Differences in the adoption of 'bogie' coaches between the UK and USA

[Dr Hoo]

No, the first documented design of a bogie dates from 1812. By an engineer from Whitby called William Chapman.

He also invented articulation in railway vehicles.

Thanks for this. Every day is a school day as they say.
Can you advise as to where and when the design was applied? (My reference to the Birmingham & Gloucester Railway was in the context of regular ‘fleet’ main line service.)
I believe that some early waggonways had developed an application of ‘dual braking’ under the control on one rider during gravitation. I’m not sure that I can imagine where ‘coupling’ ends and ‘articulation’ begins. Did Chapman apply a sort of shared bogie between vehicles?

 

[eldomtom2]

Much of the London Underground was built by americans. And the electrification system was US technology. Not sure if European systems has US influence or whether they copied London.

Some of it had Americans involved in financing etc. , but to say it was "built" by Americans is surely an exaggeration, and do you have a source for the electrification system being US technology? The CS&LR was a very early example of electrification, after all...

At nationalisation there were still ex-Caledonian 4 and 6 wheelers "on the books". The last 4 wheeler, a third built 1920, was withdrawn in 1952 and the last 6 wheeler, a full brake built 1921, wasn't withdrawn until 1958.

These coaches were a special case however - they were built to operate on the tightly curved Balerno branch. This article by Jim Smellie has all the details.

I suppose you could say today's ROC concept of controlling and monitoring many remote interlockings from a single centre has its roots in the late 1920s development of CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) in the US.

Maybe - I find making comparisons between signalling in different countries extremely difficult because every country has its own terminology and practices - I'm still not entirely sure what the UK equivalent of CTC is, for instance.

 

[hexagon789]

Thanks for this. Every day is a school day as they say.
Can you advise as to where and when the design was applied? (My reference to the Birmingham & Gloucester Railway was in the context of regular ‘fleet’ main line service.)
I believe that some early waggonways had developed an application of ‘dual braking’ under the control on one rider during gravitation. I’m not sure that I can imagine where ‘coupling’ ends and ‘articulation’ begins. Did Chapman apply a sort of shared bogie between vehicles?

This article on him may be of interest:

SteamIndex

Source of information about William and Edward Chapman and their invention of chain haulage locomotive and bogie, also Phineas Crowther

steamindex.com

William Chapman was born in Whitby on 7 March 1749 into a Quaker shipowning and mariner family. He died on 29 May 1832. He is the subject of an ODNB biography by Anita McConnell. E.A. Forward (Trans. Newcomen Soc., 28, 1, and a key reference) considered that Chapman "was a man of remarkable prescience to have envisaged therequirements of a practicable locomotive". He may have been involved with experiments involving locomotives as early as 1805, with the Trevithick "Tyneside locomotive". According to Lowe and to Warren, William Chapman was the inventor of the bogie and of the articulated locomotive.

 

[Taunton]

I find making comparisons between signalling in different countries extremely difficult because every country has its own terminology and practices - I'm still not entirely sure what the UK equivalent of CTC is, for instance.

Probably worth a separate thread!

 

[Ken H]

Some of it had Americans involved in financing etc. , but to say it was "built" by Americans is surely an exaggeration, and do you have a source for the electrification system being US technology? The CS&LR was a very early example of electrification, after all...

These coaches were a special case however - they were built to operate on the tightly curved Balerno branch. This article by Jim Smellie has all the details.

Maybe - I find making comparisons between signalling in different countries extremely difficult because every country has its own terminology and practices - I'm still not entirely sure what the UK equivalent of CTC is, for instance.

I read long ago that Yerkes brought the technology used in the Yerkes tubes and used that for the Bakerloo, what became the Northern and the Piccadilly lines, and District electrification. This was used later for the Central Line, the Northern Line City Branch and later, the Metropolitan, and is still in use today

 

[zwk500]

Some of it had Americans involved in financing etc. , but to say it was "built" by Americans is surely an exaggeration, and do you have a source for the electrification system being US technology? The CS&LR was a very early example of electrification, after all...

Interestingly the C&SLR originally used the cable haulage system used by San Francisco but problems led them to transition to an electrification system built by a German firm.

The electrification of the District railway originally preferred a Hungarian system but Yerke's influence was instrumental in eventually choosing a US-developed system. The Wikipedia articles are fully referenced.

