Route Knowledge and Traction Knowledge

[mike57]

A simple question, but I suspect a more complex answer.

When did route knowledge become a requirement? Same for traction knowledge

My understanding is in steam days you took what you were given. Did it come in with diesel traction?

Was it a 'creeping' process, or was there an 'after [date] you will...' rule introduced.

 

[Gloster]

I would think that route knowledge has been around for many years, probably right back to the mid-nineteenth century, although it may have gradually become more formalised over the years. Traction knowledge is, I think, much more recent as it was generally felt that if you can drive one steam loco, you can drive the lot. Once you have learnt what any controls that you hadn’t seen before did or where this type had the hoojimaflip, that was it. Differences between different locos of the same type was common, so you were used to adjusting your technique by the loco. In some ways it was more difficult for the fireman when faced by a new type if they weren’t told what firing technique to use. Diesel traction knowledge also involves fault-finding, which can vary between different types and manufacturers, of which BR had a plethora, while belting it with a spanner would often do for steam.

 

[30907]

On route knowledge: I am fairly sure that route conducting was common in the steam era, if the driver requested it.

Specific route learning certainly happened too, certainly when major alterations took place (I have seen a photo of the ancient saloon DS1 being so used for the Lent Coast electrification, propelled by an H tank), but steam drivers would have learnt many routes as firemen and as they progressed up the links.

 

[LYradial]

Surely traction knowledge must have come in with the first electric service, not just the controls but the braking characteristics,
I can recall at least one autobiography from when the southern was expanding its electric empire suggesting a weeks course was needed to convert from steam to electric and how different handling an 8 car set was compared to a 2 car one.
ne

 

[APT618S]

A couple of anecdotes which I have abbreviated, taken from "A Locoman's Log 1937-1985, Steam and diesel footplate life" by Bill Alcock who was Birmingham based suggest that for Steam, once trained you were expected to be able to drive any loco but for diesel you had to be trained on each type:

"They were booked to work a freight from Lawley St to York, non-stop to Masborough with a Black 5 or Crab and on going to the booked loco at Saltley saw it was an LNER type, possibly a B1, with the operating handles totally different to what was expected.
So they got the shift foreman and the driver who prepped the loco to help them and after a while away they went to collect their train.
The journey was not without incident and they struggled to work the loco economically and passing through Bromford Bridge at 30mph they managed to put the loco into reverse stopping the train sharply with a clatter of buffers and they had to go back to ensure the train had not derailed and that the guard was uninjured - who had some choice words to say. Eventually the got to Derby about 2hrs late, and got relieved there.
A few weeks later they found out the loco was an NER Raven 3 cylinder 4-6-2 from 1920."

"Another time after having been trained on the EE Type-4 (class 40), driving along on a working which he had relieved he wanted to know the loco number of the 40 for his daily duty statement so put the cab light on and it was D6707 -oops, he was on an EE Type 3 (class 37) which he was not trained on ! He continued on to the destination, and used it as a training exercise, having a look in the engine room. He kept quiet on not being trained.
However a couple of days later he was requested to take the loco back to Barrow Hill. So they did what they were told as they were forbidden to drive any diesel loco they were not trained on and daren't admit they should not have driven it in the first place !"

P.S. The book is a great read.

 

[Irascible]

Route knowledge is of course fairly essential to know how to fire well. I wonder if the traction knowledge requirement was the reason behind creating the Motorman class.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I wonder if the traction knowledge requirement was the reason behind creating the Motorman class.

Probably went hand in hand during the conversion from steam to electric, in the L&SWR's case in the years running up to and during WW1. Many motormen were displaced steam men, drivers and firemen and many guards also trained as motormen for emergency purposes, although still in the role of guard.

 

[contrex]

I once read an account, on a website with a collection of 'railwaymen's reminiscences', of a 1950s return excursion working on the Southern (I think Horsham was involved) where it was discovered at a changeover point that a driver with route knowledge was not available, but the guard said he had been over that route and if the existing driver was willing, they'd have a go, and went extremely prudently to get everyone home. I think the person said it was the last train of the day over the stretch of line. I wonder if it was made up? The tale was kept quiet for 60 years if not.

