Jump to content

Talk:GWR steam rail motors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article

[edit]

I don't know enough about GWR steam railmotors to write an article so I've put up this Redirect page as a temporary measure until somebody else does. Biscuittin 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition needed

[edit]

BR Western Region in the 1950s and to 1963 and no doubt the GWR used the term "railmotor" to mean an autotrain, i.e. a steam locomotive and a driving trailer (and possibly other trailers). For example all the Chalford to Gloucester stopping trains (14XX plus auto-trailer) were marked Railmotor in the WTT. I don't recognise some of the terminology in this article.

Phillips, in the authoritative book, The Story of the Westbury to Weymouth Line, OPC, says on page 20: "Other halts [were opened] ... and finally Thornford Bridge (23rd March 1936) and the to cater for the new halts the railmotor service was extended from Dorchester to Maiden Newton." This Wikipedia article says that all railmotors were out of service by 1935.

I don't know whether this article intends to cover that variant, but if not there needs to be a statement at the head of the article referring to the term being used for other kinds of vehicle. If I had the reference book I would do it myself. Afterbrunel (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chalford-Gloucester service was definitely worked by steam railmotors (SRMs) at first, because some of the better books on SRMs show that the first two SRMs were built for that route. One of the RCTS books on the GWR (it may be part 11) shows that the GWR's public timetables showed something like "Rail motor service - one class only" for services that were operated by a loco plus auto-trailer, as well as those which were operated by a true SRM. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

[edit]

@Redrose64: - my copies of Trains in Trouble are all out on loan at the moment. Could you add in the year from Vol 1 please? Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says 1937 but that's very doubtful, because the last withdrawals were in 1935. Either it wasn't 1937, or it wasn't a SRM in that accident. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: This is the accident. But it wasn't a GWR SRM; from books like
  • Lewis, John (1991). Great Western Auto Trailers - Part One: Pre-Grouping Vehicles. Didcot: Wild Swan. pp. 197–200. ISBN 0-906867-99-1.
  • Lewis, John (1995). Great Western Auto Trailers - Part Two: Post-Grouping and Absorbed Vehicles. Didcot: Wild Swan. p. 312. ISBN 1-874103-25-9.
I see that it was a GWR auto-trailer, no. 211 (Diagram A31). This had been rebuilt in August 1935 from SRM no. 81 (Diagram Q1); it was repaired after the accident, and wasn't withdrawn until March 1959. The photo shows the "inner" end (Diagram A31 was unusual in retaining small-size windows of the former engine-compartment cab, now the luggage compartment, at this end), so when the accident occurred, it was presumably being propelled by a small loco (such as a 48xx, 54xx or 64xx), which seems to have been uncoupled before the photo was taken.
  • Mitchell, Victor E.; Smith, Keith (April 2000). Ealing to Slough. Western Main Lines. Midhurst: Middleton Press. map IV, figs. 9, 10. ISBN 1-901706-42-7.
The signalbox concerned was at the eastern end of Ealing Broadway station, between the tracks serving platforms 2 and 3 (see this photo: follow the line of the fence away from the camera, and just behind that sign saying "4 5 6" is a low hut. That hut is where the signal box used to be); and the siding concerned was beyond it - it was used for stabling the Greenford branch train between trips. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, an ex-SRM then. Does the entry fir better under the autotrailer aritcle? Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is for SRMs autocoaches have their own space! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GWR steam rail motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GWR steam rail motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GWR steam rail motors running round - reverted edit

[edit]

I changed this article only to have my change reverted by User:Redrose64. It read The vehicles could be driven from either end, so time was not lost in running round at terminals. After my edit it read The vehicles could be driven from either end, so time was not lost in turning the vehicle at terminals. As I understand it (as a former railway employee) running round involves detaching an engine from a train, driving it along a passing loop and then re-attaching it to the other end of the train. In short, a running round maneuver is performed by an engine attached to wagons or coaches. The term running round makes no sense in the context of a rail motor, which is a single self-propelled carriage. If someone can explain to me how you run round a rail motor please do so otherwise I will re-instate my edit. (By the time I do revert to my edit my IP might have changed so I will refer to any earlier IP address). 81.141.186.58 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't run round railmotors. Nor do you turn them. That's the point.
These early railmotors were single coaches, sometimes usable for two coach trains. Such trains otherwise would be hauled by a small tank engine, not a tender engine. Which would need to run round, but not to be turned. So turning is a false comparison. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of splitting hairs, why not say "The vehicles could be driven from either end, so time was not lost in running round or turning the vehicle at terminals".

--Roly (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because a single self-propelled carriage can't ever run round itself. Why suggest the impossible. Unencyclopedic?

81.141.186.58 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't run round railmotors. Nor do you turn them. That's the point. I know and so does Redrose64 judging by his edit. The disagreement is whether a rail car has a cab at both ends to obviate turning, or to obviate running round. The term 'running round' makes no sense in the context of a GWR steam rail motor, which is a single self-propelled carriage, as is clear in the first photo in the article. If a rail car was to have only one cab then it would need to be turned otherwise the driver's signal visibility would be a problem. BTW, at the risk of going off topic, small tender engines could, and were use on short trains, at least in British practice, and sometimes they were operated tender first.81.141.186.58 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the word "not" is used. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Roly - because it's a false comparison to suggest that the vehicle might otherwise be turned. These were short trains. Short trains (that aren't railmotors) aren't hauled by locos which need to be turned. As .58 also notes, small tender locos (like a Dean goods might be used, and they weren't turned either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is going off topic. I made the change to the article because a single self-propelled carriage can't ever run round itself. So far no one has offered an explanation. Why? Because a single self-propelled carriage can't ever run round itself! 81.141.186.58 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before the railmotors, for services other than those using the railmotors, these services would have been operated by small tank engines, such as the 517 (and this all pre-dates the autocoaches). These needed to run round their trains. Using a railmotor instead of a 517 avoided the need to run round. This is the comparison at issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, Andy. That was the whole basis of my revert. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GWR_steam_rail_motors&oldid=1202520566"