Unfitted Freight Operation

[RichmondCommu]

G'day everyone,

Its my understanding that unfitted freight trains were only able to run to a maximum speed of 30 mph which must have been a nightmare for signalers and planners, not to mention a loco's traction motors. Were they restricted to running at night and four track mainlines / freight only routes during the day? Or were they just looped on a very regular basis?

Your thoughts and experiences on unfitted freight operation would be very much appreciated!

Kind regards,

Richmond Commuter!

 

[John Webb]

The 1972 "General Appendix to Working Timetables and Books of Rules and Regulations" says of classes 6(b), 7, 8 and 9 "Will be timed to reflect a maximum speed of 45mph or other such lower speed it may be necessary to impose on individual trains." (Class 9 unfitted freight trains by this time were only allowed "where specially authorised".)

 

[Saltleyman]

As far as I can recall totally "unfitted" or "loose coupled" freight trains were limited to a maximum speed of 25 mph.

 

[satisnek]

Wasn't the speed restriction imposed following the introduction of CWR which resulted in wagons literally bouncing off the track? I understand that jointed track had a damping effect which prevented uncontrollable oscillations of loose coupled wagons, so any problems were never apparent?

 

[341o2]

The problem began in 1962 and as far as I am aware, was never entirely solved. CWR, jointed track, springing, load, steam traction, diesel traction all suggested - in reality noone knew for certain. The initial response was to limit all freight trains to 50mph, which only produced a lull, so further speed reductions implemented

 

[edwin_m]

The derailment issue was more to do with short wheelbase than being unfitted (unless actually braking their dynamic behaviour should not depend significantly on whether they have brake equipment on board). Research into the behaviour of short wheelbase wagons led to the adoption of longer wagon wheelbases and contributed to the improved ride of the Mk3 coach and later stock.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Loose coupled trains knocking around say the South Wales area were a pain to operate and path , - 25 mph average speeds as norm , and even then with great skill on the part of the drivers who had amazing route knowledge on gradients etc - and could "feel" the train behind which might have had portions on differing gradients. They had to run the train out to get the couplings stretched , and try and prevent cascading snatches (which could break a train in 2) , on certain sections there were AWB (Apply Wagon Brake - boards) - where a train would have the brakes pinned down manually with a brake stick (Penrhos Junction comes to mind - Gwaun-Cae- Gurwen - Garnant down the one in 40 grade.

As a trainee we went on a trial of 37 loose coupled 21 tonners loaded with wet slack coal from Maerdy Colliery - brakes pinned down on about half and the brake van kept in reserve. Once we hit the downhill , it was like a piano out of a window - no chance of stopping and we careered down the Rhondda Fach valley at an out of control 35 mph - and pulled up clear at Porth with acrid burning smells off the 37 and braked wagons. Trial NOT a success.

Longer distance services to exotic places in England , or block moves to steelworks etc were often in special rakes of vac brakes HTV / MDV wagons. (which could run at 45 -60 mph and much safer to operate and path) - from about 1974 , unbraked trains were on the way out. Good job.

 

[daikilo]

Longer distance services to exotic places in England , or block moves to steelworks etc were often in special rakes of vac brakes HTV / MDV wagons. (which could run at 45 -60 mph and much safer to operate and path) - from about 1974 , unbraked trains were on the way out. Good job.

The use of a block of fitted wagons at the front of the train was known as having "a fitted head". Technically we should not refer to a train as being unbraked, except in the very early days, as they did have hand brakes.

I recall cases in rain where before an incline, the required number of brakes would be set then, due to the damp rail/lack of sand, the train became unable to restart. There is no chance the then required activity of the guard as he partially released then reset brakes by running alongside the train could ever be made to pass modern H&S rules.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the general idea was to pin down enough brakes that the train wouldn't roll away with the van brakes relesaed, and use the locomotive power to overcome them and get the train moving. The van would then indeed be "in reserved" in case extra brake force was needed on the way down. I imagine this would all be pretty tricky especially if the gradient got steeper part way down.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think the general idea was to pin down enough brakes that the train wouldn't roll away with the van brakes relesaed, and use the locomotive power to overcome them and get the train moving. The van would then indeed be "in reserved" in case extra brake force was needed on the way down. I imagine this would all be pretty tricky especially if the gradient got steeper part way down.

