Coupling Locos

[Beacon]

Hi All,

 

Sorry if this is an obvious question but can any locomotive class/type be coupled to any other?

 

I think I know that to actually work in multiple there are certain restrictions but when it comes to, for example, hauling a dead loco or similar does it matter? I have seen some photos of unusual combinations when preserved locos are being moved ready for open days etc.

 

The reason for asking is that I'd like to be as accurate as possible when running model trains and wouldn't want to couple up something that in real life just wouldn't be possible!

 

Thanks to anyone who is able to shed any light!

[Gordon A]

Hi Peter,

 

Any steam loco can be coupled to any other steam loco.

 

In very simple terms diesels and other modern boxes providing they have the same couplings can be coupled together, but unless being shunted they should have the same train brake system so that the lead engine can apply the brakes on the following dead engines.

 

However if you are talking of boxes working in multiple then not only couplings but the train braking sysytems must be compatible, ie air or vacum braked.

 

Multiple working with one driver in charge of the two or more boxes requires that the locos have compatible control systems with multiple unit cables to connect the control systems together.

 

Working boxes with each having its own driver, but both connected to the train braking system is also.

 

I hope this is of some help, but hopefully someone else will give you a more definitive reply.

 

Gordon

['CHARD]

Hi, the devil in the detail of this is in the locos' control systems. Any can couple and apply power (i.e. as steam/ diesel combos) if driven by separate crews - that is, driven/ controlled in tandem. To control both or all locos in a consist from the cab of the leading loco, all locos in multiple have to share the same coupling code.

 

Diesel-electrics with electro-pneumatic control: Blue Star (Peaks, 40s, 24/25/26/27, 31/1&4, 23, 21, 33, 37, 20, 15, 8588-8616)

Diesel-electrics with electro-magnetic control: Red circle (31/0, 28, 29, 16)

Diesel-hydraulics 600-4, 6300-5: Orange square

Diesel-hydraulics 803-70, 6306-57: White diamond

Hymeks: Yellow triangle

Claytons up to 8587: Red diamond

 

Someone later invented classes like 56s etc, but they're unknown to me, I think 58s re-used one of the obsolete symbols like green (trom)bone or summat.

[DavidBelcher]

 

Someone later invented classes like 56s etc, but they're unknown to me, I think 58s re-used one of the obsolete symbols like green (trom)bone or summat.

 

56s re-used the red diamond as per the Claytons, whilst 50s were coded with an orange square. Dunno about 58s but may well also have been red diamonds.

 

David

[70022Tornado]

Hi All,

 

Sorry if this is an obvious question but can any locomotive class/type be coupled to any other?

 

I think I know that to actually work in multiple there are certain restrictions but when it comes to, for example, hauling a dead loco or similar does it matter? I have seen some photos of unusual combinations when preserved locos are being moved ready for open days etc.

 

The reason for asking is that I'd like to be as accurate as possible when running model trains and wouldn't want to couple up something that in real life just wouldn't be possible!

 

Thanks to anyone who is able to shed any light!

 

Restrictions as to what might be coupled together were also governed by weight restrictions.

 

IIRC the "Crumlin" viaduct was one engine only ! I am sure there were others.

 

70022Tornado

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It is even possible to have a steam and diesel worked train. All the photographs I have seen of such workings in the UK have the diesel inside, but I have never looked into whether this was by rule or simply coincidence. The examples come from the introduction of diesels in the UK, so the braking system would be vacuum.

[Poor Old Bruce]

I've posted this before under different topics but in the bitter winter of 1963, when diesel boilers were frost damaged, I once saw a peak coming into Derby off the West Road with a Mickey Mouse 2-6-0 coupled inside to provide the train heating.

 

Richard

['CHARD]

I think I'm correct in recalling that the Heysham - Elsewhere tanks were double-headed by a 9F (inside) topped by a BR-Sulzer Type 2 circa '66. I was six months old at the time, so this is drawn entirely from photographic evidence.

 

The Devon banks often had a 6300 outside a Hall/Castle I reckon, from my long dalliance with cog-boxes.

