TRIVIA - Things you saw travelling on BR that you don't see today

[WesternLancer]

I used to work on the computer systems that produced the big fat timetable (the GBTT/BRPTT), and I think I've still got a special 'staff edition' from about 1987, (with a 'staff only' red cover), somewhere...probably in the box room. I guess the special staff edition might be (slightly) valuable, I should give it to a heritage railway to sell - if I ever find it.

yep! wern't the staff editions A4 to make them easy to read quickly?

 

[Fast Track]

The hustle and bustle of newspaper vans at Paddington and the solitary passenger car on the Saturday night 23.25 paper train Paddington to Newbury.

The horrible and retrospectively so dangerous dog box compartment trains on the North Kent lines without a corridor.

Real toasted sandwiches and a beer at the buffet car from men in waistcoats on the Victoria Brighton line.

Announcements and stops over the tannoy by real people.

Being passengers rather than customers.

Network South East awayday tickets.

The atmosphere in the old concourse bar at Paddington rocking and heaving on a Friday night with its great juke box before boarding the 20.35 HST to the West Country.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The atmosphere in the old concourse bar at Paddington rocking and heaving on a Friday night with its great juke box before boarding the 20.35 HST to the West Country.

Great flash-back that ! , the plastic "East End Bar" at Liverpool Street could be equally convivial. We ought to remember that "The Shires" at St Pancras was one of the very first places in London to serve "real ale" in the fightback against mass produced beer that was so common in the 1970's. Not much of a place , but it attracted good numbers of people for that purpose.

 

[duffield]

yep! wern't the staff editions A4 to make them easy to read quickly?

I've seen the larger version but mine is normal size, just a different cover.

 

[Ken H]

Related to that the free bank holiday (Easter, Christmas or whatever) supplements to the TT detailing on a table by table basis what the changes were in force over the holiday period. Sometimes an entire table would just be reproduced in full with whatever special TT was in force.

there were also free supplements to the annual printed version. Think there were 2 correction books a year.
I spent time carefully writing in the changes on my main book. for fun. Ho hum!
(Also later did it with navigation charts when I was a keen sailor!)

 

[Ken H]

Does anyone remember 'network south east' days when you could get a 'anywhere in NSE' ticket? I think you needed a coupon from Modern railways. I did a couple. Think I got a early morning (between 0100 and 0200) London Bridge - Deal train which was a Cl73, a corridoor Mk1 and some parcels vans. Needless to say, it was totally rammed with rail nuts.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Does anyone remember 'network south east' days when you could get a 'anywhere in NSE' ticket? I think you needed a coupon from Modern railways. I did a couple. Think I got a early morning (between 0100 and 0200) London Bridge - Deal train which was a Cl73, a corridoor Mk1 and some parcels vans. Needless to say, it was totally rammed with rail nuts.

They ran several "Network Day" promotions which were essentially an unlimited day rover in the whole NSE area on designated Saturdays; they started off at £1, very quickly became £3 and stayed at that level for a long time, then became £5. The frequency of the promotions was completely variable and you didn't necessarily need a special token as most were open to all at the ticket office so the one you describe sounds like a variant that was only open to people who got tokens through a specific publication in a sort of sponsorship deal. I do recall at least one like that where the ticket office didn't do them but a magazine stall that was part of an exhibition at Waterloo did.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

The one and a half seat towards the vestibule end of the Hastings diesel units. Nice to blag a wide seat, but the ride was awful as they were over the bogies and Hastings units did not ride well on South Eastern Division track. Similarly as a Central Division user being encouraged by my commuter father to use the middle of the carriage as even in the 17 mins from Victoria to East Croydon the difference in ride vs the carriage ends was noticeable.

And finally, on the Central Division, Bognor trains not going via East Croydon. I think even after the off peak service was changed in 1978 there were a couple of peak hour trains via Sutton from the high numbered platforms at Victoria.

 

[yorksrob]

The one and a half seat towards the vestibule end of the Hastings diesel units. Nice to blag a wide seat, but the ride was awful as they were over the bogies and Hastings units did not ride well on South Eastern Division track. Similarly as a Central Division user being encouraged by my commuter father to use the middle of the carriage as even in the 17 mins from Victoria to East Croydon the difference in ride vs the carriage ends was noticeable.

The preserved set seems to do quite well in terms of ride (possibly due to less intensive use and more continuously welded rail ?).

The wide seat is nice if you can get it, but there are usually others who need it more than me.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Indeed I think post the 1967 Hither Green accident some went to the ECML where they rode rather better. And to note that my comment was based on the track as much as the trains.

The preserved set seems to do quite well in terms of ride (possibly due to less intensive use and more continuously welded rail ?).

The wide seat is nice if you can get it, but there are usually others who need it more than me.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed I think post the 1967 Hither Green accident some went to the ECML where they rode rather better. And to note that my comment was based on the track as much as the trains.

Yes, I remember reading somewhere (I think the accident report) that they tested them up and down the ECML to check how they rode after the accident, and found nothing untoward.

