British Railway Operations

[mhurley87f]

Tulyar15,

Many thanks for the information, much appreciated.

Talking of Up and Down in Railway terms, of course, the Great Western Railway always placed its telegraph/communications cables and posts on the side deemed to be the Up side to help train staff remember on which line they were should they need to make contact with signal boxes, e.g. to arrange assisting engines. IIRC this practice got a mention in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

As mentioned above, Up and Down could be easily defined on routes radiating from a Railway Compnay's HQ, but problems might innocently arise on orbital routes.

Martin

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mhurley87f

As mentioned above, Up and Down could be easily defined on routes radiating from a Railway Compnay's HQ, but problems might innocently arise on orbital routes.
Martin

I guess a smart alek could point out that the orbital routes might read "over", no matter which way the train was headed?[:o)] Thanks for the explanations. The "up" and "down" designations, I'm sure, are relative to the way the railroads formed, way back then.

A question: Because of the time difference, a fair amount of the chatting on this thread takes on the feel of a long-distance chess game. What time is it in Britain? My screen shows that my time zone is GMT-6 hours. Thanks

[Hugh Jampton]

We're GMT period, so we're coming to you from 6 hours in the future...

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

We're GMT period, so we're coming to you from 6 hours in the future...

Then some of you cats keep some weird hours[;)]

[John Bakeer]

No we're not. We are six hours behind. Aren't we?
Well, we're usually behind every one else at most things!
John B.

[Simon Reed]

Just a reminder to all UK readers that the next working party on the ALCo S1 is next Saturday (1st).

We'll be cataloging spares so it's an "all hands on deck" day.

[Anonymous]

Just come across this and remembered the discussion of "Leader" here - http://www.modelfair.com/acatalog/Golden_Arrow.html is a OO scale model of the loco, one of a limited edition of 200 apparently. Might be of interest!

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

We're GMT period, so we're coming to you from 6 hours in the future...

Then some of you cats keep some weird hours[;)]

Britain goes on European Summertime on Sunday 26 April increasing the time difference to North American time zones by one hour, North America catches up by going on Daylight Saving Time on Sunday 2 April.

[:)]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

Just come across this and remembered the discussion of "Leader" here - http://www.modelfair.com/acatalog/Golden_Arrow.html is a OO scale model of the loco, one of a limited edition of 200 apparently. Might be of interest!

Interesting that they described it as a 0-6-6-0 tank locomotive.[:p]

[John Bakeer]

The SR system/ OVSB of wheel arrangement would be Co Co?
John B.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by John Bakeer

The SR system/ OVSB of wheel arrangement would be Co Co?
John B.

No, C-C. Co refers to three independently driven axles. The Leader had coupling chains and one set of cylinders per bogie, so it was a C-C. Bullied was to number it CC1, although he already had an electric loco with the same number, which became BR 20001.

If 36001 had a conventional boiler placed centrally on the frame and used a conventional two cylinder engine per bogie, like a scaled down Q1, it would have probably had a long life. A full conventional firebox would have increased the theoretical maintenance costs but improved the steaming and reduced the cab temperature.

M636C

[daveklepper]

So far all conversions to light rail in Great Britain have been urban railways, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle (midway between heavy and light, in my opinion), Croydon (South London), etc. What about cost-reduction by converting rural branch lines to light rail operation to reduce wear on track (lighter equipment) same employment giving more frequency service to encourage greater ridership by a limit to two staff people on each train, driver and conductor, on-board fare checking with halts and stations largely unmanned and tickets sold from machines, etc, with diesel light-railcars from Stadler or simply rebuilding the existing diesel railcars for this type of operatoin (no separation from the operating cab to the passenger compartment or use of glass, etc.)? Could this effect cost reduction and improve service on existing secondary lines? The model would the New Jersey's Trenton - Camden River Line.

[John Bakeer]

As I understand it, the Leader was to fill the slot alocated to the express tank locomotives with the additional capacity to carry out main line tasks, shunting was never a consideration.
2C1 refered to 2 leading undriven axles with C meaning driven axle(s) and 1trailing undriven axle, I think it was more a case of adopting deisel and electric parlance in order to maintain a modern image.
John B.

[John Bakeer]

See the abysmal 142 for a try at converting to light rail. They've all tried it from steam rail motors in pre-grouping days to the present, the current generation of managers are just as incapable of learning from others mistakes as was my fathers generation on the Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Tramways are totally different animals to heavy transit railways.
John B.

[Simon Reed]

I think the British Rail Board in the '80's made a half hearted step towards operating in certain areas on essentially light rail principles; it could be argued that with the introduction of the "Paytrain" concept in the early '70's the idea was conceived.

Firstly - virtually all local trains in both rural and urban areas run with a two man crew - driver and conductor guard. This is'nt a conductor in the US sense, but a conductor as in bus conductor; he issues tickets. This idea was established in the paytrain era as a costcutting method. Now, only principal stations serving larger areas of population are manned.

Secondly, in the '80's the concept of the railbus was "refined" to it's ultimate, in the "Pacer" type units. These have been discussed on here before, but they're basically a lightweight two car, four axled unit designed in conjunction with bus manufacturers, with a view to usage on lightly used routes.

The perceived reduction in track forces of a single axle at each end (as opposed to the conventionial double axled truck), coupled with a general retrenchment of freight in that era meant that the routes to which they were allocated could be less intensively maintained.

Whilst their ambience and ride qualities are nothing to write home about they have proved surprisingly robust. More importantly, they have made some marginal (in revenue terms) routes more economically viable. I'd point to Huddersfield-Penistone-Barnsley and Middlesbrough-Whitby as examples.