Maybe - I find making comparisons between signalling in different countries extremely difficult because every country has its own terminology and practices - I'm still not entirely sure what the UK equivalent of CTC is, for instance.

It doesn't have one. The functions are divided up into different roles.

 

[edwin_m]

Wide-area multiple aspect signalling in the UK has some similarities to CTC, including being based on similar remote control technologies. But they are used in very different ways because of the differences in operating environment and principles between the UK (many short trains over short distances, mostly carrying passengers) and North America (few long trains over long distances, mostly carrying freight).

 

[eldomtom2]

Interestingly the C&SLR originally used the cable haulage system used by San Francisco but problems led them to transition to an electrification system built by a German firm.

No, they planned to use it but the switch to third rail electrification was made before the line opened.

The electrification of the District railway originally preferred a Hungarian system but Yerke's influence was instrumental in eventually choosing a US-developed system. The Wikipedia articles are fully referenced.

The Wikipedia articles, and their sources, only say that Yerkes was in favour of a third rail system. They do not say that the system used was American in origin.

It doesn't have one. The functions are divided up into different roles.

Can you elaborate on this statement?

Wide-area multiple aspect signalling in the UK has some similarities to CTC, including being based on similar remote control technologies. But they are used in very different ways because of the differences in operating environment and principles between the UK (many short trains over short distances, mostly carrying passengers) and North America (few long trains over long distances, mostly carrying freight).

But again here we run into difficulties of terminology between different countries, because Japan uses the term CTC, despite being definitely a passenger-focused short-distance system.

 

[Taunton]

Wide-area multiple aspect signalling in the UK has some similarities to CTC, including being based on similar remote control technologies. But they are used in very different ways because of the differences in operating environment and principles between the UK (many short trains over short distances, mostly carrying passengers) and North America (few long trains over long distances, mostly carrying freight).

CTC used (at least initially) a notably previous-generation communication system, with a 2-wire system on a lineside pole route. You can still see this in the USA, with connecting overhead wires from an adjacent pole to each signal or point machine. The operation was notably slow, with an extremely low what would now be called Baud Rate on the wires (but brilliant for its time, from the 1920s). The operator set up the route, then pushed a switch and it took sometimes many seconds to send all the pulses out on the wires that operated everything. There were just a pair of wires, each signal or point picked up its own coded pulses. It was proprietary to General Railway Signal Corp ("GRS"), but their principal competitor, Union Switch & Signal, devised a comparable system that bypassed the GRS patents.

Compared to a UK "power box" it was notably smaller scale at the dispatcher end, run from a console that one dispatcher sat at, often running 100 miles of line from a back room of some convenient station building. Nevertheless the line display on the console looks very familiar. Just on free-standing legs that the technician (called a "maintainer" in the USA) can walk behind.

CTC doesn't do everything on a line, just signals and some power points, typically at passing loops. There are other points, into less-used sidings, which are still manual on the ground, but wired in to the CTC so when they are unlocked by the train crew they set the signals to red while they perform shunting moves etc.

I believe there was a proposal to implement it on the four routes that radiated in the early 1960s from Market Weighton, in Yorkshire, to York, Selby, Driffield and Beverley. It was quite worked up as a scheme and featured in magazine articles of the time. By the sound of it, it would have used imported GRS equipment as a prototype. Then the Beeching Report came along and the whole lot was proposed for closure.

It was also very extensively used on UK "Colonial" routes overseas, invariably single track, in Africa etc. The Rhodesian and East African railways made much use of it.

Described here :

Centralized traffic control - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ken H]

CTC used (at least initially) a notably previous-generation communication system, with a 2-wire system on a lineside pole route. You can still see this in the USA, with connecting overhead wires from an adjacent pole to each signal or point machine. The operation was notably slow, with an extremely low what would now be called Baud Rate on the wires (but brilliant for its time, from the 1920s). The operator set up the route, then pushed a switch and it took sometimes many seconds to send all the pulses out on the wires that operated everything. There were just a pair of wires, each signal or point picked up its own coded pulses. It was proprietary to General Railway Signal Corp ("GRS"), but their principal competitor, Union Switch & Signal, devised a comparable system that bypassed the GRS patents.

