GWR 517 and goods workings

[Paul H Vigor]

Hi guys,

 

As far as I can tell this question hasn't been asked before. If it has, please accept my apologies in advance!

 

Can anyone clarify: did GWR 517s ever appear on goods workings?

 

All the best,

 

Paul 

[Steamport Southport]

Almost certainly. I have also seen photos of them on mixed trains like this.

 

Photo Wiki

 

 

They were an earlier version of the 14XX/58XX and they were often seen on goods trains. If one was the branch engine on a specific branch line then they would probably pull the daily goods train.

 

Maybe the fact the goods trains were usually early in the morning or late at night means photographs are rare. 

 

 

Jason

[bécasse]

Branch goods trains frequently ran during the day often using, as has been suggested, the same loco as worked some or all of the branch passenger trains. Sometimes the goods train was used to changeover the branch loco, a fresh one arriving with the goods and the old one departing with it. A perusal of branch line timetables will often identify a gap in the passenger service during the day when the goods ran. Most branch lines would have been closed for eight hours overnight with the signal box(es) unmanned, (generally) preventing the operation of trains.

 

As for the absence of photographs, photography was relatively expensive (and clumsy with plate cameras) and the few photographers of the period rarely wasted shots on the mundane. Furthermore, with a five and a half day working week, a disproportionate amount of railway photography was done on Saturday afternoons (when pick up goods trains tended not to run), a fact that brings many a trap for the unwary in assuming that historic photos portray typical railway operation. (Photos by Reverend gentlemen, though, tend to have been taken on Mondays and are, therefore, more typical.)

[The Johnster]

Pretty much a dead cert that they worked branch goods trains, but they were primarily passenger engines, and probably more so when they came to be auto-fitted, as a shed would not normally allocate an auto-fitted loco to other work unless it was unavoidable and all the auto turns had been covered.  My own familiarity is with Tondu in the 1950s, with auto work arriving in September 1953 and auto-fitted 4575s allocated to work the trains, but one sees enough photos of non-auto fitted engines hauling auto trailers as normal trains, running around them at the termini, to infer that a bare minimum of auto-fitted engines were allocated and if one was away at works or having a boiler washout there was no spare.  This was in BR days of course but I have no reason to suppose it was much different under the GW.

 

One also sees photographic evidence of auto-fitted engines hauling non-auto stock, which suggests that the matching of locos to duties was not always perfect.  Shed foreman had to balance the locos they were allocated against the duties, and the mentioned works visits, regular maintenance such as boiler washouts (48 hours out of service every 10 working days or so) and daily equipment failures and minor mishaps must have kept them on their toes; even at a fairly large depot like Tondu which had about 50 locos on the books, you soon run out of suitable candidates for jobs that require particular equipment (like auto work) that happen to be up to working pressure at the busiest time of the day, that is, early morning before the locos go off shed for their day's work...

 

But it is, I think, significant that, when the 517s came to be replaced by the Collett 0-4-2 tanks, a batch of non-auto fitted locos, the 58xx, were supplied, presumably to continue work that had previously been done by 517s, and a good bit of this was branch freight work.

[dpgibbons]

I'm curious about that photo. The coach at rear is presumably not connected to the loco's vacuum brake as required for passenger vehicles since the 1880s, so would it be empty stock acting as a brake van?

[Mikkel]

Have a look at this page, scroll down to the first image. The caption seems to be wrong, as No. 1 was a Dean experimental rebuilt in 1882 as a 2-4-0T and stayed that way until scrapped in 1924. Looks like a 517 to me:

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/craven_arms/

[jamieb]

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Have a look at this page, scroll down to the first image. The caption seems to be wrong, as No. 1 was a Dean experimental rebuilt in 1882 as a 2-4-0T and stayed that way until scrapped in 1924. Looks like a 517 to me:

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/craven_arms/

No,the caption is correct.In this case No 1 refers to the Bishops Castle engine No1 which was a 517 they purchased from the GWR

[Mikkel]

Ah I see, thanks Jamie.

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, dpgibbons said:

I'm curious about that photo. The coach at rear is presumably not connected to the loco's vacuum brake as required for passenger vehicles since the 1880s, so would it be empty stock acting as a brake van?

 

That's an interesting observation. I'll advance a theory: the branch passenger set was made up of the three carriages seen. For the daily mixed train, the goods wagons were inserted between the leading two carriages and the trailing brake vehicle, which had its passenger compartments locked out of use, as you say, to comply with the requirement that the automatic brake be operable on the passenger-carrying vehicles.

