Horses catching trains? How were they loaded?

[scotcent]

My  wife  remembers  collecting  a  horse  off  a  train  at  the  local  station,  many,  many  years  ago.  Unfortunately  she  doesn't  remember  how  it  was  worked,  and  this  is  something  which  has  had  me  thinking  for  some  time.  Was  the  horse  box  shunted  where  necessary  by  the  train  engine  to  a  suitable  location  for  unloading,  and  how  did  that  affect  the  schedule;  or  was  it  unloaded  onto  the  passenger  platform,  and  in  that  case  did  the  box  just  get  taken  on  to  the  end  of  the  line;  or  was  each  trip  arranged  on  an  individual  basis;  remembering  that  pre  1900  there  were  a  lot  of  horses  being  moved  by  rail.

 

Allan  F

[Steve-e]

Try this thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/66421-livestock-photos-from-the-nrm/

 

I really like these though

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_184

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ourcollection/photo?group=Liverpool%20Street&objid=1995-7233_LIVST_PM_183A

 

Steve

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, livestock wagons were always marshalled at the front of goods trains to minimise the movement caused by loose couplings. Guards who did not cling on to a handrail at the right moment could often be thrown off their feet in the brake van. Getting the consist right on a freight train is what makes operation of them such fun on a model railway.

 

I don't think that there would be any objection to an NPCS horse box being marshalled at the rear of a passenger train.

 

I almost mentioned that BTF film of the farm being moved. School railway society (any other 916 Club members on RMWeb?) showed it once. A very different era when small tenanted farms (often belonging to local authorities) were commonplace. Pigs do not like draughts and so cattle wagons would not be ideal for them unless filled with a lot of straw.

 

Edit: I'm not a horse person but I don't think most horses mind seeing the passing scenery. Draughts would probably be the real reason for the tarps.

[runs as required]

... this  is  something  which  has  had  me  thinking  for  some  time.  Was  the  horse  box  shunted  where  necessary  by  the  train  engine  to  a  suitable  location  for  unloading,  and  how  did  that  affect  the  schedule;  or  was  it  unloaded  onto  the  passenger  platform,  and  in  that  case  did  the  box  just  get  taken  on  to  the  end  of  the  line;  or  was  each  trip  arranged  on  an  individual  basis....

I reckon this has been opened up reasonably well in earlier posts - especially by Hatfield 34C - suggesting that it might have been something that the Stationmaster had to weigh up and decide about (especially in the days before telephoning to control).

As to where the horse box was marshalled in a train, if it was continuously braked like a passenger, then it didn't matter.

dh

[The Stationmaster]

Could it be a simple railway operation of easy attachment and detachment at the departure and destination stations?

Basically 'yes'.  The relevant Instructions required that a 4 wheeled vehicle with a wheelbase of less than 15 ft (and more than 10ft) should be marshalled at the rear of the bogie vehicles in a passenger train but if necessary for operational reasons it could go between them and the engine.  NPCCS vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 15 ft could be marshalled either behind or ahead of, but not between, bogie vehicles.  Thus it is most likely that horseboxes tended to be marshalled front as much for 'operational reasons' as for any others.

 

The difference in buffing shock between the front end and rear of a passenger train would be minimal in any event.

I read somewhere that one of the things worked into the Schlieffen plan was how long it would take to get the British Army into position in France. The Germans worked this out from how long it would take them to make the arrangements, and then factored in the relative size of the two armies transport planning departments. Sadly for the Germans the British Army did not work the same way as the Germans, and instead of working it all out themselves they just sent a runner down to Waterloo to ask for 300,000 odd tickets to France please (Singles only), and left the railway to sort it out overnight. The German Army then got a nasty shock when the BEF turned up a week early, which put them off balance. So when they heard of a rumour circulating in London that large numbers of Russian troops (with snow on their boots) had been seen on trains to the channel ports. Instead of dismissing it as too far fetched, having already been caught by the unexpected once, they paused in their advance just in case. Which gave the allied armies time to organise a defence in front of them.