That is pretty much the way it was - take a loaded train pulling out of GCG sidings - once the driver had pulled the train over the level crossing , often using sand to get over the minor hump over the , he would give 3 short horn blasts to the guard when he felt there was enough brakes pinned down on the train before hitting the 1-40 downhill properly. An act of great judgement. As mentioned , walking alongside a moving train with a brake stick , sometimes in the dark - and often on a wet day , was not something that would be allowed today.

 

[axlecounter]

I'm sorry, could anyone explain more in details how these trains were built?

There were totally unfitted (=without air-brakes?) trains where brakes were manually operated with a brake stick? What kind of brakes did this wagons have then?

 

[30907]

I'm sorry, could anyone explain more in details how these trains were built?

There were totally unfitted (=without air-brakes?) trains where brakes were manually operated with a brake stick? What kind of brakes did this wagons have then?

Unfitted freight trains basically relied on the braking power of the locomotive and the guard's brake van (controlled only by the guard, not from the loco).
At the top of a steep incline additional brake power could be provided by applying ("pinning down") the brakes on individual wagons (some or all).
In the early days or railways, passenger trains used to operate without continuous brakes, but this was forbidden here in 1889 after a very bad accident near Armagh in Ireland.
Unfitted freight trains, using wagons with a wheelbase of 9 or 10ft/ca 3m! - and partly "fitted" trains which were allowed to go faster - continued in the UK long after they had been abolished in mainland Europe.

Hope this explains a bit - the idea is very strange to mainland Europeans. (I remember PmG (mixed) trains in Switzerland and Austria in the 1970s and these were fully "fitted" and ran at normal speed between stations. In fact, doesn't the RhB still have them?)

 

[edwin_m]

I'm sorry, could anyone explain more in details how these trains were built?

There were totally unfitted (=without air-brakes?) trains where brakes were manually operated with a brake stick? What kind of brakes did this wagons have then?

First of all, air brakes didn't come in on wagons in the UK until around 1970, with a few exceptions such as ferry wagons that had both air and vacuum brakes but only used the air brakes on the Continent. My comments below mostly refer to vacuum brakes but very much the same principles applied with air brakes and by the 80s nearly all freight trains were fully fitted with air brakes.

Some wagons carried a vacuum cylinder and brake rigging to operate the brakes - the proportion so fitted increased over time but was probably less than 50% even when they started being replaced by air braked wagons.

In earlier years, vacuum fitted wagons tended to be the ones doing longer and faster journeys, so most vans were fitted at least later on, but mineral wagons for slow coal trains probably weren't.

Most but not all locomotives had exhausters to create a vacuum and vacuum pipes on each end. If fitted wagons had their hoses connected through to the locomotive then the driver could operate their brakes by varying the pressure in the pipe. More importantly if the train became divided the brakes on both parts would apply automatically (referred to as a continous brake). Wagons fitted with vacuum gear didn't count as "fitted" for the purposes of operating the train unless the brake pipe was connected to the loco. There were also a few wagons with through pipes but no vacuum brake gear, which didn't count as fitted either but could have fitted wagons behind them.

The fastest trains were fully fitted and although they still carried a guard, he didn't have to be in a van at the end of the train. Sometimes the van was near but not at the end and in many trains of later years the guard would travel in the back cab of the loco.

Other trains had a "fitted head" of continuous braked wagons connected up to the loco but the other wagons either didn't have vacuum brakes or the vacuum pipes weren't connected so the vacuum brakes couldn't be used. These were referred to as partly fitted trains and there were various rules about what speed was allowed depending on how many of the wagons had working continuous brakes. On a partly fitted or unfitted train the guard had to travel in a brake van as the very last vehicle, and was responsible for assisting in braking when required and also for stopping the rear portion if the train became divided.

