What does "XP" mean on wagons (e.g., GWR)

[george stein]

American here: some GWR wagons have the letters "XP" as part of the livery. What does this mean and on whicvh kinds of GWR wagons is this used? (Bought some transfers and want to get this right.) Thanks.

[TheDukeOfWellingtons]

Hi George, I'm not an expert on such things but I can get you started. The XP denotes a wagon suitable for fast traffic or inclusion in a passenger train, fitted with continuous brakes. Hope this helps until a few more members wake up and log in..........

[signalmaintainer]

"Express Parcels," I believe, suitable for faster trains because of the reasons Dave mentions above.

[griffgriff]

I have wondered this myself. It's obvious that it's express stock and I agree it was applied to stock suitable for passenger trains but I'm not so sure about express parcels... Cattle wagons for instance wouldnt really be appropriate for items wrapped in brown paper

[buffalo]

Dave was more or less right. The XP marking was introduced on 30th Sept 1938 to denote four-wheel vehicles with a wheelbase of between ten and fifteen feet that were suitably braked and able to be used in class A express passenger trains. The marking was used on both brown (e.g. horseboxes) and freight vehicles that matched these criteria. The marking was discontinued sometime during the BR era as was the use of such vehicles in passenger trains.

 

Nick

[hmrspaul]

Dave was more or less right. The XP marking was introduced on 30th Sept 1938 to denote four-wheel vehicles with a wheelbase of between ten and fifteen feet that were suitably braked and able to be used in class A express passenger trains. The marking was used on both brown (e.g. horseboxes) and freight vehicles that matched these criteria. The marking was discontinued sometime during the BR era as was the use of such vehicles in passenger trains.

 

Nick

 

I'll go with this explanation. The detail is extremely complex, the original Companies had slightly different rules, and the rules altered with BR. As you say discontinued probably during the 1970s. Certainly it had nothing to do with passenger carrying, or parcels carrying. And then there are the mistakes such as BR putting XP on some of the 9ft wheelbase continously braked mineral wagons which show up in official photos.

 

There has been reams about this in the past year or so on other specialised forums - some of it quite abusive.

 

Paul Bartlett

[buffalo]

I'll go with this explanation. The detail is extremely complex, the original Companies had slightly different rules, and the rules altered with BR...

Thanks, Paul. I should have said that I was referring only to GWR rules.

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

I'll go with this explanation. The detail is extremely complex, the original Companies had slightly different rules, and the rules altered with BR. As you say discontinued probably during the 1970s. Certainly it had nothing to do with passenger carrying, or parcels carrying. And then there are the mistakes such as BR putting XP on some of the 9ft wheelbase continously braked mineral wagons which show up in official photos.

 

There has been reams about this in the past year or so on other specialised forums - some of it quite abusive.

 

Paul Bartlett

 

We've also had a lot on it (without the abuse) on here in the past but that might currently be in the inaccessible(?) archive area. On point to note is that some LNER shorter wheelbase vehicles were legitimately branded 'XP' in the immediate pre-war period (and possibly a little later).

 

The official operating reference to the meaning of the 'XP' branding was discontinued in 1972 but no doubt the code could still be seen on vehicles for some while after that date.

[edcayton]

So was there a specific maximum speed for such vehicles?

 

Ed

[Xerces Fobe2]

So Microsoft was not involved!

 

XF

[kevinlms]

Here is a fairly unusual usage.

 

http://windcutter.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-kyle-mixed-and-xp-brandings/

 

Although neither vehicles in question were XP rated, they could run attached to passenger trains as they had vacuum brakes & screw couplers, although I suspect the low speeds on the Kyle line had something to do with it. I would guess that this wasn't standard practice, but presumably an appropriate person had authorised it.

[kevinlms]

Thanks, Paul. I should have said that I was referring only to GWR rules.

 

Nick

 

Brown horse boxes indeed! What sort of railway did that?

 

[hmrspaul]

Here is a fairly unusual usage.

 

http://windcutter.wo...d-xp-brandings/

 

Although neither vehicles in question were XP rated, they could run attached to passenger trains as they had vacuum brakes & screw couplers, although I suspect the low speeds on the Kyle line had something to do with it. I would guess that this wasn't standard practice, but presumably an appropriate person had authorised it.

