How often were route restrictions ignored during WW2 and what were the noted biggest examples?

[OnTheBranchline]

In Steam Days May 2013, the 47xx class article Part 1 talks about the previously barred 47xx class being let through Severn Tunnel Junction:

"In October 1942 the '4700' class 2-8-0s were believed to be working a Paddington-Bristol-North & West-Shrewsbury-Birkenhead-Greenford circuit. To follow such a circuit, '4700s' had to be allowed through the Severn Tunnel. So much for the normal peacetime prohibition, invariably applied right up until No 4701 was on its last journey to the scrapyard."

 

The article also talked about "4700, 4703, 4706, and 4707 were noted working to Cardiff in October 1941 (source - The Railway Observer)".

Edited November 18, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[MyRule1]

In his book "From construction to destruction" on the Colne Valley Rail Ted Willingham, who was a signalman/shunter on the line says that although the line was RA1 and should only be worked by loco's no larger than J15 ,0-6-0's during the war it was expedient to send "WD" loco's over part of the line.

[Stoke West]

4 hours ago, MyRule1 said:

In his book "From construction to destruction" on the Colne Valley Rail Ted Willingham, who was a signalman/shunter on the line says that although the line was RA1 and should only be worked by loco's no larger than J15 ,0-6-0's during the war it was expedient to send "WD" loco's over part of the line.

Kings were sent across the Royal Albert Bridge out the way of the Plymouth blitz

[The Johnster]

E.R.Mountford, in his 'Caerphilly Works' book, relates that a King was booked into the works for overhaul in the late 50s, and was actually en route when it stopped at the last minute.  It would presumably have been routed via Radyr Quarry, Walnut Tree, and Penrhos to Caerphilly.  Mountford is a reliable source and I would take that as not requiring confirmation.  Kings have worked down as far as Carmarthen in preservation, but that's different, even where the bridges are the same...

[Compound2632]

It seems to me unlikely that route restrictions were ignored, rather that they may have been temporarily revised, following what we would now call a risk assessment. There's bound to have been some paperwork somewhere.

[Stoke West]

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

It seems to me unlikely that route restrictions were ignored, rather that they may have been temporarily revised, following what we would now call a risk assessment. There's bound to have been some paperwork somewhere.

It didn't stop locos and units going where they shouldn't in peace time . Latest one i know of ,153 and 158's not permitted north of Radyr , but a 153 got to Treherbert in 2021 !  Which caused some problems on how to get it back . 

[Phil Bullock]

14 minutes ago, Stoke West said:

It didn't stop locos and units going where they shouldn't in peace time . Latest one i know of ,153 and 158's not permitted north of Radyr , but a 153 got to Treherbert in 2021 !  Which caused some problems on how to get it back . 

Caerphilly? 

[Nearholmer]

23 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Caerphilly? 

Yes, carefully; that’s what Compound said.

 

Seriously though, all sorts of bridge weight restrictions, curvature restrictions, clearance restrictions can be relaxed with care and mitigation. Limiting speed is a simple thing that can make a lot of difference, for instance.

[adb968008]

Caerphilly, is that the welsh translation of Carefully then ?

😀

[Nearholmer]

Just a cheesy joke on my part.

[Edwin_m]

It is arguable that one cause of the Dolphin Junction accident in 1941 was the use of a borrowed LMS engine with the driving position on the left and no ATC equipment.  I don't know if there was a formal restriction on this sort of operation but it probably wouldn't have happened in peacetime.  

[OnTheBranchline]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

It seems to me unlikely that route restrictions were ignored, rather that they may have been temporarily revised, following what we would now call a risk assessment. There's bound to have been some paperwork somewhere.

You knew what I meant… 🙄

Edited November 19, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

You knew what I meant…

 

Yes, but I was anxious to distinguish between the idea of random flouting of the rules (which authority would come down on) and carefully-considered revision of the rules as described by @Nearholmer (sanctioned by authority). Civilian railways are essentially orderly things, even under the pressures of wartime. 

[Mallard60022]

13 hours ago, Stoke West said:

Kings were sent across the Royal Albert Bridge out the way of the Plymouth blitz

Having lived in Plymuff and started my spotting career there in 1958, I only just found this out in recent times!

can't quite remember now how far west they went. Possibly only Saltash?

Strange they didn't just go up the Southern to Bere Alston, thus not even crossing the RA Bridge. 

P

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

It seems to me unlikely that route restrictions were ignored, rather that they may have been temporarily revised, following what we would now call a risk assessment. There's bound to have been some paperwork somewhere.

