Newhaven Boat Trains - 1950s….

[Right Away]

I’d pondered the question as to why the SR and later BR(SR) continued to use locomotive hauled stock and not multiple units for the Victoria - Newhaven boat services for so long after the Harbour (boat) platform was electrified in 1947. 

 

Some reasons which come to mind are:-

1. Luggage space. Additional van(s) could strengthen capacity when required. (we are talking pre EP stock/MLVs - luggage space in EMU guards’ brakes only).

2. Insufficient availability of EMU express coaching stock (assuming PUL, PAN, COR, BUF units).

3. Efficient diagrams for EMU stock could have proved difficult to incorporate boat train timings. 

4. Electric locomotives were more than capable on the boat trains. 

5. Loco hauled stock more readily available with flexibility of consist.

 

It would be very interesting to hear other’s thoughts on this.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Right Away
correction

[bécasse]

Registered Luggage under Customs' seal which had to be conveyed in a separate vehicle and thus not in an emu - hence the MLVs introduced with the Kent Coast electrification for use on boat trains.

[chris45lsw]

Also until June 1956 Continental boat trains conveyed three classes First, Second and Third.  EMUs catered for 1st and 3rd only until then, thereafter 1st and 2nd, when 2nd was abolished and 3rd was renamed 2nd.

 

Chris KT

[bécasse]

9 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

Also until June 1956 Continental boat trains conveyed three classes First, Second and Third.  EMUs catered for 1st and 3rd only until then, thereafter 1st and 2nd, when 2nd was abolished and 3rd was renamed 2nd.

Whilst that is indeed true, it wouldn't have prevented EMUs being used on Newhaven boat trains any more than the Southern Railway (and later Southern Region) were prevented from operating all 1st class EMUs on Waterloo-Ascot race day specials, the procedures for which were covered in the Sectional Appendix.

 

Relief boat trains were rarely required between London Victoria and Newhaven but, as relief boat trains didn't convey RL, I suspect that EMUs were used on the very rare occasions that they did run.

[Wickham Green too]

9 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

Also until June 1956 Continental boat trains conveyed three classes First, Second and Third.  EMUs catered for 1st and 3rd only until then, thereafter 1st and 2nd, when 2nd was abolished and 3rd was renamed 2nd.

There's also the question of Pullman accommodation - even two  6PUL sets may have provided the necessary capacity in First and/or Third Class ....... and could not have featured a Bar Car such as 'Myrtle' or 'Grosvenor' !

[slilley]

The three Co-Co electric locos were built with boat train working in mind. As others have said there are customs and luggage requirements to take on board. Not all the sidings at new haven were electrified as I recall, so the booster function was used to get them to a 3rd rail.

 

The book Southern Way Special No 11 available from Crecy Publishing is devoted to the unique locos and includes plenty on their work on the Newhaven boat trains. 

 

Simon

[bécasse]

The booster function was useless to get the locos to a third rail, its purpose was to allow the locos to coast over gaps in the third rail, emus overcoming such gaps by normally always having at least one pick-up in contact because of their length. (There were exceptions to that though, it was discovered, very embarrassingly and with considerable disruption to traffic, one evening rush hour that it was possible to gap a 16-car emu at Herne Hill routed Victoria down, down loop, towards Tulse Hill. Having gapped a Holborn-Wimbledon train leaving the down loop, a Victoria-Orpington was brought up behind it to assist, which it did until the whole "train" found gaps in the third rail.)

[Wickham Green too]

I think the work 'back' was missing from Simon's piece ........... according to whoever wrote that Booster book - now who could that have been ? - the booster would run for adequate time / distance to do more than 'simply' jump a gap and could get them back from a siding to a 3rd rail when required.

[slilley]

15 hours ago, bécasse said:

The booster function was useless to get the locos to a third rail, its purpose was to allow the locos to coast over gaps in the third rail, emus overcoming such gaps by normally always having at least one pick-up in contact because of their length. (There were exceptions to that though, it was discovered, very embarrassingly and with considerable disruption to traffic, one evening rush hour that it was possible to gap a 16-car emu at Herne Hill routed Victoria down, down loop, towards Tulse Hill. Having gapped a Holborn-Wimbledon train leaving the down loop, a Victoria-Orpington was brought up behind it to assist, which it did until the whole "train" found gaps in the third rail.)

The booster equipment could be used to move the loco and a 100 ton train when not in contact with a power supply. At its maxiumum this was just over 500 feet, reducing to less than 100 feet seven minutes after losing contact with a power supply. Please see page 16 of Southern Way Special No 11. There is a graph showing this.

[slilley]

9 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I think the work 'back' was missing from Simon's piece ........... according to whoever wrote that Booster book - now who could that have been ? - the booster would run for adequate time / distance to do more than 'simply' jump a gap and could get them back from a siding to a 3rd rail when required.

Yes the word "back" was missing from my original comment.

[Nearholmer]

Boats, even when not sailing by the tide, often ran (if that’s the right word) a bit adrift from the timetable due to weather conditions, so I wonder whether it made good sense to dedicate some coaches to the services, rather than have EMUs either completely dedicated or at prey of getting “out of diagram”. I think that the locos were used on heavy freights when not on the boat trains, so their utilisation was better than could have been achieved with dedicated EMUs.

