jointline

A bit off topic but a similar freight,  fresh cut flowers, were sent by rail from the nurseries around  Cowley Middlesex to the London markets via the Metropolitan at Uxbridge, mostly in the evenings for the next morning markets. This was pre-1939.

Can't find the source for this at the moment of course, but will keep looking....

This rather bad picture I took in 1962 shows the vegetation already established,  and would probably almost foul the passenger stock.   But I think (although don't know for sure) that the railcar never went (was allowed?) further along, it just reversed.  Somebody will know better than me!

7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I would think that the punters from Staines knew pretty well what trains were on offer to them - particularly any who might have commuted to London.  The same could no doubt be said of Uxbridge and definitely of Windsor.

 

Considerable numbers of through trains off London Division branches weren't at various times over the years shown as running throughout in the public book.  A particularly good example of that being the busy Windsor branch where the through trains were not indicated even after the through trains on the Wycombe and Henley branches had been identified by a column note (I can't date when that started but they weren't so indicated in the Winter 1952 book).  In any event the vast majority of intending passengers didn't buy  a- or even pick up a free local - timetable but asked about train times at a booking or enquiry office and most regular passengers stuck with the same train year after year. 

 

In many respects I think the unnamed 'senior manager' was probably right.  While it was a very different sort of ride the Met from Uxbridge was probably more attractive for many people than the remaining GWR branch.  And I learn't many years ago that very large numbers of folk travelling into London from elsewhere regarded Paddington as a rather useless place to find yourself at if you wanted to visit many parts of central London; they much preferred Waterloo as their entry point to the capital.  For commuters to the usual London business destinations, particularly the city, the WR route from Staines was a very poor alternative to the SR route.

Thanks Mike, very informative.

15 minutes ago, Engineer said:

Today I was looking for images for a completely different subject but came across this Flickr album of WR West London subjects, including a few that are relevant to the Staines branch:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/trains-travel/albums/72157694590276374/with/40376243545/

Many thanks for this link!  Wish I could have afforded colour film in those days,  could barely afford black and white! Completely off-topic, but the clerestory and four wheelers shown at Hayes  (I have identical pictures in B & W) were there for the re-signalling scheme in the early sixties.   I always show them to modellers who want four wheelers in BR livery!

17 hours ago, dibber25 said:

The question of single cars or MBS/DTS combinations seems to have been as much down to date as anything else. Apart from GWR railcars (brought in because of a shortage of steam crews in the London area) the first DMUs were the Gloucester MBS - Class 122  (in 1958). Photos show them on the Staines branch either singly or in pairs of two MBS. The Gloucesters left circa 1960 once the Pressed Steel (121) cars were available. There are pictures of these running as MBS+DTS on the Staines branch and I certainly remember seeing them. However, they probably didn't last long as pairs because apart from the morning and afternoon runs that served the trading estate halts, that much accommodation was seldom needed. There was something very special about the ride across Staines Moor in the rain with the wet willow leaves slapping against the windscreen and the gentle rolling from side-to-side on track that was generally well maintained up to the end. It is impossible to imagine it now as gravel raising, the M25 and Heathrow airport have ruined the area. (CJL)

 

Having said that, the first picture I find is a Gloucester MBS+DTS entering Staines West when the signal box was still staffed! The second is a Pressed Steel DTS+MBS at Staines West (Keith Jaggers picture). Now here's a teaser for you. Why did Staines West have Great EASTERN Railway canopy ironwork and valancing?

Chris,  here's another one with STAINES  rather than STAINES WEST on the destination blind, taken July 1961. 

4 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

Thanks to Chris for getting involved with this thread, and for confirming my understanding that there were through services to London until (near the) end. 