 

Both Presflo and open merchandise were XP rated. XP has nothing whatsoever to do with use of the vehicle, it is specification which had to be met.

 

Paul Bartlett

[hmrspaul]

So was there a specific maximum speed for such vehicles?

 

Ed

We've also had a lot on it (without the abuse) on here in the past but that might currently be in the inaccessible(?) archive area. On point to note is that some LNER shorter wheelbase vehicles were legitimately branded 'XP' in the immediate pre-war period (and possibly a little later).

 

The official operating reference to the meaning of the 'XP' branding was discontinued in 1972 but no doubt the code could still be seen on vehicles for some while after that date.

 

That is useful information, do you have a reference for this? Certainly I agree wagons introduced later did not have XP - such as the http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/mtvzander of 1975.

 

It is also true that the code was carried on for many years, many of the vans in this collection display it, well into the 1980s http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brvanplanked .

 

XP appears to have been restricted to railway owned rolling stock,

 

Paul Bartlett

[The Stationmaster]

That is useful information, do you have a reference for this? Certainly I agree wagons introduced later did not have XP - such as the http://PaulBartlett....o.com/mtvzander of 1975.

Paul Bartlett

The reference still existed in Supplement No.4 to the 1960 General Appendix (effective March 1971) but was not included in the relevant Instruction in the revised (1972) edition General Appendix which took effect from 1 October 1972.

[signalmaintainer]

Both Presflo and open merchandise were XP rated. XP has nothing whatsoever to do with use of the vehicle, it is specification which had to be met.

 

Paul Bartlett

 

Thanks for correcting my earlier posting. I cannot recall where I read that "XP" meant stock suitable for what I had mentioned, but it was obviously wrong!

 

BTW, Paul, I do appreciate the time and effort you've put forth to catalog and publish photos of Big Four and BR stock; it's a real boon when one is 6,000 miles away from the subject matter.

[Fat Controller]

So was there a specific maximum speed for such vehicles?

 

Ed

The speed restriction would normally be dependent on wheelbase; IIRC, this used to be 55 or 60 mph for 10'-15' wheelbase vehicles, and 70 mph for above 15', but these were reduced to 45 mph and 60 mph respectively around 1968, following a spate of plain-track derailments. Whilst vans and container flats were the more usual vehicles to be found included in passenger/parcels trains, I recollect seeing a photo of an Up DMMU from Milford Haven with a 12' wb Pipe as tail traffic.

[hmrspaul]

The speed restriction would normally be dependent on wheelbase; IIRC, this used to be 55 or 60 mph for 10'-15' wheelbase vehicles, and 70 mph for above 15', but these were reduced to 45 mph and 60 mph respectively around 1968, following a spate of plain-track derailments. Whilst vans and container flats were the more usual vehicles to be found included in passenger/parcels trains, I recollect seeing a photo of an Up DMMU from Milford Haven with a 12' wb Pipe as tail traffic.

 

Didn't many come down to 35mph? Or was this after XP ceased as a designation - TOPS would tell the guard what the maximum speed of the stock on his train would be, which he would communicate to the driver.

 

Please can we get away from comment that equate XP with working of passenger trains. It was simply (!) a way of showing stock had commonly agreed minimum standards - and these altered down the years to add to the confusion. What commonly went with passenger stock on trains cleared to run at passenger train speeds had nothing to do with XP, indeed many of the NPCCS fleet didn't carry this designation because they were too good - such as most bogie stock.

 

As an example, XP didn't require a steam pipe to be fitted. But the guard working the train would have instructions on whether through piping was required or not - and that would depend on the time of year. There are plenty of photos of non steam heated diesel locos working passenger trains in the "summer" - like livestock trains and requirements for when they had to have tarpulin covers - I assume there were dates laid down for when this was acceptable or not. So, during the periods when steam heat was required an XP vehicle couldn't be put between loco and passenger coaches, unless separately branded STEAM.

 

Running trains was complicated.

 

 

 

Paul Bartlett

[Fat Controller]

Running trains still is complicated, at least on a bad day...

