Night Ferry route

[70014IronDuke]

I have unearthed my copy of that wonderful book Train Ferries of Western Europe by Patrick Ransome-Wallis (Ian Allan, 1968); it is pure chance that I found it today after it had been missing for fifteen months. Before the war it had been intended to use Lord Nelsons, but as they had little in reserve two 4-4-0 were used, usually an L and an L1, via Tonbridge. Post-war a Merchant Navy or a Light Pacific was used, the latter usually piloted by an L1. From June 1959 an electric was used and the train ran via Canterbury and Chatham. Pre-war it was 96 minutes down and 100 up for 400 tons via Tonbridge. The electric took 89 1/2 down and 110 up via Chatham, but with 850 tons.

Interesting that two x ageing 4-4-0s (and two footplage crew) were seen as more suitable than one LN - one wonders if the crews, reluctant to lose a regular piloted turn, had something to do with this. "Very difficult keeping time with the one locomotive, guv, honest."

Interesting too that while a single MN could manage, the light pacific needed a pilot. I'd have thought the original MNs would be just as prone to slipping as an unrebuilt light pacific. IT also begs the question, why didn't they allocate an MN once rebuilt to do the job?

Were Stewarts Lane Brits ever put on the job in the 50s? Does the book mention these? I suspect they would have been less prone to slipping than the original Bulleids.

 

[Gloster]

Interesting that two x ageing 4-4-0s (and two footplage crew) were seen as more suitable than one LN - one wonders if the crews, reluctant to lose a regular piloted turn, had something to do with this. "Very difficult keeping time with the one locomotive, guv, honest."

Interesting too that while a single MN could manage, the light pacific needed a pilot. I'd have thought the original MNs would be just as prone to slipping as an unrebuilt light pacific. IT also begs the question, why didn't they allocate an MN once rebuilt to do the job?

Were Stewarts Lane Brits ever put on the job in the 50s? Does the book mention these? I suspect they would have been less prone to slipping than the original Bulleids.

What I wrote is a summary of the short mention of the Night Ferry’s locos: it does say that the pre-war load was was six sleeping cars and two or three four-wheeled baggage vans. The Nelsons ‘had little in reserve with such a load and if extra vehicles were added to the train, they were in difficulties.’ It might have been the question of flexibility that caused the change to double-heading. If you don’t know until the ship has left Dunkirk whether a Nelson will cope or need to be substituted, better start with the substitute and then you are covered.

 

[etr221]

Interesting that two x ageing 4-4-0s (and two footplage crew) were seen as more suitable than one LN - one wonders if the crews, reluctant to lose a regular piloted turn, had something to do with this. "Very difficult keeping time with the one locomotive, guv, honest."

Interesting too that while a single MN could manage, the light pacific needed a pilot. I'd have thought the original MNs would be just as prone to slipping as an unrebuilt light pacific. IT also begs the question, why didn't they allocate an MN once rebuilt to do the job?

My understanding is that 'crew attitude' was a large part of the reason for retention of double heading as standard...

 

[6Gman]

I'll throw in an anecdote.

Around 1963 we had a family holiday in a camping coach at Sandling Junction. One night we were allowed to stay up to see the Night Ferry pass. My father (a railwayman) had checked with station staff and had established it would pass that evening, suggesting the route taken varied according to circumstances. I have a recollection (I was very young) that we were told it was influenced by tidal conditions though that seems unlikely!

 

[contrex]

I have a recollection (I was very young) that we were told it was influenced by tidal conditions though that seems unlikely!

Ferry times were and are subject to tidal variations and this would influence routing.

 

[73128]

Yes, on checking you are right. I haven't got a relevant WTT, but photos show the Up train with the Chatham headcode and public timetables

Intriguingly, the Down train also went via Chatham at one time, while the Up train pre WW2 seems to have gone via Tonbridge!
https://sremg.org.uk/misc/nferry.shtml.

So the best summary would be:
Down train, via Herne Hill and Tonbridge except following electrification of the Chatham route (summer 1959 for 2-3 years) when it went via Chatham.

