Water Troughs

[John Webb]

No-one else has picked this up so I will...
I think a "W" board means/meant [sound] Whistle (also I have seen "SW" as well), I seem to remember that a horizontal zigzag on a white background meant Watertroughs. Don't know how long ago this was, I may even have seen it on an old cigarette card!
A

You are quite correct - see http://www.railsigns.uk/sect25page1/sect25page1.html for a picture of the advance warning sign, which is indeed a black wavy horizontal line on a white board.

 

[70014IronDuke]

All of this is much more interesting than my original speculation, alas unanswered.

Did the railways have dead level sites when laid out, before troughs, or was there a lot of work to make dead level sections as troughs were needed? I suspect the latter, and that most was achieved by tinkering with ballast and little more.

Andrew

John (below) may be correct, but I suspect the civil engineers ruled the roost - designed the lines according to a combination of management orders (to keep gradients within haulage bounds) and topography. Any sections which happened to be level and with a handy water supply could be used for troughs later.

To some extent, however, these would tend to coincide - most specifically when a line was parallel to a river - at least a slow-flowing one, or a canal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I recall a statement by the presumably knowledgeable staff of the Railway Magazine, in a question-and-answer exchange in that periodical some time in the 1950s: that there had only ever been a little incidence of water troughs on the European Continent -- one of the few exceptions being on France's Ouest-Etat system.
.......

Thanks.

One muses -- celebrated German efficiency possibly tackling the issue in another way? -- given the motivation, one would imagine that water-column use / loco changing, could be made pretty snappy.

Given the German nature, I'd have thought that if they had not invented them first, they would have taken the British idea and improved upon it!

I did think that, eg in much of central-eastern Europe, the issues of regular conflict must have hampered railway development: in other words, just get the lines working again after the latest war - plus hilly areas in any case restricted speeds. But Germany WAS after speed, especially between the wars, and had sections ripe for using troughs, eg the Rhine Valley - water aplenty 20-30 metres from the track in many places.

Could it simply be that Continental countries' railways were back then -- for whatever reason -- just not quite as speed-crazy as ours: a bit readier to have an "it takes as long as it takes" approach?

Not Germany or France, I don't think. I guess their tenders carried more water, but then their loadings were probably much heavier. (I may be influenced by experience with electric haulage here, but it seems to me the French used to like running one morning, one lunchtime and one evening express, all very long trains, rather than aiming for, say, a two-hourly service.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No-one else has picked this up so I will...
I think a "W" board means/meant [sound] Whistle (also I have seen "SW" as well), I seem to remember that a horizontal zigzag on a white background meant Watertroughs. Don't know how long ago this was, I may even have seen it on an old cigarette card!
A

Apologies - memory confusion with the WWW sign. (although I thought Whistle was written out as a word, at least on some railways.)

 

[Spamcan81]

John (below) may be correct, but I suspect the civil engineers ruled the roost - designed the lines according to a combination of management orders (to keep gradients within haulage bounds) and topography. Any sections which happened to be level and with a handy water supply could be used for troughs later.

To some extent, however, these would tend to coincide - most specifically when a line was parallel to a river - at least a slow-flowing one, or a canal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks.



Given the German nature, I'd have thought that if they had not invented them first, they would have taken the British idea and improved upon it!

I did think that, eg in much of central-eastern Europe, the issues of regular conflict must have hampered railway development: in other words, just get the lines working again after the latest war - plus hilly areas in any case restricted speeds. But Germany WAS after speed, especially between the wars, and had sections ripe for using troughs, eg the Rhine Valley - water aplenty 20-30 metres from the track in many places.



Not Germany or France, I don't think. I guess their tenders carried more water, but then their loadings were probably much heavier. (I may be influenced by experience with electric haulage here, but it seems to me the French used to like running one morning, one lunchtime and one evening express, all very long trains, rather than aiming for, say, a two-hourly service.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Apologies - memory confusion with the WWW sign. (although I thought Whistle was written out as a word, at least on some railways.)

Correct, whistle boards with the word in full were not uncommon. The Mid Hants has a couple of Southern examples.

 

[krus_aragon]

Could it simply be that Continental countries' railways were back then -- for whatever reason -- just not quite as speed-crazy as ours: a bit readier to have an "it takes as long as it takes" approach?

An interesting thought, given that the LNWR, under Richard Moon's directorship, both introduced the innovative water troughs and yet maintained a policy that 40mph was fast enough for express passenger trains. (Slower trains were more economical in fuel and made for greater profits.)