 

I have a summer 1936 timetable booklet for the GWR London, Reading and Oxford districts. It is not easy to work out what are shuttles and what are through services - not least because of confusion with the Uxbridge services. However, it does look like the 7.52 from Staines which arrived at West Drayton 8.27 and Hayes and Harlington 8.34 (not long enough to be a connecting service?) didn't simply stop at Paddington 9.1 but then went to Liverpool Street at 9.21 stopping at many intermediate stations on the "Circle" line.  An 8.32 departure did the same. There appear to have been returns from LS at 8.57 - WD 10.00 and Staines 10.41 and a 6.19pm LS, - WD 7.12pm and Staines 7.36pm. These all had connections to/from Uxbridge but there were others which appear to be through services to/from Uxbridge. There were no evening services to LS shown. Saturdays were also different for the returns as offices closed at lunch on a Saturday - my Dads did. 

 

I know little of my Dads railway service; he was not an "enthusiast". However post war he had a period of being the sole TSSA (salaried staff) job at Uxbridge, but he showed little interest when I showed him an article in BRILL about Uxbridge a decade or so ago. I've no idea if he was still there when we moved from Alperton to Staines in 1954, but he was soon working at Paddington HQ and used these services every day.

 

Nice to see the photos Chris, I don't remember seeing the 3-car unit before. My main memory of the single car DMU was the huge exhausts on the front of the cab. I do recollect an evening service from WD to Staines being steam hauled, it wasn't all diesel. 

 

Another more general area timetable books of this period (Bus, coach, underground and surface services) doesn't mention the use of "streamlined" trains on the Staines service, there were some to Windsor. It also called Staines SR Staines Junction. 

 

Paul

Others will know more than me, but I believe the GWR suburban services through to Liverpool Street ceased on the outbreak of war in 1939, and were never resumed.   Engine change (to Met electric locos) was at Bishops Road, Paddington. 

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It isn't shown as a through train to Paddington for the simple reason that Paddington isn't shown in the station bank - as was also  the case with the Uxbridge  and Windsor branches.  This seems to have been the case going a long way back - certainly no different in the 1929 book although in that book the Paddington-Reading local service pages included Uxbridge, Staines, and Windsor in the station bank.  Presumably Uxbridge and Staines were removed from the station bank in what became Table 50 with the changeover to the much smaller page format as still existed in the early 1950s (a wartime economy?).

 

So as far as 'typical of the time' is concerned it goes a lot further back in time - to at least the 1929.  And in fact the Summer and Winter 1963 services both had two through  trains from Staines to Paddington on weekdays (the 08.05 in the morning and another in the evening) both being back workings of trains which had worked onto the branch.

 

PS 'station bank' is the proper name for the vertical column in a timetable which shows station/location names.

I agree, but it just seems inconsistent  (Greenford, Henley and Marlow all showed through trains to Paddington  by the note T) so why not Uxbridge and Staines.   After all,  presumably timetables are meant to inform and encourage the travelling public.  Not putting Paddington (or Reading) in the station bank meant that the punter had to then look at another page to see when their connection would be.  

Or possibly they were working on the assumption  (as I was informed by a senior manager) that nobody would travel from either Uxbridge or Staines to London by WR as there were better alternative services.  

52 minutes ago, chrisf said:

Afraid not.  The full diagram was as follows:

 

5.50 am empty West London - Paddington

6.38 am Paddington - West Drayton.  Van for Uxbridge attached

7.37 am West Drayton - Staines West

8.5 am Staines West - Paddington

An hour or so in Paddington Yard

10.18 am Paddington - Oxford

1.38 pm Oxford - Paddington

4.18 pm Paddington - Banbury

7.5 pm Banbury - Paddington

Empty to West London

 

There would have been significant changes to the workings in following timetables once the 117s started to arrive and the sets that had been borrowed were sent back.  One reason for using dmus at this time was to make room in Paddington for the augmented Paddington - Birmingham service while the West Coast was being electrified.  It did not help that the borrowed sets did not have the facility to clip up the ATC shoes which would have fouled the electrified fourth rail into Paddington Suburban.

 

Chris

 

EDIT:  In the summer 1961 cwp the 8.5 am Staines - Paddington is shown as two 3-car sets.