Up train, via Chatham and Herne Hill until 1959, then via the Catford Loop until the mid-70s when it was retimed much earlier following the opening of Dunkerque Ouest terminal (Victoria 0745 vice 0910!) and switched to Tonbridge (and I think Herne Hill).

Post upthread amended.

Up train went via Catford 1975-1978 in the morning peak when I lived nearby and sometimes saw it at Peckham Rye.

 

[StephenHunter]

What I wrote is a summary of the short mention of the Night Ferry’s locos: it does say that the pre-war load was was six sleeping cars and two or three four-wheeled baggage vans. The Nelsons ‘had little in reserve with such a load and if extra vehicles were added to the train, they were in difficulties.’ It might have been the question of flexibility that caused the change to double-heading. If you don’t know until the ship has left Dunkirk whether a Nelson will cope or need to be substituted, better start with the substitute and then you are covered.

It was seven in 1965; the Summer CIWL timetable has the Paris carriages as 1-6 and Brussels as Carriage 1. At 7 sleepers, it beats most of the services in the timetable - except for the Blue Train and a Rome-Milan all-sleeper service.

 

[30907]

Interesting that two x ageing 4-4-0s (and two footplage crew) were seen as more suitable than one LN - one wonders if the crews, reluctant to lose a regular piloted turn, had something to do with this. "Very difficult keeping time with the one locomotive, guv, honest."

Only L1s were less than 15 years old, and the unmodified Nelsons didn't have the best of reputations...

Were Stewarts Lane Brits ever put on the job in the 50s? Does the book mention these? I suspect they would have been less prone to slipping than the original Bulleids.

But with only you and Mr Shakespeare to choose from, would the shedmaster have risked it, and have you sat around on Dover shed for 8 hours? Keeping the Brita on the Arrow where they could be better seen by the public and better supervised made sense

Ferry times were and are subject to tidal variations and this would influence routing.

At Dover, with a linkspan? The Up train could be rerouted if it lost its path due to fog in the Channel or whatever....

Up train went via Catford 1975-1978 in the morning peak when I lived nearby and sometimes saw it at Peckham Rye.

Summer 1976 is when the new berth at Dunkerque Ouest opeed and the train was retimed soon after.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

It was seven in 1965; the Summer CIWL timetable has the Paris carriages as 1-6 and Brussels as Carriage 1. At 7 sleepers, it beats most of the services in the timetable - except for the Blue Train and a Rome-Milan all-sleeper service.

When I travelled (seated) in '74 it was also 7 sleepers but the split was 5 Paris 2 Brussels + 3 'fourgons' on the rear for Paris, RB and RUO for sleeper passengers dining then 6 Mk1s on the front for us lesser mortals. Load 18 out of Victoria, over 720 tons (the WLs were 55 ton vehicles - apparently assistance out of Victoria was required if the load exceeded 750, so this was pretty close to the max. unassisted load.

 

[StephenHunter]

Load 18?! How far off the end of the Platform was that?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Load 18?! How far off the end of the Platform was that?

On the platform - maybe they have been shortened since then with e.g new buffer stops.
Don't forget the fourgons were 4 wheelers and the sleepers similiar length to MK1s

EDIT: Sectional appendix (2021) shows platform 2 as 359 metres.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Only L1s were less than 15 years old, and the unmodified Nelsons didn't have the best of reputations...

Yes, I realised after posting that the L1s were not really that old - however, they 'feel' more like an Edwardian-era loco than a mid-20s build. (Interesting qn - were they the last 2-cylinder 4-4-0 to be introduced in the UK?)

But with only you and Mr Shakespeare to choose from, would the shedmaster have risked it, and have you sat around on Dover shed for 8 hours? Keeping the Brita on the Arrow where they could be better seen by the public and better supervised made sense

I suppose it all depends on how strict the orders were for 70004 and my good self to be diagrammed for the Golden Arrow. And that's another question - I don't know. I suspect that the instructions were largely kept to in the early days (1952-3) and then it was gradually forgotten about, perhaps?

Whatever, if I'd been operations manager SR SE division in the 1950s, I'd have been keen to end double heading on the NF and would have liked to give one of the Brits a try.

