Working Unfitted Freight Trains

[Kris]

I've really enjoyed this thread. It really gives you a feel for what the railways used to be like. Please do advise on any books that may contain such tales.

 

Adriano

 

Have a look at

Laira Fireman: Footplate Recollections of a GWR Fireman (Footplate Recollections of Gwr)

 

 

Obviously available from other retailers as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[edcayton]

Brilliant stuff so far chaps, thanks to all who have contributed.

 

It has occurred to me that the younger members here may not have a clue what we are on about. For their benefit:

 

the "traditional" goods train had no continuous brakes-that is to say that there was no way of applying the brakes on individual wagons when the train was moving. This is why there was a "guard's van" or, more correctly, a brake van at the back. The only way of slowing the train was for the crew to apply the loco and tender brakes, and the guard to apply the brake on the van.

 

My initial query was about how the guard and loco crew communicated with each other and has been answered very fully. If you have never seen this it is well worth doing so, most preserved lines run demonstration freight trains from time to time, my most recent being at the Severn Valley gala in September.

 

Before air-braked stock became universal, wagons fitted with vacuum brakes were painted bauxite, unfitted were grey. In early diesel days there were brake tenders to help the loco slow the train, these were generally green and it seems to me that they were usually coupled in front of the loco.

 

Hope this is of use to some people

 

Ed

[Guest stuartp]

I've really enjoyed this thread. It really gives you a feel for what the railways used to be like. Please do advise on any books that may contain such tales.

 

"Tales of the Glasgow & South Western" and "Tales of the Glasgow & South Western in LMS Days" by David L Smith pub. Ian Allen. Out of print but turn up regularly second hand.

 

"Signalling Days" by Harold Glasson, which despite the title has plenty to say on the running of goods trains, particularly their habit of getting in everyone else's way and the consequent black art of 'regulating' to try and make sure they didn't. .

[LocustBeetle]

Nothing to add, only thanks to the OP and all that have contributed to this thread - its great to be able to read of the rules/theory and actual practice

[kevinlms]

Before air-braked stock became universal, wagons fitted with vacuum brakes were painted bauxite, unfitted were grey.

 

Ed

 

 

Only in the BR period. In LMS days for instance ALL revenue wagons were painted grey, whether fitted or not. Fitted wagons being marked with a large X.

 

In 1936, the LMS changed the standard so ALL new contruction & repaints were bauxite, again whether fitted or not. This time fitted wagons were marked with a small XP. Obviously it took many years (especially due to WW2) for wagons to be repainted, so must of been very confusing as to what was fitted & what wasn't.

 

The BR scheme was very logical to differentiate, but as to how long before it became universal (in that a shunter assembling a train could rely on just the colour scheme to tell the difference - a suspect a good shunter would always check properly) I have no idea.

 

 

Other railways did different things, i.e. the GWR brown wagons - doubtless I'm on dangerous territory here, since I make no claim to having any sort of real knowledge on GWR matters.

 

 

Regardless, to make bland statements like "grey = unfitted and bauxite = fitted" is wrong without defining a time period.

 

 

 

Kevin Martin

[Trog]

Only in the BR period. In LMS days for instance ALL revenue wagons were painted grey, whether fitted or not. Fitted wagons being marked with a large X.

 

In 1936, the LMS changed the standard so ALL new contruction & repaints were bauxite, again whether fitted or not. This time fitted wagons were marked with a small XP. Obviously it took many years (especially due to WW2) for wagons to be repainted, so must of been very confusing as to what was fitted & what wasn't.

 

The BR scheme was very logical to differentiate, but as to how long before it became universal (in that a shunter assembling a train could rely on just the colour scheme to tell the difference - a suspect a good shunter would always check properly) I have no idea.

 

 

Other railways did different things, i.e. the GWR brown wagons - doubtless I'm on dangerous territory here, since I make no claim to having any sort of real knowledge on GWR matters.

 

 

Regardless, to make bland statements like "grey = unfitted and bauxite = fitted" is wrong without defining a time period.

 

 

 

Kevin Martin

 

 

As are incorrect statements like saying this is a BR only practice.

 

 

The LNER for example colour coded their wagons

 

Grey Non Fitted

Red Oxide Fitted and brake vans (Later Bauxite)

White Refrigerator Vans

Blue Service vehicles

Green Restricted use.

 

See page 7 of A Pictorial Record of LNER Wagons by Peter Tatlow for more details.

[kevinlms]

As are incorrect statements like saying this is a BR only practice.

 

 

The LNER for example colour coded their wagons

 

Grey Non Fitted

Red Oxide Fitted and brake vans (Later Bauxite)

White Refrigerator Vans

Blue Service vehicles

Green Restricted use.

