Comments elsewhere in this forum on the XP markings carried by Oxford Rail’s representation of an LNER cattle wagon design have sparked an interest in the origin and nature of the restrictions upon conveyance of freight stock by passenger train, about which I’d be pleased to learn more.
At Page 9 of volume 4A in his series of books on LNER wagons Peter Tatlow quotes the specification set out the 1947 General Appendix of requirements for four-wheeled vehicles intended to be run in passenger trains. The spec. concludes by stating that stock conforming to the requirements and having a wheelbase of 10 feet or over are marked ‘XP’ together with the wheelbase. Tatlow goes on to comment that “9 foot wheelbase fitted wagons were not therefore eligible to carry the XP classification.”
I stand to be corrected but believe that the stated requirements as to oil boxes, springs, brakes and couplings are a reproduction of an instruction issued by the Railway Clearing House. I assume that such an instruction emerged from a consensus reached between the Group companies – correct?
Several points are of particular interest to me.
First, did the ‘XP’ classification actually form part of the RCH instruction? The wording of the quote from Tatlow suggested to me that there might be a distinction between them. If the ‘XP’ classification did form part of the instruction, when did the RCH introduce it?
Second, did the RCH instruction always specify a minimum wheelbase requirement?
Third, what changes were made to any such minimum wheelbase specification, and when?
Fourth, at one time it appears that the RCH instruction specified a minimum wheelbase of 9 feet, but applied this only to Express Passenger trains. The implication is that it was permissible to run vehicles having a shorter wheelbase than this in passenger trains other than expresses, provided the other requirements of the spec. were satisfied – is that correct?
Finally, what was the significance of the application of the requirements, in some versions of the instruction, only to stock conveyed in “express passenger trains and in all passenger trains exchanged with other Companies”? Does this imply that, where stock was to be conveyed via a non-express service over a route entirely internal to a company’s network, the instruction was to be of no effect?
Sorry, a longer post than I had originally intended, but the changing wording of the requirements prompted a wider range of questions than I anticipated.
Requirements for freight stock in passenger trains
Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard
-
John Palmer
- GNSR D40 4-4-0
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:27 pm
- Location: Somerset
-
1H was 2E
- GCR D11 4-4-0 'Improved Director'
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:04 pm
- Location: The Shires
Re: Requirements for freight stock in passenger trains
Perhaps muddying the waters but...
Both the SR General Appendix dated 26-3-34 and the GWR one dated 1-8-36 state that 'Vehicles with a wheel-base of less than 9 feet must not be run in express passenger trains. There is a strong suggestion that this applies only to expresses and not other passenger trains in that the word 'express' (only) is in italics in the Southern book. The GWR book has the phrase 'express passenger trains' in bold. There is no mention of the XP branding in either.
This raises some obvious points; it implies that a wagon with less than 9' wheelbase (provided it's fitted or piped) can be attached to an ordinary passenger train; perhaps the(presumably later) XP branding does mean express passenger, i.e. the distinction is not freedom to attach to passenger trains (which might perhaps be signified by just 'P' ) but to expresses.
Both these books were, I think, probably valid for years after their publication date.
The GWR one has a further restriction: it states that 'minimum tare to be 6 tons' and then goes on to exempt container wagons because "these wagons, alone less than 6 tons tare, considerably exceed that weight when loaded with a container which is either loaded or empty". The fact that other wagons with a tare of less than 6 tons might weigh more than that amount when loaded only seems to confirm that the regulation was drawn up by someone who did not think logically and was also ignorant of the meaning of the words 'tare' and, indeed 'minimum' (the phrase minimum tare is tautology - presumably tare of at least 6 tons was meant), and it demonstrates that one can attach too much importance to the exact meaning of instructions. For some reason, the instruction continues by saying that vac fitted, screw coupling cattle wagons of 11-0, 11-3 and 11-6 wheelbase can be conveyed by passenger train even though they fall inside the parameters for acceptance and there's no mention of cattle wagons specifically elsewhere.
The GWR was also happy with the attachment of vac fitted grease box goods vehicles, though...
I've said before- there was a 50's pop song which had the words "the more I find out, the less I know". So true...
Both the SR General Appendix dated 26-3-34 and the GWR one dated 1-8-36 state that 'Vehicles with a wheel-base of less than 9 feet must not be run in express passenger trains. There is a strong suggestion that this applies only to expresses and not other passenger trains in that the word 'express' (only) is in italics in the Southern book. The GWR book has the phrase 'express passenger trains' in bold. There is no mention of the XP branding in either.
This raises some obvious points; it implies that a wagon with less than 9' wheelbase (provided it's fitted or piped) can be attached to an ordinary passenger train; perhaps the(presumably later) XP branding does mean express passenger, i.e. the distinction is not freedom to attach to passenger trains (which might perhaps be signified by just 'P' ) but to expresses.
Both these books were, I think, probably valid for years after their publication date.