I think the broken rail was put down to extra wear from low slung motors on the new(ish) EMU's.

 

[Graham Hall]

Yes, I remember reading somewhere (I think the accident report) that they tested them up and down the ECML to check how they rode after the accident, and found nothing untoward.

I think the broken rail was put down to extra wear from low slung motors on the new(ish) EMU's.

Oddly enough this was history repeating itself as after the Sevenoaks accident in 1927 the class of tank engine involved was tested on the ECML. I have read
that the east coast track was judged to be good, but the SR track was not so good and may well have contributed to the accident.

 

[yorksrob]

Oddly enough this was history repeating itself as after the Sevenoaks accident in 1927 the class of tank engine involved was tested on the ECML. I have read
that the east coast track was judged to be good, but the SR track was not so good and may well have contributed to the accident.

Very interesting. I had no idea !

 

[Ken H]

Oddly enough this was history repeating itself as after the Sevenoaks accident in 1927 the class of tank engine involved was tested on the ECML. I have read
that the east coast track was judged to be good, but the SR track was not so good and may well have contributed to the accident.

hasn't Southern always had bad track caused by tank engines and, later, EMU's with axle hung motors?

 

[70014IronDuke]

hasn't Southern always had bad track caused by tank engines and, later, EMU's with axle hung motors?

I don't want to set myself up as an expert, but I think we had better be careful here, or an urban myth may be in the making.

From what I've read, heard and assimilated, in the Sevenoaks accident a River class tank (2-6-4T?) was involved running at speed, that is 65-70 mph. These locomotives had got a name for rocking around on SR track, and the SR abandonned using express tank locomotives as a result of this accident, rebuilding all Rivers into 2-6-0s (Us or Ns, I forget which).

However, a River class loco was indeed tested on the GN, and found to ride perfectly ok.

It was ascertained that the shingle used by the SR (possibly only on the former SECR sections, and taken, I believe, from around Dungeness-New Romney area) did not have the properties of good granite ballast (what a suprise!) and the SR forthwith stopped using shingle and steadily replaced it.

The Hither Green accident was a very different affair, caused by cracking of the railhead across the fishplate bolt holes. I can't remember if it was put down to nose-suspended traction motors, but it was generally deemed that track on the modern (for 1957) railway was subject to a far higher degree of pounding that it had been previously.

Hither Green was a turning point in many ways - it resulted in a determined effort to do away with jointed track, indeed any breaks in the rail, on main-line routes, and, as one lecturer on BR course said once (something like) it led to the emergence of the DMU-EMU railway, with the loads from traction equipment spread across the train, avoiding locomotives with heavy axle loads where possible.

I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think there was any allegation that SR track was somehow sub-standard in general from the Hither Green accident.

 

[Ken H]

I don't want to set myself up as an expert, but I think we had better be careful here, or an urban myth may be in the making.

From what I've read, heard and assimilated, in the Sevenoaks accident a River class tank (2-6-4T?) was involved running at speed, that is 65-70 mph. These locomotives had got a name for rocking around on SR track, and the SR abandonned using express tank locomotives as a result of this accident, rebuilding all Rivers into 2-6-0s (Us or Ns, I forget which).

However, a River class loco was indeed tested on the GN, and found to ride perfectly ok.

It was ascertained that the shingle used by the SR (possibly only on the former SECR sections, and taken, I believe, from around Dungeness-New Romney area) did not have the properties of good granite ballast (what a suprise!) and the SR forthwith stopped using shingle and steadily replaced it.

The Hither Green accident was a very different affair, caused by cracking of the railhead across the fishplate bolt holes. I can't remember if it was put down to nose-suspended traction motors, but it was generally deemed that track on the modern (for 1957) railway was subject to a far higher degree of pounding that it had been previously.

Hither Green was a turning point in many ways - it resulted in a determined effort to do away with jointed track, indeed any breaks in the rail, on main-line routes, and, as one lecturer on BR course said once (something like) it led to the emergence of the DMU-EMU railway, with the loads from traction equipment spread across the train, avoiding locomotives with heavy axle loads where possible.

I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think there was any allegation that SR track was somehow sub-standard in general from the Hither Green accident.

On the class 86 thread we discussed axle hung motors, and the detrimental effect of them on the track. And in the 80's the WCML had a dreadful reputation for rough riding.

I had always took it as true that unsprung weight was bad for track.

 

[70014IronDuke]

On the class 86 thread we discussed axle hung motors, and the detrimental effect of them on the track. And in the 80's the WCML had a dreadful reputation for rough riding.

I had always took it as true that unsprung weight was bad for track.

Yes, that is generally true. But I don't know if the new EMUs at the time had nose-suspended motors, and this was a contributory factor to the broken rail at Hither Green or not. (It may have been, sure.)

But more to the point - the River accident and Hither Green accident were very different affairs. It wasn't just you - the thread seemed to be making sweeping judgements in general - but you did write "hasn't Southern always had bad track caused by tank engines" - which is just not true.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Yes, that is generally true. But I don't know if the new EMUs at the time had nose-suspended motors, and this was a contributory factor to the broken rail at Hither Green or not. (It may have been, sure.)

