Operations of the Waterloo-Exeter 50s (and loco diagramming in general)

[HOOVER29]

I photo'd 50007 leading D400 on a 1Zxx (time?) Waterloo to Exeter on 28-6-92, although can't see much of D400 as a 442 was keeping pace on the DSL!

Nope, guess again....
Also snapped a drag in early March 92, 6X55, 22//00 (9th) from Laira to St Leonards, 47361 hauling 027+031 in to the world of preservation.

I had 50007 to Waterloo from Exeter & then back just after lunch with D400 in 1992
Was window hanging enjoying the ride & some chub nicked my seat & moved my bags.
As he was twice the size of me I decided not to make too much of it, just staring at him when I felt like.
He bailed at Basingstoke so took the seat back for the journey to Exeter.

Great days though

 

[norbitonflyer]

Each division on the Southern had it's own head codes,

Indeed, the two historic parts of the Soiuth eastern Division (SER and LCDR) diuplicated some headcodes. 70 was both a Charing Cross-dartford service (via bexleyheath if memory serves) and the Victoria- Orpington service

 

[30907]

Indeed, the two historic parts of the Soiuth eastern Division (SER and LCDR) diuplicated some headcodes. 70 was both a Charing Cross-dartford service (via bexleyheath if memory serves) and the Victoria- Orpington service

Indeed - at Chislehurst Junction box a 90 could be Victoria-Gillingham or Margate-Charing Cross, but of course on separate tracks.

 

[Taunton]

Indeed - at Chislehurst Junction box a 90 could be Victoria-Gillingham or Margate-Charing Cross, but of course on separate tracks.

A generation ago it was pointed out that there could be in theory four trains approaching London Bridge, in parallel, with the same code - although one was an EMU "naval special from Portsmouth to Chatham", going via London Bridge to reverse.

 

[nw1]

Indeed, the two historic parts of the Soiuth eastern Division (SER and LCDR) diuplicated some headcodes. 70 was both a Charing Cross-dartford service (via bexleyheath if memory serves) and the Victoria- Orpington service

I found the patterns for the headcodes on the Chatham part of the South Eastern Division not so obvious, especially compared to the SER side which seemed quite logical.

Why for example was Dover via Faversham 30 for the fasts and 37 for the slows, while Ramsgate via Faversham was 50 for the fasts and 55 for the slows?

Back on the South Western I'm not sure why there was a need for the main and Windsor sides to have their own headcodes because there appeared to be enough headcodes to cover both divisions in one scheme.

 

[30907]

Why for example was Dover via Faversham 30 for the fasts and 37 for the slows, while Ramsgate via Faversham was 50 for the fasts and 55 for the slows?

I can't find a source for the "slow" headcodes (less-used ones changed relatively often)

Back on the South Western I'm not sure why there was a need for the main and Windsor sides to have their own headcodes because there appeared to be enough headcodes to cover both divisions in one scheme.

I don't recall any duplication in the suburban area, do you have an example?

 

[zwk500]

I can't find a source for the "slow" headcodes (less-used ones changed relatively often)

I don't recall any duplication in the suburban area, do you have an example?

By no means exhaustive, https://sremg.org.uk/headcodes/eheadcodes.html may help fill in some gaps

 

[Taunton]

Although the train headcodes were longstanding, it is surprising that the box-to-box signalling arrangements seemed unable to handle them, so the signalman were invariably setting the route before they could see it. The Lewisham accident in 1957 started off with misunderstanding which train was which, and actually stopping the train ahead to ask what it was, as the detail shown on the train describers was different and more summarised that the train headcodes - they were just *Main line electric" and such like. Elsewhere traditional signalbox bell codes were used.

 

[Gloster]

Although the train headcodes were longstanding, it is surprising that the box-to-box signalling arrangements seemed unable to handle them, so the signalman were invariably setting the route before they could see it. The Lewisham accident in 1957 started off with misunderstanding which train was which, and actually stopping the train ahead to ask what it was, as the detail shown on the train describers was different and more summarised that the train headcodes - they were just *Main line electric" and such like. Elsewhere traditional signalbox bell codes were used.

The Southern had three sets of ‘Alternative Bell Codes’ that provided more information. At my first box we were sent the standard bell code for trains up the main, but the first alternative was used for anything round the branch: 3-1 was the standard for a Class 2, but 3-1-1-2 was used for a Class 2 going up the branch.

A quick read of the Lewisham reports suggests to me that the reason a Hastings diesel was held at Parks Bridge was that it was the second of two trains which were described from St Johns in the same window of the train describer. The signalman missed the second description, thought the train was to be swung across to go down the Mid-Kent line and had stopped it to send it that way, but was waiting a margin to get it across.

