GWR short and mixed trains (was: "4-wheeler and Toad")

[buffalo]

...there is a 1905 photo of a train in West Bay with what appears to be two wagons between the saddle tank loco and the first passenger carriage...

This one? My first reaction was that it had probably arrived as a mixed train, and the loco had run around to collect and shunt the two opens. That does then raise the question as to where the brake van is. There's no reason to assume the train is about to leave in its current condition, although there are said to be examples where the rules were not strictly followed.

 

Again the dating of the photo is questionable. Why "..in/ or before September 1905..." when the turnout for the additional siding shown on the 1902 OS map is not there. At least part of it should be visible in the foreground of the photo.

 

btw the rail looks quite interesting, flat-bottomed in about 30', 10 sleeper, lengths.

...I am fairly certain the first train of the day from Maiden Newton to Bridport was a mixed one and if there were wagons to be shunted into the (single ended) sidings at Toller and Powerstock they would need to be between the engine and carriages as I cannot image the shunting being done with passenger coaches still attached.

There are many instances where wagons would be dropped off and collected on the return journey because it was more convenient to shunt the sidings in this direction. This would be the case at both of these stations.

 

Nick

[MarkAustin]

Nick,

 

You assume that they are freight stock: they may well be fish wagons or open carriage trucks, which were coaching stock.

 

Just a thought: not an expert on GWR wagons, nor the brown vehicles, but worth bearing in mind, especially given the seaside location.

It's possible. The angle is a bit acute to be sure. However, even for brown vehicles the norm was to put them at the end. Having said that, sometimes odd things happened at the extremities of the system where the beady eye of Swindon and Paddington was not so obtrusive.

 

Mark

[MikeOxon]

However, even for brown vehicles the norm was to put them at the end. Having said that, sometimes odd things happened at the extremities of the system where the beady eye of Swindon and Paddington was not so obtrusive.

 

Mark

Not only at the extremes, it would appear - see http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1623.htm

 

Perhaps milk vans were treated differently?

 

Mike

[MarkAustin]

Not only at the extremes, it would appear - see http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrkd1623.htm

 

Perhaps milk vans were treated differently?

 

Mike

To amplify my previous reply, the norm was for Brown vehicles to be attached at the end, and I believe this was almost universal when they were attached at the start of the journey to go all the way to the end. Milk vans (and sometimes other brown vehicles) were often attached and detached mid-journey, and were attached to the train in the most convenient position for shunting. Remember you couldn't shunt a passenger train, so, unless there was a station pilot, the train engine would have to do it.

[MikeOxon]

Milk vans (and sometimes other brown vehicles) were often attached and detached mid-journey, and were attached to the train in the most convenient position for shunting.

I notice that the website I quoted previously see http://www.warwicksh...r/gwrkd1623.htm

includes the statement "Milk vans had the telegraphic name ‘Siphon’ and between 1905 and 1907 steam pipes were added to allow these vans to be marshalled anywhere in the train."  Presumably, this became a key factor once steam heating had been introduced.

 

Mike

[The Stationmaster]

I notice that the website I quoted previously see http://www.warwicksh...r/gwrkd1623.htm

includes the statement "Milk vans had the telegraphic name ‘Siphon’ and between 1905 and 1907 steam pipes were added to allow these vans to be marshalled anywhere in the train."  Presumably, this became a key factor once steam heating had been introduced.

 

Mike

But only during the steam heat season of course.  Basically tail traffic could be attached front or rear depending on wagon type and the availability of a steam heat pipe during the heating season.

[Pacific231G]

I've got a copy of the 1920 Appendix to the GWR Rule Book which does have a section on mixed trains.

This includes the following (I've paraphrased)

Vehicles conveying passengers must be in front of all goods wagons and the vacuum brake must be capable of being applied to all passenger vehicles.

There must be a hand brake vehicle in the rear of all with a guard in it but there is no obligation to apply the continuous brake from the Guard's Van or compartment.

 

Although it will be generally convenient for the passenger brake to be formed next to the coaches it may if necessary be placed in the rear of the wagons in which case the Guard must ride in it. (but if it is a Brake-Carriage no passengers may be allowed to ride in it if it is behind the wagons) 

 

No goods wagon may be towed by rope or tow chain whilst a passenger vehicle or vehicles are attached to the engine.