All wagons whether fitted or not had and still have a hand brake, usually a long lever on both sides of a four-wheel wagon or a handwheel each side of a bogie wagon. The tip of the lever or the wheel is painted white so is often visible on photos. The wheel-applied brakes have some kind of worm gear so the brake stays in the position it is set. A brake handle needs to be secured in one of several positions by inserting a pin through holes in struts in front of an behind it, hence the term "pinning down brakes".

A brake stick would be used by someone running alongside the wagon to hold the brake lever down and slow it, usually during hump or loose shunting where wagons were moved without being coupled to a loco. Needless to say this sort of activity was highly dangerous and no longer takes place (they also uncoupled on the move which sounds even more scary).

On some steep descents the brakes on the loco plus the brake van would not be enough to control the speed of the train, so unfitted or partly fitted trains would stop before the start of the gradient for the guard to pin down enough brakes to prevent it accelerating, and again at bottom to release them. The loco and van brakes would then be used to stop it if this became necessary.

Wagons parked in sidings needed and still do need enough handbrakes applied to prevent them rolling away - note that a vacuum or air brake can't be used to hold an unattended train as if there is no loco or the engine shuts down the brakes will eventually leak off as air/vacuum pressure is lost from the pipework.

 

[Jonny]

I would suspect that there were larger gaps between faster trains than at present. This would enable wider envelopes, in which an unfitted and/or class 7 (45 mph max) could be accomodated , than on the present network.

In fact, I remember seeing a lot of TOPS code CSA (equivalent to PSV) fly-ash wagons (based on the Presflo cement wagons, apparently with a rating/concession for 55mph) crossing Chester-le-Street viaduct, northbound, in the 2000/1 (Railtrack PLC) era.

 

[Taunton]

(they also uncoupled on the move which sounds even more scary).

Not really. This was a daily sight at the freight yard west of Taunton station. Train going at walking pace, or shunting. Shunter or guard, brake stick in hand (which has a large hook at one end) walks alongside, places stick over buffer and hooks under coupling. Push down, and it's uncoupled.

As much (sometimes more) of a problem than brake power was the simplistic loose-link coupling, with application and reduction of power, loco braking, gradient changes, etc, generating significant shocks up and down the train, to the extent that it could break a coupling and have the unbraked rear only controllable by the guard's van brake.

Until the 1960s most freight services were unfitted, and even the faster through freights only partly so. There was no particular "nanny knows best" maximum speed laid down by HQ, it was up to the driver, and varied dependent on the line characteristics. It was a far greater skill than just operating a brake valve. I suppose the fastest speeds were short trains going up a gentle gradient, where you were certain you could stop pretty easily.

Without a doubt the best account of unfitted freight operation is David L Smith's "Tales of the Glasgow & South Western Railway".

 

[341o2]

Wagons parked in sidings needed and still do need enough handbrakes applied to prevent them rolling away - note that a vacuum or air brake can't be used to hold an unattended train as if there is no loco or the engine shuts down the brakes will eventually leak off as air/vacuum pressure is lost from the pipework.

Sometimes stock was indeed left on the air/vacuum brake which would eventually leak off which made yards hazardous

 

[341o2]

I would suspect that there were larger gaps between faster trains than at present..

There were often goods only lines along the main running lines which have now been lifted with the decrease in freight traffic.

One feature which has disappeared is the permissive block for freight only, where a second or third train could be admitted into section, the driver(s) advised of the situation and to proceed with caution running by sight

 

[341o2]

Not really. This was a daily sight at the freight yard west of Taunton station. Train going at walking pace, or shunting. Shunter or guard, brake stick in hand (which has a large hook at one end) walks alongside, places stick over buffer and hooks under coupling. Push down, and it's uncoupled.

