A week in the UK on random rails

[cirdan]

As you discovered, the H&C platforms are effectively part of Paddington main line station, and give you an excellent first-hand illustration of how the GWR ran broad gauge trains on to the Met in the early years. If you have the time, it’s the nicest way of getting further east to Kings Cross etc - especially with the air-conditioned S-stock.

Not just in the early years . The great western influence outlasted the broad gauge . Right up until nationalization in 1948 the Hammersmith branch was part of the Great Western. Only it was electrified and London Transport ran their trains on it . But the great western also ran a limited number of trains of their own (mostly freight) . Then at nationalization it was decided the line made more sense as integral and official part of the London Underground and ownership was transferred .

The great western was also intermeshed with the London Underground in other ways . For example the great western ran freights at night that used the connecting track at paddington and ran to moorgate from where they served the abbatoire and vegetable markets. I think this continued until the 1960s or possibly even 1970s . The locations of done of the freight sidings are still visible today . And of course London Underground turned to the great western or its successor , British Rail western Region for second hand steam locos for maintenance trans and switching duties . These were ex great western pannier tanks , the last of which was not retired until 1971

The influence went both ways . For example in the 1930s tue Great Western introduced diesel railcars in an attempt to provide services between city pairs on which a full length train would not have been viable . Later railcars from the same manufacturer and if similar overall design were acquired for light branch line Service . These were ordered from AEC in Southall whose chief activity was making buses and trucks and who at the time were an arm‘s length subsidiary of London Transport

Disclaimer , all this is from memory and what various people have told me over the years and I have not fact checked all of it .

 

[JontyMort]

The great western was also intermeshed with the London Underground in other ways . For example the great western ran freights at night that used the connecting track at paddington and ran to moorgate from where they served the abbatoire and vegetable markets. I think this continued until the 1960s or possibly even 1970s . The locations of some of the freight sidings are still visible today.

There was quite a maze of connections just to the east of what is now the Thameslink line south of Farringdon, serving Smithfield [meat] market, as you say. I’m not sure who else had running powers, but almost certainly the Midland, Great Northern, and the London Chatham & Dover. The general policy was to be as nasty as possible to the London & North Western.
A lot of this historic stuff was hidden by the rebuilding of Thameslink thirty years ago, but much probably survives.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Right up until nationalization in 1948 the Hammersmith branch was part of the Great Western. Only it was electrified and London Transport ran their trains on it . But the great western also ran a limited number of trains of their own (mostly freight) . Then at nationalization it was decided the line made more sense as integral and official part of the London Underground and ownership was transferred .

There are other places on the current Underground where something like this happened. For example the Eastern end of the District Line out to Upminster was owned by the London Tilbury and Southend which later became part of the Midland Railway, then the LMS after the 1923 Grouping, then BR in 1948. I believe it was around the time of electrification of the LT&S in 1960-1962 that the whole system was rationalized and connections between the Underground and LT&S lines severed and the lines passed to ownership by what is now TfL.

Back in the day there were through seaside specials to Southend that ran from I believe Ealing Broadway over the District to Barking where the LT&S took over. They used electric locos pulling standard mainline railway compartment stock, switching to steam at Barking.

 

[jis]

The influence went both ways . For example in the 1930s tue Great Western introduced diesel railcars in an attempt to provide services between city pairs on which a full length train would not have been viable . Later railcars from the same manufacturer and if similar overall design were acquired for light branch line Service . These were ordered from AEC in Southall whose chief activity was making buses and trucks and who at the time were an arm‘s length subsidiary of London Transport

Is that the original of the idea of placing bus bodies on two rail axles on rails and calling them Pacers, for use on light branches, that came about later?

 

[jis]

On thing that was different this time is that Apple Pay is accepted more universally than it was in the past. I literally never had to get my credit card out for anything. For that matter I did not even have to pull my phone out to make any payment. Everything was handled through my Apple Watch, which was incredibly convenient.

Interestingly, I was able to get access to Fast Track at Heathrow Security, get into the United Club at Heathrow and board the flight at the boarding gate, all using just my Apple Watch too, which actually surprised me. I completely accidentally discovered that if I place by Boarding Card in the Apple Wallet it shows up on the Watch too. and the QR readers are actually able to read it off the face of the Watch!

Of course, where Passport is required I had to pull it out.

 

[cirdan]

Is that the original of the idea of placing bus bodies on two rail axles on rails and calling them Pacers, for use on light branches, that came about later?

The AEC railcars had little in common with the pacers. They ran on proper trucks / bogies and were quite comfortable. The direct inspiration came from the German high speed railcars that were doing some quite amazing things at the time and were very much ahead of their time. The early AEC railcars were first class only and had a bar at one end and there was also a steward who would serve passengers drinks and refesthments at their seats. Food was prepared in a small pantry located behind the bar. Passengers were seated in armchair-like seats that were much more comfortable than anything you can find on an airliner today, and the windows were very large to allow panoramic viewing, including of the line ahead by looking over the engineer's shoulder. Like their German equivalents, they were streamlined (more as an aesthetic statement than out of necessity) and built for high comfort, with various measures being in place to minimise noise and vibration from the underfloor diesel engines. So it was quite the opposite of a pacer really. The AEC railcars were designed to pamper businessmen and other who would pay high end fares on journeys of maybe one to maximum three hours. The GWR ran these railcars between city pairs that at the time were not considered to warrant regular trains, but in reality the demand for these trains was so high that they were in many cases replaced by classical steam trains after only a few years. The railcars were then taken out of service and rebuilt and refitted for local and branch line service. The later cars came to these services directly. Modifications included removal of the bar and pantry, fitting of third class seating at higher density etc.

