Bachmann Hawksworth Autocoach

[Kernow Pete]

The curtains on W228W when it arrived on the dart valley railway back in the mid 1960's were a shabby gold colour (and heavily nicotine stained). They were removed over time as they rotted before restoration started.

 

The seats were the usual BR red moquette and the small compartment was labelled no smoking (triangular labels on each window).

I don't remember white lines on the driving cab windows of 228 at that time but was informed that they had been provided for the benefit of drivers who were unused to having glazed cab sides to avoid them putting their heads through the glass when looking back before departure.

The lines on the front were to remind them it was a window although there was enough stuff in front of them to stop them getting too close (handbrake, vacuum brake valve and ATC in use/out of use flag and box which were painted green as on locomotives).

 

W228W was the home of the rolling stock gang for many years on the DVR being the last trailer to be restored. The small compartment being a cosy place to warm up and eat lunch on cold winter days whilst restoring the other trailers in the mid - late 1960s. W240 being the first to be restored inside and out (it having the later bus type seating which was a sort of Pea Green colour). Bus type seating was said to be the reason the later batch were 1 ton lighter.

 

Tokens were not exchanged by the driver in the front cab but by the Fireman on the locomotive (observed on regular trip with the Saltash Motors in the early 60s). Interestingly this meant that there was no check for the correct token/staff as on a normally manned loco where the fireman is required to show the token to the driver. On the Saltash Motor it was common for the fireman to give 2 bells to let the driver know he had the token at Royal Albert Bridge Signal Box. On arrival at Saltash, the token was normally handed to the Porter who would walk it across to the signal box and hang it on a metal hook outside the front left hand window for the signalman to retrieve.

 

The auto gear is very heavy and the unofficial bell code 4 from the driver was often used I believe on the Saltash Motor to allow the Fireman to drive and the driver to look after the brake.

 

The use of the bell by the guard for starting was not common as the 2 bell code is for the fireman to blow off the brakes and is often given before the "Right Away" by the Guard.

 

The second headlamp from the loco was normally used on the trailer on the centre bracket with the red slide being inserted when it was on the rear of the train so an auto tank would not normally have spare lamps on the side brackets.

 

Some drivers also used the Handbrake in preference to the vacuum brake to control the trains speed although this was frowned upon as it caused excessive wear on the leading bogie brake shoes and wheels. The GW locos were fitted with vacuum pumps which restored the vacuum when small applications were made but the driver could bell 2 if he need the fireman to blow off the brakes from a more severe application.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Kernow Pete

[unravelled]

In my post 206 above, one picture shows a train leaving Brimscome with the driver apparently seated. Can anyone say whether the regulator position is consistent with its brisk departure (as I remember it), or is the fireman driving?

In the picture approaching St Marys Crossing halt, it looks to me as if the driver is at the handbrake.

 

Dave

[Brian Kirby]

Many thanks Kernow Pete,

   Your information is so very useful, and helps to explain several features. I've read before that the auto gear could be stiff, so the Plymouth to Saltash and Liskeard (2 auto + loco + 2 auto) service must have been the most demanding. In times of difficulty, did they ever disconnect the auto gear, and yet still run in service, or was the gear always connected by rule? Regarding the lamps, so you suggest, at least around Plymouth, that lamps remained in place at each end, and with a red lens added when at rear? It looks like the front white window lining disappeared by the mid-50s, but lingered on the side cab windows until the 60s, at least on some. Thanks also for confirming the "pea green" bus seats.

                                                                           Cheers, Brian. 

[Douglas G]

W240 being the first to be restored inside and out (it having the later bus type seating which was a sort of Pea Green colour).

 

Really interesting and useful information, Pete.

 

If W240 was restored, I wonder how it ended up in the state shown here:

 

http://www.southdevonrailwayassociation.org/Images/Coach-W240.jpg

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Really interesting and useful information, Pete.

If W240 was restored, I wonder how it ended up in the state shown here:

http://www.southdevo.../Coach-W240.jpg

I thought the same.

