GWR brake van design - why single verandah?

[bécasse]

Ex-GWR toads were blacked by Southern Region branches of the NUR (to which guards belonged) because of the low height of their veranda sides and the lack of any hand-holds (except at the corners). I rode in one a goods train once (with official permission, I might add) and I certainly didn't feel safe out on the veranda (and I wasn't aware of the SR ban at the time). Any that ended up on the SR (which didn't happen very often) went home either empty or with a WR guard.

 

Once they were withdrawn from normal traffic in 1965 a fair number were used for some years as civil engineer's riding vans, a task to which they were quite well suited.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

And at how many places on the Great Western was that actually done? It would involve section occupancy to say nothing of extra work for three signalmen.

 

Mostly on certain branchlines. Many of which had turntables.

 

People often look at the trackplans in the modern era. Look at them at the turn of the century they nearly all had small turntables. Can't have been for tender engines or large tank engines as they are too small and often away from the engine shed.

 

What were they for? Here's the one at Princetown, you would struggle to fit the branch Prairie on them.

 

https://ianwaugh.com/princetown/

 

 

The other comment that has arisen is about the GWR not dedicating brake vans to certain routes. Are you sure? That's why they had an allocation painted on the side. Some even had what time trains they were used for written on the side!

 

Look at W68763 Hartlebury

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nobrakes.html

 

 

Jason

Edited March 15, 2022 by Steamport Southport
Awful grammar

[Compound2632]

28 minutes ago, bécasse said:

Ex-GWR toads were blacked by Southern Region branches of the NUR (to which guards belonged) because of the low height of their veranda sides and the lack of any hand-holds (except at the corners). I rode in one a goods train once (with official permission, I might add) and I certainly didn't feel safe out on the veranda (and I wasn't aware of the SR ban at the time). Any that ended up on the SR (which didn't happen very often) went home either empty or with a WR guard.

 

The only time I've ridden on the verandah of a WR brake van was on a SR line - at a Thomas day on the Mid-Hants at least 15 years ago. Mind you, we were sardined in so there was no danger of flopping out over the side - especially not the important people, who were of course nearest the edges and could only just see over. We didn't go very fast or very far!

[Miss Prism]

Fairford was one of the very few GWR branches with a turntable. It was for locos. Here is 7412 at Brize Norton on a Fairford to Hinksey working. The loco has been turned at Fairford. I doubt the Toad has been turned.

http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/7412_freight_Brize_Norton.jpg

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Fairford was one of the very few GWR branches with a turntable.

 

The provision of a turntable being, as I recall, a consequence of a BoT regulation that tender engines should not work tender first for distances greater than 20 miles. Not many branches were that long. (For a certain definition of branch.)

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Mostly on certain branchlines. Many of which had turntables.

 

People often look at the trackplans in the modern era. Look at them at the turn of the century they nearly all had small turntables. Can't have been for tender engines or large tank engines as they are too small and often away from the engine shed.

 

What were they for? Here's the one at Princetown, you would struggle to fit the branch Prairie on them.

 

https://ianwaugh.com/princetown/

 

 

Jason

The Princetown branch was notorious for sharp curves (which meant that six wheel coaching stock was banned) that caused wheel flange wear which might have given rise to a need to turn engines.  But that clearly wasn't the reason for the turntables - one at Princetown and one at Yelverton - which suggests the original builders were inclined more towards chimney first working for all trains.  But the turntables were only 23'6" in diameter so were 3ft too short for the 44XX engines which became the regular branch motive power for many years so the turntables no doubt fell onto disuse.  More critically with very steep rising gradients from Yelverton to Princetown over around one third of the length of the branch it obviously made sense to work engines chimney first towards Princetown and that would again would again disincline crews from turning engines even if extension pieces were available for the turntables.

[Siberian Snooper]

The most use the Princetown/Yelverton turntables got was when the panniers were on snow ploughing duties, in order that the plough was on the attacking end. The plough was bolted to the front buffer beam, in place of the buffers.

 

 

[Compound2632]

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

More critically with very steep rising gradients from Yelverton to Princetown over around one third of the length of the branch it obviously made sense to work engines chimney first towards Princetown

 

and bunker first on the way down, to be sure of keeping the firebox crown-plate underwater. Not only would turning the engine have been a faff, it would have been downright dangerous.

[The Stationmaster]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

and bunker first on the way down, to be sure of keeping the firebox crown-plate underwater. Not only would turning the engine have been a faff, it would have been downright dangerous.