I'd always believed the 35mph restriction was on wagons with a wheelbase below 10'; in other words, the majority of the mineral wagon fleet. The various ventilated vans, and the 10' opens, were still allowed to run at 45mph, at least as far as I remember from looking at the yellow labels that were attached to wagons from the late 1960s onwards.

Curious differential speed limits still apply; the Ford/Transfesa container train runs from Silla (Spain) as far as Dolland's Moor as an ME120 (freight train allowed to run at 120kph/75mph)- heading north from Dolland's Moor on Network Rail metals, however, the maximum speed is 45 mph.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Please can we get away from comment that equate XP with working of passenger trains. It was simply (!) a way of showing stock had commonly agreed minimum standards - and these altered down the years to add to the confusion. What commonly went with passenger stock on trains cleared to run at passenger train speeds had nothing to do with XP, indeed many of the NPCCS fleet didn't carry this designation because they were too good - such as most bogie stock.

Paul Bartlett

Alas you are incorrect - if we take 1960 as an example starting point (because we are talking about the first wholly nationally applicable General Appendix from that year although by then i' fairly sure - without checking - that all the Company Appendixes had been brought to commonality) the situation was as follows:-

Four-wheeled vehicles, either non-passenger carrying Coaching Stock or Braked Freight Stock, requiring to run in passenger trains must comply with the following requirements:-

(a) Oil axle boxes,

(B) Automatic brake or through pipes,

© Screw couplings and long buffers,

(d) A minimum tare weight of 6 tons. (The minimum tare weight of 6 tons does not apply to Container wagons when such wagons are carrying containers either loaded or empty and the total load, i.e. tare weight of wagon plus weight of container is 6 tons or over).

 

Four-wheeled vehicles conforming to the above requirements and having a wheelbase of 10ft or over are marked "X.P." together with the wheelbase.

 

(There were restrictions of speed according to vehicle wheelbase and at that date vehicles - i.e. those branded 'XP' - with a wheelbase of less than 15ft were restricted to a maximum speed of 60 mph and were 'as a general rule' to be marshalled at the rear of passenger trains. Four wheeled vehicles were not permitted to be marshalled next to the engine durng the steam heat period unless they were fitted with steam pipes).

 

From March 1968 (although it might possibly have been earlier and issued as a Notice item - which alas I can't date) the whole of the wording shown in bold above was replaced by this -

Only four-wheeled vehicles marked "XP" or "P" must be allowed to run in passenger trains.

 

From May 1969 (possibly at some time between March 1968 and then but I'm fairly sure it would have been May 1969 as it was a timetable change date) the speed restrictions were revised as follows (I'm referring here only to restrictions on four wheelers) -

Wheelbase of 15ft or over - maximum speed 75 mph loaded or empty,

Wheelbase of more than 10ft but less than 15ft - maximum speed of 60mph loaded or empty,

4-wheeled freight vehicles, Appropriate speed shown on wagon panel.

 

The speeds were further amended from/by March 1971 as follows (referring here to 4 wheelers only)

4-wheeled coaching vehicles with a wheelbase of over 18ft - 75mph

4-wheeled coaching vehicles with a wheelbase of less than 18ft - 60mph (except Pasfruit D which were restricted to 45mph)

(Freight vehicles - unaltered from the 1969 instruction)

 

Now it might help to clarify another matter (which I recall visiting previously so please excuse me repeating it if you have read it before. The above Instructions (other than those regarding vehicle speeds, which were a constant) applied only to Passenger Trains. They did not apply to Empty Stock or Parcels Trains until 1971.

Equally - and perhaps more importantly from the modeller's viewpoint, and when interpreting photographs - they did NOT apply to Mixed Trains (which could, of course, convey just about any freight vehicle provided it was appropriately marshalled).

 

I trust this has helped clarify a few things.

[Brake Compo]

Curious differential speed limits still apply; the Ford/Transfesa container train runs from Silla (Spain) as far as Dolland's Moor as an ME120 (freight train allowed to run at 120kph/75mph)- heading north from Dolland's Moor on Network Rail metals, however, the maximum speed is 45 mph.

