Grouping & merging different companies' operating practices

[RWLDproject]

Thinking about the Grouping bringing together companies with very different identities and cultures, there's been some interesting discussion about how the mergers were carried out e.g. around branding, liveries and so on. But what about differing operating practices? So, how - in practice - did the new companies manage things like terminology differences, or contrasting ways of doing things?

Sorry, can't pull out any good examples of the sorts of things I mean here. I recall reading about railwaymen who came from pre-Grouping companies hanging on to the 'old' loyalties right through into BR days, effectively by-passing the Grouping era, so I imagine there must have been operating protocols that posed a challenge to the sense of a coherent new company. That said, as I'm interested in this for looking at it for staff safety implications, I'd also imagine anything that compromised operational efficiency and possibly also safety would have been subject to a decision that 'this is the way we're going to do it'. That might have been true in theory, of course, but I'd like to see if 'old habits die hard' and staff carried on doing things as they always had...

Thanks in advance for your suggestions or thoughts!

 

[Taunton]

A significant one was whether locomotives were driven from the left or the right hand side, with all the implications for signal sighting etc. Sometimes written that only the GWR "drove from the other side", but in fact at 1923 various other companies did, the LNER constituents in particular seemed to bring half of each, and some new locos of theirs were then built with different batches laid out on different sides.

David L Smith's books about the G&SW cover the period after it was absorbed into the LMS, which as far as Scotland was concerned was viewed as more a takeover by the Caledonian, with dissatisfaction about cast-off locos, poorer coal, men not having their "own" engine any more, etc.

I do believe the GWR ripped through the operating procedures of the Cambrian, and stamped out a whole series of laxness which among other things had led to the Abermule accident only months before the merger. Many of the older staff there were somewhat rapidly retired.

 

[eldomtom2]

What you probably want to do for starters would be a comparison of rule books for pre-Grouping and post-Grouping - IIRC by Grouping a base rule book that the individual companies then published their own appendices to had long been established, but as this only covered general principles applicable to all railways there would have been plenty of variation in the official appendices, especially with the growth of major new technologies like electrification that the general rule book did not cover. There would also of course have been operating practices that fell outside of the coverage of the rule book but that the companies still had official standards on.

How much unofficial practices, especially when they were concerned with matters that the rule book did not cover, differed based by company as opposed to being more local will be difficult to determine. Accident reports, in the limited number of cases where accidents were due to unofficial practices, are unlikely to give information on the extent of the practice, and of course many unofficial practices would have never had the chance to cause an accident.

Moving forward somewhat, but still on the topic of operating practices being affected by mergers, I remember reading somewhere that a complaint of ex-LNER engine crews in the early 1950s was that nationalisation had led to an increase in the number of lodging turns.

 

[topydre]

Probably the most visible example would be the standardisation of electrification on the Southern, including the wholesale removal of the LSBCR's ohl equipment and replacement with LSWR-style 3rd rail

 

[Taunton]

One extreme to the other, but Smith's books on the G&SW (above) mention when it in turn had taken over the previously independent Wigtownshire Railway. A running inspector from Glasgow was sent down initially to check their procedures.

"Don't you have any detonators?".
"Oh, I'm sure they have some in the stores at Stranraer".

"But don't you USE them?"
"Oh, aye, aye. If there's anyone getting married or emigrating to Australia we put on two or three ...".

"But what do you do if you stick going up the bank?"
"Oh, the goods comes up behind and gives us a push ...".

"My goodness, what a way to run a railway ..."
"Oh, it's fine. You see, we ALL know where one another are."

 

[hexagon789]

LNER constituents in particular seemed to bring half of each, and some new locos of theirs were then built with different batches laid out on different sides

The A1s (and A3s converted from A1s, including Flying Scotsman) were right-hand drive until converted under BR in the 1950s. I believe FS was RHD until 1954, but conversions started in 1950.

 

[RWLDproject]

Thanks all, this is really helpful - much appreciated. Just had a related thought - differences in terminology between pre-grouping companies and their grouped successors; might there have been problems there, from using different terms for the same thing/ action, but not understanding?

Thanks again!

 

[Revaulx]

A lot of the intense rivalries that drove the railways in the 19th century were starting to be regarded as a hindrance by the end of it. The creation of the SECR in 1899 showed what could be achieved through cooperation, and the proposed GN/GE/GC merger of 1909 was a sign of where things were inevitably heading. Former deadly rivals the LNW and L&Y were already chumming up prior to the War. So in some cases there was a genuine desire for cooperation, at least at the highest level.

L&Y employees might not have liked being absorbed by the LNW, but knowing that it was the will of their bosses would have made it easier to accept. GSW men would have regarded their absorption as nothing short of a hostile takeover.