 

[Calthrop]

(I may be influenced by experience with electric haulage here, but it seems to me the French used to like running one morning, one lunchtime and one evening express, all very long trains, rather than aiming for, say, a two-hourly service.)

I have the impression that for many decades, French passenger schedules overall (both on main and non-main lines) were on the whole a lot more sparse than those in Britain: likely a function of -- as you've remarked on -- France's lesser population density. I have the impression that this is no longer so -- including re such French lesser lines, as still have passenger services; and I've no sure knowledge of how this situation was in France, say in the 19th century.

 

[Senex]

But Germany WAS after speed, especially between the wars, and had sections ripe for using troughs, eg the Rhine Valley - water aplenty 20-30 metres from the track in many places.

Not Germany or France, I don't think. I guess their tenders carried more water, but then their loadings were probably much heavier. (I may be influenced by experience with electric haulage here, but it seems to me the French used to like running one morning, one lunchtime and one evening express, all very long trains, rather than aiming for, say, a two-hourly service.)

That pattern of express trains (getting heavier and heavier over the years) in the morning, at lunchtime, and in the afternoon (with perhaps another one at night) was a pretty standard European practice from the start until surprisingly recent times. Then the gaps began to be plugged little by little, but at first with no idea of an interval service. That's a much more recent development altogether.

As for water-troughs in Germany, or rather the lack of them, could that be in part down to the fact that even fast long-distance trains tended not to go in for the very long distances without stops that became customary in this country? It wasn't until the FDt services appeared in the 1930s that those really lengthy start-to-stop runs began. Given the very different geography of France, on the other hand, it is very surprising that there was not much more use of water-troughs there.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

My apologies if this has already been answered (I don't think that it has?), but are any troughs still in existence, albeit not of course in use?

Assuming that they are all gone, would it have been a big job to take them out and refill the space between the tracks?

 

[Railsigns]

My apologies if this has already been answered (I don't think that it has?), but are any troughs still in existence, albeit not of course in use?

They're all long gone.

Assuming that they are all gone, would it have been a big job to take them out and refill the space between the tracks?

The troughs sat on top of the sleepers. Once they've been removed, they don't leave a space that needs to be filled.

 

[Ploughman]

What is the minimum speed for a decent pick up of water?
Just wondering if any of the preserved lines would consider it as a feature of interest like the Mail train pick up / set down apparatus.

It would need a decent length of straight and level track, which would rule out the NYMR for one.

 

[scott118]

here's a set found at Brundall earlier today...

 

[EbbwJunction1]

They're all long gone.

The troughs sat on top of the sleepers. Once they've been removed, they don't leave a space that needs to be filled.

I thought that the former would be correct, but I was under the impression that the troughs were deeper than that ..... thanks for correcting me.

 

[AndrewE]

Spot the water pick-up on Portillo's programme today?

The programme was set mostly around Cheshire but the brief (1 sec?) clip at about 25 mins in the Alton Towers bit showed a big-boilered 4-6-0 loco at speed followed by an upland view from a train with hills in the background.

I'm sure someone will recognise it...
A

 

[Taunton]

What is the minimum speed for a decent pick up of water?.

About 40mph seems to have been the minimum. I get the impression that loose coupled freights didn't really have the speed to do so, it was mainly for long distance passenger. The water has to be forced, by forward momentum, up the collection pipe right to the top of the tender from where it fell by gravity into the tank.

Harry Holcroft, Churchward's design assistant, wrote in his autobiography that a GWR 36xx tank loco, fitted with water pick up, was brought into Wolverhampton Works at an early stage having picked up water at speed, presumably with the scoop well down, and the tops of the side tanks were blown open from end to end, due to inadequate vents to the tanks (not designed by Holcroft!). It's described here (below), which probably comes from Holcroft's book. The steam-powered water scoop seems to have been a failure as well (obviously easier to arrange on a tank loco than on a tender), and was soon replaced by a normal GWR winding wheel one.

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_242.htm

 

[70014IronDuke]

My apologies if this has already been answered (I don't think that it has?), but are any troughs still in existence, albeit not of course in use?

Assuming that they are all gone, would it have been a big job to take them out and refill the space between the tracks?

Taking them out, I'd imagine, would be a doddle - so long as you had a full possession and made sure the sectional appendix was brought up todate to ensure drivers didn't try to fill up with no troughs in place

In practice, I think they tended to be taken out well after steam had stopped using or needing them. I remember the troughs at Hest Bank (near Carnforth) were still there, with water, at the end of steam in August 68. I doubt they had been needed for some months - not since steam on fitted goods over Shap had stopped working - which I think was end of 67.

