Unfitted Freight Operation

[ac6000cw]

Modern rail freight has to be much more time-consious than it was in the past, particularly for intermodal trains which have to hit specific timetable slots on busy main lines.

I agree, and it's a good thing, helped by proper contractual relationships between FOC and NR (real money changing hands when things go wrong does tend to concentrate minds...).

However for similar reasons it probalby isn't going to be possible to deliver a train at the exact time a particular faclity might want one as "just-in-time" probably implies.

'Just-in-time' also tends to imply 'little and often', so a whole trainload is probably not what you want anyway (and if that trainload is very late, the production process might be completely disrupted, whereas a truckload or two late is much easier to work around - eggs in baskets etc.).

There have been an interesting series of programmes - 'Inside the Factory' - on BBC TV about various large-scale food production factories. Walkers Crisps in Leicester was one of them - that was very much 'little and often' continuous flow operation. Trucks arrived at one end delivering potatoes, and departed from the other end loaded with boxes of crisps. The time from a potato arriving to departing as crisps was very short (less than two hours I think) and they produce more than 5 million bags of crisps every 24 hours. I bet they have top-notch transport managers there...

 

[AndrewE]

I don't think catch points on 100mph lines were banned, but as well as the above issue they would have been a maintenance liability as every train passing over them would strike the side of the moving rail and push it back against the spring. Also they would derail any train that stopped over them for any reason and rolled back a little when re-starting against the gradient.

Actually every axle passing over them pushes them aside!
I'm sure that the catch-points over Shap were motorised, and the problem was that the faster trains would have been on them before they had opened, risking smashing the mechanisms. That's why unfitted (or partially-fitted) trains were diverted over the S&C.
A

 

[Taunton]

Although Shap (northbound) may be steeper, for a short section, than over Ais Gill, the latter is not without long gradients itself of course, so you wonder why runaways on the former required such precautions.

I had thought the end of the catchpoints was back in steam days, and thereafter unfitted freights were required to have a banker from Tebay.

 

[edwin_m]

Although Shap (northbound) may be steeper, for a short section, than over Ais Gill, the latter is not without long gradients itself of course, so you wonder why runaways on the former required such precautions.

I had thought the end of the catchpoints was back in steam days, and thereafter unfitted freights were required to have a banker from Tebay.

There would still have been catch points on the climb to Ais Gill, but with trains being slower and less frequent than the WCML, fewer would have been needed and they would see fewer trains at lower speeds. In general there needs to be a catch point for every signal section, so a rollback can't hit a train waiting at the signal behind, but with continuous four-aspect signalling the climbs on the WCML would have needed one about every mile! The alternative would be to space them more widely and hold back the train following a part or unfitted freight so there was always at least one catch point in between, but that would reduce capacity on a busy main line.

Catch points would certainly have remained in use until all trains became fully fitted around 1990, though I think they were removed from many routes before that. Magazine articles on resignalling schemes often refer to their elimination with a feature where the train describer lights a lamp on the panel when a class 7-9 passes, to remind signallers not to send another train towards the gradient until the previous one is over the summit. No doubt some lingered after that, and recent photos on another forum showed one still in place at the foot of the Lickey incline, although secured for through running presumably as part of the recent works at Bromsgrove.

 

[341o2]

It did try - that's what Freightliner and Merry-go-round coal were all about - moving freight as quickly as possible with the absolute minimum of en-route sorting (which is time-consuming and expensive), and keeping the rolling assets moving.

The reality is that in a country where the distances between major economic centres are quite short, traditional wagonload freight economics are pretty poor - the 'long haul' rail cost advantage is too short to compensate for the sorting and trip-working costs. If you are moving it 1000 miles then you can compete with trucks on cost and time, if it's 200 miles the advantage is the other way (the trucker is probably close to the far end of the journey by the time the wagon has got out of the first yard...). Also many traditional industries that were rail-served have either disappeared or moved to 'just-in-time' manufacturing and distribution (which needs high levels of service and reliability - something that rail freight tended to struggle with due to its traditional 'passenger trains come first' attitude).

Another issue was the creation of freight depots which covered a specific area and customers were expected to deliver their goods to it before being loaded onto wagons and then the reverse happened at the other end.