 

See page 7 of A Pictorial Record of LNER Wagons by Peter Tatlow for more details.

 

Yes an excellent system too. Glad to be corrected.

 

But with the LMS contributing to something like 40% of the railway owned fleet it was hardly a standard arrangement.

 

Kevin Martin

[BR60103]

I remember reading a story concerning conflicting rules. The situation was a gradient which required, say, one third of the wagons to have the brakes applied. However, the train in question was all oil tank cars and another rule said that brakes were not to be tied down on tankers (fire risk). So they came down the grade with no brakes applied.

So what was the proper procedure to follow?

[MacRat]

Hi David

 

In Post #11 Edwin_m has put a link to a report of an accident with a petrol train on the LMS. According to this report a loaded petrol train should have an assisting machine at the front to provide additional braking force. However, it seems that it was left to the driver to decide if an assisting machine was required.

 

Mac

[Edwin_m]

May also be one reason why petrol trains were fitted with continuous brakes earlier than most other types.

[Pennine MC]

May also be one reason why petrol trains were fitted with continuous brakes earlier than most other types.

 

I'm not sure they were? - tankers aren't my strong point, but my impression is that the iconic Esso (a la Airfix kit) 35 tonner and its contemporaries were the first quantity introductions with vacuum braking. That would put them broadly contemporary with other wagons vac fitted as a result of the Modernisation Plan, and twenty-odd years behind the pre-war network of fitted freights

[Fat Controller]

I'm not sure they were? - tankers aren't my strong point, but my impression is that the iconic Esso (a la Airfix kit) 35 tonner and its contemporaries were the first quantity introductions with vacuum braking. That would put them broadly contemporary with other wagons vac fitted as a result of the Modernisation Plan, and twenty-odd years behind the pre-war network of fitted freights

The 35t tankers were indeed the first production continuously-braked petroleum-carrying vehicles, introduced in 1957. However, unbraked petrol and fuel oil tanks would remain in service for almost a decade after this. Most probably wouldn't have run as block trains, except on the first stage of their journey from the refineries, and on the last stage of their return, normally being incorporated into the formation of mixed freights. Apart from a few former Government fuel storage locations (Flax Bourton, for example), until well into the 1960s, the majority of fuel-handling terminals were small affairs.

[Thomas]

A few class 25's were fitted with a modified vacuum brake for working unfitted trains with the vacuum brake instead of the straight air brake on the engine, the E.Q vacuum brake.

Different brake handle ( painted green ) and exhauster speed up button on the drivers desk. The engine brakes applied very slowly when in use, and very slow to release. Not very popular with drivers, who still used the straight air brake most of the time when working unfitted trains.

[The Stationmaster]

May also be one reason why petrol trains were fitted with continuous brakes earlier than most other types.

 

I seriously wonder if it would have made any difference if they had been. Older patterns of tank wagon were peculiar beasties when it came to putting the brake in if milk tanks were any guide - a 'good hard brake application' on a train of them and the subsequent surging in the tanks was more than enough to push against and overcome brake power. On the traditional railway there was a lot of suspicion of wagons fitted with continuous brakes when it came to steep descending gradients with many a tale of them being 'no good' at holding a train because it seems wagons were more inclined to skid than brake.

It was only as vacuum fitted freights became more part of the scene that the old suspicions began to die away and even then on really steeply graded lines pinning-down brakes was usually considered more reliable than using the vacuum brake. And as for those new fangled air-braked mgr things - 'absolutely useless' was the cry (early marks of the original mgr wagon had notoriously poor brakes anyway). And strange tho' it may seem to today's audience I know of far more instances of mgr and fully fitted coal trains running away on really steep falling gradients than I do of unfitted trains with pinned down brakes.

[Edwin_m]

And strange tho' it may seem to today's audience I know of far more instances of mgr and fully fitted coal trains running away on really steep falling gradients than I do of unfitted trains with pinned down brakes.

 

But the tally should also take account of the (quite a few) incidents where the pinning down wasn't done properly or not done at all! Being laid up with a cold I've been browsing Railways Archive and in the 60s there would appear to have been serious ones a couple of times each year.

 

Quite apart from the safety issue, with the surviving lines becoming busier and passenger train speeds increasing it would be increasingly difficult to tolerate a train that ran slowly in the first place but also had to make two long stops on the steeper banks.

[Poor Old Bruce]

early marks of the original mgr wagon had notoriously poor brakes anyway.

That's because they had no empty/loaded change-over equipment and were consequently only braked for the tare condition. Loaded trains would have had poor braking, that's why they were limited to 45 when loaded but 60 empty. Even at that they were a significant step up from the unfitted Mineral wagons which they displaced.

[JZ]

-or have a model Larry running and falling over!