 

[Taunton]

In practice, I think they tended to be taken out well after steam had stopped using or needing them. I remember the troughs at Hest Bank (near Carnforth) were still there, with water, at the end of steam in August 68. I doubt they had been needed for some months - not since steam on fitted goods over Shap had stopped working - which I think was end of 67.

I believe the early diesels such as Class 40 had air-operated pick up scoops as well for train heating boiler water.

 

[70014IronDuke]

About 40mph seems to have been the minimum. I get the impression that loose coupled freights didn't really have the speed to do so, it was mainly for long distance passenger. The water has to be forced, by forward momentum, up the collection pipe right to the top of the tender from where it fell by gravity into the tank.
...

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_242.htm

Not claiming to be an expert, but I have read that you could pick up from about 15 mph, so unfitted goods/mineral traffic could use troughs. However, i agree with you that it seems they were in practice used primarily by express passengers.

Indeed, thinking about it, I can't seem to remember ever seeing a photo of even a fitted goods taking water from troughs - and I suspect (given the amount of fast goods on the GWR and your allegience) you would have seen piccies if they exist. (Granted, much of the fast goods tended to be at night, didn't it? At least, that's how I remember it c 1963.)

I also get the impression that there must have been some instruction that, if a driver had a choice between using troughs and taking water at a scheduled station stop, then he was to choose the latter option. I suspect this was because of the loss of water and damage to the PW caused by water 'slosh' wastage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe the early diesels such as Class 40 had air-operated pick up scoops as well for train heating boiler water.

Yes, they had scoops when new - not sure how operated - and just when they stopped using them seems to be an even less well-documented subject than how steam used them.

I definitely get the feeling that diesels stopped using them before steam did - but I have no evidence bar the lack of photos. All the photos that i've seen seem to be Cl 40s when they were still a front-line passenger power, sort of up to c 1965. By 1968, all the main WCML trains north of Preston were in the hands of fl 50s or 47s. How the 47s managed if they had steam-heat stock on long runs, I don't know.

PS I enjoyed your story about the GWR tank

 

[Clarence Yard]

The last troughs on the ECML (& probably BR), Wiske Moor, were taken out of use at the end of 1969/beginning of 1970 when the Deltics was modified with larger water tanks.

Up to that point you only got just over four hours out of a Spanner 2 with a 640 gallon water tank so the troughs were still needed for the longer runs.

 

[neilb62]

We used to top 47's up using the solebar fillers at Bristol TM on Padd to West of England trains. The Spanner III was sensitive to water level at the best of times suffering badly with air locks in the lift pump...

 

[Taunton]

In the magazine account, published at the time, of 4472 Flying Scotsman's nonstop run from London to Edinburgh in 1968, the water pickup difficulties it had on the remaining troughs which nearly scuppered the attempt were identified as due to the troughs being set for a lower water level, which had been done once diesel traction became standard. This change had somehow been overlooked in the preparations for the run. When the return trip was made a couple of days later a message had been sent round and the ball valves had all been reset at the troughs to the traditional steam loco level.

Obviously taking 500 gallons on for a diesel train heating tank was a different matter to ten times that amount for a steam loco tender. On the other hand, on that one day when they were reset to full level it then possibly came as a bit of a surprise to the fireman on a Deltic-hauled service doing a water pickup!

 

[AndrewE]

I've dug out an inherited copy of the instructions for some early diesels, hoping for a bit more info on using water troughs, I found almost nothing!

The "Driving instructions. Standard preparation and disposal duties..." for "2750HP BR/Brush Type 4 DE locos D1520-D1701" etc [Cl 47s] has detailed instructions on running several types of boiler, but nothing else at all, other than a "boiler water tank capacity (on locomotives fitted)" of 1250 gallons.

Type 4 English Electric 2000HP Diesel electric locomotives Nos D200-D209, D210-D236 and D237 onwards(!) [cl40s] tantalisingly shows in the locomotive data "Boiler water tank... ... ...800 gallons(water column [!] and water pick-up filling arrangements)" and actually says a bit further in [...wait for it...]

"Water pick-up
To raise scoop, move handle to "Raise scoop" position, hold for Scoop" position. [sic]
To raise scoop, move handel [sic] to "Raise scoop" position, hold for 30 seconds then release handle to "Neutral" position."

....D138 - D193 [Cl 46 I think] shows a boiler water tank capacity of 1,340 gallons, but nothing more than the actual boiler operating instructions (2 types.)
The best bit of all though (which will be missed by people not reading this thread) is in the miscellaneous instructions at the front

"Assistance by a steam locomotive
A steam locomotive may be used in conjunction with a diesel locomotive, provided that in no circumstances is the maximum permissable speed of the diesel locomotive exceeded... "

[!]
I love that bit most...