 

[2192]

Did the Welsh companies that were absorbed by the GWR use lower quadrant signalling prior to takeover,
or did the GWR change them from upper quadrant when they needed replacing?

 

[Gloster]

As far as a lot of operating rules and practices were concerned, a lot of the railways worked to very much the same practices. There would be differences in some terminology, what was in a rule book or elsewhere, and things like the numbering of rules, but the basic system was little different from one company to another. The main problem is getting staff to remember the new numbers when things are revised: it is now Rule 17, but the signalman‘s old company called it Rule 32, the driver’s 87 and the fireman’s 65. It is not a quick process: in the early 1980s I worked with signalmen who did not give Call Attention before sending Train Out of Section. This was not because it was seen as an irritating detail which really wasn’t necessary, but because that was how it was done in the GWR and BR (W) rules they had learnt.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2023 ==

Did the Welsh companies that were absorbed by the GWR use lower quadrant signalling prior to takeover,
or did the GWR change them from upper quadrant when they needed replacing?

I am not sure, but probably. Lower Quadrant was the norm on most lines until Upper became standard on all except the GWR.

 

[D6130]

Did the Welsh companies that were absorbed by the GWR use lower quadrant signalling prior to takeover,
or did the GWR change them from upper quadrant when they needed replacing?

As far as I am aware, the only upper quadrant signals that were in use prior to the 1923 grouping were the American-style three position pneumatically-operated signals at Keadby lifting bridge (Great Central Railway Doncaster-Scunthorpe-Barnetby line) and Victoria Eastern (South Eastern & Chatham Railway). I think that the normal two postion upper quadrant signals were very gradually introduced by the LMS, LNER and SR in the late 1920s/early 1930's....but I'm open to correction, as always.

 

[Taunton]

Did the Welsh companies that were absorbed by the GWR use lower quadrant signalling prior to takeover,
or did the GWR change them from upper quadrant when they needed replacing?

If I recall correctly, the Barry Railway used somersault signals, supplied by signalling contractor Saxby & Farmer, the same as the GNR. As was the way 100 years ago, there was no paranoia about enforcing corporate consistency, and some of the somersaults appear to have lasted not only throughout the GWR era, and even the BR steam times, but well into the diesel years. Are there any left?

 

[D6130]

If I recall correctly, the Barry Railway used somersault signals, supplied by signalling contractor Saxby & Farmer, the same as the GNR. As was the way 100 years ago, there was no paranoia about enforcing corporate consistency, and some of the somersaults appear to have lasted not only throughout the GWR era, and even the BR steam times, but well into the diesel years. Are there any left?

An on-line photo sales website - picclick.co.uk - would seem to indicate that the Taff Vale, Rhymey and Brecon & Merthyr Railways also used somersault signals. One of the photos for sale shows an ex-Barry railway somersault combined stop and distant signal on the causeway at Barry Island, with a fairly new-looking Derby-built class 116 three car DMU approaching....so it must have survived until at least the late 1950s. According to its collections website, the National Museum of Wales has a red & white wooden ex-Barry railway somersault signal arm on an iron bracket, which they acquired in February 1992....although it could have been sold or donated by a private collector who had had it for a number of years. Unfortunately, it's currently in storage and not on display.

 

[etr221]

As far as I am aware, the only upper quadrant signals that were in use prior to the 1923 grouping were the American-style three position pneumatically-operated signals at Keadby lifting bridge (Great Central Railway Doncaster-Scunthorpe-Barnetby line) and Victoria Eastern (South Eastern & Chatham Railway). I think that the normal two postion upper quadrant signals were very gradually introduced by the LMS, LNER and SR in the late 1920s/early 1930's....but I'm open to correction, as always.

Pre 1923 there was I understand a feeling within the signal engieering communiy that 3 position semaphore signals would be upper quadrant, and 2 position would remain lower quadrant (as they had been sinnce they came in), to distinguish the two varieties. But there were only a couple of 3 position semaphore installations (as mentioned - there may have been a few more); and as 'daylight' colour light signals first came into use in the early 1920s, there was quickly a consensus that if 'multiple aspect' was required, then colour lights would be used, so that a switch of 2 position semaphores from lq to uq was possible without confusion (and desirable), and - slowly - went ahead on the LMSR, LNER and SR.

 

[Rescars]

Surely one of the big issues in regard to operation would have been over the question of brakes. Some constituents used Westinghouse, others vacuum. As commented earlier, in Scotland the GSW viewed the Grouping as something akin to a Caledonian coup. But the GSW was a vacuum line whilst the Caley was Westinghouse. IIRC normal LMS practice was to use vacuum brakes. This sort of situation resulted in the need for dual braked stock which (as covered in another thread) remained an issue until the ultimate abolition of vacuum brake working.