 

[47296lastduff]

A few months ago I saw a reprint of a magazine from the 1950s, detailing how the Southern Region dealt with severe floods (possibly 1953).
Diversions were made via various inland routes (away from the coast), and these took drivers away from their areas of route knowledge. Pilots were provided as far as possible,
but when there no more available it was decided to instruct the drivers to proceed with caution and "follow the signals".
In those days of needing to keep the trains rolling (no motorways etc), pragmatic decisions could be made as to how far the rules could be bent.

 

[Harvester]

A couple of anecdotes which I have abbreviated, taken from "A Locoman's Log 1937-1985, Steam and diesel footplate life" by Bill Alcock who was Birmingham based suggest that for Steam, once trained you were expected to be able to drive any loco but for diesel you had to be trained on each type:

"They were booked to work a freight from Lawley St to York, non-stop to Masborough with a Black 5 or Crab and on going to the booked loco at Saltley saw it was an LNER type, possibly a B1, with the operating handles totally different to what was expected.
So they got the shift foreman and the driver who prepped the loco to help them and after a while away they went to collect their train.
The journey was not without incident and they struggled to work the loco economically and passing through Bromford Bridge at 30mph they managed to put the loco into reverse stopping the train sharply with a clatter of buffers and they had to go back to ensure the train had not derailed and that the guard was uninjured - who had some choice words to say. Eventually the got to Derby about 2hrs late, and got relieved there.
A few weeks later they found out the loco was an NER Raven 3 cylinder 4-6-2 from 1920."

More likely to have been a Raven B16 4-6-0 than a Raven Pacific. The latter were all withdrawn in 1936/1937 and rarely ventured from the ECML due to their limited route availability. Still, a good example of a crew being given a completely unfamiliar loco, and then just expected to get on with the job!

 

[Magdalia]

I get the impression that steam traction was mostly learned on the job, with very little formal training and progress by seniority.

On the Eastern Region there was formal training for the transition to diesel traction as part of the Modernisation Plan.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely traction knowledge must have come in with the first electric service, not just the controls but the braking characteristics,
I can recall at least one autobiography from when the southern was expanding its electric empire suggesting a weeks course was needed to convert from steam to electric and how different handling an 8 car set was compared to a 2 car one.
ne

The electric drivers were even differently designated: as "motormen" not drivers

 

[matchmaker]

"Another time after having been trained on the EE Type-4 (class 40), driving along on a working which he had relieved he wanted to know the loco number of the 40 for his daily duty statement so put the cab light on and it was D6707 -oops, he was on an EE Type 3 (class 37) which he was not trained on ! He continued on to the destination, and used it as a training exercise, having a look in the engine room. He kept quiet on not being trained.
However a couple of days later he was requested to take the loco back to Barrow Hill. So they did what they were told as they were forbidden to drive any diesel loco they were not trained on and daren't admit they should not have driven it in the first place !"

P.S. The book is a great read.

I wouldn't have thought there would be a huge difference between a 40 and a 37 - both EE designs with similar engines - 16SVT in the 40, 12CSVT in the 37.

 

[The exile]

I wouldn't have thought there would be a huge difference between a 40 and a 37 - both EE designs with similar engines - 16SVT in the 40, 12CSVT in the 37.

Potentially vast difference in braking performance etc.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Potentially vast difference in braking performance etc.

And potentially locations of isolating cocks etc

 

[etr221]

One of Gerry Fiennes' stories is from the start of the GE electrics in 1949 - first day after it came into service, and Liverpool Street resignalling done. He's at the end of Stratford Electric Line platform, first train comes along, and driver leans out of the cab: "Hey, guv, want a pilotman, don't know road" (i.e the new signas) GR replies "Nor does anyone else..." - so driver goes - cautiously, so do all the others. For the first week, punctuality is **** awful. Second week, they know it, and it's back to the normal high standard....

 

[6Gman]

More likely to have been a Raven B16 4-6-0 than a Raven Pacific. The latter were all withdrawn in 1936/1937 and rarely ventured from the ECML due to their limited route availability. Still, a good example of a crew being given a completely unfamiliar loco, and then just expected to get on with the job!

I think Midland Compounds used to cause some dismay when they turned up at odd locations on excursion trains!