 

[nw1]

I can't find a source for the "slow" headcodes (less-used ones changed relatively often)

I used the 1996 timetable on Timetable World for my source. 4tph on the Chatham lines, headcodes 30, 37, 50 and 55. I've also seen photos of "55" on Ramsgate stoppers, I remember 30 being the Canterbury fast headcode from an in-person visit, and 37 (as used in the 1996 timetable) rings a bell from the same in-person visit for the stoppers.

I don't recall any duplication in the suburban area, do you have an example?

Not in the suburban area, but there is 87 which was, IIRC, the clockwise Hounslow circular as well as the Portsmouth-Wareham (in EMU days) or Salisbury (in DEMU days) stopper. The former belonged to the Windsor side while the latter was part of the "main" scheme.

So what I'm trying to say is that there seemed to be no need to use 87 for the Hounslow service when plenty of other headcodes were available. For example on the Windsor side we had 36-39 for Reading and 58 (plus theoretically 56, 57 and 59 too) for Windsor. This leaves (EDIT) some of the lower 30s (31, 33, 34) for example. unused, and, IIRC, in the 40s only 42 (Guildford via Cobham) was used.

 

[30907]

I used the 1996 timetable on Timetable World for my source. 4tph on the Chatham lines, headcodes 30, 37, 50 and 55. I've also seen photos of "55" on Ramsgate stoppers, I remember 30 being the Canterbury fast headcode from an in-person visit, and 37 (as used in the 1996 timetable) rings a bell from the same in-person visit for the stoppers.

Thanks. I left the SE in the mid-80s and back then the SED didn't have separate codes for fast and slow - at one extreme 74 could be the up Night Ferry or a semifast, both via Chatham (30 was Dover Priory BTW)..

Not in the suburban area, but there is 87 which was, IIRC, the clockwise Hounslow circular as well as the Portsmouth-Wareham (in EMU days) or Salisbury (in DEMU days) stopper. The former belonged to the Windsor side while the latter was part of the "main" scheme
So what I'm trying to say is that there seemed to be no need to use 87 for the Hounslow service when plenty of other headcodes were available. For example on the Windsor side we had 36-39 for Reading and 58 (plus theoretically 56, 57 and 59 too) for Windsor. This leaves the lower 30s and lower 50s unused, and, IIRC, in the 40s only 42 (Guildford via Cobham) was used.

SW suburban headcodes were, I agree, a bit less systematic than SE's, but they were long-standing and there was no reason to alter them.
SWD longer-distance codes were much more systematic: the Hampshire diesels had umpteen permutations of headcode originally, in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s (the SReMG site has a list for 1961); most of them fell out of use but that explains why they were done without worrying about 4-Subs at Waterloo.
(The 1967 revision gave the familiar 60s for Salisbury, 90s for Bournemouth and so on, on the same basis as the DEMUs, giving route and stopping pattern.)

 

[D6130]

IIRC, the South Western Division - and possibly the others too - tried to avoid having headcodes with the same two digits on routes diagrammed for 4-SUB units, to avoid the need to carry too many steel stencils in the cabs.

 

[jfollows]

IIRC, the South Western Division - and possibly the others too - tried to avoid having headcodes with the same two digits on routes diagrammed for 4-SUB units, to avoid the need to carry too many steel stencils in the cabs.

Which led to many DEMU-operated lines having headcodes as multiples of 11 because they had roller blinds for which it was no issue.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

IIRC, the South Western Division - and possibly the others too - tried to avoid having headcodes with the same two digits on routes diagrammed for 4-SUB units, to avoid the need to carry too many steel stencils in the cabs.

Great minds think alike. That came to mind whilst reading down the thread before I saw your reply. Yes, the SUB's only carried one set of stencils per cab, 0-9, although when one thinks about it, as a unit (two cabs) there were two sets of stencils aboard each unit, or at least, should have been. Knowing how a few drivers (in my old area) would depart the penultimate station en route in to London, then open up the off side window, lean out, and (try) to remove the stencils to place them back in the cab. Witnessed a fair few occasions when a driver's arm wasn't quite long enough, and with a 'bang' it was left to some of us to retrieve said items from the four foot at a convenient moment!

SW suburban codes (in my time) were not (AFAIR) duplicated, and over the entire patch, only so, if the area(s) concerned were under the control of completely different boxes. One exception (within the suburban area) I did note in 1993 was an STP additional service (one of several on the day concerned) from Waterloo to Windsor (Vep stock), in relation to rugby at Twickenham, which had been allocated 18 by the short term planners, technically still the Chessington code, although being mostly 455 operated perhaps deemed not so important?

 

[nw1]

Which led to many DEMU-operated lines having headcodes as multiples of 11 because they had roller blinds for which it was no issue.