Really, the whole marketing-PR cost of allocating two newly built pacifics for one flagship train, total daily mileage c 150 miles, and on a railway flooded with Class 7 and 8 pacifics (however temperamental) is bizarre.

I'm sure the LMR could have put both locos to far better use on the West Coast main line. (There again, the LMR did almost the same thing with two sets of Midland Pullmans, only one of which was ever in daily use - but at least the one in sue covered c 650 miles each weekday.)

 

[30907]

Load 18?! How far off the end of the Platform was that?

Platform 2 could comfortably take that.

Yes, I realised after posting that the L1s were not really that old - however, they 'feel' more like an Edwardian-era loco than a mid-20s build. (Interesting qn - were they the last 2-cylinder 4-4-0 to be introduced in the UK?)

Yes

Whatever, if I'd been operations manager SR SE division in the 1950s, I'd have been keen to end double heading on the NF and would have liked to give one of the Brits a try.

On a train potentially loading to 750t?

Really, the whole marketing-PR cost of allocating two newly built pacifics for one flagship train, total daily mileage c 150 miles, and on a railway flooded with Class 7 and 8 pacifics (however temperamental) is bizarre.

Quite - but IIRC the Arrow had a new set of Pullmans, and every region had to have a Brit.... and an early set of Mk1 coaches (but that's OT).

 

[Taunton]

I have unearthed my copy of that wonderful book Train Ferries of Western Europe by Patrick Ransome-Wallis (Ian Allan, 1968);

Pat Ransome-Wallis was a longstanding personal friend of Ian Allan himself, who published several of his works. A GP (like his father) in Kent, he was both thoroughly knowledgeable on Continental as much as British railways, and well placed to visit them. A naval background gave him detailed awareness of shipping as well. There's a lengthy biography of his life, which touches on several items raised in this thread, here :

The story of Pat Ransome-Wallis | The Railway Hub

 

[Howardh]

This reminded me of when we used to travel on the old Twickenham ferry from Dover to Dunkerque with the trains loaded on. We used to have a car/caravan filling any spaces - so never actually arrived/travelled by train ! Interesting website "Shipping wonders of the world" covers this https://www.shippingwondersoftheworld.com/dover_ferry.html

But my question is - would these train services be goods-only, or take pax from Victoria direct to the continent, and if so are there any old timetables around? As far as I can remember, there was little in the way of passenger services onboard, just a cafe and toilets + seating areas; nothing like the normal x-channel ferries with duty free, entertainments etc. Thus I think the ferry would have been mainly goods, so no pax from the trains, with some room for private cars, motorbikes and if booked ahead, car+caravans.

My memory dould be wrong though; but clicking through the links I found a plan of the Twickenham which backs up my distant memory.

The first of the three vessels, the Twickenham Ferry, has been handed over to the Angleterre-Lorraine-Alsace Steamship Company, which shares the operation of the service with the Southern Railway. This railway has built a number of luggage vans and goods wagons for the service, each vehicle being distinguished externally by a white anchor painted on the side. Other special vehicles have been built in France and Italy. The sleeping cars are provided by the International Sleeping Car Company, the activities of which are spread over most of the European continent, as well as North Africa and Asia Minor.

By means of the Dover-Dunkirk ferry, railway vehicles may be run through from any station in Great Britain to almost any destination on the European continent. The only countries which cannot be reached by through vehicles are Russia, Finland, Estonia, Spain and Portugal. In these countries the railways are built to wider rail gauges than the normal standard. Through freight traffic from Northern and Central Europe is still handled by the older Zeebrugge-Harwich ferries, which provide a shorter route to Germany and Holland.

https://www.shippingwondersoftheworld.com/wpimages/wpae29bde9_05_06.jpg - plan of the Twickenham Ferry showing engine room, train tracks on the level above, then pax level with limited facilities.

 

[StephenHunter]

Twickenham Ferry was one of the Night Ferry ships. As for passengers from the trains, seated passengers would have gone onto the ferry, with the sleeper vehicles transported on the train tracks.