 

See Mr Mundella, President of the Board of Trade, in 1893 here: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1893/aug/17/mixed-railway-trains.

 

His successor, Mr. Bryce, is also interesting: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1894/jun/14/mixed-trains-on-irish-railways

 

"We (the BoT) certainly have no discretion to prefer the convenience of the Company to the safety of the public. Convenience may be great, but the safety of life is much more important."

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Compound2632

[Steamport Southport]

Mixed trains were quite common on GWR branch lines.

 

Photo of 1411 here with a mixed train in 1954. Virtually an autotrain with tail traffic. Can't see whether there is a brake at the end though.

 

http://www.mdrs.org.uk/wycmaidmarlow.htm

 

 

 

Jason

[dpgibbons]

Quote

I'll advance a theory: the branch passenger set was made up of the three carriages seen. For the daily mixed train, the goods wagons were inserted between the leading two carriages and the trailing brake vehicle, which had its passenger compartments locked out of use, as you say, to comply with the requirement that the automatic brake be operable on the passenger-carrying vehicles.

 

That would satisfy the BoT, but without a vacuum connection how would the guard brake the unfitted section?

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, dpgibbons said:

That would satisfy the BoT, but without a vacuum connection how would the guard brake the unfitted section?

 

In the same way as any guard at the rear of an unfitted goods train - with the hand-brake. 

 

That does raise the question, though, of whether there would be a second guard in the brake compartment of the leading carriage.

[Aire Head]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In the same way as any guard at the rear of an unfitted goods train - with the hand-brake. 

 

That does raise the question, though, of whether there would be a second guard in the brake compartment of the leading carriage.

 

I don't think that there would be a requirement for a second guard in the passenger section of the train.

[Aire Head]

4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Can't see whether there is a brake at the end though

 

It would be required so it must be off camera.

 

[Aire Head]

@Compound2632The best I can find is this excerpt from the 1937 LMS Midland Division General Appendix.

 

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

The best I can find is this excerpt from the 1937 LMS Midland Division General Appendix.

 

I wonder where on the Midland Division in 1937 there could possibly have been any mixed train workings?

[Aire Head]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I wonder where on the Midland Division in 1937 there could possibly have been any mixed train workings?

 

Worth Valley Line I think.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

@Compound2632The best I can find is this excerpt from the 1937 LMS Midland Division General Appendix.

 

That reflects exactly the wording in the Mixed Train Regulations as published in 'the Requirements, i.e. it was a legal requirement.    The only thing which mattered in respect of a brake vehicle marshalled in the unfitted section was the requirement for it to have a minimum weight of 10 tons (or in some circumstances a minimum weight of 15 tons).

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Worth Valley Line I think.

 

Now there's interesting. in 1883 the Midland built three fully-enclosed fitted goods brakes (D747, p. 102 in Midland Wagons Vol. 2), Three sounds like one specific duty - on the usual one up, one down, one spare principle; I did wonder if this might be worth Valley.

 

We await David Pearson's K&WV history from Lightmoor with great anticipation!

[Aire Head]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Now there's interesting. in 1883 the Midland built three fully-enclosed fitted goods brakes (D747, p. 102 in Midland Wagons Vol. 2), Three sounds like one specific duty - on the usual one up, one down, one spare principle; I did wonder if this might be worth Valley.

 

We await David Pearson's K&WV history from Lightmoor with great anticipation!

 

It's certainly very possible. The Midland did take over the line in 1881 and it is a location which I know did run Mixed Trains. Sadly I don't know when that ended.

 

[The Johnster]

A mixed train, by which I mean a train made up of a locomotive and passenger vehicles all fitted with a continuous automatic brake which can be operated by the driver on the locomotive and applied by a setter by the guard in the van, but which has unfitted goods vehicles marshalled behind that part of the train, with a brake van in which a guard is riding at the rear, as opposed to a passenger train with tail traffic, would normally have a passenger guard riding in a passenger brake van in the continuous automatically braked front passenger portion of the train.  It would also have a guard riding the brake van at the rear of the train, using the handbrake wheel to control that part of the train as necessary. 

 

This brake van will usually be a good brake van, especially as such a vehicle has a coal stove to keep the guard warm with, but there is no reason that it cannot be a passenger brake van of 10tons or more weight with the automatic brake isolated.  Such a brake van has a handbrake wheel in the same way as  a goods brake van, and can equally be used to control the unfitted portion of the train.

 

Light Railway regulations may differ from this, and it is entirely possible that no guard would be needed in the fitted passenger portion of the train, but there must be one in the rear, unfitted (or isolated) brake van irrespective of whether it is a goods or passenger brake van.