[Beacon]

Thanks everyone for the comprehensive and interesting replies. I'm quite surprised to hear that rather than becoming simpler and more standardised in modern times, diesel locos are probably less likely to be compatible than steam locos were/are. I can't think of a particular reason for this situation but theoretically could a Class 66 or similar be connected to a DMU or EMU? I know the Virgin Class 57s had special couplings to allow them to attach to Pendolinos.

[The Stationmaster]

It is even possible to have a steam and diesel worked train. All the photographs I have seen of such workings in the UK have the diesel inside, but I have never looked into whether this was by rule or simply coincidence. The examples come from the introduction of diesels in the UK, so the braking system would be vacuum.

 

Originally steam engones assisting failed dieseasals were simply attached on the front as that was the quickest way to do the job. Nett result = the occasional broken winsscreen as lunps of coal fell off the back of the tender hence a nationwide Instruction to put thh steam engine 'inside' to avoid breaking the nice new shiny (broken) diesel. (that formation could also be advantageous to the diesel crew where water troughs were involved ).

[AberdeenBill]

It is even possible to have a steam and diesel worked train. All the photographs I have seen of such workings in the UK have the diesel inside, but I have never looked into whether this was by rule or simply coincidence. The examples come from the introduction of diesels in the UK, so the braking system would be vacuum.

 

 

Here is one example with the diesel "outside," with both locomotives apparently operational.

 

http://www.steamweb.net/gallerybr/large-27.html

 

Bill

[pH]

Originally steam engones assisting failed dieseasals were simply attached on the front as that was the quickest way to do the job. Nett result = the occasional broken winsscreen as lunps of coal fell off the back of the tender hence a nationwide Instruction to put thh steam engine 'inside' to avoid breaking the nice new shiny (broken) diesel. (that formation could also be advantageous to the diesel crew where water troughs were involved ).

I thought that another reason to couple steam engines inside diesels, other than in cases of failure, was to avoid the diesel ingesting the steam engine’s exhaust.

 

There was an occasion (about 10 years ago, IIRC) where a steam excursion in the US had two assisting diesels behind the steam engine on a mountain section of the route. The diesels were to do all the work on this section, but the steam engine was on the front for the benefit of lineside photographers. One of the diesels had a problem and it was decided that the best solution was to have the steam engine work with the remaining diesel until they could get to somewhere where they could get a replacement diesel. This went well until they entered the first tunnel, and the steam engine, working hard, proceeded to ‘steam clean’ it of 40-odd years of greasy diesel exhaust, all over the following train.

 

 

['CHARD]

Thanks everyone for the comprehensive and interesting replies. I'm quite surprised to hear that rather than becoming simpler and more standardised in modern times, diesel locos are probably less likely to be compatible than steam locos were/are. I can't think of a particular reason for this situation but theoretically could a Class 66 or similar be connected to a DMU or EMU? I know the Virgin Class 57s had special couplings to allow them to attach to Pendolinos.

 

The reason is down to our moving away from a mixed-traffic railway towards specialised bespoke forms of traction, including particularly, fixed formation self-contained passenger units.

 

As train failure (in theory at least) represents only a small percentage of the operating experience (to paraphrase my ex-colleague Ian Walmsley), the need to couple units of different types together is the exception rather than the rule, usually confined to rescue, which tends to be undertaken at low speed with only the basic functions active being those related to safety, not pass-comm, selective door opening, etc.

 

Freight diesels normally spend their time hauling enormous payloads around in wagons without any of the smart systems of DMUs and EMUs. Therefore their couplers need to be compatible with the more agricultural end of the T&RS spectrum. A 66 for example, whilst able to haul LHCS, can't provide train heat or other electrical supply (67s can, having been designed to do so).

 

The rescue of multiple units with their designed-for-purpose Dellner/ BSI/ Tightlock couplers (others are available) therefore has to be effected with coupling adaptors. The 57s were procured with the rescue of Pendolinos specifically in mind, because of the very demanding performance contract VT signed up to, and the need to protect its ambitious revenue growth targets.