The direct inspiration for the Pacer on the other hand can be found in earlier designs on British rail of the late 1950s that in turn were inspired by the German railcars that similarly had two axles and were designed to provide low cost service on marginal and peripheral branch lines. The most famous of these was the Uerdingen type. Like the pacers these were spartan in construction and designed to slow the decline of the lines on which they were deployed (by being cheap) rather than actually grow services (by being comfortable). So they were the opposite of the AEC railcars in many respects. If you want to go further bank and trace the idea's ancestry there are several earlier examples, maybe the most notable of which were various contraptions of the 1920s and 1930s, including the Wismar rail bus and various French and German attempts to put rail wheels under buses and trucks.

The idea didn't die with the Pacer of course and hardly a year goes by that some smart but misguided wannabe doesn't propose building a low cost train using the same or essentially similar principles, and many such inventors have sunk vast sums of money into actually building prototypes. Often these turned out to be wonderful solutions direly in need of a problem.

Which is why I think studying history should be a part of any engineering course.

 

[Willbridge]

1971 in a really small town in Germany.


One good feature: leaning over the lokführer's shoulder.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Those German railbuses were still in use in my 1977 trip

 

[cirdan]

I think they ran on well into the 1980s and a handful possibly into the 1990s . Several survive in museums . Some second hand ones went to Uruguay where they lasted till the late 1990s I believe . Uerdingen also supplied very similar vehicles to Spain including some gangwayed three car versions . One of these got converted to an inspection unit and wasn’t retired until very recently .

 

[jis]

All that I remember about the Pacers is that they bucked like a Horse in heat on the excellent (not!) trackage of the Branch Lines.

 

[cirdan]

The pacers came to be because the then management of British rail were unable to convince the government to give them enough money to replace the DMU fleet dating from the 1960s . So they settled for a low cost design courtesy of some snake oil salesmen at BREL and Leyland Bus. Development began in the late 1970s when the first of several prototypes was launched amidst a lot of press hubris claiming this was the innovative train of tomorrow and all the people who don’t share that view are firmly stuck in the past . The early prototypes paired a bus body with a modified freight car chassis . One of these prototypes even visited the US for demonstration runs in ca 1981 with MBTA and Amtrak and later also SEPTA

 

[jis]

The early prototypes paired a bus body with a modified freight car chassis . One of these prototypes even visited the US for demonstration runs in ca 1981 with MBTA and Amtrak and later also SEPTA

It sure was high quality snake oil of the first order. Specially trying to sell it in the US as a main line thing was the height of craziness. How do you get one of those to pass the FRA 800,000lb buff strength test?

 

[cirdan]

It sure was high quality snake oil of the first order. Specially trying to sell it in the US as a main line thing was the height of craziness. How do you get one of those to pass the FRA 800,000lb buff strength test?

To be fair, Stadler had much the same problem, for example on the Denton A-train, where the problem was solved by temporal separation of passenger and freight operations.

 

[jis]

To be fair, Stadler had much the same problem, for example on the Denton A-train, where the problem was solved by temporal separation of passenger and freight operations.

As I said LRT application. That is what temporal separation is. Denton was not the first. It was pioneered by NJT on the River Line with Stadler more than a decade before Denton. Denton just used the protocols developed for the River Line in NJ.

Not just freight but even regular main line passenger service was not allowed to be operated mixed with light rail Stadler style passenger service. Since then new Stadler equipment have been upgraded to meet the new Tier III specs. So on really new lines using such equipment temporal separation should not be required any more.

 

[Voxish]

Paddington station and the different underground platforms there. I got burned by that on a business trip in 2004 when I arrived at Paddington having taken the Heathrow Express planning to ride the Circle Line to my hotel near Liverpool St. Except that it was a Sunday and the Circle was shut down for engineering work. No problem I'll just take the Hammersmith and City. But now I found I was at the wrong platform but the staff was understanding and directed me to the H&C which seemed about a mile away . In retrospect I could have taken the Bakerloo to the Central line. But I really wanted to ride the original 1863 portion the world's first metro which I had never been on at that point.

Rookie error! Yes it's a complete PITA, Paddington is a sprawling station - and even though I actually drove trains on the Hammersmith City & Circle lines (based at Baker St) I've also been caught out with this.

Just a tip, if you can't get the through Elisabeth line service and are dumped at Paddington heading for Euston Sq or Kings Cross it's generally better (although a hike) as you did, to find the H&C platform rather than the Circle/District because there, eastbound (clockwise aka 'outer rail') trains all terminate at Edgware Road and you often have to negotiate the footbridge.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Just a tip, if you can't get the through Elisabeth line service and are dumped at Paddington heading for Euston Sq or Kings Cross it's generally better (although a hike) as you did, to find the H&C platform rather than the Circle/District because there, eastbound (clockwise aka 'outer rail') trains all terminate at Edgware Road and you often have to negotiate the footbridge.

Yes, with the new "non-circular" Circle arrangement you would have to use the H&C platform if you wanted to ride clockwise beyond Edgeware Road.

 

[jis]

Yes, with the new "non-circular" Circle arrangement you would have to use the H&C platform if you wanted to ride clockwise beyond Edgeware Road.

The way I see it, you get to choose where you want to do the walking. If the H&C platform is used at Paddington, you do all the walking in Paddington. If you change at Edgeware Road, you do a much shorter walk at Paddington, and a short walk and possibly a climb up and down to cross tracks at Edgeware Road, and some additional time for the change. Since I have a minor walking issue when long walks are involved I prefer the latter. At the end of the day it is whatever works the best for each individual. Of course this particular analysis is valid only if you are starting from the Praed St. end of Paddington.

 

[Voxish]

Correct - it's not as straightforward as most routes in central London.