Which even lasted into EMU days. The East Grinstead line, post-electrification, used 66 for Victoria and 77 to London Bridge - certainly in 1987 and 1988 (from in-person observation). I presume the practice carried on for as long as slammers operated the line.

By contrast, the Hastings line appeared to abandon 33 for Cannon Street post electrification and move to 23 (22 being from Charing Cross).

IIRC, the South Western Division - and possibly the others too - tried to avoid having headcodes with the same two digits on routes diagrammed for 4-SUB units, to avoid the need to carry too many steel stencils in the cabs.

Thinking about it I don't recall any "same two digits" routes on the South Western or Central inner suburban lines.

I think many (e.g. 44, 55, 66, 77) would have existed on the South Eastern suburban (edit: checked 1982 CWN, 44 and 77 were definitely used) but they didn't operate SUBs.

Great minds think alike. That came to mind whilst reading down the thread before I saw your reply. Yes, the SUB's only carried one set of stencils per cab, 0-9, although when one thinks about it, as a unit (two cabs) there were two sets of stencils aboard each unit, or at least, should have been. Knowing how a few drivers (in my old area) would depart the penultimate station en route in to London, then open up the off side window, lean out, and (try) to remove the stencils to place them back in the cab. Witnessed a fair few occasions when a driver's arm wasn't quite long enough, and with a 'bang' it was left to some of us to retrieve said items from the four foot at a convenient moment!

SW suburban codes (in my time) were not (AFAIR) duplicated, and over the entire patch, only so, if the area(s) concerned were under the control of completely different boxes. One exception (within the suburban area) I did note in 1993 was an STP additional service (one of several on the day concerned) from Waterloo to Windsor (Vep stock), in relation to rugby at Twickenham, which had been allocated 18 by the short term planners, technically still the Chessington code, although being mostly 455 operated perhaps deemed not so important?

Interesting - can you remember whether 18 was used for Windsors immediately before the introduction of the 455s (so we're talking 1982 or so)? I had it in my head that they were 58, though I never observed a Windsor service in person until after the 455s had been introduced.

Looking at that Waterloo photo, incidentally, with the NSE-liveried slammers (interesting to note a non-refurb VEP as late as 1993) makes it seem just like yesterday. For whatever reason it doesn't look "dated" at all, perhaps there's something in people's psychology which makes scenes from people's early adulthood never seem to "date". (By contrast, photos from the early 80s, my earliest days using the railway, do look a bit more bygone now. I think I still associate NSE with modernity!)

 

[Gloster]

11

Thinking about it I don't recall any "same two digits" routes on the South Western or Central inner suburban lines.

11 was the Brighton-Exeter, 55 the Reading-Tonbridge, with 88 for the opposite direction. Quite a few of the DEMU worked services to and through Salisbury were same two.

 

[nw1]

11


11 was the Brighton-Exeter, 55 the Reading-Tonbridge, with 88 for the opposite direction. Quite a few of the DEMU worked services to and through Salisbury were same two.

True, though I was talking about inner-suburban routes, confirming the theory of @jfollows that the double digits were allocated to the non-SUB routes. Apologies if this was unclear!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Interesting - can you remember whether 18 was used for Windsors immediately before the introduction of the 455s

As said above, that instance of using '18' on a Windsor, was purely a one off (day wise) for additional services run in connection with rugby at Twickers. It follows that at around that time, the same may have applied on other dates when there were matches played there. As far as service trains to Windsor were concerned, my only memory is of '58' being the HC, as per the attached I took in '81.

On checking a couple of Middleton Press books, there is evidence to say 18 was used for (some?) Windsor service trains (before my time), and (also) possibly as late as 1988, but the latter pic is not specifically identified by day/month or train, so can't be sure. One has to remember that with age (me) and the nature of timetable data changing twice a year (for most of my career), it is easy to forget/not remember most of what one did week in and week out, without the necessary documents as back up!
Section WH of the WTT would answer this question, but that is not something I ever kept.

 

[jfollows]

The only WH I have are from different years, but I attach the headcode data from the May 1978 WH and the September 1992 WH anyway.
The earlier one gives headcodes for Rugby at Twickenham as

• 23 via Richmond
• 25 via Brentford Central
• 22 via Kingston

58 was Waterloo to Windsor via Richmond in both timetables.

 

[Taunton]

Yes, the SUB's only carried one set of stencils per cab, 0-9

Presumably only 0-8 were needed as long as 69 and 96 were not used ...

 

[Big Jumby 74]

58 was Waterloo to Windsor via Richmond in both timetables.