 

As for interior colours looking at colour photos of Thrush the pea green seems a good description.

 

If W240 had pea green seats and W236 had red I wonder one of those two were a one off or there was a mix of colours on the later batch.

 

David

[Kernow Pete]

State of W240W broke my heart recently when I revisited the DVR (SDR).

 

Not sure why it was allowed to deteriorate but would love to see it restored to service again.

 

The galvanised sheeting was certainly a problem as I remember it being in good condition back in the 1960's but as evidenced elsewhere does not hold paint well, the autotrailers often having a very crazed paint finish by the end of service and the maroon ones we stripped had little other paint under the top coat but remember at that time they were only just over 10 years old!

They suffered the usual Western problem of the stopper dropping out of the screw holes all along the lower edge of the body which made the Collets and particularly the Hawkesworths in Maroon so easily noticeable in photos.

 

As for the driver sitting down in the picture in 206, I think the regulator is open but remember the number of cranks and rods in involved that may bear no relation to where the push rod connected to the regulator handle actually is. Driver Jack Arscott on the DVR was a small man and when the DVR first opened 4 coach auto working was the order of the day and if you rode with him in the cab, starting was as much a feat of athletics with him swinging the lever from side to side until he had coaxed the regulator in the engine open, often assisted with a gentle help from the fireman who would notch as necessary. You learnt to pin yourself against the cab door when Jack started swinging the auto's regulator.  Of course closing the regulator was a similar problem.

 

Check out the video of Chaffinch earlier in this thread and you can see the amount of movement necessary on the Auto trailers regulator. The idea of working a two coach train topped and tailed all day must have filled crews with horror especially for the fireman who would effectively run the show all day single handed. Certainly on the Ashburton Branch the strengthening coach was always added at the Ashburton end, to make it two trailers plus 14xx.

 

Pete

Edited November 19, 2015 by Kernow Pete

[Kernow Pete]

Brian,

Disconnecting the control rod from the regulator is merely a case of removing the pin on the loco, as you would do at each change of direction, there are separate control rods to the front and rear of the engine.

 

Lining up the the big universal joint between engine and coach is relatively simple, the crank under the loco bufferbeam being kicked to alter the position until it lines up. Just hope loco is not "In Gear" and the rod pinned to the regulator handle when you do it!

 

Pete

[dibber25]

Really interesting and useful information, Pete.

 

If W240 was restored, I wonder how it ended up in the state shown here:

 

http://www.southdevonrailwayassociation.org/Images/Coach-W240.jpg

One or two of these autocoaches were, I think, passed back and forth between Buckfastleigh and Paignton. When I was at IA in the 1980s, some were transferred over BR to Paignton but were out of gauge so the steps were torched off and never restored. The Paignton ones - or one at least - were converted to observation cars and I have an idea one was eventually re-acquired by the Buckfastleigh people. As a general principle, these coaches have not had a happy time in 'preservation', even the GWS one being painted in bogus chocolate and cream originally. I wouldn't rely on any preserved vehicle for being an accurate guide to modelling (although one or two undoubtedly are authentic (the Wickham DMU for instance). Remember, they've been out of BR service for over 50 years and the correct materials are either not available now or prohibitably expensive. (CJL)

[MPR]

The Paignton ones - or one at least - were converted to observation cars and I have an idea one was eventually re-acquired by the Buckfastleigh people.

There were five trailers that were based on the two lines.

W225 and W228 are the two that are currently being used at Buckfastleigh.

W240 (which is usually stored undercover, despite the photo linked earlier and has not been in service for many years)

W232 was retained by the Kingswear line and used as an observation car - it was stripped of most of its autofittings and had a corridor connection fitted, now restored as an auto coach on the Bodmin line.

W238 was similarly altered and was later sold to Mike Little and restored as an auto coach - named "Chaffinch"

 

W233 is a more recent resident and is the former RTC vehicle.

http://www.southdevonrailway.co.uk/rolling-stock/brw-auto-trailers

 

Edit:1) typo corrected - thanks David!