Interesting!   But Table 51 (Staines Branch) in the WR Public Timetables doesn't show this as a through train, although Table 50 (Reading to Paddington) has a note "8.5 am from Staines" against the 8.28 from West Drayton.

Neither does it show this as 1st and 2nd Class from Staines, so wonder if a ticket would/could gave been issued for 1st class travel?!! (Given this branch was advertised as 2nd Class only).

Typical of the time in that there was very little promotion of these branches, even when they could offer a potentially  attractive service. 

38 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Staines West in the diesel era was normally served by a single "bubblecar" with, often as not, more crew than passengers aboard.  A few peak time trips carried 5 - 6 passengers.  The chances of getting a request stop at the halts was fairly small with Poyle Estate and Yeoveney very seldom required.  I never knew anything more than a single-car down there and on the last couple of trips I made the family were the only passengers aboard all the way there and back.  

 

The Uxbridge Vine Street branch was busier but not really enough to justify the regular appearance of a 3-car unit of what later became class 117.  Off-peak it too was usually the single unit which at times was shared with the Staines West branch making alternate trips to each.  

 

Personally I have no recollection of through London services but I was rather young at the time and certainly not out and about late at night.  Such things - and indeed the five-car formation mentioned above - would surely have been for stock movement and not through any need of passenger traffic.  

 

My late uncle and his then young family lived backing onto the railway at Cowley station.  I inherited some of his collection of railway literature but there is nothing referring to either line in question here.  

Spot on! 

In the absence of working timetables often the best indication of train formation around this area is the presence or absence of 1sf or 2nd class accommodation. Eg the train leaving West Drayton at 0405 in the morning in 1960 was advertised as 2nd class only, so was likely to be an auto-train/single car.  

1st class on the Uxbridge branch meant either a five car suburban set, or  117 unit. These were busy hours only. Curiously there was a break in trains between West Drayton and Uxbridge between 1000 and 1600 on weekdays.

I remember the driver of Staines railcar being annoyed as I once got off at Yeoveney on the down trip (to take photographs)  and then stopping him on the return  trip to get back on!

The only time I remember the train to Staines being busy was a Saturday morning, and that was in GWR railcar days.

16 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Although I can remember seeing driving trailers fairly frequently in the 1970s on the Greenford service.

 

Oh absolutely, I was thinking more of Staines/Uxbridge. 

53 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Is it conceivable that, with this combination (5 cars is a lot for the Staines branch) that it split at West Drayton, with only the single power car continuing on to Staines and the remainder forming a morning peak working back to Paddington from either West Drayton or Uxbridge?

 

Just as a general comment, the formation mentioned (3car +1+1) was exceedingly uncommon, if not unique, and I can't ever recall seeing it (although I would have been on the way to school at the time of this particular one!)

3 car 117s were common on the Uxbridge branch. 

The driving trailers were also phased out quite quickly in my recollection (although perhaps somebody has better memory than me).  Traffic on the Staines line rarely needed anything other than a single car.

4 hours ago, chrisf said:

Paul mentioned through trains from Staines to Paddington.  I've just had a quick e-rummage.  For many years the only one appears to have been on Sundays.  In 1955 it was an auto train and left Staines at 10.37 pm, arriving Paddington Suburban at 11.32 pm.  It then formed the 11.43 pm to Southall where it finished for the day.  By winter 1959-60 there was an 8.5 am dmu Staines -Paddington on Mondays to  Fridays, formed 3 car set, single power car and driving trailer, but no trace of the Sunday night working.  This was an interesting time: the plans to dieselise Paddington suburban services were disrupted by the late delivery of Class 117 and the need to borrow sets from elsewhere.

 

Chris 

The 1951 public timetable, the only one I have to hand,  doesn't give any through trains, but they were notoriously short on detail.  Often, as Chris says, the auto-trains from both Uxbridge and Staines went to the West Drayton Bay and then went on to Southall or Paddington;  I can remember travelling in one back to Hayes on a Sunday lunchtime.