 

The BEF was passed to and through Southampton in accordance with a pre-planned timetabled movement of special trains - something which had been put together during the preceding three years as part of the pre-planning of the deployment of the BEF.  The only problem was that on Day 5 of the BEF deployment programme some clashes occurred between its requirements and those needed for special trains in connection with general mobilisation.  However the transport of the BEF to Southampton was completed within the overall planned time of 8 days and the subsequent immediate reinforcements were also similarly dealt with - on one day during the latter part of the operation Southampton Docks dealt with 75 special trains, clearing all of them punctually.

 

The big problem with Schlieffen - although much better than what had transpired during the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 - was the failure of both plan and local commanders at receiving stations to return empties quickly enough for later trains

[FourSUB]

The title page of Robert Hendry's British Railways Goods Wagons in Colour has a photo of a steam hauled class 6 goods passing Banbury on 30th October 1965. The first wagon is a freshly shopped BR Cattle wagon conveying horses, one is poking its nose out the side. Suggestion is they were off to the knackers yard!

 

There is mention of a gaggle of geese arriving at Kimbolton in the 19th century and as an example a 1900 photo of geese at Cockfield in Suffolk that have just been unloaded for fattening on the local green before being reloaded for London. Doesn't show or say what wagons they were conveyed in(The Arrival of the Midland Railway at Kimbolton, Cambridgeshire in 1866 by John Slack). One for a sound chip!

[Mikkel]

In "Railways of Wales" (National Museum of Wales, 1986) there is a photo of horses being loaded into cattle wagons from the platform after the local horse fair in 1905. I imagine that things were much the same as long as horse fairs continued as there were relatively few horse boxes compared with the number of cattle wagons. But they were not pedigree beasts owned by rich landowners.

 

Jonathan

 

There is also this photo of the horsefair at Brent station. I have always assumed that the train of cattle vans is for the horses (I think there's a captioned version of this photo somewhere).

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmightycat/5601137365/in/photolist-9wXhZT-9wKwP3-eay6ms-ejHCx1

 

As Jonathan says, only lowly beasts would have gone in cattle wagons - with the occasional scandalous exception of course

 

[Steve-e]

I have a couple of photos in my collection of a what I believe to be a horse box directly behind the loco at York, hauled by the aptly named Dick Turpin taken c.1933. Perhaps someone can confirm also what kind of coaches behind?

All a bit before my time..I wasn't even a twinkle in my fathers eye, infact my father wasn't a twikle either....

 

 

LNER A3 Class 2579 'Dick Turpin' at York c.1933

 

LNER A3 Class 2579 'Dick Turpin' at York c.1933

It must have been a warm day with all the windows well down.

 

Steve

[Colin_McLeod]

How they do it at Wrexham:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13437279

[jcm@gwr]

Just watched that Wrexham link,

what is most amazing (to me anyway)

is the quality of the photos from the CCTV,

I didn't realise they had it back in 1902!

 

Jeff

[buffalo]

A couple of points of interest from the GWR 1936 General Appendix. Firstly, the 1927 Animals (Transit and General) Order required vehicles used for transport of animals to be fitted with a roof, so the WWI 'third class' transport of mules and donkeys in modified open wagons was no longer permitted. Secondly, although there is no mention of sheeting cattle wagons when horses are transported, this was the practice when shorn sheep were conveyed between 1st November and 30th April. This applied when the sheep had been shorn within sixty days of travel.

 

Nick

[jwealleans]

livestock wagons were always marshalled at the front of goods trains

Is that actually the case? I've seen it suggested (by ex-railwaymen, whom I wouldn't presume to contradict) that the instruction actually states that such vehicles must be placed in the position in the train which will incur the least shunting. That may be directly behind the locomotive, but not in all cases, surely.

[The Stationmaster]

Is that actually the case? I've seen it suggested (by ex-railwaymen, whom I wouldn't presume to contradict) that the instruction actually states that such vehicles must be placed in the position in the train which will incur the least shunting. That may be directly behind the locomotive, but not in all cases, surely.

