If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

The genie in the railway lamp

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Monkey Magic, Jul 18, 2018.

  1. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,186
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The conclusion to be drawn from study of the matter is that land transport is to cheap.

    The fragmented nature of the road haulage industry often means loads being carried at unrealistic rates and users have little incentive to reduce the amount of transport they consume.

    As a 'for example' the tone mileage of food and drink being transported in the UK has risen over the last 20 or so years while the weight consumed has remained fairly constant. 'Just in Time' deliveries often require fairly small amounts being delivered rather than a full load - in effect using the road network as a warehouse.

    All things that lorries do much better than rail but at what cost?

    As far as efficiency goes I'd like to see as comment from someone in the industry @Victor perhaps and I believe that there are other NP members in the road haulage industry but it seems to me that unless you are 'trunking' ie driving loads from depot to depot where another driver takes over as you cant drive for more than 9 hours in a day, long distance transport must be rather inefficent.
     
    Jamessquared likes this.
  2. Victor

    Victor Nat Pres stalwart Friend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    13,775
    Likes Received:
    7,945
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    DEWSBURY West Yorkshire
    I've been retired for some time now so I can't really comment on present day working. I spent all my working life on fuel tankers so it was full load delivery or nowt. Back in the day there was far more 'trunking' than there is now, in fact I'll guess trunking has all but disappeared, nowadays it's multi drop (and with drivers hours, mobile phones, and various rules and regs)...........it's a nightmare. I'm glad I'm out of it
     
  3. 61648

    61648 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    261
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Former sub-shed of 30D
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Trunking still exists but is really the preserve of the big firms moving goods on their own account between large Distribution Centre, e.g. supermarkets, big stores and large multi-national logistics groups.
    From my own experience, I would suggest that road transport being used as a warehouse is only part of the story, you only need to see the size of the latest generation container ships to see where the real mobile warehouses are.
    These things are now around the 200,000 Tonne marks carrying 18-20,000 containers and are so large there are only three UK ports that can accommodate them, Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway.
     
  4. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,186
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thank you
     
  5. pete2hogs

    pete2hogs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    418
    4 star is actually still available, it's just not called that. But I wasn't thinking of cars, but long distance lorries. The economics of road freight transport are goiing to change significantly when diesel engines are ultimately banned.
     
  6. pete2hogs

    pete2hogs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    418
    Interesting. I certainly believed it was built to accommodate through traffic off the Channel Tunnel, and I didn't get the idea from Wikipedia.
     
  7. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    From what I can make out a book in the 60s started the story, not sure which and goodness knows how the author got himself confused. I can only guess (as presumably he did) that he observed that it was built to a larger loading gauge then BR composite and from there on made 2+2 = 22!! The fiction was then perpetuated in other books, and Wikipedia policy is that a myth which has been repeated often enough is as good as the truth. In the other camp are the standard documents and drawings used to build the line, which survive, and testimony from the people who maintain the surviving parts now, but those are primary sources and Wikipedia policy doesn't like primary sources!!
     
    jnc and ross like this.
  8. Hirn

    Hirn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    295
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting, Wikipdia does like references. Is there a sound recent one somewhere? Or is this to look out for?

    Some work on how loading gauges, maximum weights and axle loads on routes developed equivalant to Andrew Dow
    on British Permanent Way would be very welcome. Though it seems clear that one might have to get behind a lot of obscurity or obsfucation
    before about the 1920s: details, target future axle loads were not always well communicated internally in the companies.
     
  9. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I know its a year plus on, but after this got mentioned elsewhere I thought it was about time I drew up a comparison of Berne Gauge and GC gauge for my loading gauge study. So here it is... Note how the continental gauge is not only wider, but doesn't have the platform cutouts of UK gauges.
    [​IMG]
     
    jnc, ross, bluetrain and 5 others like this.
  10. ross

    ross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    2,477
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Titfield
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    "So, Mr Watkin, what a true visionary you are-you have built a railway the almost whole length of England, capable of carrying continental rolling stock. Soon we will see true through train working. C'est magnifique, as the french would say. Just one question though, what about that bit?"
    "What bit?"
    "That bit there. Its marked 'Kent' on my map.....
     
  11. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The Great Central loading gauge would have been determined by the legacy of lines built by the MS&LR since the 1840s. The London Extension may well have been built to more generous dimensions, but would have had to align with British high station platforms, preventing compliance with Berne gauge.

    Loading gauges are a complex subject, often changing over time. Some railways appear to have had two different width limits, one inclusive and one exclusive of carriage door hinges and handles. For example, LNWR loco diagrams indicate show that locos were required to keep within a maximum width of 9ft 0in, which is the figure that you quote on your web page. But LNWR corridor coaches were up to 9ft 4in over handles and hinges. That was probably academic to the LNWR loco designers, because the width limit below buffer height dropped to 8ft 8½in - a headache for the LMS when it was designing new engines with large outside cylinders. The LNWR did purchase some ROD 2-8-0s, which were 8ft 10½in over cylinders and presumably subject to special route restrictions.

    On the other hand, both the GCR and the LSWR built locos up to 9ft 2in wide - close to the 9ft 3in overall carriage width limit that both these railways appear to have had.

    I have observed from photographs that the track spacing on French main lines often appeared similar to the British 6-ft standard, yet French locos could be up to about 10ft wide over cylinders and running boards. Not sure if that means they allowed trains to pass closer than in Britain. Other countries do seem to have had wider track spacing.
     