[Guest Phil]

Thanks everyone for the comprehensive and interesting replies. I'm quite surprised to hear that rather than becoming simpler and more standardised in modern times, diesel locos are probably less likely to be compatible than steam locos were/are. I can't think of a particular reason for this situation but theoretically could a Class 66 or similar be connected to a DMU or EMU? I know the Virgin Class 57s had special couplings to allow them to attach to Pendolinos.

 

IMHO the reason why diesels became more complicated in terms of coupling compatibility was because of BR / BTC's rather lax approach to specifications in the modernisation plan. AFAIK the US diesel builders adopted the AAR multiple control system as standard, which meant that pretty much any diesel could work with another from a different manufacturer. Sadly BR didn't specify a similar requirement for it's new diesel locos.

 

Class 58s had the same system as class 56 and did work in multiple on occasions.

 

Class 60s had their own multiple control system but this was unlikely to be needed.

[frobisher]

AFAIK the US diesel builders adopted the AAR multiple control system as standard, which meant that pretty much any diesel could work with another from a different manufacturer. Sadly BR didn't specify a similar requirement for it's new diesel locos.

 

And in a twist of fate, AAR is the multiple working protocol that new build diesels have ended up with by default in the UK ('cos they've all come from North America via one route or other). The 59's, 66's, 67's and 70's all use it as I understand it.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

AFAIK ( I have to admit I am frozen in the steam era) these modern units that are integrated sets are incapable of being hooked up together or being towed by a separate loco. There seems to be a variety of reasons for this. Certainly, the loss of the universal three link and drop down buckeye has not been replaced with an integrated approach.

 

I think this may be one result of privatisation but is also the desire on everyone's part to get away from this labour intensive assembly of trains for the job rather than the more modern 'this is what we offer, take it or leave it' attitude.

 

You would have great difficulty moving your product by train unless it was containerised or a full train load (and you supply the train).

 

I think the idea of towing preserved, non mainline locos about will eventually disappear. Even now, a lot are moved by road.

[divibandit]

On 27/02/2010 at 11:53, 'CHARD said:

Hi, the devil in the detail of this is in the locos' control systems. Any can couple and apply power (i.e. as steam/ diesel combos) if driven by separate crews - that is, driven/ controlled in tandem. To control both or all locos in a consist from the cab of the leading loco, all locos in multiple have to share the same coupling code.

 

Diesel-electrics with electro-pneumatic control: Blue Star (Peaks, 40s, 24/25/26/27, 31/1&4, 23, 21, 33, 37, 20, 15, 8588-8616)

Diesel-electrics with electro-magnetic control: Red circle (31/0, 28, 29, 16)

Diesel-hydraulics 600-4, 6300-5: Orange square

Diesel-hydraulics 803-70, 6306-57: White diamond

Hymeks: Yellow triangle

Claytons up to 8587: Red diamond

 

Someone later invented classes like 56s etc, but they're unknown to me, I think 58s re-used one of the obsolete symbols like green (trom)bone or summat.

Hi 'Chard,

That's great info but are you sure about Class 21 and 29?

It would make more sense that 21 were Red Circle, and the re-engined ones (Class 29) were Blue Star.

 

Steve

 

[Wickham Green too]

The last few 29s lasted long enough to get listed in the 'Combined Volume' dated Oct/Nov '71 - and they're still listed as Red Circle control.

[w124bob]

Worth pointing out that the Peaks all lost their MU equipment very early on, some ScR class 40's lost it too, the low numbered examples that had the replacement square headcode panel and D358>68. If you don't like the oversize cable mouldings on the Baccy 40's like me choose one of the above. One class 47,1938, was fitted with conventional MU cables and control air pipes for pushpull trials using a maroon BSK with cab conversion(it became the TRIB train driving trailer). From memory I seem to recall the internal wiring was in some new build class 47, two others 47370/79 received TDM style cables but i have never seen a picture them working together.

Edited December 14, 2020 by w124bob
added info.