With regard to a  book,  Chris Turner (who is author of many books published by Wild Swan) contacted me about forty years ago saying he was putting a book together, and I sent him a dozen or so pictures of the buildings on the line.  Perhaps it was well known that he was putting a book together, so nobody else bothered?

As has been mentioned above, Chris Leigh is the real authority.   He has a blog page, and there are pictures of his N gauge Staines West.  (https://www.model-rail.co.uk/online-features/chris-leigh-blog/'n'-gauge-progress/  and here:  https://www.model-rail.co.uk/online-features/chris-leigh-blog/countrystyle/)

There are some useful pictures of West Drayton in "Railways to Uxbridge" by C T Goode. 

If you need pictures of any of the buildings, particularly at Staines West, I may be able to help.  Here's one of the daily goods running round its train at Colnbrook:  because the points extended across road the gates had to be closed for such shunting movements. 

And be sure to post some pictures when it's finished!  Sounds fascinating!

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

57xx/8750 were preferred to 94xx for mineral and shuitng work, in many areas because the wide cab on the 94XX  meant the driver could not reach the brake when leaning out of the cab which was inconveniet t say the least for shunting.

Talking off the top of my head.......but

Certainly have read this elsewhere about the  94xx class, in terms of being ergonomically imperfect!  Also have read that Hawksworth was keen to involve drivers in designing locomotives,  so something obviously went amiss here.   

The 94s were basically 22xxs with side tanks, so did the cab layout change I wonder, or did they use a tender engine cab layout for a tank engine without realising the implications.

Re:  storage uncovered.

Those who go to the coasts in Spain and Portugal will be familiar with the "Salt mountains" as the salt obtained from sea water evaporation is stored outdoors.   It seems to form a crust left this way, so although there may be some loss, it is not great.

During preparation for the table the salt crystals are washed, which sounds strange at first,  but does not last sufficiently long to dissolve much salt.  (the residue is re-evaporated). 

On 17/04/2020 at 23:32, The Stationmaster said:

I've just had a further thought about the connection at Ealing Broadway - it would have allowed the Old Oak Common breakdown crane to still access the ES&B.  officially the breakdown crane cover was provided by the Central London and its successors but there was provision in the 1927 Instructions for the Old Oak crane to be called in to assist if necessary.  The connection at Ealing Broadway would have been the easiest way of getting it onto the ES&B as it would have required additional works at North Acton to recreate the junction with the ES&B and the connection at the Wood Lane end was sensibly removed once the Steam Lines were available.

 

Stock transfer to & from Acton Works could presumably have normally been dealt with by the shunt connection between the ES&B and the District at Ealing Broadway.

This thread was a long time ago now,  but just re-reading Peacock's book on GWR Suburban services,  and he mentions that there was a workman's train,  not advertised for public use, from Clapham Platform 12, at 0703 ,  returning at 5.56,  to Greenford via Ealing.  Stopping at all stations except Acton. (Saturdays returning at 12.32 and only going as far as Kensington).  The carriages were put away on the old down goods loop between Lillie Bridge and Kensington, working empty from Clapham for this purpose.   

This was in the STT from 4th July 1938,  and presumably stopped thereafter.

Another little big of the jig-saw relating to this line!

The WR often had parcel trains of one or two vans, depending on the load.   This very poor shot is of the Uxbridge to Paddington return trip sometime in the early '60s passing Hayes. Was unusual to use a 43xx, usually a 61xx or pannier.

  Two vans, (GUV + Mk 1) but I've a few pictures of a one van working with a Hawkesworth full brake..  Just depended on the load they had to take. 

I think I was reading somewhere  recently that the original act of P contained a requirement  (or allowed) a spur between the S & D and the GWR at Wincanton/Bruton,   but it was of course never built.  

More's the pity,  it might actually have enabled some more cross country traffic to have been built up  (and would make a great model.......)  