 

[AndrewE]

Twickenham Ferry was one of the Night Ferry ships. As for passengers from the trains, seated passengers would have gone onto the ferry, with the sleeper vehicles transported on the train tracks.

I used it once as a foot passenger and bought a bunk in the large cabin/saloon(?)which turned out to be immediately under the train deck. I didn't realise that and slept well until we were approaching Dunkirk, when they un-shackled the sleeping cars. Huge things like extra-long screw couplings were just dropped onto the steel deck a couple of feet above my head which made for a very rude awakening... I think the crew must have resented the privilege of the pople in the sleeping cars.

It was similar to a journey on one of the southbound Scottish sleepers at Euston, arrived at 0530 or something and was platformed immediately beside a route for trains of BRUTES which continuously rattled and roared past on their rigid wheels until I gave up, dressed and left.

 

[30907]

Quite - but IIRC the Arrow had a new set of Pullmans, and every region had to have a Brit.... and an early set of Mk1 coaches (but that's OT).

Coincidentally my FB feed has just thrown up a picture of one of the Bulleid diesels heading the down Arrow through Petts Wood.

Re the ferryboats: they were primarily for freight apart from the two NF crossings. I don't think they carried port-to-port foot passengers only those in second class off the NF.
Did all sailings take cars or just the NF ones?

 

[Taunton]

I'll throw in an anecdote.

Around 1963 we had a family holiday in a camping coach at Sandling Junction. One night we were allowed to stay up to see the Night Ferry pass. My father (a railwayman) had checked with station staff and had established it would pass that evening, suggesting the route taken varied according to circumstances. I have a recollection (I was very young) that we were told it was influenced by tidal conditions though that seems unlikely!

Bit of a story from me here. In an about 1961 Trains Illustrated (later Modern Railways) magazine there was a photograph of a Class 24+33 combination passing Sandling Junction westbound, taken from high up on the road bridge there. In the background is that very camping coach. Us youthful readers from ... um ... 60 years ago said to each other "wow, what a great place to spend a holiday".

Was it? Maybe someone even has the magazine still to hand.

Meanwhile, tidal conditions did impact the Night Ferry ship. There is a considerable tidal variation at Dover, and not much of a linkspan variance at the old 1930s train ferry berth, where the ship was locked in to what was similar to a dry dock, and then a steam-powered pumping station alongside pumped water in or out to change the level of the ship to suit the track connection. If the tide was just right the linkspan could connect straight away. If not it apparently would sometimes take up to an hour to get the levels right. The same applied over in Dunkerque, and on departure. So when the Up train was ready to depart could be quite variable. Doesn't particularly seem to impact the Down service though.

As I understood it the ships, which took a notional four hours for the crossing (including that pumping) made one round trip a day, one way in daytime and the opposite at night, two vessels passing one another en route. There were three 1930s car ferry ships, but each only had one crew, who otherwise slept on board, and the third ship in rotation was always stood down at Dover while the crew were on shore leave for a few days. The daytime sailing was primarily for freight wagons, the night one for the sleeping cars, but space would be filled by extra freight, and/or cars driven on.

 

[Gloster]

Ransome-Wallis’ book deals with the situation in 1966, when there were four ferries: Saint-Germain had been built in 1951 for SNCF and Twickenham Ferry was also French owned. There were three crews for each ship and two ‘Ferrys’ were in use, with Saint Germain working additional freight trips.

Cars could also be loaded by muscle power: the book has a photo of a BR employee pushing an export Triumph 1300 along the ramp.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

A look at the 1947 goods timetable suggests that the only fast freight to London (23.45 Dover Town-Blackfriars) ran via Maidstone East. It may still have been carrying primarily military traffic.

 

[Taunton]

Extended article about the train ferry service and the dock facilities required here :

The Dover Train Ferry Dock 1936-1988 – Dover Ferry Photos (doverferryphotosforums.co.uk)

 

[32475]

I have a contemporary leaflet from when the Night Ferry first started which explains the service with timetable, fares and a rather wonderful cutaway illustration:

 

[contrex]

Love the ligature in 'Cæsar'.

 

[70014IronDuke]

On a train potentially loading to 750t?