 

[krus_aragon]

I've dug out an inherited copy of the instructions for some early diesels, hoping for a bit more info on using water troughs, I found almost nothing!

Good thinking. You prompted me to reach for a copy of the BR Diesel Traction Manual for Enginemen, but it dates from 1962, which is a bit too late. It has some cutaway diagrams of steam generators, and the layout of an EE type 4 showing location of generator and water feed tank, but no sign of the water scoop.

 

[AndrewE]

You prompted me to reach for a copy of the BR Diesel Traction Manual for Enginemen, but it dates from 1962,

Mine is dated 1962 (and annotated "1st edition, withdrawn because of errors") and also says nothing, sorry, should have remembered to mention that.

The Steam loco enginemen's handbook (1957) only says under general Drivers' duties:

The water pick-up gear, where fitted, should be tested and oiled and great care taken to see that the scoop is in the "UP" or "OUT" position and the handle secured to avoid any damage being done when the locomotive is moved."

I'm surprised that it doesn't give any advice or instructions on actual use at all! I had imagined that the lack of info in the diesel book was based on proper instructions for firemen in the steam manual. Obviously not. Maybe there was a lot of regional variation in technique (difficult to imagine) or it was such an art that you didn't want people trying it after anything other than direct tuition, certainly no book-learning of any kind.

 

[70014IronDuke]

In the magazine account, published at the time, of 4472 Flying Scotsman's nonstop run from London to Edinburgh in 1968, the water pickup difficulties it had on the remaining troughs which nearly scuppered the attempt were identified as due to the troughs being set for a lower water level, which had been done once diesel traction became standard. This change had somehow been overlooked in the preparations for the run. ........

TBH, it is exactly the sort of detail that can so easily crop up when so many other things need sorting out - it's not so surprising.

I detest the (mainly US saying, I think) - "It's just running the railroad" - as if it were so easy. I always think that anyone who says this clearly hasn't tried it. So many things to do to make it work properly, and so many things to go wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mine is dated 1962
....
I'm surprised that it doesn't give any advice or instructions on actual use at all! I had imagined that the lack of info in the diesel book was based on proper instructions for firemen in the steam manual. Obviously not. Maybe there was a lot of regional variation in technique (difficult to imagine) or it was such an art that you didn't want people trying it after anything other than direct tuition, certainly no book-learning of any kind.

I think it was more a case of things being learned on the job, and nobody ever thinking it needed to be put down in print. Even the BR steam locoman's handbook (the black one) was a first of its kind, I believe - BR suddenly realised it would be good to have a standardised guide to operating the beasts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've dug out an inherited copy of the instructions for some early diesels, hoping for a bit more info on using water troughs, I found almost nothing!
..........

The best bit of all though (which will be missed by people not reading this thread) is in the miscellaneous instructions at the front
[!]
I love that bit most...

Well, it sound quirky today, but quite a few of the early Type 2s were 75 mph max speed, IIRC. (Cl 24s? 26s? 30s?) Certainly most, if not all of the Type 1s.
So not at all impossible to imagine an operator coupling up an express locomotive to help out one such type 2 at the head of a train and trying to haul the whole caboodle at 85-90 mph at some of the more regular high-speed spots.

So, I'd say this was a well thought out statement.

Interesting thread though. Thanks to those who've made an effort on this.

 

[Bevan Price]

Noted in a 1960 Scottish Region Sectional Appendix today:

Maximum speed over water troughs 70 mph - whether or not water is being picked up.

 

[AndrewE]

A p.s: I have found these... I knew I had them somewhere!

 

[krus_aragon]

A p.s: I have found these... I knew I had them somewhere!

Top notch. If I may ask, what is the age of the cigarette card? If it's old enough to be out of copyright, it could be a good addition to Wikipedia's page.

 

[AndrewE]

This page: http://www.londoncigcard.co.uk/product.php?id=4352 says 1939, which fits with when my uncle would have been gathering them. By coincidence they head the page with the very card I showed (but not its back!)

 

[krus_aragon]

This page: http://www.londoncigcard.co.uk/product.php?id=4352 says 1939, which fits with when my uncle would have been gathering them. By coincidence they head the page with the very card I showed (but not its back!)

Well, you can't ask for a more precise date than that!

 

[Trog]

Post for the lamp marking the start of the trough at Castlethorpe US. The DF equivalent was removed by WCRM to make way for a new S&T route.