At intermediate stations if the goods work entails more than one shunt, the passenger carriages must if practicable be placed in a siding and secured before the shunting is commenced.

Max speed 25 MPH and stops at stations at least every ten miles unless stations further apart than that.

 

When trains are run for the conveyance of horses, cattle or other stock and vehicles are added for passengers these must be placed in front of all goods wagons and the train run subject to the conditions applying to Mixed Trains. Drovers, grooms or others in charge of stock are not however to be considered as passengers and such trains must only run on sections of the line on which the Board of Trade have sanctioned mixed trains.

 

Only trains authorised as mixed in the Service Timetables may be run as mixed trains and Station Masters etc. are held responsible for seeing that no other passenger train is run as a mixed train. However,  one unbraked wagon may be placed at the rear of a passenger train without it becoming a mixed train. It must not carry passengers but may carry someone in charge of stock (so presumably most often a horse box or cattle van too urgent to wait for the daily goods train) 

 

There's also a lot of stuff about the number of handbrakes required when mixed trains carried more than ten wagons but presumably these could be brakeman's positions as well as actual guards vans.

 

Clearly back then fitted goods wagons were still in the future but it's interesting that single move shunts which presumably took the train into goods sidings could be carried out with passengers aboard. I assume the train crews would make up the train to facilitate that but it would only allow wagons to be picked up or dropped not both unless the passengers were parked.  

 

 

While looking for this section I also came upon this rule which shows just how lovable the GWR was.

 

COACHES FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF HOP_PICKERS

Only third class coaches of the oldest type must be used for the conveyance of hop-pickers. In no circumstances are lavatory carriages or carriages with first class compartments to be provided.

 

Essential to ensure that the lower orders don't get  above themselves, especially after fighting in the Great War. They could consider themselves lucky not to be carried in goods wagons.

[buffalo]

...When trains are run for the conveyance of horses, cattle or other stock and vehicles are added for passengers these must be placed in front of all goods wagons and the train run subject to the conditions applying to Mixed Trains. Drovers, grooms or others in charge of stock are not however to be considered as passengers and such trains must only run on sections of the line on which the Board of Trade have sanctioned mixed trains...

This only really makes sense in the context of stock carried in unfitted vehicles, primarily cattle wagons. The "Drovers, grooms or others.." might not be considered as passengers but would still have been carried in a passenger vehicle marshalled behind the engine as for any mixed train.

 

 

...(so presumably most often a horse box or cattle van too urgent to wait for the daily goods train)...

Assumptions can be dangerous. Certainly not a horsebox as these were 'brown' vehicles, Non-Passenger Carrying Coaching Stock (NPCCS), and were intended to run in passenger trains. Similarly, the GWR had a large number of fitted cattle wagons, the earliest dating to 1888 and most built from about 1905 onwards. Like the horseboxes, these would have been permitted to run in passenger trains.

 

...Clearly back then fitted goods wagons were still in the future...

Again, no. The GWR began building fitted goods vehicles in the late 1880s, and built large numbers from about 1904 onwards. They introduced express perishable and fitted goods services in 1905.

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

This only really makes sense in the context of stock carried in unfitted vehicles, primarily cattle wagons. The "Drovers, grooms or others.." might not be considered as passengers but would still have been carried in a passenger vehicle marshalled behind the engine as for any mixed train.

 

Nick

Actually it also fits into a wider context in that drovers & grooms etc were not considered as passengers when it came to things like braked vehicles or the position of a vehicle in a train (not just a mixed train), e.g. you could put a fitted horsebox in which a groom was travelling behind the rearmost Guard's Van .  

 

However it would work exactly as you say in a Mixed Train unless there happened to be an unfitted vehicle with suitable accommodation for drovers etc in which case they could travel in it behind the passenger vehicles and along with cattle etc wagons.

 

And of course in the context of Mixed Trains the availability or otherwise of fitted wagons was irrelevant because by definition a Mixed Train could convey unfitted wagons - and they were still doing so a very long way into the second half of the 20th century.  And yes - the requirement for extra braking in relation to the number of wagons did mean extra brakevans.