2) Added the fifth one - W232

Edited November 19, 2015 by MPR

[David Bigcheeseplant]

There is also W232 which ran on the Dart Valley again it was messed about with but has since been sold and restored and now runs on the Bodmin Railway.

[David Bigcheeseplant]

There were four trailers that were based on the two lines.

W228 and W228 are the two that are currently being used at Buckfastleigh.

W240 (which is usually stored undercover, despite the photo linked earlier and has not been in service for many years)

W238 was retained by the Kingswear line and used as an observation car - it was stripped of most of its autofittings and had a corridor connection fitted. More recently, it was sold to Mike Little and restored as an autocoach (this is the one that is now named "Chaffinch")

 

W233 is a more recent resident and is the former RTC vehicle.

http://www.southdevo...w-auto-trailers

 

I think you mean W225 & W228 rather than W228 & W228, I wonder if anyone has photos of the seating in W238 in early preservation to see if it had its original seats and what colour they are.

Edited November 19, 2015 by David Bigcheeseplant

[unravelled]

Just a quick question aboiy autotrailer formations. I believe that the limit was two trailers in front of the loco, which is why a  four trailer train has the loco in the middle, but was it common to operate a two trailer train with a loco in the middle? I can see how it would be necessary in some circumstances, but what would the preferred arrangemant (if any) be for a 2 trailer formation.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[No Decorum]

Just a quick question aboiy autotrailer formations. I believe that the limit was two trailers in front of the loco, which is why a  four trailer train has the loco in the middle, but was it common to operate a two trailer train with a loco in the middle? I can see how it would be necessary in some circumstances, but what would the preferred arrangemant (if any) be for a 2 trailer formation.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

The experts will probably shoot me to bits (in which case I might learn something) but I believe that the Great Western favoured putting the locomotive in the middle. Other railways favoured putting the locomotive at one end and the locomotive at the other.

[chrisf]

Another can of worms!  Photographs suggest that the auto services that operated from Westbourne Park to West Ruislip and Denham until 1948 had one trailer each end of the loco.  In other places one would find two trailers at one end of the loco, augmented if necessary by a third and fourth.  This was pretty much the rule in the West of England in such cases as Plymouth - Saltash, where the arrangement was specified in the carriage working programme.  Other examples were the Exe Valley line and the Gloucester - Chalford service.  In the Cardiff Valleys some non-corridor thirds were equipped with rodding to make non-driving trailers which operated, of course, with a driving trailer in pairs.  Some of these combos migrated to the West of England after being replaced by dmus.  Their use was recorded on the Fowey branch and between Plymouth and Tavistock.  A different type of sandwich could be found on the Calne branch where the loco propelled one or two trailers from Calne to Chippenham and hauled a string of sausage vans.

 

Ultimately the placing of the second trailer would have depended on which way round it was.  The control rodding was off-centre and if two trailers were placed back to back they would have needed a loco between them.  

 

Chris

 

EDIT - I found the following instruction in the London cwp for summer 1955:

 

"Trailers for use on the Staines or Uxbridge (Vine Street) branches as extra vehicles must (unless otherwise ordered) leave Southall with regulators towards Bristol.  Auto Cars booked to take on Trailers at Staines or Uxbridge (Vine Street) must (unless otherwise ordered) have the engine at the Staines or Uxbridge (Vine Street) end."  This suggests that on these branches there would have been a trailer at either end of the loco.  However, the Greenford autos, also resourced by Southall, had both trailers at the Paddington end, allowing one to be shed in the siding at Ealing Broadway at off-peak times.  Told you it was a can of worms ...

Edited November 19, 2015 by chrisf

[No Decorum]

(I knew I'd learn something.)

[phil-b259]

The experts will probably shoot me to bits (in which case I might learn something) but I believe that the Great Western favoured putting the locomotive in the middle. Other railways favoured putting the locomotive at one end and the locomotive at the other.

