Last Outpost of the Westinghouse Brake.

[1H was 2E]

Yesterday at the Watercress Line I bought a copy of the SR general Appendices dated 1934. I already had a copy, but the one I bought had been assiduously updated (by staff at Netley) and it was only a quid. Under the heading "COACHING STOCK VEHICLES WORKING TO OTHER COMPANIES' LINES there is the condition that "it is now only necessary to provide dual braked coaching stock for horse-box etc., traffic loaded to stations which, prior to the grouping of railways were situate on the Caledonian Railway (now LMS) and the Great North of Scotland Railway (now LNER)". This was later amended by the conscientious staff at Netley to "it is only necessary to provide dual braked coaching stock for traffic loaded to St. Combs LNE".
But why???
According to the Green Guide, the branch was worked by F4s after 1931 and these worked push pull on the vcr system, so had vacuum exhausters.
In a further twist, under the same heading there is the statement that "The Westinghouse brake system has been stripped from all Southern Railway dual braked stock except 10 bogie scenery trucks" rather limiting the choice of vehicles and traffic to forward.
You may recollect that the Fraserburgh - St Combs branch was a light railway or tramway and locos. were required to have cowcatchers.

[65447]

The vacuum-operated Auto-train control gear was entirely separate from the train brake and Auto-train working ceased some time before these locomotives were scrapped. They retained the Westinghouse brake pump until the end for both engine and train braking.

Westinghouse braking remained in use on the GE London Area suburban services as long as the Quin-Arts were still in service, the main cull of them taking place in 1960 when the Enfield and Chingford services were electrified, but with some residual services to Woolwich and so on.

[1H was 2E]

Thank you for the correction. I accept that fitting an exhauster to operate the VCR does not require the loco to be modified to work vacuum braked trains, and examination of the photo of one of the St Combs engines, 67151, in the Green Guide indeed appear to show the front carrying only the two Westinghouse pipes. However, the Green Guide is, unusually, rather opaque in that it refers both in the text and the summary to locos being fitted with a vacuum exhauster when it presumably generally means adaption to work vacuum braked trains - rather more than half are shown as either built or rebuilt with exhausters. There's a letter note to indicate the fitting of VCR (in one case, together with steam brake) but it does not make clear that the locos could still only operate train braking on the Westinghouse system.
Only locos fitted with cowcatchers could operate to St Combs, and as the locos so fitted were all Westinghouse train braking it follows that all braked trains on the branch had to be Westinghouse fitted. Indeed, the fact that they were still using the Westinghouse after fitting of VCR means that this lasted even longer on the branch. I'll have to have a look in the LNER Sectional Appendix (when I can find it) to see if there's any traffic acceptance restrictions...
Although the GE suburban services were still running Westinghouse possibly other fitted/part fitted trains, such as parcels or newspapers or faster freights, may have been vac fitted.
Tangentially; when there was a great rush to fit AWS on the ER to heavy freight locos (sometimes a matter of weeks before condemnation) although the vacuum system was only required to apply the engine brakes, and the engines concerned had previously not been fitted, the opportunity was taken to fit train pipes. Rather extravagantly as the locos concerned continued to work unfitted mineral/empty trains. But it gave Mr Peglar the opportunity to run an O4-powered charter ISTR.

[65447]

Although the GE suburban services were still running Westinghouse possibly other fitted/part fitted trains, such as parcels or newspapers or faster freights, may have been vac fitted.

Yes, all other GE Section workings were vac-fitted. The Westinghouse braking was only retained for the true suburban (rather than local or stopping) services as being the only efficient means of obtaining the required fast station stops. The Quin-Arts were occasionally used for weekend and bank holiday excursions, which required a Westo-fitted locomotive - would really prefer not to go to Sarfend and back on rock hard seats with no facilities.

Out of my specialist area, but didn't certain mineral/ore trains in the NE also remain Westinghouse-braked, the air being used to operate the discharge doors or something similar?

[61962]

Newcastle to Sunderland and South Shields push and pull trains were Westinghouse fitted and worked by G5s into the mid 50s when they were replaced by DMUs.
The Tyne Dock to Consett Iron Works ore trains were vacuum braked, but were worked by locos with Westinghouse air compressors to operate the side discharge hopper doors. Locos fitted with the air pumps were latterly 9Fs that had replaced Q7s and Thompson O1s on these workings.