 

I wonder how long it will be before someone does a cameo of this.

[roythebus]

As I may have said earlier, in my brief career at rugby in 1973/74, we worked unfitted at rugby between Willesden and Crewe. The max speed was 35mph, and with no loops to put them in, it was a signalman's nightmare trying to path these between the 100mph expresses! Even fitted freights at 45mph were a problem. It wasn't so bad on the 4 track sections, but on the double track bits we could wait for a couple of hours for a path.

 

The other problem with the early MGR trains was the use of disc brakes, something novel at the time and something which needs a totally different driving technique as they are so unpredictable.

['CHARD]

That doesn't sound far removed from the old NBR practice either.

During the last war, the old fella was Guard on a heavy coal train from Thornton going over the hill (Glenfarg) to Perth. Alas, just as they began to descend the other side, the engine brakes on the loco (J37) through its hands in, leaving them only with the tender and guards van brakes.

Fortunately nothing untoward happened - they just went downhill a bit faster than normal, with much whistling of course!

 

 

Just found this thread and as chums will attest, its human element is right up my street. Moreover, the above post is the first time I've encountered first/ second-hand experience of working the Glenfarg main line, for which I feel suitably humbled and privileged. If you fancy starting a Glenfarg Route thread, Bon Accord, I'm well up for it. That is even more a Cinderella lost main line than my beloved Waverley, perhaps because it's even less well known and appears in so few photographs. Keep the anecdotes coming. Awesome!

[Peter Kazmierczak]

In 1936, the LMS changed the standard so ALL new contruction & repaints were bauxite, again whether fitted or not. This time fitted wagons were marked with a small XP. Obviously it took many years (especially due to WW2) for wagons to be repainted, so must of been very confusing as to what was fitted & what wasn't.

Kevin Martin

 

I thought XP meant more than just being fitted. Wasn't it to indicate that said wagon could also run attached to a passenger train? Usually (but not exclusively) this XP rating applied to various types of vans.

[The Stationmaster]

I thought XP meant more than just being fitted. Wasn't it to indicate that said wagon could also run attached to a passenger train? Usually (but not exclusively) this XP rating applied to various types of vans.

 

You're absolutely right, the marking 'XP' meant a lot more than that the vehicle was vacuum fitted (although it is possible the meaning changed at some time I suppose?).

 

We have visited this subject before and I seem to recall that the LNER made earlier use of the marking 'XP' but with effect from 30 September 1938 the branding 'XP' meant that the vehicle was suitable for running in a passenger train conveying 'A' headlamps and -

 

1. Was fitted with oil axleboxes, automatic brakes OR brake through pipes (i.e it might not even have been fitted), screw couplings, and long buffers,

2. Had a minimum tare weight of 6 tons,

3. had a wheelbase of not less than 10ft (except that until June 1st 1939 LNER fish trucks with a wheelbase between 9ft and 9ft 11inches could be similarly used in Class 'A' trains).

 

The 'XP' marking was officially only supposed to be used on vehicles with a wheelbase between 10 and 15 ft and was also used on NPCCS vehicles falling into that category of wheelbase.

 

The meaning of 'XP' was slightly changed in post war years (alas I can't exactly date it but believe it was probably May 1950) when the wheelbase was altered to '10 feet or over' and the tare weight restriction was relaxed to include loaded container wagons provided the total load of wagon and container(s) exceeded 6 tons. More significantly the Class of passenger train was no longer specified effectively meaning that a vehicle henceforth had to be so branded in order to be attached to any passenger train.

 

Everyone is reminded that a Mixed Train was exactly that (i.e not a 'Passenger Train per se although it obviously could convey passengers) and therefore a freight vehicle which was not branded 'XP' could be conveyed in it. Conversely a Passenger Train could convey as tail traffic freight vehicles branded 'XP' and would remain classified as a Passenger Train (Perhaps I shouldn't say it but I will - I get fed up at times seeing trains described as a 'Mixed Train' when they very clearly are not; while it is not easy to distinguish them if they are not conveying freight wagons it is often easy to distinguish them if they are - they will have a freight brake van on the back if they are running as Mixed'.)

[Pennine MC]

In 1936, the LMS changed the standard so ALL new contruction & repaints were bauxite, again whether fitted or not. This time fitted wagons were marked with a small XP.

 

 

I thought XP meant more than just being fitted. ...

 

Indeed, this is fairly typical of this type of thread where lots of folk dive in with marginally related snippets which themselves promote further misunderstandings. To be definitive would take a book (or at least a thoroughgoing magazine article). The problem with Kevin's statement is that the LMS almost certainly had some fitted wagons with a 9'0 wheelbase, which as Mike's post illustrates, wouldnt be eligible for the XP rating

 

Usually (but not exclusively) this XP rating applied to various types of vans.