I remember a comment made as to no wonder why the railways were losing freight when a firm whose premises were adjacent to the railway contacted BR. They asked for the renistatment of a siding, BR's reply was to thank them for their custom, but their local depot was Welwyn Garden City, would they deliver their goods there, so the response was that it would be more economic to simply drive their lorry to the destination

 

[Taunton]

Catch Points always seemed a bit of a drastic option, with the resulting derailment causing all sorts of issues, let alone obstruction of the opposite line as it all piles up.

Was it only the GWR/Western Region who had a more sophisticated design, where instead of a simple switch off into the ditch, they led to two long concrete troughs closely parallel to the running rails, filled with sand and ballast, the intention being to pull up the runaway by friction, remaining upright.

 

[Railsigns]

I'm sure that the catch-points over Shap were motorised, and the problem was that the faster trains would have been on them before they had opened, risking smashing the mechanisms.

I don't follow this. Catch points that were motorised needed to be set, locked and detected in position for the route over them (just like any other set of motor-worked points) before the protecting signal could be cleared, so there's no question of them not being in the proper position when a train reached them.

 

[Railsigns]

Was it only the GWR/Western Region who had a more sophisticated design, where instead of a simple switch off into the ditch, they led to two long concrete troughs closely parallel to the running rails, filled with sand and ballast, the intention being to pull up the runaway by friction, remaining upright.[?]

Sand drags existed all over the country.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't follow this. Catch points that were motorised needed to be set, locked and detected in position for the route over them (just like any other set of motor-worked points) before the protecting signal could be cleared, so there's no question of them not being in the proper position when a train reached them.

In principle you could set the catch point for through running when a route was set for a train to go up the hill, and auto-normalise them as soon as it cleared the track circuit through the catch point. The "derail" setting could retain the spring function so that a train talked past the signalling could still pass without causing any damage.

I don't know if this was ever done. However there were worked catch points on single lines which would be set for through running when a descending train was signalled, but otherwise would have the usual sprung operation. One of these caused a derailment near Blackburn in the 70s, something to do with a train being talked past a signal without the signaller keying them to the correct setting IIRC.

 

[ac6000cw]

Does anyone know why unfitted freight vehicles were permitted for so long after continuous brakes were made compulsory on passenger vehicles in 1889?

Yes, legislation like that needs a long transitional period to spread the cost of equipment installation, but a more enlightened version could have mandated that all newly built (and rebuilt) freight vehicles after a certain date must also be continuous brake fitted. That way you slowly move towards the desirable situation without excessive costs. It might also have encouraged a move to larger, longer-wheelbase, wagons.

Rail freight seems to have been stuck in a 19th century mindset for most of the first half of the 20th century (while the road competition was steadily improving). Yes, I know the railway companies in the 1920s/1930s were not that healthy financially, but that didn't stop them spending money on new locomotive designs and passenger rolling stock.

 

[muddythefish]

Another issue was the creation of freight depots which covered a specific area and customers were expected to deliver their goods to it before being loaded onto wagons and then the reverse happened at the other end.

I remember a comment made as to no wonder why the railways were losing freight when a firm whose premises were adjacent to the railway contacted BR. They asked for the renistatment of a siding, BR's reply was to thank them for their custom, but their local depot was Welwyn Garden City, would they deliver their goods there, so the response was that it would be more economic to simply drive their lorry to the destination

In other words, BR by that time wasn't interested in the traffic deemed to be "too difficult". Certainly wasn't the case in the 1950s and early 1960s when there was more of a "can do" attitude.

 

[AndrewE]

I don't follow this. Catch points that were motorised needed to be set, locked and detected in position for the route over them (just like any other set of motor-worked points) before the protecting signal could be cleared, so there's no question of them not being in the proper position when a train reached them.

Catch-points are/were exclusively trailing points (in the normal direction of travel), so the need for facing point locks and all the other paraphernalia is non-existent. I would guess that they were completely separate from the block signalling, simply being sprung, or if motorised, powered open by something like a treadle working an automatic level crossing then closed soon after a track circuit just behind it cleared.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Does anyone know why unfitted freight vehicles were permitted for so long after continuous brakes were made compulsory on passenger vehicles in 1889?

Yes, legislation like that needs a long transitional period to spread the cost of equipment installation, but a more enlightened version could have mandated that all newly built (and rebuilt) freight vehicles after a certain date must also be continuous brake fitted. That way you slowly move towards the desirable situation without excessive costs. It might also have encouraged a move to larger, longer-wheelbase, wagons.

