RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) I think some of the 2021 panniers were fitted for auto. Don't know the numbers offhand. There is a list of sorts in RCTS part 5, page E52 although it is not definitive. I counted about 27 individuals at various times. Some engines received the gear and lost it again later. First ones fitted with it were Nos 2120 & 2140 in 1906. No 2080 (withdrawn 1952) definitely had auto gear from Feb 1930 and still retained it in Sep 1950 (including it's short spell as a proto 54XX) Keith Edited January 26, 2017 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted January 30, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2017 I think some of the 2021 panniers were fitted for auto. Don't know the numbers offhand. Well. I said it was only a potted history! John Lewis' 'Great Western Auto Trailers Part 1' has photos of 2102 with 2 trailers in 1920 livery, location not specified, on page 40, an outside framed pannier 1570 at Tavistock with a pair of corridor connected trailers dated between Sept 30 and March 32, page 58, same loco at Yealmpton, Sept 31, page 66,, an undentifiable saddle tank at Steam Mills in the Forest of Dean dated August 07, page115, and another outside framed saddle tank, also undentified but possibly the same loco and with no date but captioned 'The first auto train from Newnham, on page 126. There are also photos of outside framed saddle tanks hauling auto coaches on the Lambourne branch, but these would not need to be auto fitted as the Lambourne trains used hauled auto coaches because of a number of halts at which the retractable steps were used, but with locos powerful enough to handle the line's horsebox tail traffic. Another shot shows a 2-4-2 tank hauling an auto train through Twyford, but again it is unlikely to have been in 'auto mode'. The original 5400 was a rebuild of a 2021. There may well be other auto-fitted GW locos but I wot not of 'em... anyway, you're on safe ground with 2102 and 1570. Of course, there was plenty of auto work before the 48/14xx or 54/64xx were built, but the bulk of it seems to have been carried out by '517' 0-4-2Ts, the progenitor of the 48/14xx, or 'Metro' 2-4-0Ts. I do not know what might be involved in 'regressing' an Airfix/Hornby or Hattons 48/14xx to make a 517, or if 2721s, the 'other' rtr offering, were ever used for auto work, but will mention that quite a few photos of trains made up of auto trailers that I have seen of Abergwynfi station show them hauled by 57xx and 56xx locos which must have had to run around and haul them back as a normal train; from the frequency this turns up in photos it semss to have been an unusual but not particularly uncommon occurrence and presumably happened if an auto fitted loco was not available. One wonders how often the auto fitted loco ran around the trailers because the auto gear was giving problems... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 One wonders how often the auto fitted loco ran around the trailers because the auto gear was giving problems... Apparently that didn't seem to be a problem for experienced firemen. ISTR there were several mentions in Didcot engineman Harold Gasson's reminiscences ('Firing Days', 'Footplate Days', 'Nostalgic Days') of fun and games with auto trains being driven coach first without the auto-rods connected up (so being driven by the fireman alone, except for the brakes), maybe if they were in a rush after doing a bit of shunting. I think he also mentioned sometimes deliberately removing the link to the regulator in the cab, unbeknown to the driver, who then thought he was in control. (The fireman just had to keep an eye on the disconnected link and adjust the regulator to match what the driver thought he was doing!). Apparently Harold used to often forget to disconnect the whistle chain before uncoupling, with the resulting long toot of the whistle before the chain snapped! Don't forget, when the driver was driving in the coach he couldn't control the reverser anyway, and therefore had no control of the valve cut-off, which the fireman had to do (it was in his interest anyway, he'd raised the steam...). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 30, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2017 Apparently that didn't seem to be a problem for experienced firemen. ISTR there were several mentions in Didcot engineman Harold Gasson's reminiscences ('Firing Days', 'Footplate Days', 'Nostalgic Days') of fun and games with auto trains being driven coach first without the auto-rods connected up (so being driven by the fireman alone, except for the brakes), maybe if they were in a rush after doing a bit of shunting. I think he also mentioned sometimes deliberately removing the link to the regulator in the cab, unbeknown to the driver, who then thought he was in control. (The fireman just had to keep an eye on the disconnected link and adjust the regulator to match what the driver thought he was doing!). Apparently Harold used to often forget to disconnect the whistle chain before uncoupling, with the resulting long toot of the whistle before the chain snapped! Don't forget, when the driver was driving in the coach he couldn't control the reverser anyway, and therefore had no control of the valve cut-off, which the fireman had to do (it was in his interest anyway, he'd raised the steam...). In reality it was permissible to shunt with the autotrailer attached to the engine so no need to uncouple for that unless the shunt was somewhere the coach wasn't allowed for clearance reasons. Running without the regulator connected was not unusual according to what I've been told about some branches but I seriously doubt they'd get away with propelling using a non-auto engine! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 30, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2017 The original 5400 was a rebuild of a 2021. 