The NJT example is still in it's infancy so I don't think we can draw comparisons there but the model is essentially the same as the one extensively used in rural West Germany. Basically, Dave, it's already been done here. It's not light rail per se but NJT is'nt either - it's a hybrid from which we can learn, consolidate and progress.

[daveklepper]

Good. I gather that the Stadler equipment on the River Line, diesel electric and not diesel mechanical, does get rave reviews regarding riding quality, quiet, and performance. They run with one man, an operator, just like the classic PCC's and most USA and Canadian modern light rail, but I understand that 2-man crews are normal on modern British light rail and on certain heavy bus lines as well! On my first visit to Great Britain, in 1962, nearly all buses were 2-man. Or so it seemed.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Good. I gather that the Stadler equipment on the River Line, diesel electric and not diesel mechanical, does get rave reviews regarding riding quality, quiet, and performance. They run with one man, an operator, just like the classic PCC's and most USA and Canadian modern light rail, but I understand that 2-man crews are normal on modern British light rail and on certain heavy bus lines as well! On my first visit to Great Britain, in 1962, nearly all buses were 2-man. Or so it seemed.

As far as I can recall it's really only Sheffield that has 2 person crews. Manchester, Newcastle, Croydon and Wolverhampton all have one man crews, not sure about Nottingham. It's all ticket machines at the stops and on the trams.

There are also very few 2 man buses in operation, I think a few in London, otherwise it's all pay the driver or but a ticket from a machine at the stop.

[John Bakeer]

Here in Greater Manchester the trams are all one man with tickets obtained from machines at unstaffed halts (with high and low level platforms), Through tickets are issued at main stations to the various zones (the whole system is a series of zones).
The heavy rapid transit is a mixture of main line and branch line running with lighter local services using EMU's and DMU's having two man/women crews. Tickets are issued at staffed stations and on the train. The intercity network is interlaced with this system and interavailability of tickets on selected services.
Liverpool, London and Glasgow have the addition of an underground network.
The 142 or Pacer is a Leyland 36ft bus body mounted on a long wheelbase wagon chassis, you have to travel on one to really appreciate the true horror, especially on down graded track..
I am a regular user of the system, as the South Manchester highway system is often grid locked. The trouble is that the railroads are in chaos at weekends due to work on the WCML which both systems share to a large measure.
John B.

[daveklepper]

Would the unions unalterably oppose one-man branchline trains if staffing were held and service doubled?

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by John Bakeer

As I understand it, the Leader was to fill the slot allocated to the express tank locomotives with the additional capacity to carry out main line tasks, shunting was never a consideration.
2C1 referred to 2 leading undriven axles with C meaning driven axle(s) and 1 trailing undriven axle, I think it was more a case of adopting diesel and electric parlance in order to maintain a modern image.
John B.

The quoting of a wheel arrangement as 2C1, or more strictly 2'C1' h3 as would have applied to the Merchant Navy class was standard practice in Germany for steam locomotives certainly from the formation of the Reichsbahn in 1920, and probably some time before that, although not in the nineteenth century. This was adopted for diesel locomotives instead of the American "Whyte" system partly because it was adaptable to individually driven axles as I described in my previous posting, with the attachment of a lower case "o" to give this indication. In the form Bulleid used it, it was German but not associated with non steam power.

Bulleid was perhaps a Europhile as well as being attracted to unconventional engineering solutions. He certainly accompanied 2001 "**** o' the North" to the test plant at Vitry and he spoke French reasonably fluently. He knew Chapelon and de Caso (the Nord CME) and his favoured "Le Maitre" exhaust was a Nord specialty, while Gresley preferred the more complex "Kylchap" favoured by Chapelon and the Paris-Orleans.

De Caso's big Nord 4-6-4s, classes 232R and 232S were styled somewhat like the Gresley A4, but as they operated with the smokebox cover removed had similarities with "**** o' the North" and Bullied's own pacific types. When the sixth locomotive was completed post war as 232 U1 (with much input from Chapelon) it carried a front number plate clearly based on that carried by 21C1 "Channel Packet".

This can only be regarded as a tribute to Bullied by de Caso and other details of 232U1 suggest that the French were making use of Bullied's smoke deflection experiments.

Only a real enthusiast would number a new British locomotive with a German system in 1941, even a strange version where 2C1 became 21C just to separate the running number from the wheel arrangement.

I think the "Leader" could have had a normal cab like any large tank locomotive and still filled its requirement.

M636C

[mhurley87f]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Would the unions unalterably oppose one-man branchline trains if staffing were held and service doubled?

David,

Personally, I'd be rather uneasy about single manning trains on our rural secondary routes here in Wales.

In recent years we've had a tragic accident when a river bridge collapsed under a train causing the drowning of the driver and some passengers, and collisions at level crossings are too commonplace for comfort.

Also, let's not forget that on busy days, the cash collected in fares might be sufficent to entice opportunist muggers. I certainly wouldn't wi***hat risk on anyone.

There are locations where the driver or the guard must leave the train to attend to single line tokens, activate highway signals protecting level crossing, and in a very few instances, physically open and close gates!

No thanks, I'd rather have a two man crew to ensure delays are minimised, and who can back each other up should something untoward occur.

Martin

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Originally posted by John Bakeer

De Caso's big Nord 4-6-4s, classes 232R and 232S were styled somewhat like the Gresley A4, but as they operated with the smokebox cover removed had similarities with "**** o' the North" and Bullied's own pacific types.
.M636C

They operated with the smokebox cover removed, meaning the front of the smokebox? Sounds counter-productive to getting the exhaust to exit through the stack. I picture a loco running with its front end innards exposed to the elements.
[?]

Isambard

Grizzly Northern history, Tales from the Grizzly and news on line at  isambard5935.blogspot.com 

• Reply