As much (sometimes more) of a problem than brake power was the simplistic loose-link coupling, with application and reduction of power, loco braking, gradient changes, etc, generating significant shocks up and down the train, to the extent that it could break a coupling and have the unbraked rear only controllable by the guard's van brake.

Until the 1960s most freight services were unfitted, and even the faster through freights only partly so. There was no particular "nanny knows best" maximum speed laid down by HQ, it was up to the driver, and varied dependent on the line characteristics. It was a far greater skill than just operating a brake valve. I suppose the fastest speeds were short trains going up a gentle gradient, where you were certain you could stop pretty easily.

Without a doubt the best account of unfitted freight operation is David L Smith's "Tales of the Glasgow & South Western Railway".

There was also fly shunting, where one train would be split into two or more portions while on the move and points changed between the moving portions

Exceeding the official speed limits and other irregular practices occurred on the "old" railway. Freight was internal on private land away from the public eye.

Gerry Feinnes has some delightful tales.

In his early days, he failed to note the steam heating pipe on a banana van, pulled it off and reported the incident, normal practice was to simply square things with the fitter and no more said

If there was a derailment within a goods yard, why bother with the breakdown train when you can use some blocks of wood and pull the wagons back on the track

When derailments of short wheelbase wagons began he recalled that freight often ran neck and neck with passenger. One driver was an ardent football fan and if his team was playing at home and you shunted him, he would give you hell.

Lastly, driver Bill Hoole who seemed to delight in trying to go as fast as possible, such as his epic run with 266 Flying Freight which ran down the Talisman, north of Peterborough was scheduled for 80mph

 

[edwin_m]

I would suspect that there were larger gaps between faster trains than at present.

That was true - the sort of hourly or half-hourly services we see on most service today were unheard of in the steam era, except perhaps on the Southern commuter routes. There were also lots more loops and sidings, but even if we still had these we couldn't necessarily run much more freight, as the gaps between passenger trains have shortened enough that by the time a freight has got up to speed out of a loop it would need to go into the next loop. We are carrying far more passengers today than before the Beeching era but on much less track - the difference is that there is far less freight and what remains is much faster.

 

[Taunton]

If I recall correctly unfitted BR freight vehicles were painted grey, and fitted ones brown.

A substantial high speed unfitted operation started on the LNER (who seemed most advanced with this) after the war, and continued to the end of steam, on the Annesley to Woodford Halse section (Mansfield to the Chilterns) of the GC main line. Being built late, around 1900, this was well laid out with constant gradients of 1 in 176 (30 feet up/down per mile), rather than the undulating older routes which took it out of loose coupled trains. Much of the traffic was coal from the north to London. The constant succession of non-stop freights, often at 30 minute intervals for much of the day, was a huge traffic. Initially O1 2-8-0s, later replaced by 9F 2-10-0s. They certainly kept up with the passenger service on the line. A round trip was a good day's work for a crew, the locos generally managed two such trips a day.

Regarding current lines having much increased passenger service preventing such operation, to an extent this is correct, but modern passenger services are much shorter, with less capacity. Trains of 13 coaches passing Taunton from both London and the north were common - compare a Castle starting such a load west out of Taunton with a 4-car Cross Country unit today.

 

[edwin_m]

Regarding current lines having much increased passenger service preventing such operation, to an extent this is correct, but modern passenger services are much shorter, with less capacity. Trains of 13 coaches passing Taunton from both London and the north were common - compare a Castle starting such a load west out of Taunton with a 4-car Cross Country unit today.

Indeed. The greater speed as well as the greater frequency of passenger trains is one reason most routes could never accommodate long slow freights today, except perhaps at night. A modern freight train can run at 60 or 75mph except on the worst gradients or when a lower restriction applies. This is roughly the same average speed as an outer suburban or regional passenger train which may get up to 75-100mph but also makes intermediate stops. However capacity is likely to be an issue on 2-track lines with intercity services at 100mph or more.