[Pacific231G]

Actually it also fits into a wider context in that drovers & grooms etc were not considered as passengers when it came to things like braked vehicles or the position of a vehicle in a train (not just a mixed train), e.g. you could put a fitted horsebox in which a groom was travelling behind the rearmost Guard's Van .  

 

However it would work exactly as you say in a Mixed Train unless there happened to be an unfitted vehicle with suitable accommodation for drovers etc in which case they could travel in it behind the passenger vehicles and along with cattle etc wagons.

 

And of course in the context of Mixed Trains the availability or otherwise of fitted wagons was irrelevant because by definition a Mixed Train could convey unfitted wagons - and they were still doing so a very long way into the second half of the 20th century.  And yes - the requirement for extra braking in relation to the number of wagons did mean extra brakevans.

I did wonder whether in 1920 there were still unfitted stock or horse wagons that the grooms or drovers rode in. Did the braking requirement always require an actual brake van or were positions for brakemen (guards?) available on some stock. That was very widely the case in Europe until fitted or at least piped stock became almost universal which happened a lot earlier than in Britain even on narrow gauge lines. 

Would many mixed trains have included more than ten goods wagons? I tend to associate them with the more remote branch lines but maybe that's a false impression. 

The comment about fitted wagons being mostly in the future came from the wording of the 1920 GWR rules that seemed to assume that the goods wagons in a mixed train would be loose coupled.  Ditto the bit about one unfitted wagon being a legitimate tail load for a non mixed passenger train.

[The Stationmaster]

I did wonder whether in 1920 there were still unfitted stock or horse wagons that the grooms or drovers rode in. Did the braking requirement always require an actual brake van or were positions for brakemen (guards?) available on some stock. That was very widely the case in Europe until fitted or at least piped stock became almost universal which happened a lot earlier than in Britain even on narrow gauge lines. 

Would many mixed trains have included more than ten goods wagons? I tend to associate them with the more remote branch lines but maybe that's a false impression. 

The comment about fitted wagons being mostly in the future came from the wording of the 1920 GWR rules that seemed to assume that the goods wagons in a mixed train would be loose coupled.  Ditto the bit about one unfitted wagon being a legitimate tail load for a non mixed passenger train.

I think you might have been reading too much into it Eddie.  

 

Certain persons - such as drovers etc were always regarded as not counting as passengers for all sorts of reasons apart from the key bit of being in a vehicle marshalled behind the rear  Guard's Van.   But the equally the Regulations almost certainly dated from a long way back and were effectively there also to get round the provisions of the 1889 Act.

 

It is a reasonable assumption that freight vehicles in a Mixed Train would be loose coupled - after all that was the whole point of the Mixed Train Regulations, they allowed unfitted vehicles to be attached to what in other circumstances would have been a passenger train, hence the various controls and stipulations.  And even if the freight vehicles had been fitted many a railwayman with his eye on the clock certainly wouldn't have been inclined to waste time bagging up vacuum brakes and of course until well into the BR era the vast majority of coal carrying wagons were not fitted with continuous brakes and they were as likely as any other vehicle to be present in a mixed train and more probably more likely than most other types of wagon.

 

It is a very long time since I travelled in a Mixed Train on BR (1969 I think it was) but even at that relatively late date in the history of such trains the freight portion was totally loose coupled, includinga  45 ton oil tank car which couldn't be bagged up in any case because it was behind an unbraked Min serving as a barrier.

[buffalo]

Actually it also fits into a wider context in that drovers & grooms etc were not considered as passengers when it came to things like braked vehicles or the position of a vehicle in a train (not just a mixed train), e.g. you could put a fitted horsebox in which a groom was travelling behind the rearmost Guard's Van .  

Mike, I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that NPCCS like PACOs and BEETLEs could be put behind the last TOAD on an unfitted goods or mixed train? Does the same apply to any fitted wagon? They would be equipped with lamp irons so could carry side and tail lamps, but was there any other reason why this was allowed? Would they need to be attached to the brake van using their own screw couplings, or the brake van's three-link/instanter?

