been another incident which involved a train with a similar mixing of gauges in respect of the engines but I can't remember which one it was.

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

I have quote selectively from both these posts but considering the full content of both, I find considerable discrepancies. From his previous posting history, I have built up considerable confidence in Mike @The Stationmaster as a fund of accurate information. I think it therefore behoves @DCB to provide references to official documentation for the points at which he is at variance with Mike, lest he give the impression that he is one of those mentioned in the preamble to Mike's post.

Don't quote selectively.  Talking apples and pears here.  Rule Book and practice not the same.

 

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

There was no need for dispenstion for the assisting engine to lead over the South Devon bamsk - read wja hat I wrote - 4-4-0s were al;;owed to assisr vfeongt anywhere (except where assisting was prohibited.

The dispensation was for the Pilot engines, Manors in the 1950s, to lead any train even though they Manors were generally limited to 10 coaches because they lacked 4 cone ejectors. Thus they worked almost exclusively between NA and Plymouth, apart from NA and Laira the next nearest Manor allocation by rail was Truro which had 1 and Gloucester which had 2 for the MSWJR so Manors from east of Devon were very rare   At busy times, Summer Saturdays,  Down trains with a single engine which required double heading west of Plymouth changed engines at Newton Abbott and the  pair of engines worked through into Cornwall.   Ones not requiring double heading west of Plymouth were the ones taking a Manor as pilot,  The trains were only about 3 coaches over the single loco limit, and only needed a bogie loco as pilot because of the incessant curvature, a 2021 or 16XX Pannier would have done otherwise.   A loco taken off a Westbound  train at NA would often pilot a following train to Plymouth,  In BR days the King off the Summer Saturday 10.30 Cornish Riviera sometimes piloted  another King on the 10.35 relief over the South Devon Banks with the Cornish Riviera headboard up.   

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Your Item 2 take us back to some of the nonsene this thread started wieth - read what I wrote in a bid to dispell that nonsense - which also explains that certain types of wheel arrangemnt had to go inside the train engine.  there was no general ruling on the GWR that the train engine had toi lead and an assisting engine had to go inside. In fact in certain sitiations a 2251 could assist a 'Castle' marshalled in front of the 'Castle'.

I know Panniers assisted Castles from the front in Wales.  But I think they came off at the summit.   Did the GW allow banking of passenger trains from the rear?  Apart from Torquay/Torre?  Weymouth?

 

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

It would help id f you read my post about the general situation and authorities for assisting before going into specifics - some of which simply say the same as I did.  By all means add detail for specific places etc that v can be useful. But at times I really, truly wonder why I bother if people can't be bothered to read what I have very carefully cjecked before posting.

The South Devon Banks dominate any discussion of piloting on the Western Region,  Some of the steepest grades in the UK at the end of a journey requiring the attachment of an assisting loco for about 30 miles or so was pretty unique.

I have many books on the subject  "Day of the Holiday Express," and "Summer Saturday's in the West"  among them.  "Great Western Steam Double headed" has good pictures, There were thousands of photos taken of the South Devon banks and the Manor Piloting a King is the image we all have and at least 99.9% of the time when that happened it was between NA and North Road.  The need to double head  passenger trains throughout the journey on the GW was rare.  Elsewhere it was routine,   Edinburgh - Aberdeen North British pre WW2, almost invariably big engine leading and St Pancras to the north 1950s  Midland  almost invariably small engine leading. 

It was more important for the crews to understand which driver was in control.   The Top link crew on the big engine or the lower link crew on the smaller one.   Putting the assisting loco and crew inside made this hierarchy clear to all.  And doing it for only 30 miles was a waste of time.

 

[Compound2632]

46 minutes ago, DCB said:

Don't quote selectively.  Talking apples and pears here.  Rule Book and practice not the same.

 

My reason for quoting selectively was to bring together both posts, without reproducing them in their entirety, which would be wearisome for the reader, and to draw attention to the most striking point of difference. As I said, my intent was to compare the full content of both, and to ask you to justify the points on which you differed from Mike by reference to documented evidence rather than folklore.