Compared to a UK "power box" it was notably smaller scale at the dispatcher end, run from a console that one dispatcher sat at, often running 100 miles of line from a back room of some convenient station building. Nevertheless the line display on the console looks very familiar. Just on free-standing legs that the technician (called a "maintainer" in the USA) can walk behind.

CTC doesn't do everything on a line, just signals and some power points, typically at passing loops. There are other points, into less-used sidings, which are still manual on the ground, but wired in to the CTC so when they are unlocked by the train crew they set the signals to red while they perform shunting moves etc.

I believe there was a proposal to implement it on the four routes that radiated in the early 1960s from Market Weighton, in Yorkshire, to York, Selby, Driffield and Beverley. It was quite worked up as a scheme and featured in magazine articles of the time. By the sound of it, it would have used imported GRS equipment as a prototype. Then the Beeching Report came along and the whole lot was proposed for closure.

It was also very extensively used on UK "Colonial" routes overseas, invariably single track, in Africa etc. The Rhodesian and East African railways made much use of it.

Described here :

Centralized traffic control - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Didnt Rail Electronic Token Block as used in some remote lines use the principles of CTC? And doesnt the Ravenglass and Eskdale use something like.

 

[zwk500]

The Wikipedia articles, and their sources, only say that Yerkes was in favour of a third rail system. They do not say that the system used was American in origin.

They say he and his engineers favoured the system they'd worked with in the US. All references I can find to early American electrification are for systems built by GE. By all means please provide me with a source that says a Yerkes-involved railway in the US used a non-US developed electrification system. I'm far from an expert on that area.

Can you elaborate on this statement?

Some of the functions are taken by Signallers (Setting routes, regulating trains), some of the functions are taken by Train Running Control (deciding which trains should be given priority, organising crew relief and duties, etc). Not being intimately familiar with what US CTC despatcher's full jobs are I don't know if other responsibilities are further organised differently in the UK.

 

[eldomtom2]

They say he and his engineers favoured the system they'd worked with in the US. All references I can find to early American electrification are for systems built by GE. By all means please provide me with a source that says a Yerkes-involved railway in the US used a non-US developed electrification system. I'm far from an expert on that area.

But there's a key thing you've left out here - third rail systems were already in use in London on the C&SLR and CLR. All the sources just say that Yerkes was in favour of low-voltage DC, not that he was in favour of a specific American implementation of it.

 

[zwk500]

But there's a key thing you've left out here - third rail systems were already in use in London on the C&SLR and CLR. All the sources just say that Yerkes was in favour of low-voltage DC, not that he was in favour of a specific American implementation of it.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Electric_Railways_Company_of_London, referencing Day, John R; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground. Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-316-7.

Before the appointment of Ganz could be finalised, Yerkes took control of the DR. He and his engineers preferred the low voltage direct current conductor rail system they had worked with in the United States and which was already in use on the City & South London and Central London Railways;

I will happily accept a better source. I do not claim to be an expert. But everything I have read about early American Electrification indicates General Electric being involved. The Central London Railway used GE manufactured Locomotives built in the US then dismantled for shipping to the UK. The C&SLR electrification system was built by (then) English contractors Mather & Platt, not clear if to their own design but in that time very likely to have been. The CLR article is not explicit which company provided the electrical supply infrastructure but given the presence of American finance (one investor had shares in GE) and the use of other US providers for things like electric lifts I will require a source to tell me that GE Built locos for a system they didn't design.

I note that, as usual, you call for others to provide sources and then simply dispute interpretations rather than providing sources for your own counter arguments.

 

[eldomtom2]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Electric_Railways_Company_of_London, referencing Day, John R; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground. Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-316-7.

Yes, that doesn't say he was in favour of a specific American implementation of low voltage DC. The Story of London's Underground, the cited source, just says this:

[Yerkes] was familiar with low-voltage DC electrification in the USA and could see it at work in the newly-opened Central London tube...

Note that as far as I can tell the Met/District electrification was the first in London to use a fourth rail, a clear deviation from American practice.

I will require a source to tell me that GE Built locos for a system they didn't design.

The CLR electric system was designed by American expat Horace Field Parshall; he had previously worked for GE but was no longer employed by them when he worked for the CLR.

As an additional note, the Waterloo & City line (electrified on opening in 1898) used American-built trains, but with Siemens-built motors (Siemens supplied all the electrical equipment).