 

Speaking with no specific knowledge of the details in this case - running of international wagons on other networks is a can of worms, particuarly where these predate the introduction of TSIs. Tradionally track geometry has varied from state to state - things like rail inclination (for example I understand that the Oresund Crossing has a special 1 in 30 rail inclination, because the Danes and Swedes could not agree to use the other's 1 in 20 or 1 in 40), rate of change of cant, transition curves, etc, and this is before we strt to talk about the plethora of diffrent wheel profiles. This means that there countless examples of vehicles that ran fine on the host nation's track but which lurched around all over the place on another network, leading to lower speed limits being slapped on them in offending states.

[Gwiwer]

I concur - in terms of the Western Region (which was specifically asked about) - with Mike. Whether "XP" actually stood for anything specific seems to be open to conjecture but I have always understood it to mean that the wagon concerned met the required standards to be included - should the need arise - in Express Passenger trains. The reference to Express Parcels is new to me.

 

Until the 1960s many routes were not cleared for speeds above 70mph; there had been no need to do so other than on the trunk routes radiating from London. You would have found XP-branded wagons used occasionally in (usually class 2) passenger trains as the need arose. They were used in parcel trains as well but as others have said the actual traffic they were designed for or carried was not related to the XP marking. Certain trains with a limited load or fast timing were noted in the working timetable to the effect that "4-wheel vehicles must not be conveyed on this train". The WTT books in my possession which date from 1970 show this to be indicated by â™ â™  in the column headings and often with a note that the train concerned was diagrammed for 2xD800 class locomotives. The "Cornish Riviera" was one of several such trains. It was by default therefore permitted to include 4-wheel vehicles if marked XP or of parcels stock with medium wheelbase (thereby exempt from the XP requirements by virtue of their wheelbase) and if that restricted the train speed then the guard was responsible for notifying the driver.

 

The attachment of vans to the back of a passenger train gradually became less common until phased out entirely around 1972 as noted. There had been several significant derailments of SWB wagons at that time and these were traced to hunting at higher speeds on CWR track. The problem had not arisen with jointed track but together with the general modernisation of the railway and the rolling stock fleets this saw the end of "XP" and of tail traffic generally. SWB wagons were then restricted to very low speeds not compatible with passenger train operation.

[kevinlms]

Both Presflo and open merchandise were XP rated. XP has nothing whatsoever to do with use of the vehicle, it is specification which had to be met.

 

Paul Bartlett

 

Sorry, I had forgotten that Presflo wagons WERE XP rated.

 

Yes, I realise that XP was to do with the fact it met a certain specification (brakes, wheelbase, axle box construction, couplers etc). However, I understand that freight vehicles (as Presflo & merchandise wagons, undoubtedly are), still couldn't be hung on the back on any passenger train, in the same way horse boxes and prize cattle vehicles could (unless specifically banned from certain trains as others have mentioned).

[The Stationmaster]

We seem to be getting entangled once again - which is a bit daft as I have already posted the full details only 4 posts above this one!!!. The situation was simple - if the vehicle complied with the 'XP' qualification it could be attached to a passenger train, end of story; but subject to restrictions about where it could be marshalled in the train and speed limits - all influenced by the vehicle's wheel base. That was the basic situation, all very simple (I thought).

 

Now comes the next stage - which Rick (Gwiwer) has introduced - and that is the matter of which passenger trains were or were not permitted to convey 4 wheel vehicles; this is a totally separate thing organised in a different way and shown by symbols in the WTT (Working Timetable) although I'm not at all sure when it was introduced apart from the fact that I know it was in operation in the 1960s on at least two BR Regions and the symbols used were 'standard' for the purpose. In this system trains could be identified by one of two symbols or neither of those symbols, and the ones which had symbols were - in our neck of the woods - referred to as 'spaded trains'. The meanings were simple, viz:-

Two Spades - Train prohibited from conveying 4-wheeled vehicles.

One Spade - Train only permitted to convey 4-wheeled vehicles with greater than a specified wheel base; in 1970 it was 'only vehicles with a wheelbase of of 18ft or more' but it might possibly have been 15ft in earlier years and I will try to check and see if that is correct when I have a moment and can access some older WTTs.