Have a look at Bledlow on the Risborough to Oxford (single) line. Main building on the down side,  only trailing sidings, and level crossing!

2 hours ago, brack said:

but the garratts BP turned out at the end were vastly improved too, using similar technology, the cast steel engine beds even coming from the same foundry in the US.

Yes, I have long thought that the Beyer Garratt was way ahead of other locomotive designs in terms  of  maximising the loading gauge for fireboxes etc, and  ease of bi-directional running.  

2 hours ago, lanchester said:

That's not quite as true as usually thought. Indian railways were buying German and American in the 1890s because British manufacturers couldn't cope (and of course the Midland, GNR and others also bought American at the same time for the same reasons); Borsig sold 32 goods engines to East Indian Railways in 1902/3 (assembled in India); Herschel supplied ZF class narrow gauge 2-6-2T in 1935 and I am sure there were many other examples. 

 

(The Indian railways also got many locomotives from the US and Canada in the Forties but of course there was a war on and the UK wasn't in a position to supply).

 

After all, if India (and other dominions) had been automatically buying British anyway,  'Imperial Preference' wouldn't have become a political issue.

Can't disagree.  The book I was reading was by someone who was in India over the independence period, and was involved in the cement and chemical industries.  It was certainly his view that the old boy's network of  Brits in the Indian firms ordered from  the UK by default.  When the main players in these firms were replaced  by Indians there was a sea change in procurement.   Could be  of course, that in a newly independent country there was a  feeling that there shouldn't be an automatic continuation of ordering from the UK,  and perhaps the sales reps of other countries quite rightly saw opportunities in a market where they had traditionally experienced difficulties in getting a foothold. 

However I think overall there was a preponderance of UK built stuff in our colonies.  Remember visiting  North Borneo, for example, and being impressed by the completely UK built steam loco fleet, and Ransomes and Rapier  equipment. 

10 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

As far as mechanical stokers are concerned for British use there were two main problems - except for some very late designs the grate areas and level of continuous power output required simply didn't warrant spending money on a mechanical stoker.  And secondly mechanical stokers worked best with small coal and until the post war period (and not always then) the Railways did not buy small coal because it wasn't ideal for hand firing, and the vast majority of engines would have remained hand fired.

Not much to disagree with here,  but top link machines would have benefited, and small coal could have been easily supplied to the few sheds those engines were stabled at.  Think availability of cheap labour was more of a  deciding factor against mechanical stoking than technical constraints  (which can normally be solved given the necessity!)  As you say, they didn't warrant the cost,  even if they may have been desirable from a lot of other perspectives.

3 minutes ago, jools1959 said:

It’s interesting to note that Garrett’s noticeably absent on US rails whereas they were found in Africa and Australia with great success.

Part of the NMH/NIH syndrome (Not Made Here/Invented Here)  which pervades most cultures and countries, the USA in particular!   Presumably the US railroads would have had to pay a licence fee for using the design as well.

Was reading a book about India the other day,  and it is clear that the supply of machinery, including railway equipment, was largely determined by the (British) owners and managing engineers of companies using firms of engineers in UK that they were familiar with,  rather than sourcing best value or best technology from the rest of the world.  This changed dramatically at independence.    This largely explains the "success" of British engineering around the former Empire, and in the Commonwealth.   (And the UK products were good of course, but there was a lot of other stuff out there in Europe and the States which never even got a look in).

But all changed when dieselisation happened,  as we were way behind the US development curve, and  coinciding with the end of British administration and retirement of British engineers,  it started the decline in British manufacturing.   (of which there were, of course, many contributory factors....) 

I guess I was trying to stimulate debate!  

Yes, hindsight is a valuable commodity,   and as usual there were a few very far sighted folk at the time who saw the way forward.  