 

It may be that the practice of some railwaymen differed from the Rule Book and I have no doubt that if found out, they were reprimanded - up to and including dismissal. the most extreme way of being "found out" was when their failure to follow the Rule Book resulted in an accident. HM Inspectors had things to say about that, time and again. 

[Michael Hodgson]

Wasn't some GWR stock fitted with two sets of buffers to suit both gauges during the conversion era?

 

[Compound2632]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Wasn't some GWR stock fitted with two sets of buffers to suit both gauges during the conversion era?

 

Whereas the buffer centres for standard gauge stock were, from a very early period, set at or about 12" wider than the gauge, i.e. 5' 8½", looking at photos I see that the buffer centres are narrower than the gauge - in the range 5' 9" - 6' 0" going by Alan Prior, 19th Century Railway Drawings in 4 mm Scale (David & Charles, 1983).

 

Given that the offset of the centre lines of broad gauge and standard gauge vehicles was about 13" on ordinary mixed-gauge track, a broad gauge vehicle would need three sets of buffers, the regular broad gauge ones at 5' 9" - 6' 0" centres and extra pairs at roughly 8'0" centres and 3' 3" centres, to buff up to standard gauge stock irrespective of which side the third rail was laid. 

 

In practice this was achieved using very wide dumb buffer blocks fixed to the headstock, like this:

 

 

[Embedded link.]

 

Hoist by my own etc. I started writing this post expecting the answer to be no but a quick bit of idle research shows it to be yes!

Edited February 3, 2023 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

Terminology:

 

"Employment of a Pilot Engine to assist Midland Goods and Mineral Trains from Farringdon Street to Ludgate Hill.

 

"A Midland pilot engine is employed each night, and on Sundays when required, to assist in the rear of Midland goods and mineral trains running from Farringdon Street to Ludgate Hill, when the load of such trains exceeds 10 vehicles, exclusive of Guards' brakes. or when it is specially asked for." [&c.]

 

M.R. Appendix No. 20 to the Working Time Table, May, 1899. [MRSC 00555]

[The Johnster]

Correct terminology is a wobbly concept at best unless some authorised publication states what it is.  Even then, it can be different on different railways, and the differences can survive though groupings and nationalisations as the original form of words is reprinted in rule books appendices, and notices.  A friend of mine, now passed, was employed by RTB and then British Steel at Ebbw Vale as a 'Latcher', their official description of his job, which you and I would call a Shunter.  They latched on and latched off, where we coupled on and coupled off.

 

And that's before various vernacular and colloquial variations rear their uglies.  When I started as a Guard at Canton in 1970, I went through a 5-week induction training course at the Cardiff West Box University of Ferro-equinology, being tutored by a chap whose name I have now forgotten but who was a Yorkshireman, ay oop trouble at t'mill.  He told us a story about a guard who had incorrectly responded to a shunter's handsignal, called his driver back, and 'knocked over a dolly' before deraiing the van through an open trap point, much to everybody's amusement.  He was referring to a ground signal, and on the WR we called these 'dummies'.

 

Rear your uglies well and wisely, gentlemen!

 

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Correct terminology

 

Indeed. I wasn't offering my example as definitively correct, simply as the terminology employed by the Midland in its official documentation, which was of course for the eyes of the Company's Servants only - so no doubt the LC&DR men were saying: there goes the Midland banker.

[Forward!]

I cannot even pretend to add anything useful to this, but would it be useful to consider the origins of the commonly held belief that it was GWR practice to place assisting engines behind the train engine? In my naivety I've taken this prinicple as read for years, and I have certainly seen Edwardian photographs in which a basically a brand new Star or Saint is leading a 10 year old Bulldog on an express through Dawlish. Is this my clouded mind just jumping to the conclusion that "it's a brand new Churchward loco, so it must have been the train engine!" I just can't imagine what must have been top link power in their day being used as assisting engines!

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Forward! said:

an express through Dawlish

 

In other words, working through between Exeter and Plymouth...