 

Certainly under BR, thousands of low, medium and high goods wagons and Conflats (plus other non-van types) were XP branded, and could and did run in passenger trains

[Boris]

I have an amendment to the general appendix dated 18th May 1950 headed XP branded vehicles (or words to that effect) - if you want to be really anal about it. In the BR (NE) sectional appendix dated 1955 (amendment) there is an interesting snippet allowing 9' wheelbase wagons to be allowed on passenger trains between certain points. There are however a long list of conditions that have to be met including tare weights, speed limits etc.

 

The most bizarre entry relates to tail traffic on dmus and a power single being allowed to haul 6 loaded vanfits from Whitby to Pickering - surely this must never have happened, it seems quite a weight for one power car to pull up that hill.

 

I've also always found the bit about using shortened instanters to buck-eye fitted coaches quite fascinating - for those of you who are unaware the long buffers on buck-eye stock and a shortened instanter gives a coupling that is permanently under strain. I wonder if, like a lot of other railway rules, some loon actually tried running with it and caused a snag, meaning an amended rule book.

[roythebus]

The instanter on short link does indeed mean the coupling is under strain; it is designed that way to avoid snatching when starting and buffers knocking when braking. No self-respecting railwayman would put an instanter on a long link on a buckeye hook except when shunting.

 

6 Vanfits=60 tons, 1 DMU power car may indeed struggle with that load as a DMU trailer car is about 30 tons!

[kevinlms]

You're absolutely right, the marking 'XP' meant a lot more than that the vehicle was vacuum fitted (although it is possible the meaning changed at some time I suppose?).

 

Yes, it did change over the years, which is why I made the point earlier about *in LMS days* the fitted wagons being marked as XP.

 

Page 49 & 50 in An Illustated History of LMS wagons Volume 1 shows the D1978 van built between 1937 and 1939 with 2,000 examples all painted bauxite and all 10ft WB. It lists 1,000 as being handbrake only, of which no. 511840 is shown at the foot of page 50.

Also illustrated are 2 fitted examples (from the remaining 1,000) and marked "XP". These two are labelled as "Egg Van" (511240) & Fruit Van (511246).

 

We have visited this subject before and I seem to recall that the LNER made earlier use of the marking 'XP' but with effect from 30 September 1938 the branding 'XP' meant that the vehicle was suitable for running in a passenger train conveying 'A' headlamps and -

 

1. Was fitted with oil axleboxes, automatic brakes OR brake through pipes (i.e it might not even have been fitted), screw couplings, and long buffers,

2. Had a minimum tare weight of 6 tons,

3. had a wheelbase of not less than 10ft (except that until June 1st 1939 LNER fish trucks with a wheelbase between 9ft and 9ft 11inches could be similarly used in Class 'A' trains).

 

The 'XP' marking was officially only supposed to be used on vehicles with a wheelbase between 10 and 15 ft and was also used on NPCCS vehicles falling into that category of wheelbase.

 

 

The photos I referred to above are both dated 11.5.1938, so it appears that there is a window in between the changes you mention above & below referring to 1950s which of course is post LMS. Certainly is is not true, the earlier comment that grey meant unfitted, bauxite meant fitted as some one else stated. Railways are an evolving industry, so hardly surprising that there is confusion about details and changing standards. So we ought to be careful when saying some one is wrong.

 

 

The meaning of 'XP' was slightly changed in post war years (alas I can't exactly date it but believe it was probably May 1950) when the wheelbase was altered to '10 feet or over' and the tare weight restriction was relaxed to include loaded container wagons provided the total load of wagon and container(s) exceeded 6 tons. More significantly the Class of passenger train was no longer specified effectively meaning that a vehicle henceforth had to be so branded in order to be attached to any passenger train.

 

Everyone is reminded that a Mixed Train was exactly that (i.e not a 'Passenger Train per se although it obviously could convey passengers) and therefore a freight vehicle which was not branded 'XP' could be conveyed in it. Conversely a Passenger Train could convey as tail traffic freight vehicles branded 'XP' and would remain classified as a Passenger Train (Perhaps I shouldn't say it but I will - I get fed up at times seeing trains described as a 'Mixed Train' when they very clearly are not; while it is not easy to distinguish them if they are not conveying freight wagons it is often easy to distinguish them if they are - they will have a freight brake van on the back if they are running as Mixed'.)

 

From what I've read, the use of 'Mixed Trains' was comparatively rare in Britain, mostly on minor railway perhaps? So the brake van would be a dead giveaway, since it would be required. Of course that train could be moving an empty coach in the train too and so not be fitted up.

 

Regards

 

Kevin Martin