Thanks, that does confirm my aged memory may be correct, certainly through those years you mention and until 455's took over (for cab front display purposes of this discussion). I do have some of the Waterloo Station departure books for 1993 and later, and 58 is uniformly the HC on the Windsor departures. Still minded to think 18 was only used on the WL side for STP purposes, but not in the base plan. It may have been part of the latter in previous years (60's etc), but I can't comment on that.
In more generic terms it shouldn't be forgotten, that quite often details of a specific (date) timetable change did often change year to year, HC's included, and so whilst we (in a general sense) often remember that which applied for most of the time that we were involved, professionally or otherwise, it's not to say that other variations didn't apply at some point in time.
Gloster may appreciate this, but in my old box, we collected the old SUB stencils dropped by those more buttered fingered of drivers, and last I knew they were jammed between various rattling water pipes and the wall (to stop the rattling). No idea if they survived when we closed for the last time, although have a feeling they may have found their way in to 'preservation'.....

Presumably only 0-8 were needed as long as 69 and 96 were not used

Good point. Rode up front on SUB's on a very few occasions, but couldn't comment on the allocation of '6'/'9' stencils to each unit.

 

[nw1]

Thanks, that does confirm my aged memory may be correct, certainly through those years you mention and until 455's took over (for cab front display purposes of this discussion). I do have some of the Waterloo Station departure books for 1993 and later, and 58 is uniformly the HC on the Windsor departures. Still minded to think 18 was only used on the WL side for STP purposes, but not in the base plan. It may have been part of the latter in previous years (60's etc), but I can't comment on that.

"Departure books" - what are these? Just curious, haven't seen such a document before. What info do they contain?

As said above, that instance of using '18' on a Windsor, was purely a one off (day wise) for additional services run in connection with rugby at Twickers. It follows that at around that time, the same may have applied on other dates when there were matches played there. As far as service trains to Windsor were concerned, my only memory is of '58' being the HC, as per the attached I took in '81.

On checking a couple of Middleton Press books, there is evidence to say 18 was used for (some?) Windsor service trains (before my time), and (also) possibly as late as 1988, but the latter pic is not specifically identified by day/month or train, so can't be sure. One has to remember that with age (me) and the nature of timetable data changing twice a year (for most of my career), it is easy to forget/not remember most of what one did week in and week out, without the necessary documents as back up!
Section WH of the WTT would answer this question, but that is not something I ever kept.

Interesting photo, of a time (just) before my experiences on the South Western and with plenty of BR Blue on offer which makes it look considerably older than your 1993 photo. Nonetheless features two classes or subclasses gone from the South Western by my day, more or less, the SUB of course (though I did see one from a distance in late '82 and saw some ECS SUBs on withdrawal in '83), and an unrefurbished SR-style 2EPB, which were gone by my day from the South Western. All 2EPBs on the SW that I saw were of the BR variety. In fact I don't think I ever saw any unrefurbished SR-style 2EPB, though I saw plenty of the refurbished examples in the 63xx range in the second half of the 80s.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

"Departure books" - what are these? Just curious, haven't seen such a document before. What info do they contain?

These were produced by an in house department, the basic information, stock type, platform number, train arrival/departure at each turn round location: ie Waterloo, being derived from the CWN's during Proof stage. The Departure books were produced for most major stations, so the likes of Woking, Basingstoke, Guildford, Southampton etc etc, and in addition to the information derived from the Proof CWN's (which only showed turn round locations, or locations where splits and attachments took place), they also showed all departure times/calling points of every service (at all those locations they were produced for) and so there was a vast amount of compilation work (info from CWN's. timetables, signal box platform simplifiers etc) to be taken in to account to produce these. Each station so issued with received their own bespoke documents, there was no 'one, all stations book' (AFAIK).
So if you imagine all the departure info on the old departure boards at Guildford (times/platforms/calling points etc) all that info will have been collated by the production department concerned from those other sources mentioned (amongst others) and put in to one (or three to be exact, SX, SO and SUN) booklets, that were then distributed to Guildford, and any others associated interested parties. Ditto for all other major stations/interested parties in relation to their own location(s).
To look at, the pages resembled the CWN pages, but with far more 'passenger' related info included for the benefit of station staff, whereas the CWN's (and WTT's) were essentially operational documents in their own rights.

The only WH I have are from different years,

Noted from your attachment that 18 did apply in base plan on both Main (Chessington) and Windsor (Weybridge via Richmond) sides, so I stand corrected. As said, passage of time, brain fog, age...(any more excuses on a postage stamp please....)

 

[30907]

The duplication between Main and Windsor Lines (alao 17, Weybridge via Brentford) is rather surprising, and goes back pre WW2 (the 1939-48 list on SReMG has a couple more) - I wonder why it happened? And it makes nw1's point upthread!