The GWR one has a further restriction: it states that 'minimum tare to be 6 tons' and then goes on to exempt container wagons because "these wagons, alone less than 6 tons tare, considerably exceed that weight when loaded with a container which is either loaded or empty". The fact that other wagons with a tare of less than 6 tons might weigh more than that amount when loaded only seems to confirm that the regulation was drawn up by someone who did not think logically and was also ignorant of the meaning of the words 'tare' and, indeed 'minimum' (the phrase minimum tare is tautology - presumably tare of at least 6 tons was meant), and it demonstrates that one can attach too much importance to the exact meaning of instructions. For some reason, the instruction continues by saying that vac fitted, screw coupling cattle wagons of 11-0, 11-3 and 11-6 wheelbase can be conveyed by passenger train even though they fall inside the parameters for acceptance and there's no mention of cattle wagons specifically elsewhere.
The GWR was also happy with the attachment of vac fitted grease box goods vehicles, though...
I've said before- there was a 50's pop song which had the words "the more I find out, the less I know". So true...
-
John Palmer
- GNSR D40 4-4-0
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:27 pm
- Location: Somerset
Re: Requirements for freight stock in passenger trains
Well, whether it muddies the waters or not, 1H was 2E, I’m grateful for your post and its observations about the Southern and GW General Appendices. These are illuminating and indicate to me that permitted marshalling of freight stock into passenger trains is a quite complicated subject.
The starting point of my original post was Major Wilson’s report upon the derailment at Postland on 27th July 1936 (probably initiated by LNER fruit van 168492, a 9’ 0” wheelbase vehicle built to Diagram 88). This is the report that led me to think the relevant instructions originated in the RCH:
“It is to be regretted that it is not possible to define with certainty the cause of this derailment, but the most likely cause was from oscillation of a lightly loaded short wheelbase four-wheeled vehicle at high speed. That there is risk of derailment from this cause is recognised by the Railway Clearing House Instructions on the subject, which are repeated for the guidance of the staff in the Appendices of the Companies, as in this case. Some of the Companies, including the Southern area of the London and North Eastern Railway, supplement these instructions, which are fairly general in terms, by entirely prohibiting the running of four-wheeled goods vehicles in certain of their faster and more important trains, and arising from a derailment one Company has recently extended this prohibited list.”
Evidently the relevant instruction was, at that time, set out in No. 3 Supplement to the LNER’s Appendix to the WTT; it was reproduced at the end of Major Wilson’s report. It bears a lot of similarities to the instruction in the 1st November 1947 LNER General Appendix, with, significantly, some of the following differences:
“Four-wheeled vehicles, either coaching or braked freight stock, requiring to be run in express passenger trains and in all passenger trains exchanged with other Companies, must comply with the following requirements:
…
(iii) A wheelbase of not less than 9 feet. (Applies to Express Passenger trains only.)” [my emphasis]
In its section dealing with the conveyance of 4-wheeled Non-Passenger carrying coaching stock, the British Railways General Appendix marked “Railway Clearing House 1st October 1960” contains the instruction that “Four-wheeled vehicles with a wheelbase of less than 10 ft. must not be conveyed on Express Passenger trains.”
I had always been under the impression that the ‘XP’ branding was intended to indicate whether a freight vehicle was permitted to run in any passenger train, but the terms of the Southern, GW, LNE and British Railways instructions do seem to suggest that ‘XP’ is indeed intended to indicate suitability for marshalling into an Express Passenger train and that, even as late as 1960, its absence did not preclude a wagon being marshalled into an ordinary passenger train irrespective of its wheelbase, provided it conformed to the lubrication, spring, brake, coupling, buffer and tare weight requirements.
Against this, the December 1958 British Railways booklet setting out identification markings of freight rolling stock provides that the symbol ‘XP’ over ‘WB’ on wagon sides signifies “Vehicles suitable for running on passenger trains according to wheelbase shown.” Possibly this was intended to suggest that a vehicle had to be branded ‘XP’ to qualify for inclusion in any passenger train, but what, then, would be the significance of the words “according to wheelbase shown”?
On the issue of tare weight, it seems that the 6 ton figure was already regarded as the relevant yardstick at the time of the Postland accident, as that’s the minimum tare weight permitted by the instruction reproduced in the accident report. Presumably container flats were at that time not yet sufficiently common to have prompted consideration of the difference in weight made by the addition of a container. The GW instruction does seem confused, since it evidently permits an unladen container wagon to run in a passenger train even though its weight might be less than 6 tons. The BR instruction is much more prescriptive, by permitting a combination of wagon and container to run in a passenger train provided the aggregate of the tare and container weights was over the 6 ton threshold.
As for grease lubricated wagons running in a passenger train, the mind boggles!