Rail freight seems to have been stuck in a 19th century mindset for most of the first half of the 20th century (while the road competition was steadily improving). Yes, I know the railway companies in the 1920s/1930s were not that healthy financially, but that didn't stop them spending money on new locomotive designs and passenger rolling stock.

Partly pre 1945 there were huge amounts of privately owned wagons which were of a minimalist nature (wooden ,low capacity and unbraked) , and because private industry - especially the docks , coal owners (later the NCB) steel companies etc , refused to modify their loading and discharge facilities to deal with such brilliant innovations as fully fitted wagons with screw couplings etc. The GWR - and BR did try - but ran into huge objections)

BR ought to have developed a proper air braked "value" freight network - rather than plodding on with 12 ton vans , and 60 mph running - which later became 45 mph after multiple derailments at higher speeds due to CWR and aggressive diesel traction - they invested in some nice new terminals but were crippled with very poor wagons etc.

Speedlink in the 1970's was probably 30 years too late. Road had decimated the traffic from the early 1950's.

 

[Taunton]

As well as all the private owner unbraked wagons, the railway infrastructure favoured continuing unbraked. Marshalling yards in particular were laid out to suit shunting with a shunter doing a simple unhook with a shunting pole; having to place the wagons individually and get between the buffers to undo screw couplings and part brake hoses would take many times as long.

It's an interesting thought that if you suggested nowadays that shunters would need to move on from working with a shunting pole at trackside, to having to get between wagons time and again to deal with couplings and hoses, Health & Safety would likely ban that outright.

 

[edwin_m]

Does anyone know why unfitted freight vehicles were permitted for so long after continuous brakes were made compulsory on passenger vehicles in 1889?

Yes, legislation like that needs a long transitional period to spread the cost of equipment installation, but a more enlightened version could have mandated that all newly built (and rebuilt) freight vehicles after a certain date must also be continuous brake fitted. That way you slowly move towards the desirable situation without excessive costs. It might also have encouraged a move to larger, longer-wheelbase, wagons.

Rail freight seems to have been stuck in a 19th century mindset for most of the first half of the 20th century (while the road competition was steadily improving). Yes, I know the railway companies in the 1920s/1930s were not that healthy financially, but that didn't stop them spending money on new locomotive designs and passenger rolling stock.

There was a lot of reluctance to impose legal restrictions on the railways, due to the Victorian attitude of unbridled capitalism and not least the lobbying of some of the companies. So the regulations imposed were unlikely to go beyond what political and public opinion considered essential, and certainly didn't seek to mandate a particular solution to a problem.

There had been many major accidents caused by the lack of failsafe continuous brakes on passenger trains, culminating in the Armagh disaster which really led to the 1889 Act. There were also not a few arising from the continued use of the time interval for following trains. The lack of continuous brakes on wagons gave rise to relatively few accidents at the time. Arguably it was contributory to Abergele, but the wagons there were being shunted so any continuous brakes would probably have been inoperative, and the spread of catch points between then and 1889 largely removed the danger of unfitted wagons colliding so disasterously with an oncoming train.

With hindsight a lot of trouble and cost would have been saved had the Act mandated a particular and compatible type of continuous brake, preferably air rather than vacuum. But this would have disadvantaged all the companies that had already invested in vacuum brakes that were less good than air but met the safety need perfectly adequately.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Compare to the Continent where from late 19thC , all companies invested in air braking for all rolling stock - private and state companies.

Due to the huge disregard of UK private companies , who fought against continuous brakes for passenger trains + Block working + interlocking of signal boxes. In fairness , brake equipment a la Westinghouse was expensive , and therefore not to be put onto cheap and inefficient freight wagons.

The mistake with BR was the continuation of the vacuum brake in the early 1950's - and that decision was embedded in politics and cost. Ergo - gentle rundown which fizzled out in the 1980;s. Having seen and worked some of these class 9 trains ,I am , I suppose lucky and a dinosaur.

 

[Taunton]

With hindsight a lot of trouble and cost would have been saved had the Act mandated a particular and compatible type of continuous brake, preferably air rather than vacuum. But this would have disadvantaged all the companies that had already invested in vacuum brakes that were less good than air but met the safety need perfectly adequately.