I can't find any written Instruction but it might well have existed in a Circular so could be lost unless you know precisely where to look.  My own view is that cattle trucks were probably marshalled where most convenient, especially if they needed to be shunted out of a train for animals to be watered etc.  Equally it was permissible for accompanying drovers to travel in the brakevan ion freight trains so sometimes there might be logic in marshalling the wagons next to the van.

[Horsetan]

...... I don't think most horses mind seeing the passing scenery. ....

 

That really depends on the horse. The Thoroughbred I've got at the moment refuses to travel in a standard 7.5t horse lorry (closed sides with side ventilation up top), but is quite happy to travel in a car-towed trailer (window at front, open rear).

 

Other horses will travel in absolutely anything, whilst some refuse to load in anything.

[The Stationmaster]

That really depends on the horse. The Thoroughbred I've got at the moment refuses to travel in a standard 7.5t horse lorry (closed sides with side ventilation up top), but is quite happy to travel in a car-towed trailer (window at front, open rear).

 

Other horses will travel in absolutely anything, whilst some refuse to load in anything.

Having 'helped' many years ago to try to load a thoroughbred Arab stallion into a trailer I think I can see the problem - I was about an hour late for work!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Was  the  horse  box  shunted  where  necessary  by  the  train  engine  to  a  suitable  location  for  unloading,  and  how  did  that  affect  the  schedule;  or  was  it  unloaded  onto  the  passenger  platform,  and  in  that  case  did  the  box  just  get  taken  on  to  the  end  of  the  line;  or  was  each  trip  arranged  on  an  individual  basis;  remembering  that  pre  1900  there  were  a  lot  of  horses  being  moved  by  rail...

 The clear implication of what I have read is that each horse movement, with accompanying 1st class passenger on the train, was individually arranged. What was required in the way of prior arrangement was dependent on the class of station where the journey was to begin. At major locations with boxes kept available the service could literally be 'ride up', and the horse box would be attached to the first available train calling at the required destination. It still probably took an hour or somewhat over at best to get entrained, but this was a less hurried age. At other locations, notice was required anything up to 24 hours in advance, to enable a box to be called up and worked to the station. What was also apparent though not explicitly stated is that the box must typically have been detached from the train for offloading at destination. This because the station staff where the off loading took place were required to attach the emptied box to the next convenient working to return it to point of origin.

 

What played a large part in ending the viability of such horse movement by rail was the reducing number of trains that could offer the necessary flexible service. The distance to be covered was typically relatively small, and there might only be an early morning and late afternoon service between Little Nowhere on the Wold and Inconsequential Parva. If one service wasn't convenient then it was a long delay for the other...

[Horsetan]

Having 'helped' many years ago to try to load a thoroughbred Arab stallion into a trailer I think I can see the problem - I was about an hour late for work!

 

I can top that - Jelly the Thoroughbred spent an entire day refusing to load into a lorry. The furthest she got was two-thirds up the ramp before deciding it wasn't for her.

 

In the end we had to borrow a trailer, which she walked into without any problem.

 

In recent weeks, we have enlisted a trainer's help to overcome the lorry phobia. Jelly now walks into the lorry, but won't stay in there long enough for the lorry to be driven!

[Arthur]

 

We borrowed a horsebox once. Whilst loading for the return journey the horse put it's hoof through the, partly rotten as it turned out, loading ramp. He snatched back and fled, fortunately into an enclosed field. Somewhat shaken by the experience it was seven hours later when we managed to get him into another box....

 

As Ivan knows, you cannot make a horse go into a box, they'll go in when they're ready. Go to any equine event and you'll usually see someone struggling to load their horse to return home.

 

Having said that, we sometimes marvel that, having travelled once, they're prepared to repeat the experience. Even with careful driving horseboxes rattle, pitch and sway so, for an animal nervous by nature, it's remarkable that they mostly tolerate it.

[talisman56]

 

 

What played a large part in ending the viability of such horse movement by rail was the reducing number of trains that could offer the necessary flexible service. The distance to be covered was typically relatively small, and there might only be an early morning and late afternoon service between Little Nowhere on the Wold and Inconsequential Parva. If one service wasn't convenient then it was a long delay for the other...