Exactly so.  not necessarily dangerous although the water level would have to be carefully watched and there was a greater risk of priming.  Don't forget engines were running down similar or steeper gradients numereousd times everyday back in the steam age

[The Johnster]

On 15/03/2022 at 12:19, The Stationmaster said:

 tender engines working specials to Porthcawl might well have turned on the triangular junction at Pyle.

 

 

Porthcawl had its own turning triangle, put in when the 'new' station was built in 1916.  It was built on then reclaimed area of the the dock, the northern half of it, and was accessed from the platform 3 road.  The 'third side' of it was one of the original curved coal hoist roads; the others were used as carriage sidings and would fill up on Summer Saturdays and Bank Holidays.  The largest tender locos allowed on the branch were 43xx, though Bulldog 4-4-0s were used on the daily return Cardiff commuter service, the 'residential', prior to its suspension during WW2.  This train was worked by Collett 31xx 3100 after the war. 

 

Large tank engines were not unknown at Porthcawl, the John Hodges/Stuart Davies 'Tondu Valleys' book covering the branch showing photos of a 42xx on an passenger excursion in the 1940s and ex-Paxton Street Fowler and BR Standard 2-6-4Ts from Landore or Court Sart during the early 60s. 

 

The very sharp curvature on this branch, inherited from tramway days, meant that some parts of it were speed restricted to 5mph for all except the 44xx class, which were withdrawn or xfer away from Tondu in 1953 after auto working was introduced.  When the branch was worked by 44xx, Tondu would have 3 of them allocated, one for passenger, one for the pickup, and a spare.  In order to even out tyre wear, the locos were turned every lunchtime at Tondu shed (which they had returned to for coal, water, and a crew change).  One of the evening workings ran through to Bridgend rather than Tondu, and this effected a further turning as the final part of the diagram from Bridgend to Tondu represented the third side of a triangle.

 

Normal working in the South Wales Valleys featured smokebox first running up the valley and bunker first down, in order to keep a level of water covering the fusible plug.  This was replicated with the GW brake vans, which would work veranda trailing up the valley and veranda leading downhill.  My memory of these vans in service pre-1965 on the main line at Cardiff was that, valley work aside, they were just as likely to run veranda facing as trailing.  The average speed of freight trains was lower in those days, rising significantly from the mid 60s as a result of the fall in traffic which enabled longer clear runs for them on main lines.  This led to trouble, in the form of a series of straight line freight train derailiments caused by poor riding and/or axle failure, culminating in the Thirsk crash in 1967 which ended DP2's career.  A blanket 45mph speed restriction (60mph previously) was subsequently imposed on all vehicles with 10' or less wheelbases, the bulk of the fleet, and I can testify that this was too high for comfort in many cases, the sight of a train of loaded 16ton mineras snaking violently along straight track at 40mph or so being much less alarming in the dark or fog when you couldn't see it! 

 

But in earlier days, I mean roughly pre-Beeching, freight trains on main lines tended to be slower, and the problems of headwind, foul weather, and dust associated with veranda leading working were much less. 

 

GW toads had proper doors on the veranda sides, whereas the other vans had safety rails that could be removed from their position while you were boarding or de-vanning.  These rails were a potential safety problem in themselves IMHO and experience, or at least something else that had to be paid attention to.  If you left the rail hanging down (there was a bracket for it to slot into so that it didn't swing about) and grabbed for it when the van lurched unexpectedly to find it not there, you stood a good chance of falling off the veranda, and if you left it in the 'safe', up. position, the guard relieving you or anyone else boarding the van for whatever reason would bang their head on it. 

 

Roughly, van pros & cons:-

 

GW toad  pros - well built, good riders.

                 cons - you had to go outside to use the brake, big cabin took a long time to warm up, poor visibility, no duckets, no shoulder pads (a boon if you had one of 'those' drivers).

LMS pros - brake inside cabin, duckets, shoulder pads.

        cons - big cabin took longe time to warm up, high windows and veranda ends gave poor view fore and aft, cabing doors opened inwards causing draughts in headwinds.

LNER/BR standard pros - as LMS but at least the headwinds sealed the front door against draughts.                 cons - poor positioning of ballast leading to poor ride 'rocker', draughty.

SR PIllbox pros - as LMS.

                  cons - a combination of all the cons of LNER/BR but worse, frankly not fit for purpose and I rejoiced whenever I saw one on fire so long as it was empty.  The tiny cabin should have been easy to heat but the draughts negated this when the van was in motion, then your knees got scorched when it stopped.  Absolute rubbish.

