Autotrains

[ModelerXYZ]

Were GWR autotrains kept permanantly coupled? Does anyone know? XYZ

[Going Spare]

Very unlikely, I would have thought, because the locomotive would need greater and different servicing to the coach(es) on a daily basis.

[What About The Bee]

Hi @ModelerXYZ

I thought, at first, that they would necessarily be decoupled for loading and uploading.  Autotrain pictures show automobiles entering and exiting from the ends of the autotrain car, not the sides.  Meaning that each autotrain car was decoupled and loaded individually.

But then I considered that the automobiles could (possibly) drive across from one autotrain car to the next, meaning that the autotrain cars would not need to be decoupled from each other.  This would require ramps from one autotrain car to the next.

And then I wondered if automobiles would drive off the autotrain car in forward drive, not reverse, meaning that the locomotive, at a minimum, would be decoupled to permit this unload.

From a logistics standpoint, I just do not the word "permanent" can be applied in a strict sense.  Even if is only to drive on to the consist, traveling from autotrain car to autotrain car; they cannot reverse off of the autotrain that way.  They must get off the distal end from where they got on.

[Preparing myself to be firmly corrected for idle speculation 🙂]

Bee

[Going Spare]

@bee   In the U.K, the word "Autotrain" was often used to describe a train, usually a tank locomotive and one coach working a branch line, where the coach incorporated a driving cab at one end so that when the locomotive was propelling the coach, the fireman stayed on the locomotive but the driver moved to the coach driving cab and was able to control the locomotive from that cab, removing the need for the locomotive to run round the coach at each terminus.   

[What About The Bee]

Thanks @Going Sparefor letting me know.

 

[96RAF]

Such auto-trains could at a maximum have 2 coaches either end of a central loco.

@What About The Bee is more likely thinking of Motorail trains, where cars would be driven onto one end via an oblique ramp, promenading thru' the train to exit at a similar ramp at the other end at the destination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail_(British_Rail)

 

[Kristian-353752]

The Plymouth - Saltash auto service changed its formation during the day depending on load need. Some services were 2 coaches (loco then 2 coaches), others were 4 coaches (2 coaches - loco - 2 coaches). The loco would have come off the coaches for servicing. 

[81F]

Autocoaches were certainly uncoupled for the reasons given above and also if the loco was needed for another use (e.g. freight). The loco would also need to be uncoupled to run round if a non Auto fitted coach was tacked onto the end of the train.

I recall reading one of Harold Gasson's books about his time as a GWR fireman in which he mentions that in addition to uncoupling the usual coupling, vacuum and steam heating pipes, the fireman would also have to uncouple a whistle change. Failure to do this would result in a peep from the loco whistle as the chain broke. He did specvulate that this was a fairly common occurrence because of the number of photographs he had seen with bits of string holding the two ends of the chain together! 

If you do not know already the reason for the maximum of two coaches from the loco was that the apparatus (which I believe just controlled the regulator was mechanical and it would have been too heavy to operate with more coaches. In addition to the regulator I understand the only other control aside from the whistle, was the vacuum break which worked by simply allowing air into the system (so no linkage involved). However, this did mean that the fireman had to look after the reverser  (which was not just for reversing the loco but controlled the cut-off point for steam entering the cylinders).

Interestingly, RAFs photo shows a small prairie in an Auto train formation, however these locos were not Auto fitted until after nationalisation.