No spade - Train could convey any 4-wheeled vehicle which complied with the details I showed in Post No. 20 above.

 

So two systems - the first (Post No.20 above) showed which 4-wheeled vehicles could be conveyed by passenger train; the second - symbols in the WTT - showed which passenger trains were allowed certain types of 4-wheeled vehicle (and sorry but I can't give a date when it was introduced although I'm fairly sure it was BR innovation in respect of the way in which it was shown).

 

Finally there is one other factor in the mix and that was whether or not the traction had sufficient power on hand to shift the load attached to it. For most loco hauled trains - but particularly in the diesel era - the WTT or Passenger Train Loads Book showed the maximum trailing tonnage allowed for a train. As far as railcars and auto-trains (speaking GWR/WR here) were concerned there was a separate table laying down what loads could be taken as tail traffic depending on various factors such as amount of power available and gradients.

 

So to round up if the wagon - any wagon - was marked 'XP' (and therefore should be compliant, Note * below) it could be attached to any passenger train which was authorised to convey it provided that the train had sufficient power or tonnage capacity to do so. Hence on two occasions I travelled on dmus which had tail loads of a Conflat (two Conflats in one case), hence you will find pictures of passenger trains with Vanfits attached as a tail load ... and so on because as long as the vehicle was marked 'XP' it could be conveyed by appropriate passenger trains.

 

Note * Folk have posted in the past about wagons erroneously bearing 'XP' markings - one might hope that an intelligent and alert Shunter would be awake to such an error but after 1968 the minimum wheelbase was no longer mentioned as such and the only guidance available to traffic staff was whether or not the wagon was marked 'XP' or 'P', no longer anything said about a wheelbase of less than 10ft. However if we go back pre-war, to the introduction of the 'XP' marking in the 1930s the LNER definitely had some shorter wheel base wagons (I think they were - without checking - Fish Vans) which were officially marked 'XP' and treated accordingly for marshalling purposes.

 

And one final point - the conditions for attaching 4-wheeled vehicles to passenger trains which I noted in Post No.20 as applying from March 1971 continued after 1972 (I'm trying to track down when they were finally withdrawn).

 

Edit typo

[The Stationmaster]

Going back in time as far as I can establish the information I gave in Post No. 20 as applicable in 1960 was introduced nationally in May 1950 in accordance with railway Executive Operating Committee Minute No.228. Prior to that - and going back to the OP - it appears that individual Company arrangements were in force although I would think that some degree of standardisation would have been enforced via the RCH, particularly in respect of markings on vehicles.

 

Unless bits are missing from my information (which doesn't appear to be the case, but ... ) the earliest GWR operational reference I can find to vehicles marked 'XP' is dated September 1938 and was applicable from the 30th of that month; it reads as follows:-

'All four-wheeled non-passenger carrying coaching stock and braked freight stock of 10ft and under 15ft wheelbase suitable for running in passenger trains carrying "A" headlamps will be marked "XP" on the right hand corner of each vehicle or the right hand corner of the solebar. The wheelbase will be shown underneath the letters "XP".'

 

Such vehicles were required to have oil axleboxes, automatic brakes or through pipes, screw couplings and long buffers and additionally all vehicles requiring to run in passenger trains had to be similarly equipped although an exception from these requirements was made, in specified circumstances only, for no more than one vehicle attached to the rear of a branch or local passenger train.

 

The next change (which doesn't directly relate to "XP" marking) came from June 1939 when vehicles with a wheelbase of less than 10ft were prohibited from running in trains carrying "A" headlamps. However vehicles of 9ft and under 10ft wheelbase continued to be permitted to run in passenger trains other than those carrying "A" headlamps.

 

The final GWR change came in October 1946 when a general speed limit of 60 mph was imposed on trains composed of coaching stock vehicles if they included and 4'wheeler with a wheelbase of between 10ft and 15ft and the load of such vehicles was also restricted to 6 tons although this latter restriction applied only to vehicles loaded on the GWR. Between September 1938 and October 1946 the 60 mph restricction had only applied if 4-wheeled vehicles were marshalled between bogie vehicles.