2080 was temporarily fitted with 5' 2" wheels as a proto 54XX it later returned to being a proper 2021. 2062 was permanently converted into a 54XX and became the leader of the class as 5400, however in 1932 the 20th built of the production group of the "real" 54XXs was numbered 5400 and the first 5400 (ex 2062) was scrapped. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted January 30, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Like Stationmaster Mike, I've been told plenty of stories by the enginemen who did it that auto trains quite often ran with the gear disconnected, in which case the only control the driver had over the train was the brake setter in the leading trailer's cab. A setter is a simple lifting lever that opens the vacuum pipe to air, and does not give you any finesse over the braking, it's all or nothing and you can only assert some control by 'blipping' it. You blipped it until the fireman noticed and he did the rest! Such a method of running relies very heavily on the ability of the fireman and his innate understanding of what the driver is doing or about to do, so he is doing pretty much everything else as well as his own work; just as well auto trains were usually fairly lightly loaded with little 'collar' work. That said, a 4575 with 4 trailers, 2 leading and 2 trailing, running up the 1 in 80 to Heath Junction from Queen Steet with a packed evening rush hour train to Coryton (Cardiff), is working pretty hard with just one man on the footplate, as some speed was required on this very busy route to clear the road for the next up Rhymney. He's got to fire the engine, manage the water, observe the signals, look back to see that the train is following every now and then, operate the cut off, and the regulator if the auto gear is disconnected, and second guess what the driver 120 or 140 feet away wants him to do next. The word 'busy' came up a lot when old drivers were talking about auto trains, and the experience of working them in South Wales was very different to the bucolic idyll of the rural branch lines so beloved of modellers. Where it was possible, in South Wales the practice seems to have been for the loco to be leading in the up (uphill) direction, hence with both men on the footplate, presumably a recognition of the difficulties, and where 3 coach trains were involved the photo evidence shows a single trailer ahead of the loco and 2 trailing uphill, never the other way around. I have a 1960 Cardiff Valleys passenger WTT which shows some very quick turnarounds at termini, 2 minutes in the case of some Clarence Road trains; run in, get'em off, get the new ones on, shut the doors, let's go, with little time to instruct your fireman if needed at that point... For an example of busy, Abercynon duty Auto B 'St Fagan's Pullman'; prep loco, light engine to Pontypridd, work auto train coach leading Pontypridd-Clarence Road via Barry Railway and St Fagan's then main line at the best speed you could manage including stabbed rat starts from St Fagan's and Ely stations, work two return trips Clarence Road to Penarth, then Clarence Road to Pontypridd the same way you came for relief, for which you were probably grateful by that time, relief repeats the sequence during the afternoon including the two Penarth trips, light engine Abercynon, dispose of engine; 130 miles for the engine (6438 in every photo I've seen of it) and comparable to many main line long distance duties If the men habitually preferred to run propelling without the gear connected (and the driving inspectors and managers must have been fully aware of it despite the rules not being as rigorously enforced as they should have been), this is a fairly strident condemnation of the GW auto system and it's efficacy. Drivers have a responsible job and, in my experience, are culturally a group of men who quite rigorously obey rules put there for their safety and protection, but in the case of auto trains it may have been thought safer as well as just less inconvenient to run without the gear connected. An unfortunate recent incident with a very experienced driver overrunning and going through the closed level crossing gates at Lydney on the DFR driving an auto train from the trailer cab highlights this, and the importance of the fireman's role on such trains, and, given the drawbacks of the GW auto gear especially over 2 trailers, the men may well have felt more in control leaving it to the fireman, who should always be an experienced passed man on auto work, and just having the driver as a lookout in the front cab. This is a somewhat opinionated observation on my part, and anyone reading it should be wary of taking it as proven or indisputable fact... AFAIK no serious accident ever occurred to an auto train being 'driven' from the leading trailer cab with the auto gear not connected, but one wonders what the Board of Trade inquiry would have had to say about it!. The DFR came unstuck obeying the rules, which was just as well, but the relative inexperience of the fireman was highlighted in the accident report. Safe auto working requires the co-operation and understanding of experienced men, and one doubts if the ideal circumstances were always the reality in later times when staff shortage s were an issue, or even in GW days on all occasions! Edited January 30, 2017 by The Johnster 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswjr Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Interesting reading,I had a good mate who was a fireman on the western,We visited a local preserved railway who had a 14xx and an auto fitted, He just looked at it and turned to me and said, waste of time that auto gear it never bloody worked anyway,we firemen used to do all the driving unless an inspector was about. A great bloke he was,wish he was still with us ,He had some good railway tails, 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted January 30, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2017 Interesting reading,I had a good mate who was a fireman on the western,We visited a local preserved railway who had a 14xx and an auto fitted, He just looked at it and turned to me and said, waste of time that auto gear it never bloody worked anyway,we firemen used to do all the driving unless an inspector was about. A great bloke he was,wish he was still with us ,He had some good railway tails, I think that probably sums it up! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuum Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 As interesting as recent posts on this thread have been, it's time to get back to the model - and for me to eat some humble pie. I was one of those who was critical of the numberplate mounting arrangement on the model and I was so put off by it I cancelled my pre-order. Then I read the review in the February edition of Hornby Magazine and was impressed, particularly by the excellent photos accompanying it. So I gave in and ordered the reviewed version of the model. This was quickly delivered by Hattons and after I had removed the model from its Rolls-Royce packaging I was immediately struck by the wealth of fine detail on it, the excellent paintwork and the really fine lining out. It also runs like a dream. I still don't like the way the number plates are attached but (and here I will yield to the "as seen from normal viewing distance" brigade) I would have to admit that this is not immediately noticeable. As have been pointed out already there are some other annoyances such as the protruding cab handrails and lack of ash pan but it would be extremely churlish to reject the model solely on account of these minor issues. Make no mistake, this is a very fine model which deserves our support. So if you don't have one yet go out and buy at least one example - if nothing else it will hopefully tip the balance in favour of Hattons continuing with the King. In view of my earlier criticisms I don't think it necessary for me to deny any connection with DJM or Hattons Colin 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9402 Fredrick Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just pre-ordered H1416, since I get paid on the day it's being released I can easily afford it and the two auto trailers I want to order for her to pull, just need a bit of glue to use to hold the detail bits in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) I've often wondered just how much control the driver had with a remote regulator connected through a 100 feet or so of various rods, joints, linkages etc. The amount of play through all that must have been horrendous! If there are another two vehicles on the back you have to move all that lot twice over as well, hardly leading to much finesse of control. Keith Edited February 3, 2017 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I've often wondered just how much control the driver had with a remote regulator connected through a 100 feet or so of various rods, joints, linkages etc. The amount of play through all that must have been horrendous! If there are another two vehicles on the back you have to move all that lot twice over as well, hardly leading to much finesse of control. Keith The GWR auto train from Llangollen doesn't seem to lack any finesse. If there was any, it was not transmitted through to the coaches. Seeing as the GWR did not follow the LNER and LMS in the mid 1930's when both these companies all-but abandoned manual linkage in favour of the auto-vacuum system, the GWR must have considered its own linkage system was good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) The GWR auto train from Llangollen doesn't seem to lack any finesse. If there was any, it was not transmitted through to the coaches. It's probably because when operating coach-first it's actually the fireman who's working the regulator! Edited February 3, 2017 by Coppercap 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 It's probably because when operating coach-first it's actually the fireman who's working the regulator! Umm, not in any of the videos i have seen. Always shows the driver in the front of the coach using the coach's regulator which then moves the one in the cab via a system of rods beneath the coach floor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) It's probably because when operating coach-first it's actually the fireman who's working the regulator! The fireman adjusts the reverser (cut-off), the regulator and brake are controlled from the cab end of the coach. Edited February 3, 2017 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 The GWR auto train from Llangollen doesn't seem to lack any finesse. If there was any, it was not transmitted through to the coaches. Seeing as the GWR did not follow the LNER and LMS in the mid 1930's when both these companies all-but abandoned manual linkage in favour of the auto-vacuum system, the GWR must have considered its own linkage system was good enough. My take on this is that the GW, when it had set it's mind to thinking it's way was best irrespective or whether it actually was, was very reluctant to change it's mind. I cannot see any good reason for retaining what was obviously a very inefficient mechanical system unless it was highly maintained (as it is on modern preserved railways, which dare not operate in the same casual way many GW or BR (W) crews seem to have), but of course that does not mean that there wasn't one that I am not aware of. It'd be interesting to hear comment from anyone who knows about other railways' methods of working autos with steam or pneumatic systems, to see what issues they generated, if any. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Umm, not in any of the videos i have seen. Always shows the driver in the front of the coach using the coach's regulator which then moves the one in the cab via a system of rods beneath the coach floor. Had you not read previous posts on this very subject? 