 

[zwk500]

The CLR electric system was designed by American expat Horace Field Parshall; he had previously worked for GE but was no longer employed by them when he worked for the CLR.

As an additional note, the Waterloo & City line (electrified on opening in 1898) used American-built trains, but with Siemens-built motors (Siemens supplied all the electrical equipment).

Please provide your sources.

 

[Ken H]

Yes, that doesn't say he was in favour of a specific American implementation of low voltage DC. The Story of London's Underground, the cited source, just says this:

Note that as far as I can tell the Met/District electrification was the first in London to use a fourth rail, a clear deviation from American practice.

The CLR electric system was designed by American expat Horace Field Parshall; he had previously worked for GE but was no longer employed by them when he worked for the CLR.

As an additional note, the Waterloo & City line (electrified on opening in 1898) used American-built trains, but with Siemens-built motors (Siemens supplied all the electrical equipment).

I thought the first W&C trains were Dick Kerr.

 

[Taunton]

There were two longstanding mainstream USA electrical engineering groups who got into many branches of equipment supply, whether power, signals, or others. General Electric, as started by Thomas Edison, and Westinghouse, founded by George Westinghouse. They both got into various European ventures, often jointly with local manufacturers. Both had contact with Siemens, who were the equivalent pioneers in Europe.

 

[Ken H]

Wiki says*:-

The four rail system was first used in the early 20th century. The isolated traction current return allowed a train's position to be detected using DC track circuits, and reduced any earth leakage currents that could affect service pipes, telephone cables, or cast iron tunnel liners.

citing Croome, D.; Jackson, A (1993). Rails Through The Clay — A History Of London's Tube Railways (2nd ed.). Capital Transport

So maybe London had a special need because of the deep level cast iron segment lined deep level tubes. I believe the segments were all connected electrically with metal straps. But the comment about DC track circuits is interesting. Would an insulated return make DC track circuits safe???
The interaction with other buried services is also important.

Worth bearing in mind that most 'metro' railways use cut and cover, not tubes although tubes have become more common since the 1960's. So how much tubes needed special arrangements I dont know.

Maybe the District, and later the Metropolitan were 4th rail electrified so they were the same as the tubes, not because 4th rail was needed in the tunnels

Sorry. I have asked more questions than giving data...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_infrastructure

 

[ac6000cw]

There were two longstanding mainstream USA electrical engineering groups who got into many branches of equipment supply, whether power, signals, or others. General Electric, as started by Thomas Edison, and Westinghouse, founded by George Westinghouse. They both got into various European ventures, often jointly with local manufacturers. Both had contact with Siemens, who were the equivalent pioneers in Europe.

As an example, 'British Thomson-Houston' (BTH) was effectively a subsidiary of US General Electric (formed in 1892 by the merger of the US 'Thomson-Houston Electric Company' with the US 'Edison General Electric Company'). In 1928 BTH was merged with Metropolitan-Vickers (Metrovick) to form AEI, but the technology/product links with GE continued, so that for example some of the AEI traction motors were derived from (and in some cases were interchangeable with) GE traction motors e.g. the AEI 253 and GE 761, AEI 165 and GE 752 (an almost legendary traction motor in the US, like the EE507 is here).

(AEI/BTH/Metrovick traction motor info from https://www.derbysulzers.com/AEI.html . AEI used the BTH and Metropolitan-Vickers brand identities until 1959).

 

[eldomtom2]

Please provide your sources.

For Marshall's involvement with the CLR see The Story of London's Underground.
Siemens' involvement with the W&C is from Wikipedia; unfortunately I do not have access to the Oakwood Press book they cite, but other web sources repeat the claim about Siemens and the fact that they at the very least supplied an electric shunter to the W&C (which is now preserved as part of the National Collection) is unimpeachable.

Maybe the District, and later the Metropolitan were 4th rail electrified so they were the same as the tubes, not because 4th rail was needed in the tunnels

Electric services on the District with fourth-rail electrification predated the opening of any of the UERL's tube lines by three years, and three of the four non-UERL tube railways all used third rail electrification. The fourth was the Great Northern & City railway, but while this used a fourth rail it was outside the running rails as opposed to inside them, so compatibility can't have been a concern there.