SR Queen Mary pros - near-perfect van with Pullman ride, good visibility, and powerful brakes.                cons - none, except that they were rare as rocking horse doo-doo off the Southern Reginon,

[33C]

The cabins would warm up very quickly, (the stoves were great) and the duckets were great on the LMS/BR type, IF the windows were clean. You could wedge yourself in quite cosily, just plug up the draughts! I would love one as a shed!

[KingEdwardII]

28 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

SR Queen Mary

The one at the GWSR that was recently restored looks spectacular. Makes me want to acquire one for my preservation-era layout.

 

Yours, Mike.

[MidlandRed]

On 15/03/2022 at 14:00, Steamport Southport said:

Look at W68763 Hartlebury

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/nobrakes.html

 

 

Jason

Thanks @The Johnster 

 

One thing I’m having a problem getting my head around - how would the guard travelling in a GW style Toad, with the veranda at the front (train end) be able to keep an eye on the pcondition and functionality of the tail lamps, and more importantly deal with any issue without stopping the train? 
 

I notice on some of the GW Toad photos in the link above posted by @Steamport Southport there do not appear to be doors or even windows in that end of the brake van? 

[Miss Prism]

8 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

I notice on some of the GW Toad photos in the link above posted by @Steamport Southport there do not appear to be doors or even windows in that end of the brake van? 

 

Read it again

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

One thing I’m having a problem getting my head around - how would the guard travelling in a GW style Toad, with the veranda at the front (train end) be able to keep an eye on the pcondition and functionality of the tail lamps, and more importantly deal with any issue without stopping the train? 
 

I notice on some of the GW Toad photos in the link above posted by @Steamport Southport there do not appear to be doors or even windows in that end of the brake van? 

 

There was a hatch at that end, clearly seen in several of those photos. I don't see any that lack this hatch or windows. 

 

EDIT: as @Miss Prism says...

Edited March 16, 2022 by Compound2632

[MidlandRed]

2 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Read it again

Thanks - not entirely sure what you mean - I was referring to photos, not text 
 

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There was a hatch at that end, clearly seen in several of those photos. I don't see any that lack this hatch or windows. 

 

EDIT: as @Miss Prism says...

 

The Hartlebury one in particular? However, is the hatch intended to provide the view to the rear and also access to/visibility of all of the lamps? 

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

The Hartlebury one in particular? However, is the hatch intended to provide the view to the rear and also access to/visibility of all of the lamps? 

 

The window can be seen - or at least the cill. The windows were for looking out of. The hatch is out of sight, hidden from view by the nearer end stanchion, so yes, you can't see it.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, 33C said:

The cabins would warm up very quickly, (the stoves were great) and the duckets were great on the LMS/BR type, IF the windows were clean. You could wedge yourself in quite cosily, just plug up the draughts! I would love one as a shed!

The stoves were superb, the best bit, little blast furnace that you could get glowing orange or even yellow hot.  Most had a sort of bulge at the bottom where the metal had softened in the heat and settled by gravity. 

 

But no matter how good the stove was, if the van was a rocker, and by the 70s the huge majority were, plugging up the draughts took a while until you'd got them all, especially at night when you couldn't see them.  Door and window frames, gaps in the floor planking, the duckets, all let in the cold and once you'd sealed those with yestereday's 'South Wales Echo' you then had to search for and locate the others, smaller but no less cold, or the stove wouldn't stand a chance...

 

This took about the same amount of time as the journey to Hereford, Gloucester, or wherever you were getting relief.  OTOH, if you were working home and had relieved another guard, you would usually benefit from his draughtproofing efforts and at least suffer the backbreaking ride in the warm, but this happened a lot less than working outward and coming home back cab or on the cushions.  Rocking, which meant that you had to brace yourself against it for long periods and was extremely tiring, making the drivers' usual remark that you'd probably been asleep all the way even more irritating, and the cause of the planks working and letting the draughts, or preventing the door sealing in its frame.  Another common problem resulting from it was that the lamp brackets worked loose and the the lamps got shaken out, so that you were constantly having to relight them or go out on the veranda to check that the tail lamp was still lit.  The side lamps were partiuclarly vulnerable, stuck out high in the wind as they were, but the tail lamp was not immune...

 

Prior to the 1969 single manning agreement with the unions, which meant that guards became traincrew and booked on at locomotive depots and signing on points as opposed to the freight yards and depots that they had previously signed on duty at, guards more commonly prepared their own vans and the vans were maintained and cleaned to a decent standard in consequence, or so I was told when I started in the job in 1970, but it seems not unreasonable to associate the deterioration in standards by my time with this change of working conditions.   I used to be grimly amused by the moaning of the old-timers on the subject of standards of cleanliness and maintenance in the brake vans, because of course it was exactly these people who could not see the point of keeping the vans clean for the benefit of somebody else, ruining things for everyone. 