'Twas a joke! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 The fireman adjusts the reverser (cut-off), the regulator and brake are controlled from the cab end of the coach. See my post #1182 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Hilux5972 Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 Had you not read previous posts on this very subject? 'Twas a joke! Sorry, it didn't come across as a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71H Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Called Hatton's on Friday to see if they knew when my H1415 be available. Was told it was the end of March. Can't wait for it to arrive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) Ridiculous review in Railway Modeller who would have liked lower gearing more in keeping with bucolic branch lines. In the real world the 14XX did 60 mph and as much as 80 mph between Stonehouse and Gloucester on the Chalford Autos.. There were undoubtedly a number of 2021 (small panniers 4' drivers) and I believe some of the double frame panniers with Auto gear. There was at least one 2021 with a sort of coach body bodged on for working two pairs of trailers in the Plymouth Area. The mind boggles at then thought of some hapless short sighted passenger climbing aboard the engine by mistake. The 2021 is a much smaller loco than the 27XX with the evenly spaced 7'4" + 7'4" wheelbase (might be 7'3") same as a 64XX while the 27XX is 7'3" X 8'3" the same as a 57XX Edited February 10, 2017 by DavidCBroad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
90rob Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Ridiculous review in Railway Modeller who would have liked lower gearing more in keeping with bucolic branch lines. In the real world the 14XX did 60 mph and as much as 80 mph between Stonehouse and Gloucester on the Chalford Autos. In fairness to RM perhaps they are thinking of the small home based BLT - something like the lovely little 'Upwold' 6 by 1 BLT from Roy Link in the October 1978 issue! No room to get up any sort of speed. I'm sure operation of the superb 'Nene Wharf' in the current issue must benefit from the low gearing of the Hornby J15... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted February 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2017 In fairness to RM perhaps they are thinking of the small home based BLT - something like the lovely little 'Upwold' 6 by 1 BLT from Roy Link in the October 1978 issue! No room to get up any sort of speed. I'm sure operation of the superb 'Nene Wharf' in the current issue must benefit from the low gearing of the Hornby J15... Indeed. As long as the loco runs smoothly, and is capable of slow speed running and realistic shunting speeds, then everyone will be happy, but the Chalford auto speeds were very unusual on the GWR/WR network, when you consider most of the jobs that 14XXs did on branch lines with much slower permanent speed restrictions. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold D9020 Nimbus Posted February 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2017 You may disagree with the review but it is hardly ridiculous. However it woyld be better if RM (or ANY British magazine for that matter) could simply state the lowest steady speed and the maximum speed (reached on 12V DC) and let the reader decide. Where appropriate these could be compared with the prototype--although very few British steam locos *had* an official maximum speed. Generally,though, the faster the maximum speed, the faster the minimum speed will be too. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted February 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) It sort of doesn't matter what the maximum scale speed is so long as a) it reasonably represents what the real loco was capable of, in this case up to 80mph, even if it very rarely achieved this in it's normal working life, and b), much more important, that it is smoothly and easily controllable at any speed between that and stopped. I will forgive insanely high top speeds if I can start and stop the loco smoothly and run it slowly, by which I do not necessarily mean a crawl but the ability to run like that is a good indication that one will be able to control the loco at any higher speed. Very few British steam locos had an official maximum speed, but on the GW and BR (W), the general rule was that locos with driving wheels of less than 5' diameter were not booked to be timed to run trains at more than 50mph, those with driving wheels less than 5'6" diameter, which include the 48/58/14xx, at 60mph, and those with less than 6', 60mph. The GW considered that all of it's locomotives should, if needed, be able to pull all of it's trains, a principle continued into WR days which led to the appearance of 42xx or 56xx on bank holiday relief trains when everything that could turn a wheel was pressed into express passenger service. Yes, before anyone points it out, I know that a 9F on the ECML achieved 90mph with 5' driving wheels. A 28xx on the WR in 1963 purloined from a freight at Didcot to assist a failed Warship on the down Bristolian ran pretty fast as well, especially when the Warship managed to restart itself and join in the fun; no harm was done and the services of the fitters called out to attend the train on arrival at Temple Meads with oxy cutters to free the seized motion of the 28xx were not required. These are not instances of normal running. I agree that by and large the faster the maximum speed of a model the faster it's minimum speed will be, but other factors such as the torque of the motor and the free running or otherwise of the drive train and pickup mechanism will play a role as well. Most modern rtr productions are very good in this respect. Edited February 11, 2017 by The Johnster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now