 

[Taunton]

The Scottish brake position seemed that existing stock was left as it was, just any new ones were to the LMS style. Given that not a lot of new internal for Scotland stock was actually built, the LMS only had 16 clear years 1923-39 to start on any replacement policy, into BR times there was still a lot of Caledonian air-braked stock around, especially on Glasgow suburban work. In fact, when the electric Blue Trains came along in the early 1960s in two separated networks it was convenient to still have old air-brake (in fact dual) Caledonian locos around to haul the new emus between the two parts.

I never got how Westinghouse became standard on the Isle of Wight, but not on any of the mainland Southern constituents.

 

[RWLDproject]

Again, thanks to you all for the pointers so far - greatly appreciated. Will be having a look through the Railway Work, Life & Death project records to follow up on these.

Just ran across an interesting (pre-grouping) example of the sort of thing I was thinking of - an accident to a worker from one company, the Hull & Barnsley, as a result of different conventions on another, the L&Y. On 8 March 1911 goods guard E Beaumont suffered crushed toes at Cudworth, Yorkshire, when he dropped a wagon coupling on his foot. He needed a new coupling as the one already on the L&Y wagon was short - in keeping with the Company's practice - and couldn't reach the distance needed. So - differing company practices and kit, leading to problems. (A bit more about Beaumont's accident can be found here: https://www.railwayaccidents.port.ac.uk/a-project-blog-post-goods-guard-beaumont/)

 

[D6130]

I never got how Westinghouse became standard on the Isle of Wight, but not on any of the mainland Southern constituents.

I thought that the Westinghouse air brake was also standard on the London Brighton & South Coast Railway?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Merging operations still gives the modern railway headaches, 74 years after they were brought under one ownership.
Staff working for the same TOC still retain terms and conditions they had before a string of mergers, things like Sundays being in/out of the working week.
There seems no will-power to harmonise things, though GBR might lead the way.
I always thought the Class 373 was a European triumph of design, a single train being able to work across GB, Eurotunnel, SNCF and SNCB routes with their different platform, electrical and signalling standards.
Class 374 didn't need the UK 3rd rail compatibility, but does venture onto NS tracks with another set of standards, including right-hand running.

 

[Rescars]

I thought that the Westinghouse air brake was also standard on the London Brighton & South Coast Railway?

As also were the North British and the Great Eastern IIRC.

Another brake issue was created by the different vacuum pressure used by the Great Western from that used on other lines. Others will know the details about what had to be done to cope with through workings

 

[D6130]

Another brake issue was created by the different vacuum pressure used by the Great Western from that used on other lines. Others will know the details about what had to be and recharge done to cope with through workings

The GWR - and for many years afterwards the Western Region of British Rail - ran with 25 inches of vacuum instead of the standard 21 inches. This lead to problems with releasing train brakes after a loco change - either steam or diesel - at major stations where locos were changed on long distance inter-regional trains, such as Crewe, Birmingham New Street, Bristol Temple Meads and Reading. The solution adopted was for the shunter to walk along the train 'pulling the strings' (operating the brake release cords) and then for the non-GWR/Western Region loco to couple on and recharge the vacuum at 21 inches. I think I've got that right, but it's late in the evening - no, early in the morning - so I'm open to correction.

 

[Rescars]

The GWR - and for many years afterwards the Western Region of British Rail - ran with 25 inches of vacuum instead of the standard 21 inches. This lead to problems with releasing train brakes after a loco change - either steam or diesel - at major stations where locos were changed on long distance inter-regional trains, such as Crewe, Birmingham New Street, Bristol Temple Meads and Reading. The solution adopted was for the shunter to walk along the train 'pulling the strings' (operating the brake release cords) and then for the non-GWR/Western Region loco to couple on and recharge the vacuum at 21 inches. I think I've got that right, but it's late in the evening - no, early in the morning - so I'm open to correction.

Thank you, D6130. I recall mention of "pulling the strings" - your explanation clarifies what was actually going on.

 

[robert thomas]

The GWR - and for many years afterwards the Western Region of British Rail - ran with 25 inches of vacuum instead of the standard 21 inches. This lead to problems with releasing train brakes after a loco change - either steam or diesel - at major stations where locos were changed on long distance inter-regional trains, such as Crewe, Birmingham New Street, Bristol Temple Meads and Reading. The solution adopted was for the shunter to walk along the train 'pulling the strings' (operating the brake release cords) and then for the non-GWR/Western Region loco to couple on and recharge the vacuum at 21 inches. I think I've got that right, but it's late in the evening - no, early in the morning - so I'm open to correction.