 

Yards and depots varied in the standard to which they prepped the trains for you, and you were only allowed 20 minutes to examine up to 60 wagons, check the van, and give the driver the load, fine if everything was ok but if you had to go hunting for coal or lamp oil, or a brake stick for the van, there wasn't a lot of wobble room if the yard's standards were not up to the mark.  Radyr (Mike Stationmaster's yard at the time) and Llantrisant were excellent, Margam were hopeless, and everywhere else somewhere in between.  One of the reasons that Margam was a problem was that their mess cabins were electrically heated so you had to scratch around for coal, but there was an attitude problem here as well.

 

Railway work was huge fun, but sometimes a bit rough and ready, and one's enthusiasm would inevitably be chipped away at by such appalling and filthy conditions.  The 70s, a decade after Beeching when the cuts and job losses were biting hard, was a low point in morale in the industry, and this sort of thing was one of the reasons.

[The Johnster]

46 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

Thanks @The Johnster 

 

One thing I’m having a problem getting my head around - how would the guard travelling in a GW style Toad, with the veranda at the front (train end) be able to keep an eye on the pcondition and functionality of the tail lamps, and more importantly deal with any issue without stopping the train? 
 

I notice on some of the GW Toad photos in the link above posted by @Steamport Southport there do not appear to be doors or even windows in that end of the brake van? 

 

He would need to frequently check the tail lamp by looking out of the hatch in the rear of the cabin end.  There were windows and a hatch door there.  The side lamps were less visible, being mounted on brackets on the inner corner of the cabin and not visible from inside it, so he'd have to check those by going out on to the veranda, irrespective of the weather or the coal dust, and don't forget he would have to remove or replace the rear facing red shade on one side if the train was routed to a relief line put inside a loop or layby siding, or on a reception or departure road parallel to a running line.  He had to go outside to use the brake. or the sandboxes at that end, and to observe the train, or give handsignals to the driver or fireman to show that the train was clear of speed restrictions, also to handsignal a signalman that the rear of his train was clear of a juntion or inside clear of a loop or reception so that the signalman could put the road back and clear signals for following traffic as quickly as possible (track circuits were a boon here!).  Some them old timers were tough as old boots; the BR issue Gannex rain coat was well regarded, as was the thick wollen cloth overcoat.

 

On some of the earlier vans, including the shorter wheebase 4- and 6- wheelers produced by Oxford as RTR models, there are side lamp brackets at the other end corners of the cabin, and the lamps could be seen through the windows at that end or the open hatch door if they were placed on these brackets, but could not be accessed from inside the cabin if they needed relighting or the shades seeing to; the guard had to go outside on to the veranda and clamber around on the footboards to the rear of the van, one side at a time, not the safest of procedures with the train in motion!  As I've said, 'steam age' freight was by and large a lot slower and stopped more frequently, which may have been just as well...

[MidlandRed]

Thanks @The Johnster - excellent insight and indeed the activities required with the offside lamp colour change, and maintaining the lights in illuminated condition were points I was making in respect to accessibility with the non-open end of the Toad at the rear of the train - as you’ve pointed out, a number of other required duties are impacted. 

[33C]

The Gannex rain coat was indeed a fearsome garment. Mine would stand up on it's own when done up! 

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

 

TThe average speed of freight trains was lower in those days, rising significantly from the mid 60s as a result of the fall in traffic which enabled longer clear runs for them on main lines.  This led to trouble, in the form of a series of straight line freight train derailiments caused by poor riding and/or axle failure, culminating in the Thirsk crash in 1967 which ended DP2's career.  A blanket 45mph speed restriction (60mph previously) was subsequently imposed on all vehicles with 10' or less wheelbases, the bulk of the fleet, and I can testify that this was too high for comfort in many cases, the sight of a train of loaded 16ton mineras snaking violently along straight track at 40mph or so being much less alarming in the dark or fog when you couldn't see it! 

 

But in earlier days, I mean roughly pre-Beeching, freight trains on main lines tended to be slower, and the problems of headwind, foul weather, and dust associated with veranda leading working were much less. 