 

[Springs Branch]

One other feature of unfitted freight trains was the presence of catch points at intervals on lines with significant gradients.

I remember reading in one of O.S. Nock's books that at the time of upgrade & electrification of the northern WCML (Weaver Jn - Motherwell) around 1974, catch points were removed from the sections over Shap & Beattock since these were incompatible with operation of 100mph trains. There was still a significant amount of unfitted freight between Scotland, Carlisle and the South at that time, meaning all the slow traffic was diverted to run over the G&SW, Settle & Carlisle and via Hellifield and Blackburn. The unfitted freights rejoined the WCML at Farington Junction near Leyland, where several loops & sidings were in place for diesel/electric loco exchanges.

I think most of these unfitted trains had disappeared by the early 1980s, leading to the run-down and threat of closure of the S&C, extremely sparse traffic between Hellifield and Daisyfield Jn and rusty goods loops between Farington & Lostock Hall Jns.

I'm not sure whether it was true to say catch points were incompatible with 100 mph running, as express passenger trains were already accelerated after introduction of the Class 50s. Maybe the rationale behind the diversion was more down to increased differential between the fastest and slowest train speeds, plus expectation of more frequent 100mph trains and faster fully fitted freights on the northern WCML after electrification.

 

[341o2]

and to add were piped wagons which had the connections but no brake gear.

A bygone era where the guard had to work out the tonnage of the train and advise regarding any fitted/piped wagons to the driver.

And some drivers could be quite rough when starting with the bang-bang-bang etc not only risking a broken coupling but after being stationary for a length of time the guard needs a pee, leans out ... sudden jerk of the train starting and he's sitting on the ballast watching the red light receding into the distance

 

[Taunton]

I'm not sure whether it was true to say catch points were incompatible with 100 mph running, as express passenger trains were already accelerated after introduction of the Class 50s

I doubt there was much 100mph running up a hill so steep that catch points were required.

If I remember correctly unfitted freight over Shap disappeared with the end of the steam bankers at Tebay around 1967, I don't recall a diesel fleet replacement. In contrast, Beattock had pairs of Class 20 bankers well into the electrification era. By the late 1960s there was a lot of freight going via Hellifield, which was presumably all the loose coupled Scottish traffic.

 

[edwin_m]

One other feature of unfitted freight trains was the presence of catch points at intervals on lines with significant gradients.

I remember reading in one of O.S. Nock's books that at the time of upgrade & electrification of the northern WCML (Weaver Jn - Motherwell) around 1974, catch points were removed from the sections over Shap & Beattock since these were incompatible with operation of 100mph trains. There was still a significant amount of unfitted freight between Scotland, Carlisle and the South at that time, meaning all the slow traffic was diverted to run over the G&SW, Settle & Carlisle and via Hellifield and Blackburn. The unfitted freights rejoined the WCML at Farington Junction near Leyland, where several loops & sidings were in place for diesel/electric loco exchanges.

I think most of these unfitted trains had disappeared by the early 1980s, leading to the run-down and threat of closure of the S&C, extremely sparse traffic between Hellifield and Daisyfield Jn and rusty goods loops between Farington & Lostock Hall Jns.

I'm not sure whether it was true to say catch points were incompatible with 100 mph running, as express passenger trains were already accelerated after introduction of the Class 50s. Maybe the rationale behind the diversion was more down to increased differential between the fastest and slowest train speeds, plus expectation of more frequent 100mph trains and faster fully fitted freights on the northern WCML after electrification.

I think you're right about the differential - still a problem today as a diesel hauled freight takes over 20min to climb Shap or Beattock.

I don't think catch points on 100mph lines were banned, but as well as the above issue they would have been a maintenance liability as every train passing over them would strike the side of the moving rail and push it back against the spring. Also they would derail any train that stopped over them for any reason and rolled back a little when re-starting against the gradient.