  12. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    It wasn't.

    Indeed that drawing was made from a scan of an original London extension document.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
  13. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The LNWR weren't alone in having an allowance for external fittings that could be knocked off without it being regarded as catastrophic. Odd concept to modern thinking.
     
  14. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That seems a good enough reason to have two sets of loading gauge width limits. But it does mean that, when a single width limit is quoted without qualification, the immediate question is "Which width limit - with or without handles/hinges/foot-boards"? We do of course casually use phrases such as "9-foot stock" for vehicles that are actually 9ft 3in overall width. Similar to the issue of car widths being variously quoted inclusive or exclusive of side mirrors - as my father found when his new car proved an unexpectedly tight fit in the garage.

    In the years leading up to Grouping, most of the British main-line companies were building corridor coaches with dimensions that approximated to later BR Mk1 standards - 9ft 0in body width, also 9ft 0in over upper foot-boards, 9ft 3in over handles and hinges. The main exceptions were the SECR and certain LBSC routes. But the SR had, by 1939, brought most of those lines up to the full "Restriction 4" standard, i.e. allowing 9ft 3in overall width.

    I was interested to see from your web-page that you have unearthed some information on the GWR broad-gauge loading gauge, which I've not previously seen quoted. Not sure whether any broad-gauge vehicles were actually built to the quoted width limit of 11ft 6in. I recall reading that some carriages were 10ft 6in, but again not sure if that was body width or overall width.

    One query ref. the Highland Railway loading-gauge. If it had a nominal height limit of 12ft 9in, that could only have applied to some branch line(s), since many of the Highland main-line engines were taller than that figure. Loco diagrams show the Castle, Small Ben & Large Ben classes all being 13ft 0in over chimney top, while the River Class 4-6-0s were built to a height of 13ft 3¾in (according to RCTS), which was reduced to 12ft 10in when the locos were sold to the Caledonian.
     
  15. Matt37401

    Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    15,332
    Likes Received:
    11,667
    Occupation:
    Nosy aren’t you?
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Didn't the GW set that made its way to Shildon in 1975 have to have some of the door handles removed as they were slightly out of gauge for the non GW parts of the route.
     
  16. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Source was the Railway Year book, 1921. It might well have been a composite gauge! We are only as good as our sources. I've done some hunting at Kew, and not turned up that much. The most useful document was a 1918 document on "Standardisation of Carriages" which curiously seems to have lost all references at to the body it was created for. Unfortunately my camera was having autofocus problems - I've not at all mastered the art of photographing documents - and the dimensions are illegible on my photo of the Highland gauge, but it appears to be the same as the Railway year group drawing and is dated Highland Railway 1915. So we've got something of a puzzle there!
    The proposed standard carriage, BTW was 57ft over body, 41ft between bogie centres, 9ft bogies, 9ft over body at waist, 9'4" over commodes (external handrails I think), 9'4 to top of roof.
     
    bluetrain likes this.
  17. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I suspect that the editors of the Railway Year Book simply asked the Companies for "headline figures" for loading-gauge and did not delve into the intricacies of what the figures actually meant. Apart from the question over the Highland, the figures on your web-page do seem to reflect the dimensions to which locomotives could be built. The LSWR & GCR differed from most of the other companies in that they allowed locomotive widths to go a little beyond the usual 9ft maximum, into the space where others allowed only carriage handles/ hinges. The locos involved were mostly large side-tanks, 9ft 2in wide on LSWR Classes G16 & H16 and on LNER (ex-GCR) Classes A5/1, L3 & S1.

    [Info Sources: Bradley book on Urie Locos; RCTS books on LNER locos; Brian Haresnape/ Peter Rowledge books on Drummond Locos & Robinson Locos]

    I had not previously heard of the 1918 standard carriage project, but wonder if it was linked with work (mentioned by Holcroft & others) that the Government asked the ARLE to undertake in 1917-18 to design a set of standard locomotives.
     
  18. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The railways were under government control at the time of course, and the specification of a standard "go most places" carriage design is an obvious development in the same vein. There must have been issues with troop trains at the time. It goes into considerable detail with profiles, well beyond the headline dimensions which were the target of my study.
     
  19. Dunfanaghy Road

    Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    1,566
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Alton, Hants
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    From 'The Locomotive Engineers' Pocket Book, 1929:
    Construction Gauge.
    LMS, Midland Section: height 13'-9"; full body width 9'-0"; width up to 3'-3" ARL 8'-9".
    LMS, Caledonian Section: height 12'-11"; full body width 9'-0"; width up to 1'-o" ARL 7'-6".
    SR, Western Section: height 13'-4"full body width 9'-3"; width 2'-9" to 3'-4" ARL 8'-9" (stepping down to 6" ARL).
    SR, Eastern Section: height 13'-1"; full body width 9'-0"; width 2'-9" to 3'-4" ARL 8'-11"
    GWR: height 13'-6"; full body width 9'-8"; width up to 5'-0" ARL 9'-0".
    Afraid the rest given are no help (India, Argentina etc.)
    Incidentally this book once belonged to G.A.F. Hally, son of George Hally, CME of the Metropolitan Railway.
    Hope these are of some interest.
    Pat
     
    ross, Jimc, Wenlock and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page