 

Thats because the GWR used a heavy mechanical linkage to directly connect the regulator in the cab to a lever in the driving position of the autocoach. As such it was pretty tough for the driver in the autocoach to operate the regulator with even just one coach and there are plenty of tales of the 'driving' being done by the fireman on the loco with the driver only using the brake. Putting the loco in the middle where 2 or more autocoaches was therefore done to try and keep the mechanical linkage a bit easier to operate.

 

By contrast the SR used a compressed air system and the LMS a vacuum system - neither of which presented the same issues as the GWR system and thus enabled the loco to stay at one end of the formation, however many coaches were included.

[Brian Kirby]

Brian,

Disconnecting the control rod from the regulator is merely a case of removing the pin on the loco, as you would do at each change of direction, there are separate control rods to the front and rear of the engine.

 

Lining up the the big universal joint between engine and coach is relatively simple, the crank under the loco bufferbeam being kicked to alter the position until it lines up. Just hope loco is not "In Gear" and the rod pinned to the regulator handle when you do it!

 

Pete

Thanks Pete,

     So does that mean that with a Plymouth to Saltash/Liskeard 2 auto + loco + 2 auto formation, only the two leading coaches would have the regulator connected, and then vice versa on the return? If the rear cars were left regulator connected, would the levers move on their own in the cabs, or was there a dis-engaging/slip clutch device? Also, would intermediate car regulators be always connected, or were they by-passed underneath?   BK

Edited November 19, 2015 by Brian Kirby

[RJS1977]

 

 

Ultimately the placing of the second trailer would have depended on which way round it was.  The control rodding was off-centre and if two trailers were placed back to back they would have needed a loco between them.  

 

Chris

 

 

 

Might it not also depend on factors like platform length and the position of water columns?

[chrisf]

Might it not also depend on factors like platform length and the position of water columns?

 

Indeed it might.  If the water column was at the platform end, as was so often the case, it could have made life interesting with a sandwich formation.  I have dim recollections - not first hand, you understand - that the SECR used to operate sandwich formation push-pull suburban trains, leading to some water columns being repositioned.

 

While I'm posting: here are the instructions from the Plymouth cwp for winter 1956-57 in respect of what were still called "rail motors" despite what you and I call rail motors having died out in 1935.  For the sets used on the Saltash shuttle all day the following was specified:

 

"Formation: from London end.  Auto engine and 2 trailers with Regulator London end.  Auto engine to leave shed Chimney trailing."

 

For the sets used between Plymouth and Tavistock it merely said "Auto Engine and Trailer", with a footnote in respect of some Saturdays Only workings "Additional Trailer (Millbay to provide)".

 

Chris

[Trevellan]

Back in the mid-1970s, I attended a talk given by a former WR fireman to the North London Group and I recall one of his anecdotes concerned auto-train working. He claimed that the fireman would, in certain circumstances, remove the pin from the regulator and drive the loco himself by watching the linkage move and opening up or closing accordingly. The excuse for this was given as the relative crudity of the mechanical system, which sometimes meant locos working harder than they needed to and therefore making the fireman's job more difficult. It would be easy to dismiss this as fanciful, but I have read a number of locomen's reminiscences which suggest that rules were often bent if it made life easier.

 

These days we seem to make a habit of being critical of things that happened many years ago, all from a comfortable vantage point. As has been said above, the physical demands of footplate work could be onerous, so it's hardly surprising that crews tried to mitigate this where it was safe to do so.

[Torn-on-the-platform]

I picked a Maroon version up from Rails this weekend. I've got it back running on my layout and it really is a lovely coach. It goes up against the LMS inspection saloon as the best RTR coach to date, but I don't feel it justifies the price hike. I'm not too fussed about carriage interiors but if I were, I'd be disappointed with the raised floor for the price you pay.

 

Having said all this, it didn't stop me buying it. A SDR based coach, I've sat and had a beer in the real thing with my Granddad. It will be allowed to run at my club, matches my 6412 and will have a use on future layouts.