This still happens today on heritage lines

 

[Taunton]

I recall what I long afterwards found out was "pulling the strings" going on at Bristol Temple Meads when inter-regional trains headed northwards stopped to change locos, from the Western Region steam locos to a Jubilee, or the early Peaks. The shunter just walked along the outside of the train "fiddling" with each coach. I recall my grandfather, quite a prominent mechanical engineer in his time but long retired, told someone else it was the wheeltapper, which I found a nonsense as it clearly wasn't.

I don't know where the break point was for not having the GWR vacuum strength any more. Did BR Standard steam locos allocated to the WR have it? Did the WR diesel hydraulics? What about the Class 47?

 

[Rescars]

I recall what I long afterwards found out was "pulling the strings" going on at Bristol Temple Meads when inter-regional trains headed northwards stopped to change locos, from the Western Region steam locos to a Jubilee, or the early Peaks. The shunter just walked along the outside of the train "fiddling" with each coach. I recall my grandfather, quite a prominent mechanical engineer in his time but long retired, told someone else it was the wheeltapper, which I found a nonsense as it clearly wasn't.

I don't know where the break point was for not having the GWR vacuum strength any more. Did BR Standard steam locos allocated to the WR have it? Did the WR diesel hydraulics? What about the Class 47?

Would it be possible to double head if the locos operated at different vacuum pressures?

 

[Taunton]

Yes, the normal practice was (on the Western, who insisted the train loco still leads and the pilot had to be put behind it) that only the lead loco did the brake, including the ejector, which is the important item for vacuum strength (although purists will be along to point out that the GWR did not use a continuous small ejector when running, but used a mechanical crosshead pump, which made the tiff-tiff-tiff noise when coasting). The assistant loco behind just applied steam power as required, but did little else for the running. They could apply the brake, which valve had various positions for vacuum and for loco steam brakes, but were unpopular with the lead loco if they did. I think that earlier GWR main line locos, where originally they had steam brakes on the loco wheels and vacuum for the train, were adapted to have vacuum also on the loco when the ATC equipment was fitted.

 

[Rescars]

Yes, the normal practice was (on the Western, who insisted the train loco still leads and the pilot had to be put behind it) that only the lead loco did the brake, including the ejector, which is the important item for vacuum strength (although purists will be along to point out that the GWR did not use a continuous small ejector when running, but used a mechanical crosshead pump, which made the tiff-tiff-tiff noise when coasting). The assistant loco behind just applied steam power as required, but did little else for the running. They could apply the brake, which valve had various positions for vacuum and for loco steam brakes, but were unpopular with the lead loco if they did. I think that earlier GWR main line locos, where originally they had steam brakes on the loco wheels and vacuum for the train, were adapted to have vacuum also on the loco when the ATC equipment was fitted.

Aha! This would avoid any issue arising with different vacuum strengths when double heading, but would not get around the need to pull the strings whenever a 25 inch vacuum GW loco (with its pump) was changed for a 21 inch vacuum loco (using ejectors only). IIRC it was the pump which enabled GW locos to deliver the greater vacuum pressure.

 

[Taunton]

Sort of. The mechanical equipment would be able to deliver either vacuum strength, but the small ejector maintaining the vacuum uses a surprising amount of steam, and the more vacuum needed the more you use, so it's a compromise between steam usage and how much brake force you want. The GWR crosshead pump was felt to avoid this. Now as my good friend Sir Isaac Newton says, with energy you just don't get " 'owt for now't", so the energy used at the pump had to come from somewhere, as drag on the train to be overcome. But then Sir Isaac's equally good friend, Mr Churchward, knew more than most about such things, and had doubtless worked out which way suited him the best. Though note nobody else followed.

 

[marsker]

I remember going on a Scarborough Spa Express in the late 80s worked by City of Truro. I was waiting for a train home and a Cl 47 had backed onto the stock (the Mk1 set repainted int chocolate and cream) to work it back to Heaton. I got talking to the driver and asked whether he was aware that the train had been brought into York by an engine with a 25" brake. He wasn't and quickly arranged for the strings to be pulled.

 

[2192]

I remember going on a Scarborough Spa Express in the late 80s worked by City of Truro. I was waiting for a train home and a Cl 47 had backed onto the stock (the Mk1 set repainted int chocolate and cream) to work it back to Heaton. I got talking to the driver and asked whether he was aware that the train had been brought into York by an engine with a 25" brake. He wasn't and quickly arranged for the strings to be pulled.

What would happen if the strings were not pulled? Would anything/anyone be damaged? Would the brakes stay on/off?