The starting point of my original post was Major Wilson’s report upon the derailment at Postland on 27th July 1936 (probably initiated by LNER fruit van 168492, a 9’ 0” wheelbase vehicle built to Diagram 88). This is the report that led me to think the relevant instructions originated in the RCH:
“It is to be regretted that it is not possible to define with certainty the cause of this derailment, but the most likely cause was from oscillation of a lightly loaded short wheelbase four-wheeled vehicle at high speed. That there is risk of derailment from this cause is recognised by the Railway Clearing House Instructions on the subject, which are repeated for the guidance of the staff in the Appendices of the Companies, as in this case. Some of the Companies, including the Southern area of the London and North Eastern Railway, supplement these instructions, which are fairly general in terms, by entirely prohibiting the running of four-wheeled goods vehicles in certain of their faster and more important trains, and arising from a derailment one Company has recently extended this prohibited list.”
Evidently the relevant instruction was, at that time, set out in No. 3 Supplement to the LNER’s Appendix to the WTT; it was reproduced at the end of Major Wilson’s report. It bears a lot of similarities to the instruction in the 1st November 1947 LNER General Appendix, with, significantly, some of the following differences:
“Four-wheeled vehicles, either coaching or braked freight stock, requiring to be run in express passenger trains and in all passenger trains exchanged with other Companies, must comply with the following requirements:
…
(iii) A wheelbase of not less than 9 feet. (Applies to Express Passenger trains only.)” [my emphasis]
In its section dealing with the conveyance of 4-wheeled Non-Passenger carrying coaching stock, the British Railways General Appendix marked “Railway Clearing House 1st October 1960” contains the instruction that “Four-wheeled vehicles with a wheelbase of less than 10 ft. must not be conveyed on Express Passenger trains.”
I had always been under the impression that the ‘XP’ branding was intended to indicate whether a freight vehicle was permitted to run in any passenger train, but the terms of the Southern, GW, LNE and British Railways instructions do seem to suggest that ‘XP’ is indeed intended to indicate suitability for marshalling into an Express Passenger train and that, even as late as 1960, its absence did not preclude a wagon being marshalled into an ordinary passenger train irrespective of its wheelbase, provided it conformed to the lubrication, spring, brake, coupling, buffer and tare weight requirements.
Against this, the December 1958 British Railways booklet setting out identification markings of freight rolling stock provides that the symbol ‘XP’ over ‘WB’ on wagon sides signifies “Vehicles suitable for running on passenger trains according to wheelbase shown.” Possibly this was intended to suggest that a vehicle had to be branded ‘XP’ to qualify for inclusion in any passenger train, but what, then, would be the significance of the words “according to wheelbase shown”?
On the issue of tare weight, it seems that the 6 ton figure was already regarded as the relevant yardstick at the time of the Postland accident, as that’s the minimum tare weight permitted by the instruction reproduced in the accident report. Presumably container flats were at that time not yet sufficiently common to have prompted consideration of the difference in weight made by the addition of a container. The GW instruction does seem confused, since it evidently permits an unladen container wagon to run in a passenger train even though its weight might be less than 6 tons. The BR instruction is much more prescriptive, by permitting a combination of wagon and container to run in a passenger train provided the aggregate of the tare and container weights was over the 6 ton threshold.
As for grease lubricated wagons running in a passenger train, the mind boggles!
-
Hatfield Shed
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:34 pm
Re: Requirements for freight stock in passenger trains
I have seen somewhere, but cannot put my finger on it, a photograph of a BR liveried T9 ambling along a branch in the West country, with two passenger coaches and several wagons behind terminated with a goods brake, one of which wagons is a bogie bolster. Was it in service or is the carriage stock ECS? You cannot tell from the lamp headcode, it being of the Southern persuasion...
-
John Palmer
- GNSR D40 4-4-0
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:27 pm
- Location: Somerset
Re: Requirements for freight stock in passenger trains
My guess is that this would have been classified as a Mixed train. The goods brake van at the rear would have satisfied one of the requirements for it being so treated, and on a branch line I doubt that the average speed of trains would have exceeded 35 mph, which in BR days would qualify the line as one on which a proportion of mixed trains could be run without regional level authority. As distinct from the circumstances in which freight stock can run in a passenger train, the regulations about mixed trains seem to me to based on the precept that these are freight trains to which dispensations permitting the carriage of passengers haved been applied.
Hereabouts, we use to have mixed trains running over the Somerset and Dorset's 'twigs' to Wells and Bridgwater as a regular feature of he timetable. Of course, the S&D was very much the odd man out so far as train classification was concerned, having lamp codes that distinguished only between passenger trains, goods trains and light engines. Western Region attempts to enforce the use of the standard BR lamp codes on the S&D were simply disregarded. Goodness knows what S&D staff made of instructions drawing a distinction between Express and Ordinary passenger trains such as are under discussion here.
Hereabouts, we use to have mixed trains running over the Somerset and Dorset's 'twigs' to Wells and Bridgwater as a regular feature of he timetable. Of course, the S&D was very much the odd man out so far as train classification was concerned, having lamp codes that distinguished only between passenger trains, goods trains and light engines. Western Region attempts to enforce the use of the standard BR lamp codes on the S&D were simply disregarded. Goodness knows what S&D staff made of instructions drawing a distinction between Express and Ordinary passenger trains such as are under discussion here.