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

Mike, I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that NPCCS like PACOs and BEETLEs could be put behind the last TOAD on an unfitted goods or mixed train? Does the same apply to any fitted wagon? They would be equipped with lamp irons so could carry side and tail lamps, but was there any other reason why this was allowed? Would they need to be attached to the brake van using their own screw couplings, or the brake van's three-link/instanter?

 

Nick

Sorry if I wasn't clear Nick - they could be marshalled behind the rear van on a passenger train without restriction on account of their conveying drovers etc.  This was normally very restricted with vehicles conveying passengers; 'not passengers' didn't count as 'passengers' under the Brake Regulations and that then goes back to the various restrictions about the number of passenger carrying vehicles behind the rear Guard's van and so on.

 

Sorry if I mixed it in with Mixed Trains but as that was where we started that was where I joined in so to speak - perhaps the best way to avoid the confusion is to completely separate the matter of vehicles conveying drovers etc from the MIxed Train Regulations and put it into its normal context? (and not mention troop trains as they also had exemption from various parts of the Brake Regulations when it came to positioning vehicles in the formation or behind the rearmost Guard's Van).

[Pacific231G]

I think you might have been reading too much into it Eddie.  

 

Certain persons - such as drovers etc were always regarded as not counting as passengers for all sorts of reasons apart from the key bit of being in a vehicle marshalled behind the rear  Guard's Van.   But the equally the Regulations almost certainly dated from a long way back and were effectively there also to get round the provisions of the 1889 Act.

 

It is a reasonable assumption that freight vehicles in a Mixed Train would be loose coupled - after all that was the whole point of the Mixed Train Regulations, they allowed unfitted vehicles to be attached to what in other circumstances would have been a passenger train, hence the various controls and stipulations.  And even if the freight vehicles had been fitted many a railwayman with his eye on the clock certainly wouldn't have been inclined to waste time bagging up vacuum brakes and of course until well into the BR era the vast majority of coal carrying wagons were not fitted with continuous brakes and they were as likely as any other vehicle to be present in a mixed train and more probably more likely than most other types of wagon.

 

It is a very long time since I travelled in a Mixed Train on BR (1969 I think it was) but even at that relatively late date in the history of such trains the freight portion was totally loose coupled, includinga  45 ton oil tank car which couldn't be bagged up in any case because it was behind an unbraked Min serving as a barrier.

Who's Eddie?  I'm David.

Apart from a military train in Germany in the mid 1960s my only direct experience of a mixed train was on a still steam hauled local line in Austria in I think 1975. The three four wheel coaches were at the rear of the train so that at most intermediate stations the shunt was completed in just a couple of moves while the passenger coaches and most of the wagons remained in the platform.   I don't remember much if any time being spent on brake tests and the overall timing though slower than a normal stopping train wasn't that much slower. 

 

It's interesting that similar rules applied in Europe as in Britain. I've got a copy of the 1949 French rules for the composition of trains by when almost all wagons in normal service were fitted with continuous brakes or piped. I won't go into details here but the distinction is mainly between the goods and passenger "regime" of the Westinghouse brakes with GV (Grand Vitesse roughly equivalent to XP) wagons that could be  added to passenger trains, even expresses, equipped for both.

 

Mixed trains were basically counted as goods trains with the same maximum speed  of 75kph (47MPH) or less and could include any goods wagons. The last mixed train ran in France in 1986 but it wasn't unknown for through carriages from a long distance express to be in a mixed train for part of their journey usually along a branch line to some resort. Did that ever happen in Britain with the likes of the ACE or the Cornish Riviera Express? 

[The Stationmaster]

Who's Eddie?  I'm David.

Apart from a military train in Germany in the mid 1960s my only direct experience of a mixed train was on a still steam hauled local line in Austria in I think 1975. The three four wheel coaches were at the rear of the train so that at most intermediate stations the shunt was completed in just a couple of moves while the passenger coaches and most of the wagons remained in the platform.   I don't remember much if any time being spent on brake tests and the overall timing though slower than a normal stopping train wasn't that much slower. 