 

Edited November 23, 2015 by Torn-on-the-platform

[dibber25]

Another can of worms!  Photographs suggest that the auto services that operated from Westbourne Park to West Ruislip and Denham until 1948 had one trailer each end of the loco.  In other places one would find two trailers at one end of the loco, augmented if necessary by a third and fourth.  This was pretty much the rule in the West of England in such cases as Plymouth - Saltash, where the arrangement was specified in the carriage working programme.  Other examples were the Exe Valley line and the Gloucester - Chalford service.  In the Cardiff Valleys some non-corridor thirds were equipped with rodding to make non-driving trailers which operated, of course, with a driving trailer in pairs.  Some of these combos migrated to the West of England after being replaced by dmus.  Their use was recorded on the Fowey branch and between Plymouth and Tavistock.  A different type of sandwich could be found on the Calne branch where the loco propelled one or two trailers from Calne to Chippenham and hauled a string of sausage vans.

 

Ultimately the placing of the second trailer would have depended on which way round it was.  The control rodding was off-centre and if two trailers were placed back to back they would have needed a loco between them.  

 

Chris

 

EDIT - I found the following instruction in the London cwp for summer 1955:

 

"Trailers for use on the Staines or Uxbridge (Vine Street) branches as extra vehicles must (unless otherwise ordered) leave Southall with regulators towards Bristol.  Auto Cars booked to take on Trailers at Staines or Uxbridge (Vine Street) must (unless otherwise ordered) have the engine at the Staines or Uxbridge (Vine Street) end."  This suggests that on these branches there would have been a trailer at either end of the loco.  However, the Greenford autos, also resourced by Southall, had both trailers at the Paddington end, allowing one to be shed in the siding at Ealing Broadway at off-peak times.  Told you it was a can of worms ...

The majority of autotrains on the Staines West branch were single cars with the loco at the western end. I have one or two pictures of ' engine sandwiches' but none of two cars coupled together. All the Staines autos were the old-style cars, not the Hawksworth type although I do have a pictures of a Hawksworth car at Southall, presumably for the Greenford loop service. Staines branch services were shared with GWR railcars due to shortages of steam crews in the 1950s. The water supply at Staines West was adjacent to the shed so it would be most convenient for watering if there was not a coach ahead of the loco. (CJL)

[Ian Hargrave]

Lord & Butler are selling a ready lit version with passengers at £95 (post free )

[9402 Fredrick]

Just ordered the Blood & Custard one with a BR Black 64xx from antics online.

[Kernow Pete]

Back in the mid-1970s, I attended a talk given by a former WR fireman to the North London Group and I recall one of his anecdotes concerned auto-train working. He claimed that the fireman would, in certain circumstances, remove the pin from the regulator and drive the loco himself by watching the linkage move and opening up or closing accordingly. The excuse for this was given as the relative crudity of the mechanical system, which sometimes meant locos working harder than they needed to and therefore making the fireman's job more difficult. It would be easy to dismiss this as fanciful, but I have read a number of locomen's reminiscences which suggest that rules were often bent if it made life easier.

 

These days we seem to make a habit of being critical of things that happened many years ago, all from a comfortable vantage point. As has been said above, the physical demands of footplate work could be onerous, so it's hardly surprising that crews tried to mitigate this where it was safe to do so.

I was told by a Newton Abbot driver that unoffically it was 4 bells = pull out the pin. He was a regular Ashburton and Moretonhamstead  driver. The comment was also echoed by a Passed Laira fireman who presumably had worked Saltash and Tavistock Motors.

The linkage was certainly stiff to move and it takes several full swings of the regulator in the trailer cab to make the loco regulator move and there is certainly little precision.

The Driver always had access to the vacuum brake provided that he removed the pin in the trailer cab and also had ATC for the distant signals,  so could always brake or stop the train.

Auto working was hard work for the fireman who to work auto had to be a "Passed Fireman" in other words a trained driver.