Eddie

[1H was 2E]

I've looked up the St. Combs branch in the LNER SA (shown as Line 146) but the only reference to it is in respect of speed limits - 25 mph and 10 mph across level crossings (standard Light Railway, I think). It still intrigues me to know when and where the last Westinghouse NPCCS trains were running, though.
It does seems odd that, with the majority of the LNER constituents using Westinghouse, the vacuum system was standardised on; perhaps it was just the GNR imposing its own way on the other companies. On a steam railway I did see a Westinghouse loco (the J15, actually) braking modern air braked stock proving that, had the Westinghouse system been retained there would have been no need for any alterations to the present day.
The Tyne Dock - Consett locos having air pumps* were far from the only engines so fitted, as the locos of the SR constituents all seemed to have them in my youth, for loco brakes. The Woodford L1 that spent its day shuttling a Thompson BCK to Banbury and back was also quite noisy in the pump department. Presumably, no modern LNER stock was Westinghouse, though.
*I have been forcibly reminded in the past that a pump that creates a vacuum is an air pump as well, and not a vacuum pump; "you pump air not vacuum to create a vacuum"..

[65447]

It does seems odd that, with the majority of the LNER constituents using Westinghouse, the vacuum system was standardised on; perhaps it was just the GNR imposing its own way on the other companies. On a steam railway I did see a Westinghouse loco (the J15, actually) braking modern air braked stock proving that, had the Westinghouse system been retained there would have been no need for any alterations to the present day.

Yes maybe the GNR influence at work, but the reason was two-fold:

I. The additional cost of the Westinghouse components and the associated license fee for using them, especially bearing in mind that fitted Goods stock also would have to have been so equipped;

2. The other Big 3 were also Vacuum brake users, so through working, especially Goods, would require dual fitting.

The LNER Quad and Quin Arts were sometimes lent to private locomotive manufacturers for road testing purposes, the rest of the world tending towards the air brake.

[65447]

It still intrigues me to know when and where the last Westinghouse NPCCS trains were running, though.

As the LNER decided to standardise on the Vacuum brake c1927-8, that no more general service stock was constructed fitted with Westinghouse brakes, existing Westinghouse braked vehicles were converted and dual-fitted vehicles stripped of the Westinghouse equipment, the last NPCS only working was probably before 1930.

In the instance of somewhere like the St Comb's branch, vans could always run as unfitted with a Brake should that unlikely circumstance ever arise.

[1H was 2E]

Thanks for all the comments. Once again (in the words of a pop song) there seem to be more questions than answers.
Before grouping, there was a number of companies (both large and small but possibly characterised as progressive) that standardised on air brakes, but the reasons for abandonment seem never to have been recorded in any of the railway histories (my 'beef', outlined before, is that these books major on how fast passenger locos could go, usually downhill, in exceptional circumstances, but never detail the more subtle details of railway history). The payment of royalties seems a likely factor but it doesn't completely explain what was, with hindsight, a retrograde change.
My contacts still in the industry tell me that the big air-braking programme of the late '60s/early 70s used the 2 pipe system but recent builds have reverted to single pipe. I wonder which of these was used by those constituents of the LNER that used air brakes; the small photo of a St Combs loco in the Green Guide shows two, dissimilar, pipes at the front; perhaps one air and one carriage warming? My understanding is that the advantage of the 2 pipe system relates to quicker application/release on longer trains, not something which would be important on branch or push pull trains of one or two coaches.
It surprises me that the Green guide Part 1 makes, as far as I can see, absolutely no reference to braking; another aspect I cannot understand is why some (but far from all) engines in many classes were built with air loco brakes right up to the L1s even though (as far as I can make out) none so fitted had train air brakes - particularly if royalties had to be paid to Westinghouse ; and indeed why steam, vacuum and air brakes were fitted to locos with no readily (to me anyway) discernable logic.
With regard to my original comment; this related to NPCCS and such vehicles could be run as unfitted with a goods brake but the conveyance of coaching stock by what amounted to a goods train was (at least in my days) a little fraught due to gauging issues.

[Hatfield Shed]

...the reasons for abandonment seem never to have been recorded in any of the railway histories (my 'beef', outlined before, is that these books major on how fast passenger locos could go, usually downhill, in exceptional circumstances, but never detail the more subtle details of railway history). The payment of royalties seems a likely factor but it doesn't completely explain what was, with hindsight, a retrograde change...