 

Reading between the lines, the introduction of DMUs was the final nail in the coffin for the 'horse by rail' traffic, unless the horse box was permitted as 'tail traffic'...

[Horsetan]

.... horseboxes rattle, pitch and sway so, for an animal nervous by nature, it's remarkable that they mostly tolerate it.

 

Arguably it's the car-hauled trailers that are most subject to this, being (very) short wheelbase.

 

Mind you, a bulging haynet will give the horse something to do during the journey, and take the mind off the stress of travelling.

[D9020 Nimbus]

There's an account of loading a horse onto a train in Adrian Vaughan's Signalman's Morning, ISTR. Late 50s/early 60s, and concentrates on the loading rather than where the horse box was on the train.

[The Stationmaster]

 The clear implication of what I have read is that each horse movement, with accompanying 1st class passenger on the train, was individually arranged. What was required in the way of prior arrangement was dependent on the class of station where the journey was to begin. At major locations with boxes kept available the service could literally be 'ride up', and the horse box would be attached to the first available train calling at the required destination. It still probably took an hour or somewhat over at best to get entrained, but this was a less hurried age. At other locations, notice was required anything up to 24 hours in advance, to enable a box to be called up and worked to the station. What was also apparent though not explicitly stated is that the box must typically have been detached from the train for offloading at destination. This because the station staff where the off loading took place were required to attach the emptied box to the next convenient working to return it to point of origin.

 

What played a large part in ending the viability of such horse movement by rail was the reducing number of trains that could offer the necessary flexible service. The distance to be covered was typically relatively small, and there might only be an early morning and late afternoon service between Little Nowhere on the Wold and Inconsequential Parva. If one service wasn't convenient then it was a long delay for the other...

Basically down to the length of time it took to get a rate and get the arrangements made so I would think (without checking) that it would boil down to a couple of days notice, at best, to 'the railway'.  Interestingly the GWR 1929 public timetable has little to say beyond indicating which stations could deal with horses, plus those which could only deal with them at certain hours and those that could only deal with them by special arrangement - there is no information about who to contact but the obvious course would have been to contact the local Stationmaster who would, in whatever event, have had to obtain a rate and order a vehicle plus set underway the various traffic arrangements (which would have to be made by a District Office).

[martinT]

There have been some useful articles in Great Western Journal about horsebox traffic:

 

GWRJ 5 (Winter 1993): 'Horsebox Traffic on Passenger Trains' by John Copsey

3 pages, 50% devoted to reproductions of daily notices issued by the Bristol & Exeter Divisional offices in 1946/47.

Thus we learn that on 15 July 1946 a box from Dulverton to Cheltenham is to be attached to the rear of the 11.35am at Taunton for Bristol. Then onwards by LMSR.

 

GWRJ 76, 78, 79, 81, 82 (Autumn 2010 - Spring 2012): 'GWR Horsebox Traffic & Horseboxes' by John Lewis.

50 pages split over 5 parts. The traffic is mainly dealt with in Part 1; the other 4 parts deal generally with descriptions of the various GW horseboxes.

 

These articles don't actually describe what happens at stations - how they were loaded/unloaded which of course is your original question! I had hoped this info would be described in Divisional Appendices, but when I got hold of a copy of the Exeter Division Appendix (Feb 1947) I was disappointed - there was very little, so I suppose it was all down to local established practice. There a few references to horse traffic or to detaching vehicles from passenger trains & very often these instructions raise more questions than they answer!

 

Thus we learn that at East Anstey: 'Unless horses for Up trains can be loaded or unloaded at the Loading Bank, the vehicle must be formed in the Up train at the rear, and the horses dealt with at the Down platform' - whatever that implies!

 

For Dunster, nothing specifically about horses (in spite of frequent use by visiting polo ponies) but: 'Whenever it is necessary to detach a vehicle from a Down Passenger train, the train must stop with the vehicle to be detached standing short of the points. After it is detached, the train must draw ahead to the platform and the vehicle be pushed into the Siding by hand before the departure of the train. Vehicles to be detached from Up Passenger trains must be placed in the Siding before being uncoupled'.

