Interesting Historic British Freight Operations Site

"Goods & Not So Goods"

Didn't see this mentioned before, even though the sites from 2003/2004 - anyway: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/index.htm
Has a pretty descent discussion of a multitude of (historic) British Freight practices, including information on buffers, couplers, frames, car types, freight handling, yard designs, etc. While not super-detail oriented, it does cover some interesting topics and shows how some practices differ from North American and European (it finally answered my questions on how British 3-link coupling works, including screw coupling and instanter).
Even touched upon the Locomotive Headcode system I had asked about over a year ago...

Any questions, just point them in my direction.

If I don't know, I know a man or two who will !

UKrailwayman wrote:Any questions, just point them in my direction.

If I don't know, I know a man or two who will !

Well, thanks, but actually the site I linked too answered quite a few of my (basic) questions, and I figured it might be of interest to others...
Actually, I did ask a question a while back, but no answers - is there on-line a (relatively - within the past 2 years) roster of ALL british freight wagons (particularly if it has images of each type).

This is the best I can find right now.

Its a bit limited, however.

http://www.whdavis.co.uk/main_pages/wagon.htm

UKrailwayman wrote:This is the best I can find right now.
Its a bit limited, however.
http://www.whdavis.co.uk/main_pages/wagon.htm

Tis interesting - I like looking at manufacturer's pages (I bookmarked the main North American manfacturers)
Too bad there was only a few examples (and no diagrammes) and, even worse, no larger pictures - I would have liked to have seen the Irish Peat Wagons loaded onto the truck in greater detail.
I notice that new wagon production seems to be trending toward bogies (or 2 axle truck - 4 axle total) like long-standing North American freight car practice.
And, just like the site 'Goods and Not So Goods' pointed out, buffers are now mostly oval or rectangular as opposed to circular (man, for some reason it boggles my mind that buffers are the only way British railroads could made 3 link couplers work for so long - without buffers (like NA practice) the slack would knock all the couplers out the minute the train started to brake...). I'm going to have to be parochial here, and say the AAR Knuckle coupler (descendant of the Janney coupler) seems overall much more practical in freight application.[

the AAR Knuckle coupler (descendant of the Janney coupler) seems overall much more practical in freight application

Maybe, but to understand UK practice, you need to be aware that until about 15 years ago, we still operated unbraked trains, with a Guard's van.

With some of the runaway trains on British railroads you still operate trains unbraked, despite this being passenger units

With some of the runaway trains on British railroads you still operate trains unbraked, despite this being passenger units

???
You have lost me on that one !

Unbraked rolling stock was withdrawn from the early 1990's and now everything is braked.

BR operational practice and locomotive power mean that sometimes quite heavy unbraked trains were operated. The slack in the couplings allowed the locomotive to gradually take the weight both in starting and in stopping.

Perhaps Dutch Railnut was thinking of Australia , there was a runaway passenger train there a few years ago . anyway all in good humour .

Do some of the unit trains use a version of the knuckle coupler ?

Here in New Zealand we have our own fairly unique hook / pin couler , with no buffers , but they are moving towards the aar knuckle coupler for unit trains .

Hmm, knuckle (or janney) couplers have some natural slack in them - indeed there are plenty of descriptions of engineers in North American practice slowly taking the slack of the train, and various situations where this is desirable/not so desirable.
Hmm, so you had unbraked freight trains up to the early 1990s? Meaning when Britian's railroads were packed with freight and passenger (I dunno, say 1870-1960) you had trains only braked by the locomotive and the brake-van, but by the time they even gave up on Speedlink and before we knewn EWS would help revitailze British rail-freight, they finally got brakes on all the wagons?!? Heck, you were the dudes who were supposed to be technologically superior to us in railway matters! Reminds me of a character in Mark Twain's "Life on the Mississippi" who complained when the Mississippi was full of steamboats it was unmarked, unlit, unchanneled and full of snags and rocks, but when the government finally got the river channeled, marked, lit, and cleared of obstacles for easy, safe navigation there wouldn't be a boat left on it...