 

In the case of goods tail traffic, all the goods vehicles are fitted with the continuous automatic brake, which is connected and can be applied from the locomotive.  Such vehicles in BR days and previously on some railways carried an 'XP' branding indicating that they were allowed to be marshalled in passenger trains in this way.  Note that mineral vehicles (coal, stone, iron ore, tank wagons except milk, &c), ballast wagons, bolster and bogie bolster, and bogie well wagons were prohibited as tail traffic even if they were 'fitted',  and also prohibited from inclusion in mixed trains. 

 

Vacuum brakes can be isolated out of use so that the vehicles can be loose shunted without the brake being 'on', as it is perforce if the vacuum is destroyed.  There is a cord attached to the vacuum cylinder from the solebar on each side of the vehicle that enables this to be done by admitting air to both sides of the piston, so that the brake is 'off'; the position of this cord is marked on the solebar by a white star.

[Aire Head]

28 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

would normally have a passenger guard riding in a passenger brake van in the continuous automatically braked front passenger portion of the train. 

 

I'd be interested to know where this is documented? All of the stuff I have seen has said that this isn't a requirement?

[The Johnster]

'Normally' is not the same as a requirement, and so long as there is a guard riding in the rear brake van, it is possible that a guard's presence in the passenger portion is not required, particularly with non-gangwayed compartment stock.  But it was common on the sort of services that mixed trains provided for a guard to be needed to sell tickets on the train and to be close to the passenger vehicles in order to confirm that doors were shut properly before giving the 'right away' from stops.  And the handbrake in the passenger guard's van has to be applied by a competent person if the loco detaches from the train to perform shunting, again a common practice with mixed trains.

[Hal Nail]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

But it was common on the sort of services that mixed trains provided for a guard to be needed to sell tickets on the train and to be close to the passenger vehicles in order to confirm that doors were shut properly before giving the 'right away' from stops.  And the handbrake in the passenger guard's van has to be applied by a competent person if the loco detaches from the train to perform shunting, again a common practice with mixed trains.

in this instance, where they are using one of the coaches as a brake, presumably the competent person they already have would apply the hand brakes in both coaches (making use of his in built transportation system!).

 

I think I read elsewhere recently that goods guards usually stayed with one brake van and they dont have one of those, so possibly wouldn't have a 2nd guard either! The reverse is true - in those mixed trains using a goods van, they would have had an extra guard, so might as well have both travelling?

 

I realise I've been lured into off topic chat, so apologies!

Edited May 25, 2022 by Hal Nail

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

I'd be interested to know where this is documented? All of the stuff I have seen has said that this isn't a requirement?

You are correct.  It is not documented anywhere.  The excerpt you previously posted remained in force, unaltered, for the whole of the time the Mixed Train Regulations were published in the General Appendix (they appear to have been discontinued from publication of the 1972 edition. If any Mixed Trains still survived by then (possibly on the West Highland extension where they were still running in the very late 1960s) the Instructions would presumably be included in the relevant Sectional Appendix.

 

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

'Normally' is not the same as a requirement, and so long as there is a guard riding in the rear brake van, it is possible that a guard's presence in the passenger portion is not required, particularly with non-gangwayed compartment stock.  But it was common on the sort of services that mixed trains provided for a guard to be needed to sell tickets on the train and to be close to the passenger vehicles in order to confirm that doors were shut properly before giving the 'right away' from stops.  And the handbrake in the passenger guard's van has to be applied by a competent person if the loco detaches from the train to perform shunting, again a common practice with mixed trains.

Normally is indeed not the same as a Requirement (expressed as 'a Regulation' in railway publications) and that Regulation made it absolutely clear that the Guard (or Guards) would be in the freight brakevan(s) with no Requirement for there to be another Guard in the passenger vehicles.   As far as tickets are concerned if that was considered necessary - probably unlikely on a Mixed Train anyway because of the various restrictions in respect of calling points etc - it would be cheaper to use a Travelling Ticket Collector or even a Travelling Porter instead of another, unnecessary, Guard.  And yes - when the passenger vehicles had to be secured the Guard would do that job as part of his duties as the Guard (or one of them when there was more than one).

 

So perhaps you could tell us where and when another Guard was needed to sell tickets and close doors because such work was part of the duties of station staff and don't forget that generally  stations were staffed in the days when Mixed Trains were about.

 

Incidentally on a point of pedantry it was at one time permissible to attach rear of a passenger train a single unfitted vehicle as tail traffic provided it met certain other requirements regarding the construction etc of said vehicle..