 

For Dulverton, nothing specifically about horses (in spite of really quite substantial traffic) but: 'When it is necessary for the Exe Valley Auto Engine to be used for shunting purposes the trailers must be first detached'. Reading between the lines this suggests that these locos were used for removing horseboxes from Taunton-Barnstaple trains & placing in the horsebox loading bay during their layover (sometimes quite lengthy). Otherwise, if the mainline train engine had to do it, quite considerable delays would be caused - particularly if passenger trains were crossing & so the other platform line blocked.

 

A fascinating topic.

 

HTH

Martin

[jwealleans]

Is one of those John Lewis articles the one in which he follows a horsebox from (IIRC) Lambourn to Newmarket, detailing what trains it was attached to, when it was detached, how long it stood, etc.

 

As you say, fascinating and the amount of administration and effort to co-ordinate what must have been only one of hundreds of such moves every day.

[The Stationmaster]

There have been some useful articles in Great Western Journal about horsebox traffic:

 

GWRJ 5 (Winter 1993): 'Horsebox Traffic on Passenger Trains' by John Copsey

3 pages, 50% devoted to reproductions of daily notices issued by the Bristol & Exeter Divisional offices in 1946/47.

Thus we learn that on 15 July 1946 a box from Dulverton to Cheltenham is to be attached to the rear of the 11.35am at Taunton for Bristol. Then onwards by LMSR.

 

GWRJ 76, 78, 79, 81, 82 (Autumn 2010 - Spring 2012): 'GWR Horsebox Traffic & Horseboxes' by John Lewis.

50 pages split over 5 parts. The traffic is mainly dealt with in Part 1; the other 4 parts deal generally with descriptions of the various GW horseboxes.

 

These articles don't actually describe what happens at stations - how they were loaded/unloaded which of course is your original question! I had hoped this info would be described in Divisional Appendices, but when I got hold of a copy of the Exeter Division Appendix (Feb 1947) I was disappointed - there was very little, so I suppose it was all down to local established practice. There a few references to horse traffic or to detaching vehicles from passenger trains & very often these instructions raise more questions than they answer!

 

Thus we learn that at East Anstey: 'Unless horses for Up trains can be loaded or unloaded at the Loading Bank, the vehicle must be formed in the Up train at the rear, and the horses dealt with at the Down platform' - whatever that implies!

 

For Dunster, nothing specifically about horses (in spite of frequent use by visiting polo ponies) but: 'Whenever it is necessary to detach a vehicle from a Down Passenger train, the train must stop with the vehicle to be detached standing short of the points. After it is detached, the train must draw ahead to the platform and the vehicle be pushed into the Siding by hand before the departure of the train. Vehicles to be detached from Up Passenger trains must be placed in the Siding before being uncoupled'.

 

For Dulverton, nothing specifically about horses (in spite of really quite substantial traffic) but: 'When it is necessary for the Exe Valley Auto Engine to be used for shunting purposes the trailers must be first detached'. Reading between the lines this suggests that these locos were used for removing horseboxes from Taunton-Barnstaple trains & placing in the horsebox loading bay during their layover (sometimes quite lengthy). Otherwise, if the mainline train engine had to do it, quite considerable delays would be caused - particularly if passenger trains were crossing & so the other platform line blocked.

 

A fascinating topic.

 

HTH

Martin

The latter is to spell out an exception from the General Instruction (it was permitted to shunt with an auto-trailer still attached to the engine; presumably there was something at Dulverton which rendered the normal method either dangerous or impractical.

 

The East Anstey Instruction is pretty clear I would think - make sure it's attached at the right end for an easy propelling move to the opposite platform.

 

Incidentally as the movements are being shown on Notices (as I would have expected) that implies a minimum of 2 days notice at the best while for a Monday it would proably have meant Thursday at the latest as the Notice would be issued on the Friday or possibly Saturday.