I'm not aware of any disadvantage to the companies that had invested in air brakes (the Great Eastern and the Caledonian were two such), and I'm not at all clear how air brakes came to be standard on the Isle of Wight in steam days. It's also notable that air brakes were pretty universal on electric multiple units from day one.

Vacuum brakes were notably cheaper (and simpler) per vehicle, and this probably helped their widespread adoption on passenger services. They are also less prone to leaks because they don't operate at such a high differential to the atmosphere. Maybe not known but many heavy commercial vehicles, buses and lorries, used vacuum brakes into the 1960s. Vacuum brakes become ineffective at higher altitudes, so would be impractical as a standard in the USA and other mountainous places - even the wholly British-supplied East African Railways had to use air brakes due to the elevation.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not aware of any disadvantage to the companies that had invested in air brakes (the Great Eastern and the Caledonian were two such), and I'm not at all clear how air brakes came to be standard on the Isle of Wight in steam days. It's also notable that air brakes were pretty universal on electric multiple units from day one.

Vacuum brakes were notably cheaper (and simpler) per vehicle, and this probably helped their widespread adoption on passenger services. They are also less prone to leaks because they don't operate at such a high differential to the atmosphere. Maybe not known but many heavy commercial vehicles, buses and lorries, used vacuum brakes into the 1960s. Vacuum brakes become ineffective at higher altitudes, so would be impractical as a standard in the USA and other mountainous places - even the wholly British-supplied East African Railways had to use air brakes due to the elevation.

I said the disadvatage would have been to those that had invested in vacuum brakes prior to 1889, if the Act had mandated air brakes specifically rather than just a continuous automatic brake.

Agreed the vacuum brake was adequate for the needs of main line railways at the time. The use of air brakes on EMUs was probably because of the American origin of many designs, but also with power from electricity rather than steam some of the cost savings of vacuum braking disappear (you need a pump either way). The greater pressure differential of the air brake gives improved stopping power from smaller cylinders, handy for a suburban unit with lots of underfloor equipment.

 

[axlecounter]

As well as all the private owner unbraked wagons, the railway infrastructure favoured continuing unbraked. Marshalling yards in particular were laid out to suit shunting with a shunter doing a simple unhook with a shunting pole; having to place the wagons individually and get between the buffers to undo screw couplings and part brake hoses would take many times as long.

It's an interesting thought that if you suggested nowadays that shunters would need to move on from working with a shunting pole at trackside, to having to get between wagons time and again to deal with couplings and hoses, Health & Safety would likely ban that outright.

In countries where air-braked wagons were already a standard, "unbraked shunting" of fitted wagons was a standard too and went on until a few years ago. Infrastructure couldn't have been that big reason to keep unfitted freights?

 

[edwin_m]

In countries where air-braked wagons were already a standard, "unbraked shunting" of fitted wagons was a standard too and went on until a few years ago. Infrastructure couldn't have been that big reason to keep unfitted freights?

There would still have been a time-consuming and dangerous task to go between each pair of wagons and disconnect the brake pipes before shunting, and connect them back up afterwards.

 

[ac6000cw]

In countries where air-braked wagons were already a standard, "unbraked shunting" of fitted wagons was a standard too and went on until a few years ago. Infrastructure couldn't have been that big reason to keep unfitted freights?

In hump sorting yards, the wagons have to be 'free running' when they are pushed over the hump. So brake systems have to be de-pressurised and the wagons uncoupled (the air hoses are designed to separate if pulled hard enough, particularly if there is very little pressure in the pipe, so there is no need to do that).

Much better if you have automatic centre couplers though - then the only time anyone needs to go between the vehicles is to join the hoses (and that's easier because there are no side buffers in the way).

 

[AndrewE]

The use of air brakes on EMUs was probably because of the American origin of many designs, but also with power from electricity rather than steam some of the cost savings of vacuum braking disappear (you need a pump either way). The greater pressure differential of the air brake gives improved stopping power from smaller cylinders, handy for a suburban unit with lots of underfloor equipment.

I believe that the pressure difference (max 71kPa vs 760 for air) means that air brakes come off a lot quicker than vacuum so on an intensive stopping service where seconds count, as on suburban services, there is no contest. Plus great big heavy vacuum cylinders and limited power compared to smaller kit with better stopping power counts against vacuum, as you say. Not sure that US practice was so important, except that the kit was available for purchase.