It'a an interesting area and sometime s truth (not even imagined truth) is stranger than fiction or what the restrictions list says.  I have seen a photo of a particular class of pannier on a route where that class was strictly prohibited for axle weight reasons but somebody had sent it there, for whatever reason and seemingly nothing broke (unless it was kept quiet).

 

Some tales I do take with a pinch of salt especially where clearance issues are involved because they have a habit of leaving evidence -  it is usually all too obvious when something has gone where it shouldn't.   Another one that is readily given away is when restrictions are related to wheelbase etc and the usual  consequence if the restriction being ignored is evidence. of various sorts of damage to the track.

 

A common problem on part of teh WR in the 1970s was ambiguity in restriction documents which effectively saida loco could go where the type jad never been tested and cleared.  We found our following a derailment - NOT of the loco - when some pen pusher pointed out that the type had not been cleared for that particular place.  In defence of my staff I quickly pointred out that the type was not prohibted from going there as it was not in the list of prohibitions (I didn't bother to add that locos of that class had been regul;ar;y running over that piece of railway for months without any problems at all).   The restrictions booklet was duly amended before teh week was out authorising the class to be permitted there.

 

Finally - yes things that are otherwise permitted can be authorised subject to carrying out the necessary procedures for partiicular reasons or events.  We used to do it regularly for all sorts of things simply by asking the Civil Engineer's Gauging Section.

 

'Kings over the Royal Albert Bridge during WWII is, incidentally, an interesting one .   What is known is that the route availbility of 'Kings' on the {p;ymouth area was definitely, and officially, extended in WWII to Keyham  including  a short part of  the Admiralty Siding at Keyham.  That  in turn made it pretty clear that they were not even permitted to St Budeaux.  

 

I have never seen any notice authority Kings to go any further but that doesn't mean that someone did something 'on their own initiative' and got away with it.  However what has always struck me as odd about it is why send these engines over to the other side of the Tamar where their only route back was next to the most important target in Plymouth?   In fact apart from the city centre the Devonport/Keyham area, (and to a much lesser extent St Budueaux and Weston Mill) suffered the greatest number of bombs hits in Plymouth including some which must have closed the railway.  Only one stick of bombs actually got really  near to Laira plus one UXB  found 2 years later.- according to the Plymouth bomb hit maps.  And thise wa despite Laira being an easy target to find as it was right next to the Plym.

[eldomtom2]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes, but I was anxious to distinguish between the idea of random flouting of the rules (which authority would come down on) and carefully-considered revision of the rules as described by @Nearholmer (sanctioned by authority). Civilian railways are essentially orderly things, even under the pressures of wartime. 

I would say that especially in the past there is a great deal of grey area between "random rule-flouting" and "official rule revision".

[johnofwessex]

There is the story of a Hospital Train arriving in Bridport during WW1 behind a Mogul which resulted in a panicked telegram to Swindon as Tender Loco's were banned from the branch.

 

The reply was along the lines of 'well it got here didnt it, just send it back'

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Some tales I do take with a pinch of salt especially where clearance issues are involved because they have a habit of leaving evidence -  it is usually all too obvious when something has gone where it shouldn't.

There was, of course, the occasion several decades ago when it was wished to operate an enthusiasts' special round the Circle Line in London using Sarah Siddons on a rake of borrowed Southern Region MkII stock. Officially the MkIIs were within the specified loading gauge but dynamic envelopes can be funny things and it was decided to do an out of traffic hours trial run with a single brake vehicle which quickly produced a number of scrape marks on the coach concerned, seemingly from signal equipment. Since the envelope of the C69 LT units was officially larger than that of the MkIIs that raised some interesting questions as to why they weren't encountering the same problems. Further detailed investigation revealed that they too were indeed scraping the same items of equipment but because they were unpainted no one had noticed!

[OnTheBranchline]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It'a an interesting area and sometime s truth (not even imagined truth) is stranger than fiction or what the restrictions list says.  I have seen a photo of a particular class of pannier on a route where that class was strictly prohibited for axle weight reasons but somebody had sent it there, for whatever reason and seemingly nothing broke (unless it was kept quiet).

 

Some tales I do take with a pinch of salt especially where clearance issues are involved because they have a habit of leaving evidence -  it is usually all too obvious when something has gone where it shouldn't.   Another one that is readily given away is when restrictions are related to wheelbase etc and the usual  consequence if the restriction being ignored is evidence. of various sorts of damage to the track.