I have seen a reference to this in some writings on the grouping negotiations, but at a time when I could 'remember everything' so didn't keep notes on sources! There had been difficulties of long standing over interoperability of stock, both freight and passenger, before the grouping. What the grouping made clear on a cost basis over the whole UK, was that present economy lay with the vacuum brake, although the operational benefits of the Westinghouse system were appreciated. I rather think that what then effectively killed off the Westinghouse brake in all but those locations where it was operationally vital was the trade depression, coming shortly after the grouping.

...another aspect I cannot understand is why some (but far from all) engines in many classes were built with air loco brakes right up to the L1s even though (as far as I can make out) none so fitted had train air brakes - particularly if royalties had to be paid to Westinghouse ; and indeed why steam, vacuum and air brakes were fitted to locos with no readily (to me anyway) discernable logic...

Dual brake equipment was a matter of allocation: the locos allocated in a section where airbraked stock was expected to be operated were dual fitted even if their regular turns were on one or other system only. That was a straightforward safety/interoperability decision; at need any loco could operate any stock.

Steam brake on locomotives, when they had to be air or vacuum equipped to brake a train. The explanation I was given verbally by James Little who had trained at Inchicore under Bulleid. Cheapest and simplest power brake on a steam locomotive. Logically if the loco had steam pressure enough to move itself, the brake power immediately available was directly proportional.

[65447]

Steam brake on locomotives, when they had to be air or vacuum equipped to brake a train. The explanation I was given verbally by James Little who had trained at Inchicore under Bulleid. Cheapest and simplest power brake on a steam locomotive. Logically if the loco had steam pressure enough to move itself, the brake power immediately available was directly proportional.

Also used to operate the sanding equipment, various controls such as reversers and, on the larger locomotives, could power the water collecting scoop.

[1H was 2E]

...another aspect I cannot understand is why some (but far from all) engines in many classes were built with air loco brakes right up to the L1s even though (as far as I can make out) none so fitted had train air brakes - particularly if royalties had to be paid to Westinghouse ; and indeed why steam, vacuum and air brakes were fitted to locos with no readily (to me anyway) discernable logic...

Dual brake equipment was a matter of allocation: the locos allocated in a section where airbraked stock was expected to be operated were dual fitted even if their regular turns were on one or other system only. That was a straightforward safety/interoperability decision; at need any loco could operate any stock.

Looking back at my post, I realise that, in an attempt at brevity, I was ambiguous. When I said "why steam, vacuum and air brakes were fitted ... with (no) logic", I was referring to the brakes on the loco., not the train. For instance, 39 Thompson L1s had Westinghouse brakes on the loco., the other 61, steam. I'd suggest that the air braked ones were so fitted primarily to provide air loco brakes, because it doesn't seem likely that, in 1948, the proportion of air braked trains would demand that 39% of locos be capable of working them.
I'm also puzzled by the NE area J39s, which were built with air loco brakes and dual air/vacuum train brakes. When the train air brake connection was removed the loco brake was converted from air to steam. If steam loco braking was considered superior to air, why weren't they built with steam brakes? And if it wasn't, why were they converted? I don't expect anyone now to know the answers, but that's what I meant.
Digging around has confirmed that the Westinghouse train brake, at least on the J39s was single pipe.
Once again, "the more you find out, the less you know".

[Seagull]

...because it doesn't seem likely that, in 1948, the proportion of air braked trains would demand that 39% of locos be capable of working them.

Weren't the L1s all allocated to the southern areas?
Without checking properly I remember the proportions were roughly 60% to the ex. GN/GCR and 40% to the ex. GER which ties in with the brake fitting. Did the GER section ever use them for passenger workings or were they only ever used for empty stock?

The J39s were probably converted so that the Westinghouse pumps could be removed. Essentially removing the maintenance requirement.
The pumps were generally VERY reliable so I'm not sure that even in the long term they made much of a monetary saving.

Alan

[65447]

Weren't the L1s all allocated to the southern areas?
Without checking properly I remember the proportions were roughly 60% to the ex. GN/GCR and 40% to the ex. GER which ties in with the brake fitting. Did the GER section ever use them for passenger workings or were they only ever used for empty stock?

The L1s on the GE section were used almost solely for passenger workings: Stratford District - Hertford (E) and Bishops Stortford services and weekend excursions; Norwich District - local workings (Gt Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Cromer, Thetford); Ipswich shed - local workings (Bury St Edmunds & Cambridge, Norwich and Gt Yarmouth, the Felixstowe Branch); and, later, locally out of Lowestoft and Gt Yarmouth.