Sir Ray wrote:Hmm, knuckle (or janney) couplers have some natural slack in them - indeed there are plenty of descriptions of engineers in North American practice slowly taking the slack of the train, and various situations where this is desirable/not so desirable.
Hmm, so you had unbraked freight trains up to the early 1990s? Meaning when Britian's railroads were packed with freight and passenger (I dunno, say 1870-1960) you had trains only braked by the locomotive and the brake-van, but by the time they even gave up on Speedlink and before we knewn EWS would help revitailze British rail-freight, they finally got brakes on all the wagons?!? Heck, you were the dudes who were supposed to be technologically superior to us in railway matters! Reminds me of a character in Mark Twain's "Life on the Mississippi" who complained when the Mississippi was full of steamboats it was unmarked, unlit, unchanneled and full of snags and rocks, but when the government finally got the river channeled, marked, lit, and cleared of obstacles for easy, safe navigation there wouldn't be a boat left on it...

Speeds have increased since the 1980s, so has the usage. There are more trains now than there ever have been before. In fact several lines are near to the maximum possible.

george matthews wrote:Speeds have increased since the 1980s, so has the usage. There are more trains now than there ever have been before. In fact several lines are near to the maximum possible.

You know, I have read that, and passenger trainloads are nearing an all time high (freight apparently is doing better too - this is why I targetted the early pre-privatization period, when, from what I read, things didn't look as promising.
Now, speaking of lines maxing out, is the UK government still pushing that plan from either last year or early this year, to shut down lines which don't meet some level of service?

Sir Ray wrote:

george matthews wrote:Speeds have increased since the 1980s, so has the usage. There are more trains now than there ever have been before. In fact several lines are near to the maximum possible.

You know, I have read that, and passenger trainloads are nearing an all time high (freight apparently is doing better too - this is why I targetted the early pre-privatization period, when, from what I read, things didn't look as promising.
Now, speaking of lines maxing out, is the UK government still pushing that plan from either last year or early this year, to shut down lines which don't meet some level of service?

It's hard to say. The present Transport Secretary is Alastair Darling, a very grey man who has authorised almost nothing, and has cancelled a number of projects. His main brief is to get costs down. Since privatisation the costs of everything have rocketed. The cost to the tax payer is much more than it was under BR.

It may be that talk of closures was shock therapy.

BR was an arms-length organisation like the BBC. That is, it negotiated its money and was then fairly free with what it did. Professionals got on with it. BR was very good at controlling costs. The present system is very poor at it. Gradually Network Rail is getting costs down by getting rid of sub-contractors and doing the work itself.

Darling has mentioned building a High Speed Line to the North. This is needed to cope with the increasing demand. But the government has turned down the Central Railway, which would be a continental sized freight line from the Tunnel to the north. The promoters say it could be financed entirely by private finacne (like the bankrupt Tunnel).

However, everyone thinks fares are going to continue to rise. I seldom take the train now, because unless I can get a good deal I take the coach.

Gradually Network Rail is getting costs down by getting rid of sub-contractors and doing the work itself.

Sadly Mr. Matthews, whilst Network Rail would like everyone to believe this image, the truth is far different.

Network Rail is badly run, poorly managed, and lacks true railway managerial experience in key positions.

It is totally incapable of managing even the smallest of infrastructure projects through sheer incompetence, and inexperience.

Whilst the public statements suggest that track maintenance costs have been reduced by taking maintenance 'in-house', the truth is that the savings accrue only from NOT undertaking infrastructure maintenance.

Those of us in the know, are already aware that on unit cost, Network Rail cannot produce the same volume, nor the quality of work, that used to be produced by the Contractors.

Those who used to make the Contractors lives hell, are now the very ones who are learning rapidly that track quality and infrastructure reliability is much harder to achieve than sitting at endless meetings shouting at the poor old Contractor's engineer.

UKrailwayman wrote:Sadly Mr. Matthews, whilst Network Rail would like everyone to believe this image, the truth is far different.

Network Rail is badly run, poorly managed, and lacks true railway managerial experience in key positions.

Argghh! Don't tell me another cock-up covered up by obfuscation and misdirection!
Your Tony Blair seems to have been infected by our Dear Leader's 'reverse Midas Touch' (the propensity for every thing he touches to turn to crap).
Just bring back British Rail, perferrably in the attractive dark Blue Scheme (although didn't they have a nice Dark Green scheme before that one).