But more to the point - the River accident and Hither Green accident were very different affairs. It wasn't just you - the thread seemed to be making sweeping judgements in general - but you did write "hasn't Southern always had bad track caused by tank engines" - which is just not true.

Edit: However, AFAIK, it is true that tank engines, with their higher centre of gravity, were AFFECTED by poor track more than tender locomotives when running at high speeds. But that is not the same as caused bad track.

 

[Ken H]

Edit: However, AFAIK, it is true that tank engines, with their higher centre of gravity, were AFFECTED by poor track more than tender locomotives when running at high speeds. But that is not the same as caused bad track.

i understood that was water sloshing around in the tanks. or is that another urban myth!

 

[krus_aragon]

i understood that was water sloshing around in the tanks. or is that another urban myth!

That might limit speeds on tight curves, but I think that'd be it.

Racing cars (e.g. F1) have baffles inside their fuel tanks to stop their petrol sloshing about the place when acceletrating, braking and cornering. But they achieve far greater g-forces than a tank engine ever could!

 

[RLBH]

That might limit speeds on tight curves, but I think that'd be it.

Racing cars (e.g. F1) have baffles inside their fuel tanks to stop their petrol sloshing about the place when acceletrating, braking and cornering. But they achieve far greater g-forces than a tank engine ever could!

In fairness, some tank engines had baffles in their tanks. But I think that was mostly to stop longitudinal sloshing rather than transverse, given the tank geometry.

 

[70014IronDuke]

i understood that was water sloshing around in the tanks. or is that another urban myth!

I've read this too. It's difficult to say it it was a myth or not. That is to say, it may have been thrown up as a suggestion - possibly investigated (or not) - and, whether proved to be a contributory factor (or not) - entered folklore.
What makes me doubt it being a significant contributory factor is that I've never heard it mentioned regarding other tank locomotives as responsible for wild riding. I mean, LMS tanks surely got into the 70 mph range. Not sure about L1s - they surely got into the 60s at least, and were supposedly rough, but that seemed more down to springing, from what I've read. Nobody seemed to talk about water sloshing with those.

EDIT - The Gresley V1/V3s must have got up to speed too on the ECML. Never heard any complaints about them.

 

[Carl Caulkett]

I remember Warship D821 "Greyhound" that used to sit in a siding down a bank just east of Reading. It must have been there for years!

I used to see it on my way to Gloucester Eastgate, now sadly gone.

 

[Cowley]

I remember Warship D821 "Greyhound" that used to sit in a siding down a bank just east of Reading. It must have been there for years!

I used to see it on my way to Gloucester Eastgate, now sadly gone.

Thankfully it’s one of the two still existence though...

 

[Carl Caulkett]

Sadly, I started my train-spotting career a little too late to see the Warships in their pomp. I did, however, manage to clear the 63 Westerns (out of the original 74) that constituted the entire class according to the "Combined Volume" in 1974, or thereabouts!

 

[Cowley]

Sadly, I started my train-spotting career a little too late to see the Warships in their pomp. I did, however, manage to clear the 63 Westerns (out of the original 74) that constituted the entire class according to the "Combined Volume" in 1974, or thereabouts!

You Carl, are a lucky so and so.

 

[Carl Caulkett]

Indeed. Ealing Broadway was a good place to spot! I remember a period of time when the original 252001 HST prototype used to come through every evening, around 17:00 roughly. One evening, though, at a slightly earlier time, we looked down the track and a similarly futuristic sight appeared in the distance. It was only the bloomin' APT heading towards London! Naturally, we jumped on the first available DMU towards Paddington, only to see it stopping at Old Oak Common MPD. When we got to Paddington, we bunked our way onto the Bakerloo line and headed to Willesden Junction, which was a bit more difficult to get out of undetected. So, we headed up to the high-level North London platforms and literally crossed the tracks, skillfully avoiding the 3rd rail, and climbed over the fence to the connecting path! From there it was about half a mile to Old Oak Common, and once there we were able to get into the sheds and stand next to the APT, all four coaches of it!

Please note that I do not condone any such behavior now that I am older and, hopefully, a little wiser!

 

[quarella]

This should probably be in a different thread but a quick search didn't bring anything up.

Mail trains are distant memory at Bristol Temple Meads but passing through over the weekend I noticed the boards on platform 6 showing the destinations were still in place.

 

[randyrippley]

I remember Warship D821 "Greyhound" that used to sit in a siding down a bank just east of Reading. It must have been there for years!

I used to see it on my way to Gloucester Eastgate, now sadly gone.

Greyhound? Damn thing ran out of fuel somewhere around Templecombe once, had to wait about two hours before a Hymek arrived to tow us to Waterloo

 

[Czesziafan]

Proper trains with a locomotive and coaches.
Windows that open to admit fresh air.
Restaurant cars with gleaming silverware and china on the tables and curtains at the windows.