 

[billh]

I think you're right about the differential - still a problem today as a diesel hauled freight takes over 20min to climb Shap or Beattock.

I don't think catch points on 100mph lines were banned, but as well as the above issue they would have been a maintenance liability as every train passing over them would strike the side of the moving rail and push it back against the spring. Also they would derail any train that stopped over them for any reason and rolled back a little when re-starting against the gradient.

I recall waiting for a train at Warrington B.Q.in the 1980s. It had failed at Norton a few miles away. A rescue 47 was summoned and arrived on our crowded platform. The stationmaster(?) arrived with a points clamp as the loco had to run "bang road" to the failure over some catch points. There then followed a very public argument between the SM and loco crew as to who was going to clamp the points. The SM finally threw the clamp in the cab and got aboard("I'll ****** do it then") and the loco shot off in a cloud of black smoke. Twenty minutes later the 47 and failed electric appeared.I would think 100mph running in that area then?

 

[muddythefish]

One other feature of unfitted freight trains was the presence of catch points at intervals on lines with significant gradients.

I remember reading in one of O.S. Nock's books that at the time of upgrade & electrification of the northern WCML (Weaver Jn - Motherwell) around 1974, catch points were removed from the sections over Shap & Beattock since these were incompatible with operation of 100mph trains. There was still a significant amount of unfitted freight between Scotland, Carlisle and the South at that time, meaning all the slow traffic was diverted to run over the G&SW, Settle & Carlisle and via Hellifield and Blackburn. The unfitted freights rejoined the WCML at Farington Junction near Leyland, where several loops & sidings were in place for diesel/electric loco exchanges.

I think most of these unfitted trains had disappeared by the early 1980s, leading to the run-down and threat of closure of the S&C, extremely sparse traffic between Hellifield and Daisyfield Jn and rusty goods loops between Farington & Lostock Hall Jns.

I'm not sure whether it was true to say catch points were incompatible with 100 mph running, as express passenger trains were already accelerated after introduction of the Class 50s. Maybe the rationale behind the diversion was more down to increased differential between the fastest and slowest train speeds, plus expectation of more frequent 100mph trains and faster fully fitted freights on the northern WCML after electrification.

Grew up watching those freights on the Blackburn - Hellifield line. My goodness it was busy in the 1970s, especially at night when a constant procession of trains would toil their way up the gradients either side of Brownhill behind Class 40s and Class 25s.

It had all gone by about 1983-4 - traffic literally thrown away by a railway that would rather close sidings and depots than modernise.

 

[Flying Phil]

Also worth remembering was the need for "Diesel Brake Tenders" for unfitted freight trains. A rebuild of one of these has been built on the GCR - to be rolled out soon.

 

[ac6000cw]

It had all gone by about 1983-4 - traffic literally thrown away by a railway that would rather close sidings and depots than modernise.

It did try - that's what Freightliner and Merry-go-round coal were all about - moving freight as quickly as possible with the absolute minimum of en-route sorting (which is time-consuming and expensive), and keeping the rolling assets moving.

The reality is that in a country where the distances between major economic centres are quite short, traditional wagonload freight economics are pretty poor - the 'long haul' rail cost advantage is too short to compensate for the sorting and trip-working costs. If you are moving it 1000 miles then you can compete with trucks on cost and time, if it's 200 miles the advantage is the other way (the trucker is probably close to the far end of the journey by the time the wagon has got out of the first yard...). Also many traditional industries that were rail-served have either disappeared or moved to 'just-in-time' manufacturing and distribution (which needs high levels of service and reliability - something that rail freight tended to struggle with due to its traditional 'passenger trains come first' attitude).

 

[edwin_m]

Modern rail freight has to be much more time-consious than it was in the past, particularly for intermodal trains which have to hit specific timetable slots on busy main lines. However for similar reasons it probalby isn't going to be possible to deliver a train at the exact time a particular faclity might want one as "just-in-time" probably implies.