 

It's interesting that similar rules applied in Europe as in Britain. I've got a copy of the 1949 French rules for the composition of trains by when almost all wagons in normal service were fitted with continuous brakes or piped. I won't go into details here but the distinction is mainly between the goods and passenger "regime" of the Westinghouse brakes with GV (Grand Vitesse roughly equivalent to XP) wagons that could be  added to passenger trains, even expresses, equipped for both.

 

Mixed trains were basically counted as goods trains with the same maximum speed  of 75kph (47MPH) or less and could include any goods wagons. The last mixed train ran in France in 1986 but it wasn't unknown for through carriages from a long distance express to be in a mixed train for part of their journey usually along a branch line to some resort. Did that ever happen in Britain with the likes of the ACE or the Cornish Riviera Express? 

Sorry David - duly corrected (I was confusing you with someone else of course).

 

I can't offhand think of any British situation where long distance passenger trains, or a portion thereof, finished its journey (or ran for any part of it) as a mixed train although it is possible that the Mixed Trains on the West Highland Extension might have conveyed a passenger portion which originated in Glasgow.  On the other hand all passenger trains could convey tail traffic although the types and speeds of vehicles allowed to be attached to individual trains varied over the years with greatly increasing restrictions on speeds, in particular, from the mid/late 1960s onwards.

 

It is not uncommon for folk to see pictures of passenger trains with (continuously braked) freight vehicles attached at the rear and conclude they are Mixed trains when in fact they are not - they are Passenger Trains conveying tail traffic.  The definition of a Mixed Train is quite clear in the original Regulations as follows -

"Mixed" trains for the conveyance of goods and passengers in which the goods wagons are not required to have continuous brakes, may be run subject to the following conditions, ...'

[buffalo]

Sorry if I wasn't clear Nick...

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. That's how I thought it was, but I was reading your response in the context of a mixed train!

 

Nick

[buffalo]

I don't think we've answered David's earlier question:

...Did the braking requirement always require an actual brake van or were positions for brakemen (guards?) available on some stock. That was very widely the case in Europe...

As far as I can tell, on the GWR this always meant brake vans. Up to the 1860s on the Broad Gauge, there were four-wheel open wagons that were equipped with brakes and a brake standard. Whilst they may have looked a little like the continental practice, they were classified as brake vans and were not intended to carry any goods. They were loaded with stone blocks to provide additional weight. Goods trains usually had both a guard and a brakesman. Where heavy loads and steep gradients were involved, an additional 'Bank Guard was often carried, and when needed they would all paricipate in pinning down wagon brakes. At this time, some wagons would have side lever brakes on one side only and some would have a brake lever on one end whilst others had no brakes at all, so this would have been a rather dangerous business.

 

Nick

 

source: W. Cornock, Goods Train Working in Broad Gauge days, in The Railway and Travel Monthly, Jan 1912. Reprinted in BGS Broadsheet No 49

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think we've answered David's earlier question:

As far as I can tell, on the GWR this always meant brake vans. Up to the 1860s on the Broad Gauge, there were four-wheel open wagons that were equipped with brakes and a brake standard. Whilst they may have looked a little like the continental practice, they were classified as brake vans and were not intended to carry any goods. They were loaded with stone blocks to provide additional weight. Goods trains usually had both a guard and a brakesman. Where heavy loads and steep gradients were involved, an additional 'Bank Guard was often carried, and when needed they would all paricipate in pinning down wagon brakes. At this time, some wagons would have side lever brakes on one side only and some would have a brake lever on one end whilst others had no brakes at all, so this would have been a rather dangerous business.

 

Nick

 

source: W. Cornock, Goods Train Working in Broad Gauge days, in The Railway and Travel Monthly, Jan 1912. Reprinted in BGS Broadsheet No 49

It definitely meant brakevans as that was the only way to comply with the tonnage requirement specified in the Regulations.  To quote them might be confusing as undoubtedly different Companies applied them in different ways but the Regulations imposed a required weight of brakevan(s) in relation to the number of unbraked wagons included in the train.

 

Incidentally in the area I was in during 1973 we had Bank Guards on our establishment but they were static posts and didn't travel with the trains, -simply being (in our case) in a location where brakes were unpinned.