28 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Mechanical stokers were used with great success in America under very different conditions to Britain's. They worked when grate areas started to rise (in America, hand firing had long become impossible, partly for the volume of coal to be shovelled, but also as it would be impossible to reach the front of the very long grate). It was only late in life that British grate areas began to reach the point where hand firing was becoming difficult, the Stanier and Peppercorn Pacifics as examples. Smaller than these, a lot of what was fired was spread over the surrounding landscape, possibly acceptable on the open prairie but not so in towns. The three 9Fs so fitted did not retain their stokers for long, and Terry Essery is quite eloquent in explaining why.

Nothing to disagree with here,  and even if they were wasteful, coal was a lot cheaper in the USA.   

However the point I'm pushing is that, as you say,  these were the conditions at the time, but if diesels/electrification had not come along, do we think that the development of the steam locomotive would have stood still and men or women would still be shovelling coal on a footplate?   No serious attempts seem to have been made to develop a mechanical stoker that would be effective on smaller grates.  Obviously no need while there were people willing to do it, and necessity drives invention a lot of the time.   Even Bulleid,  a noted innovator,  on the Leader class,  which had a top notch boiler in thermal efficiency terms, didn't seem to think anything about the crew,  who only had access to the firebox from one side of the loco,  and whose working conditions were so bad that it dictated that only non-union labour would work them. 

The issue with having an outside builder design an engine is of course unanswerable with only one of a type.   Although the  LMS  could have, horror of horror, contracted maintenance out to Beyer Peacock and rotated the engines through a service schedule.  Or do what the GWR  and others did, which was to deal with boilers as a separate item, and have spare chassis and boilers for rolling maintenance.

So many what ifs, and, as you say,  I wonder what they'll think of us in 100 years (if there's anybody left....)

Have to agree with Lantavian.   Beyer-Garratt's worked on some of the most difficult lines in the world, and were incredibly successful as locomotives, and builders.

I think there are a few factors at play,  and I'm certainly not pretending to speak with any expertise, so I'll be slightly provocative!

1.  Interference from the purchasing company, whether LNER or LMS certainly was not helpful in the design phase.  BG had been designing effective engines for years, and should have been given an output spec and left to design it.  Automatic stokers were an obvious thing to have put in. 

2.  Despite what has been said above,  loco men seemed very conservative about engines from other lines, or maybe just anything that was different.   Occasionally it went the other way:  I recall a LMS driver saying what a revelation it was driving a GW pannier and not having to use a Jinty.  The pannier in his view was far superior.  But this seems to have been an exception.  The will to succeed is probably outweighed by the desire to prove things don't work   (there was some evidence of this with the SR Leader class according to Kevin Robertson). Therefore no incentive to make things work:  if a crew had been offered £500 to make a success of the engine for a year you might have seen some improvement in performance!

3.  Autocratic designers seemed to take little thought for the men driving the machines:  the whole history of the locomotive cab shows this. 

4. Resistance to any new developments that would make life easy:  power stoking, standard on US railways for large engines, was never highly regarded;  use of generators for light etc;   roller bearings on locos.   Also the dreadful working conditions in most steam sheds were a disgrace in terms of health and safety, although the newer sheds were getting better, and the very slow introduction of colour signalling and ATC.  Many of these developments were discussed in detail and dismissed on what seems very light pretexts, although cash was probably at the bottom of a lot of them. 

Steam stokers in particular were something which should have been developed.   I know there was a "macho" aspect to shovelling 6 tons of coal in eight hours or whatever,  but it was interesting how quickly engine men decided that riding a cab on a diesel was infinitely preferable,  to the extent that it was often difficult to find a steam crew when the changeover to diesel was in progress!

So probably there are a range of factors:  it was not a very successful machine mechanically because of  input rather than output specification;  there was little thought given to the men who would be operating it eg in terms of extra pay or better breathing equipment; and there was resistance to anything new or from "over there",  and there was no lateral thinking about how buffering up etc could be better done  using electric communication  (a shock absorbing intermediate vehicle wouldn't have been too difficult to design I wouldn't have thought.......)