 

[Irascible]

I wouldn't have thought there would be a huge difference between a 40 and a 37 - both EE designs with similar engines - 16SVT in the 40, 12CSVT in the 37.

Do they use the same ancilliaries? quite apart from the different bogies ( I'd think a 37 driver might have an easier time handling a 50 ) if something goes wrong there may be rather different procedures for dealing with it.

Post-Churchward GWR must have made life easier for GWR crews. That does raise the thought of how crews got onto the GWR railcars though, that can't have been ad-hoc. They arrived after the GWR bus services were nationalised too, so even the maintenance needs must have been quite a fresh problem.

 

[Rescars]

I think Midland Compounds used to cause some dismay when they turned up at odd locations on excursion trains!

I assume there must have been some challenges for those crews expected to switch between left-hand and right-hand drive loco classes, as on the Western Region following the introduction of the BR standards.

 

[WAB]

I assume there must have been some challenges for those crews expected to switch between left-hand and right-hand drive loco classes, as on the Western Region following the introduction of the BR standards.

This was cited as a factor in a number of accidents described in the books of Adrian Vaughan.

I once read an account, on a website with a collection of 'railwaymen's reminiscences', of a 1950s return excursion working on the Southern (I think Horsham was involved) where it was discovered at a changeover point that a driver with route knowledge was not available, but the guard said he had been over that route and if the existing driver was willing, they'd have a go, and went extremely prudently to get everyone home. I think the person said it was the last train of the day over the stretch of line. I wonder if it was made up? The tale was kept quiet for 60 years if not.

This does not surprise me having read accounts from that era. I suppose it’s not so dissimilar to the rather tenuous route knowledge reputed to be held by some drivers at the smaller TOCs and FOCs…

 

[Harvester]

I assume there must have been some challenges for those crews expected to switch between left-hand and right-hand drive loco classes, as on the Western Region following the introduction of the BR standards.

This was cited as a factor in a number of accidents described in the books of Adrian Vaughan.

Probably the worst being when Britannia ‘Polar Star’ was derailed at speed on crossover points at Milton in 1955 resulting in 11 fatalities. The driver of 70026 failed to see a signal from the left side of the cab until it was too late to reduce speed to safely negotiate a crossover into a goods loop.

The hand rails on 70026’s smoke deflectors were also deemed to have hampered the driver’s view, and consequently all the Brits allocated to the WR had the handrails removed and replaced by hand holes (cut into the deflectors).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One of the older Bletchley drivers (now long retired) , mentioned a wartime crew relief in the blackout at Oxford when their relieving train was hauled by some ancient double -framed GWR tender engine - (which they had never seen before) , however there was a war on, and somehow this load of "government stores" was taken to Cambridge - a 4-4-0 possibly akin to "Skylark" or similar. Not as if they could brightly illuminate the cab to get a decent look at the cab-fittings.

 

[Rescars]

I think Midland Compounds used to cause some dismay when they turned up at odd locations on excursion trains!

In a previous era, presumably similar challenges were created by Webb"s compounds on the LNWR.

EDIT. On further reflection, this may not have been so much of an issue. In the Victorian era most locos would have had individual crews dedicated to them. The challenges would have arisen when staffing arrangements were changed and crews were required to work any loco to which they were allocated. By this time, I'd guess most of Webb's compounds would have become extinct.

 

[Taunton]

There must have been similar issues with other fundamental differences, eg the changeover from Westinghouse to vacuum braking by some companies.

There was also more right hand drive by companies other than the GWR; the LNER inherited a couple such, and the first A1/A3 (including Flying Scotsman) were initially built right hand drive.

There were also notable difficulties with the wartime USA-built S160 locos, including at least one fatal explosion, due to the considerable differences in controls.

Bear in mind that generally, in steam and early diesel times, the fireman had spent quite some years on all the routes from a shed, and was most unlikely to be confronted, as a driver, with a route they had never travelled, and discussed, before. But if not (as sometimes happened with depot transfers later in their career) there seemed to be a general competence in interpreting signals etc that had not been encountered before, and indeed some would take initial footplate rides in their own time and on their own initiative, discussing things with the regular driver.

 

[Rescars]

Going way back, IIRC a lack of route knowledge was one of the factors which contributed towards the Armagh disaster in 1889.