 

 

Please get it right (as ever).  The wagons derailed in the Thirsk incident which led to the collision had a 15ft wheelbase and were restricted to 45mph for reasons which were nothing at all to do with the crop of short wheelbase wagon derailments earlier in the 1960s   The Cemflos involved in the Thirsk derailment had a design speed of 60mph which was reduced  to 50mph in 1965 and further reduced to 45mph in 1966 - as a consequence of broken springs arising from the 'hard' suspension'.  Nothing to do with the short wheelbase derailments earlier in the 1960s which had led to the 45mph limit for wagons with a wheelbase of less than 10ft.

 

Incidentally Guards did not become 'traincrew' in 1969 - beyond the fact taht they were already members of traincrew the amalgamation of Driver's Assistants and Guards came much later,  The WR went in heavily for synchronisation of Footplate crew and Guard's diagrams from the late 1960s onwards and the management of both groups of grades came under a single post at local level almost entirely as a result of changes to Area management structures and the size of areas plus rationalisation of accommodation.  The synchronisation concept had little  to do with Manning, or any other, Agreements and was mainly aimed at improving efficiency in the diagramming organisation but it also allowed advantage to be taken of the agreement under Pay & Efficiency Part Ii in 1969 (further amended in the 1973 alterations to the Manning Agreements) for non footplate staff to as act as a second person on the footplate on various types of light engine movement which made it possible for a Guard to be used on certain restricted mileage light engine movements in particular parts of a turn of duty.  In certain other circumsatnces of light engine moves anyone competent in Rules could be used as thh second person on the footplate.

 

BTW brake van preparation was clearly restated as part ofa Guard's duties under P&E Stage I, Train Preparers undertook this duty at some locations but that was done to save time in the Guard's diagrams (especially synchronised diagrams) and not for any other reason.   As ever I do wish people would check facts before posting what they 'think' happened and leaving someone else to sort out the resultant nonsense.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, 33C said:

The Gannex rain coat was indeed a fearsome garment. Mine would stand up on it's own when done up! 

I preferred the proper job 'black mac' as it didn't get so hot although out in it continuously in heavy rain for several hours the water would eventually start to seep through a bit across the shoulders and it wasn't advisable to stand with your back too close to an electric wall heater    And of course you got a separate overcoat then as well before the Gannex came in as a sort of dual purpose money saving thing.  Fortunately I only had a fairly brief acquaintance with the Gannex as I was then in a grade where a proper overcoat was part of the uniform plus that meant I still kept some folk in work in the Del Guerra factory in the Rhondda Valley as I also had to have a 'black mac' for wet weather use. 

 

Addendum - while being dragged around Waitrose in Tlehurst to 'get the shopping' my memory clicked back a good many years and reminded me that 'Gannex' is wrong - the coats were actually described in the clothing catalogue as 'Girtex'.  I don't know if that was the name of the maker or something to do with the material.  I know that as far as footplate staff were concerned they became the standard issue around 1967/68 (at the same time that shirts with detachable collars were replaced by shirts with attached collars).  However from mid 1972 footlpate staff were allowed to opt to go back to the previous arrangement of a separate overcoat and pvc wet weather coat instead of the Girtex coat

Edited March 17, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[Helmdon]

On 15/03/2022 at 09:05, Compound2632 said:

 

And at how many places on the Great Western was that actually done? It would involve section occupancy to say nothing of extra work for three signalmen.

 Surprised no one has mentioned the ‘Kiddy Giddy’ which was a routine one and actually extra work for *five* signalmen…*

 

Turning a loco at Kidderminster involved sending it light Kidderminster- Bewdley-Stourport-Hartlebury-Kidderminster (so in box terms Kidderminster-Kidderminster Jct-Bewdley South -Stourport on Severn-Hartlebury Jct -Kidderminster Jct-Kidderminster)
 

*it’s potentially six but I can’t remember off/hand where Stourport North and South handed over to each other. At Hartlebury I think it only involves the jct signalbox.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Helmdon

[hmrspaul]

On 15/03/2022 at 00:06, MidlandRed said:

 

 

It’s a little surprising the WR could afford to allocate relatively scarce resources like brake van (s) to run purely on one rural branch line - surely the pick up goods would have run elsewhere as well, where the wear could be balanced. 

Much of the discussion has been about BR use of these vans.

The GWR appendix to the rule book in 1936 makes clear that vans were allocated to one guard - who was responsible for locking it up and taking the key home when he was "resting". There were spare keys and spare vans to replace "their" van when it was not available. If going to shops all the equipment was removed at the allocated depot. The guards were responsible for ensuring all was correct on the van before locking it up, including that the sander was full and dry. The management of the allocated yards were required to inspect the van once per week to ensure it remained clean and tidy (internally). 

 

Paul