But somewhere up thread it was stated that the NF with steam loaded to 400t, and that a MN was used alone, at least at times.

We all know that the light pacifics slipped like billy-oh, and I assume the original MNs weren't much better (I never saw them, consciously, in unrebuilt form). I just think it would have been interesting to try a Brit. Yes, as pacifics they would slip more easily than, say, a Nelson, but I suspect they were easier to handle than an original MN/BB/WC when starting. Having said that, of course, as mere 2-cylinder machines, the variation in force at the wheel-rail interface would likely be greater than with a 3-cylinder machine.

Still, it's all in the rather dim and distant past now.

Incidentally, the Class 71s having to take up to 750t is VERY impressive - and one wonders how prone they were to slipping with such loads - I mean, as Bo-Bo locos with a weight of just 78t, that's not a huge amount of adhesion available for the tractve effort needed to shift that kind of load. Even climbing the bank out of Victoria must have been a challenge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

I have a contemporary leaflet from when the Night Ferry first started which explains the service with timetable, fares and a rather wonderful cutaway illustration:
View attachment 108036View attachment 108037View attachment 108038

That's a real treasure!

 

[Taunton]

Love the ligature in 'Cæsar'.

These were the days when the letterpress typesetter had likely still done classics at school, along doubtless with the majority of the Night Ferry patrons who could afford travel to France (outside the military, of course), and it would come straightforwardly.

Does RailUK still support it? Ave Cæsar! Morituri te salutant!

 

[32475]

Love the ligature in 'Cæsar'.

It must be a rare example for a railway leaflet.
Happy New Year all and keep a tight hand on the regulator, or to quote the Latin text, STRICTA SERVARE MANUM IN REGULATOR (or words to that effect).

 

[eastwestdivide]

Incidentally, the Class 71s having to take up to 750t is VERY impressive - and one wonders how prone they were to slipping with such loads - I mean, as Bo-Bo locos with a weight of just 78t, that's not a huge amount of adhesion available for the tractve effort needed to shift that kind of load. Even climbing the bank out of Victoria must have been a challenge.

For the last few years of the Night Ferry, it was hauled by a single Class 73, of similar weight and with less power than the 71. A single 73 was also used for the heavy VSOE pullman train in the mid-80s.
So it seems it wasn’t such a big problem. Was the train really 750 tons?

 

[StephenHunter]

In 1974-75, with five sleepers, six Mark 1s and three Fourgons was 507.5 tons. 55 tons a sleeper is given there.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Towards the end of the 'Night Ferry' a single Cl 33 'Crompton' was used on occasions, and indeed the last down service on 31/10/80 was hauled by 33043.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

In 1974-75, with five sleepers, six Mark 1s and three Fourgons was 507.5 tons. 55 tons a sleeper is given there.

For the last few years of the Night Ferry, it was hauled by a single Class 73, of similar weight and with less power than the 71. A single 73 was also used for the heavy VSOE pullman train in the mid-80s.
So it seems it wasn’t such a big problem. Was the train really 750 tons?

Towards the end of the 'Night Ferry' a single Cl 33 'Crompton' was used on occasions, and indeed the last down service on 31/10/80 was hauled by 33043.

Five sleepers, six Mk1s and three Fourgons was the core formation as per SR 1974 Train Marshalling book and when the weights listed there are added up they come to 546.5 tons - the quoted weights suggest at least some Commonwealth bogied Mk1s. Strengthening was added when required and on the two occasions I used it that year it consisted of two additional sleepers (110 tons) and a further two Mk1s (approx 70 tons). There are several published photos of it with 7 sleepers - I wonder was that the maximum allowed, perhaps dictated by the train ferry capacity?

The seated coaches were withdrawn in 1975 - although initially the RB and RUO remained for meals service, also the BCK in which the Guard rode. At that time the 71s still had a further two years in service, but even with 7 sleepers the weight would now be below 500 tons, or less than 400 if only 5 sleepers so presumably within the capability of a cl73, or latterly a cl33 - it often ran with less than 5 sleepers in the later years and there is 1979 photo of it with just two sleepers and one fourgon plus the BCK for the Guard.