[slilley]

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Boats, even when not sailing by the tide, often ran (if that’s the right word) a bit adrift from the timetable due to weather conditions, so I wonder whether it made good sense to dedicate some coaches to the services, rather than have EMUs either completely dedicated or at prey of getting “out of diagram”. I think that the locos were used on heavy freights when not on the boat trains, so their utilisation was better than could have been achieved with dedicated EMUs.

The trio were used mainly on freight work. Only the first diagram refered to in the WTT as Schedule 1 included passenger work which was the Newhaven boat train.

[Nearholmer]

I think I can see what I expected: slack time at Victoria on arrival from Newhaven, providing a buffer in case of late running.

[SteveyDee68]

This thread is proving very informative for my eventual reimagining of Newhaven as Broadhaven; I won’t be sticking to historical accuracy (I’m going to put a train ferry terminal there, for instance!) but I suppose I could ask a theoretical questions and get a considered answer -

 

1) Could the Co-Co “Booster” locos have handled the Night Ferry service (to Dover)?

 

2) Did they ever do so? (I can only find reference to Class 71 electric locos).

 

3) Being able to handle the heavy Newhaven boat trains*, would they have been able to cope with the Night Ferry formation to Newhaven?

 

If the answer is “yes” (even theoretically) then a pre-order for the new EFE model may be required!

 

Steve S

 

 

* Didn’t the Newhaven boat trains use 6 axle Pullman cars?

[Nearholmer]

Looking at their tractive effort, I would expect them to be able to lift the train out of Victoria, and up the other gradients en-route, but looking at their rated power they would probably have been slower with the load than a 71, so would have needed different timings (and probably become a nuisance among all the other electric trains on the line by having a different performance profile). I can’t say I ever saw the NF running via anywhere but Tonbridge, but in theory it could have gone via any one of the boat train routes, which implies some horrible curves and gradients.

[Oldddudders]

BTR 1 (Boat Train Route 1) via Tonbridge was not electrified until 1961, by which time the 71s were about. No need.

[Nearholmer]

Thinking about it, in locomotive performance terms, the Hornbys were probably roughly equivalent to a Class 33 or 73, and they were used on the NF, although by their time maybe the loading wasn’t so great as c1960. It would have been the Up trip where keeping out of the way of all the other trains in the peak period was most important.

[slilley]

9 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

This thread is proving very informative for my eventual reimagining of Newhaven as Broadhaven; I won’t be sticking to historical accuracy (I’m going to put a train ferry terminal there, for instance!) but I suppose I could ask a theoretical questions and get a considered answer -

 

1) Could the Co-Co “Booster” locos have handled the Night Ferry service (to Dover)?

 

2) Did they ever do so? (I can only find reference to Class 71 electric locos).

 

3) Being able to handle the heavy Newhaven boat trains*, would they have been able to cope with the Night Ferry formation to Newhaven?

 

If the answer is “yes” (even theoretically) then a pre-order for the new EFE model may be required!

 

Steve S

 

 

* Didn’t the Newhaven boat trains use 6 axle Pullman cars?

To answer question 2 I do not believe they ever did. Their appearences on the SE division were very rare, and dont forget that once the Class 71s took over the NIght Ferry, they were ETH fitted whereas the Co-Cos were steam heat.

[KeithHC]

Also the 71 replaced the boosters on the Newhaven boat trains. The WTT was very interesting am I right in seeing that during the week that the loco off the boat went to either Lewis or Three Bridges before returning to Newhaven for the return service. Did the stock stay at Marine or did that go with the booster.

 

Keith

Just old enough to remember seeing boosters from my bedroom window on the bml north of Salfords.

[number6]

That trip to Lewes East Sidings was a freight working: New Cross to Polegate via Lewes. Back to Lewes East light, turn around and then down to Newhaven to work the boat train. Mondays excepted. 
 

They really got a lot of use out of those locos. And in Simon’s Southern Way he outlines how that intensive working dropped off later in their lives. There being more flexible locos about by then (EDs and Cromptons).
 

I really admire the level of intensive use but when things went wrong I guess there could have been some scrambling around to cover locos being out of place - especially as is mentioned earlier Boats have a habit of being a bit late?!

[pete_mcfarlane]

In its day the Night ferry was the heaviest express in the country - 10+ heavy CIWL sleepers, plus SR coaches and SNCF vans - in steam days needing a L1 and a WC/BB to shift it. So I'm not sure if a 1400hp class 70 would be able to keep to time. 

 

 

[The Lurker]

I was interested that Nearholmer had seen the Night Ferry at Tonbridge. I was under the impression that it ran via Faversham and Canterbury East, and the SREMG site has a 1953 summer timing which shows the route as just that. Having said that, wikipedia mentions that it became electric hauled after the electrification of the South Eastern mainline in 1961 it was usually hauled by a class 71. I guess that routes were not fixed in stone and there were diversionary routes a-plenty. Olddudders' mention of BTR1 above reminds me he posted about the different routes as BT1, BT2 etc on a different thread (years ago probably!)

[Nearholmer]

It could run via BTR1, 2 or 3, but so far as I’m aware post-electrification the normal route for the Up train was via Tonbridge. I’m not sure about the down train.

 

This is a good photo, even if it is at Sevenoaks.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Artless Bodger]

I have a vague memory of seeing it cross the high level bridge in Maidstone on an up working one Sunday early / mid '60s - but it might have been the Golden Arrow - I was young and it was a bit of a surprise to see a loco there.