 

A common problem on part of teh WR in the 1970s was ambiguity in restriction documents which effectively saida loco could go where the type jad never been tested and cleared.  We found our following a derailment - NOT of the loco - when some pen pusher pointed out that the type had not been cleared for that particular place.  In defence of my staff I quickly pointred out that the type was not prohibted from going there as it was not in the list of prohibitions (I didn't bother to add that locos of that class had been regul;ar;y running over that piece of railway for months without any problems at all).   The restrictions booklet was duly amended before teh week was out authorising the class to be permitted there.

 

Finally - yes things that are otherwise permitted can be authorised subject to carrying out the necessary procedures for partiicular reasons or events.  We used to do it regularly for all sorts of things simply by asking the Civil Engineer's Gauging Section.

 

'Kings over the Royal Albert Bridge during WWII is, incidentally, an interesting one .   What is known is that the route availbility of 'Kings' on the {p;ymouth area was definitely, and officially, extended in WWII to Keyham  including  a short part of  the Admiralty Siding at Keyham.  That  in turn made it pretty clear that they were not even permitted to St Budeaux.  

 

I have never seen any notice authority Kings to go any further but that doesn't mean that someone did something 'on their own initiative' and got away with it.  However what has always struck me as odd about it is why send these engines over to the other side of the Tamar where their only route back was next to the most important target in Plymouth?   In fact apart from the city centre the Devonport/Keyham area, (and to a much lesser extent St Budueaux and Weston Mill) suffered the greatest number of bombs hits in Plymouth including some which must have closed the railway.  Only one stick of bombs actually got really  near to Laira plus one UXB  found 2 years later.- according to the Plymouth bomb hit maps.  And thise wa despite Laira being an easy target to find as it was right next to the Plym.

Does the tale of 6858 Woolston Grange striking the platform at Sheffield count as ‘going somewhere it obviously shouldn’t’ Or was it just an inadvertent accident?

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

I would say that especially in the past there is a great deal of grey area between "random rule-flouting" and "official rule revision".

 

This is couched in the language of opinion. One has to ask, is there any evidence beyond assertion?

[Wheatley]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This is couched in the language of opinion. One has to ask, is there any evidence beyond assertion?

Any rule or restriction made by a man with a big hat can be overruled or revised by a man with a larger hat, or in some cases temporarily by a specifically nominated man with a slightly smaller hat. That was the vertically integrated command and control structure which existed within BR regions and their Big Four predecessors. As an example I once closed a signalbox with a train still in section but I needed the express permission of the ROM to do it, which at 23.00 on a Saturday night amused him no end. (Those familiar with Colin McKeevor either in person or by reputation can imagine what a bum clenching conversation that was for a 20yr old.)

 

The 1988 and earlier Rule Books were full of "where specially authorised" and "unless specially authorised" qualifications, the ultimate authority in BR days usually being the Regional Operations Manager or Regional Civil Engineer. Similar provisions existed before BR. 

 

In the case of route restrictions they were there generally for two reasons - weight and loading gauge. The first can usually be relaxed, the trade off being shorter asset life or an increased inspection and maintenance schedule. The latter is harder to relax - if it doesn't fit then it doesn't fit no matter how large one's hat. 

 

 

[eldomtom2]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

This is couched in the language of opinion. One has to ask, is there any evidence beyond assertion?

It does not take very long to find heaps of contemporary and retrospective evidence for instances where rules were ignored and management turned a blind eye without outright approving any exemptions to the rules.

[Tom Burnham]

The Kent & East Sussex had a certain amount of relaying (using secondhand steel sleepered track) during WW2 with a view to it being a possible diversionary route if Tonbridge was out of action due to bombing.  As far as I'm aware that was never needed (though I'd be pleased to be proved wrong) but it's an interesting question what motive power would have been used.  Terriers and P class tanks were the only Southern locos that had been used between Rolvenden and Robertsbridge.

[Michael Hodgson]

I seem to recall reading once that something a lot heavier than was officially permitted on the Severn Bridge got diverted from the Tunnel for some reason and non-compliance with the ban was only queried when it safely reached the far side.  Don't remember what, when or even which way it was going.

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

Does the tale of 6858 Woolston Grange striking the platform at Sheffield count as ‘going somewhere it obviously shouldn’t’ Or was it just an inadvertent accident?

It got father than that.

It was a service to Leeds and they might just've got there!

 

WR engines were only normally worked as far North as Nottingham Victoria, where an engine change would take place.

The relief engine didn't turn up so the crew were told to carry on to Sheffield, which was the absolute northern limit for WR locos and still no relief so they were persuaded to carry on.

It hit the platform edges at at least one station on route, including Penistone.

It got to Hudderfield where it was immediately impounded and sent to Hillhouses while a safe route back to the Western as an out of gauge load were worked out.