Jump to content
 

Push-Pull-Trains


PatriotClass
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read in Model Rail February issue about a guy having modeled the front/end coach of a so called push-pull commuter set. It consists of two coaches and a tank engine.

Were these trains common? Did the LMS run them?

And technically interesting: How did the man at the front end of the pushed coach communicate with the driver on the steam engine?

 

PP_YTT_Midland 1908.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the LMS had them. But they weren't very common.

The one in your post is an earlier Midland Railway version.

If you look in the LMS Coaching Stock part of the forum there is quite a bit of information on them.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/144-lms-coaching-stock/

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/32732-lms-push-pull-coaches/

 

The driver was in the front carriage when going forward, with the fireman left on the footplate. Communication was via bells and whistles.

Some basic details here.

https://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/Push Pull YTT.html

 

Jason

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon the fireman drew the short straw on these services. Imagine being on your own in the cab on the Merthyr-Abergavenny line, for example. The firemen were always ‘passed firemen’ on the Western, presumably the same on the others: people with more experience than normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, 88D said:

I reckon the fireman drew the short straw on these services. Imagine being on your own in the cab on the Merthyr-Abergavenny line, for example. The firemen were always ‘passed firemen’ on the Western, presumably the same on the others: people with more experience than normal.

Not so that the Fireman was always a Passed Fireman - certainly in later years.  A chap I worked back in the '70s had been on the footplate and his first turn as a Fireman was on the Marlow Donkey, a push-pull job of course (he had been a Passed Cleaner previously so had firing experience).  He found it a very interesting experience to say the least but got through it alright and after the better part of a week on the turn was fully settled into it.  Talking over the years to various other Enginemen and former Enginemen I found out that his experience was far from unusual although being on such a job on the first turn in the grade was unusual and the preference seemed to have been at least for Firemen who had a pretty good idea of the road they were working over.

On our local branch we had a regular Saturday (ex GWR) diesel railcar turn which was covered by a push-pull set if the diesel was out of traffic for whatever reason and that was worked by men who had had very little booked work over the branch and you could see quite young Firemen on that job.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not so that the Fireman was always a Passed Fireman - certainly in later years.  A chap I worked back in the '70s had been on the footplate and his first turn as a Fireman was on the Marlow Donkey, a push-pull job of course (he had been a Passed Cleaner previously so had firing experience).  He found it a very interesting experience to say the least but got through it alright and after the better part of a week on the turn was fully settled into it.  Talking over the years to various other Enginemen and former Enginemen I found out that his experience was far from unusual although being on such a job on the first turn in the grade was unusual and the preference seemed to have been at least for Firemen who had a pretty good idea of the road they were working over.

On our local branch we had a regular Saturday (ex GWR) diesel railcar turn which was covered by a push-pull set if the diesel was out of traffic for whatever reason and that was worked by men who had had very little booked work over the branch and you could see quite young Firemen on that job.

That’ll teach me for pretending to be an expert! Insert smiley.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, PatriotClass said:

I read in Model Rail February issue about a guy having modeled the front/end coach of a so called push-pull commuter set. It consists of two coaches and a tank engine.

Were these trains common? Did the LMS run them?

And technically interesting: How did the man at the front end of the pushed coach communicate with the driver on the steam engine?

 

PP_YTT_Midland 1908.jpg

That's a useful picture in light of the forthcoming Bachmann 2P tank.

I'm not quite sure, but I think the second coach is not an autotrailer.

I think that the driving trailer could be cobbled together from Ratio body parts but it looks to have shorter bogies. Can anyone tell me at what date these would have been withdrawn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It is true that experienced firemen were preferred for such duties, even if they weren't always available, as the fireman has a lot more than his usual amount of work to do.  I know little about non GW methods; the GW's system was mechanical and based on linking rods with CV couplings and other railways used air or vacuum operated systems that required different techniques, but, with the fireman alone on the footplate, he had his work cut out.  Some railways used cable pull systems; the Taff Vale's was over the top of the carriage roofs and loco boiler.

On the GW/WR system, the driver only had a regulator and vacuum setter in the trailer cab, so as well as managing the fire and the boiler, keeping a lookout for signals and in general, and his other normal duties the fireman was responsible for the reverser and valve setting of the loco.  Up to two trailers could be coupled to the loco in front or behind it, more being prohibited because of the amount of play in the linkage, so in practice the fireman on the loco assisted with the regulator when needed as well.  

Now, imagine you're a passed cleaner at Cathays, Cardiff, in the 50s and the booked top link fireman hasn't turned up for the Bute Road-Coryton shuttle.  Your driver is a bit miffed at your presence, and has no faith in your ability to do the job at all; some drivers were very keen to inform you of this!  You are alone, all day, on a 4575 sandwiched in the middle of 3 or 4 trailers, and you have to keep up to the mark on the 1 in 100 bank from Queen Street to Heath Junction on a very busy commuter route in rush hour.  You'd be forgiven for feeling a bit apprehensive!

I have been told by old drivers that it was not unusual for the driver to remain aboard the loco and the auto linkage not bothered with as it was fiddly and hard work to connect, or for the driver to ride in the trailer cab and let the fireman drive the loco under instruction from bell signals (there was an electric bell circuit between the cabs and the loco), but I am not directly accusing anyone of ever having flouted the rules in such a manner...

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

That's a useful picture in light of the forthcoming Bachmann 2P tank.

I'm not quite sure, but I think the second coach is not an autotrailer.

I think that the driving trailer could be cobbled together from Ratio body parts but it looks to have shorter bogies. Can anyone tell me at what date these would have been withdrawn?

These coaches are in an earlier style to the David Bain round-panelled style of the Ratio Midland suburban carriages, which represent 48ft long, 8;6" wide stock built as close-coupled set trains for the Manchester district in 1902 and the Birmingham district in 1908.

These particular carriages are conversions to driving trailers from a D502 43ft third brake and D526 45ft composite brake, both 8ft wide carriages dating from the 1880s. These carriages, designed by Thomas Clayton, have noticeably less deep waist panels than the Bain carriages. Kits are available from 51L, I think they also do parts to represent the modified ends for the diving trailer conversion.

The Midland described these as "motor trains"; seven pairs of carriages were altered in 1907 and used for service between Bedford and Hitchin, Bedford and Northampton, Sheffield and Doncaster, and Wakefield and Sandal and Walton. There's a photo showing such a train at Hitchin, with an extra D490 43ft third next to the engine, giving a 2+1 formation. Presumably this carriage had to have some modification to enable the control gear to be connected up from the driver to the engine. Several photos from the Derby photographic collection have been released by the NRM under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share-Alike Licence:

DY2269

1621081495_DY2269MotorTrainengine1632.jpg.dedc30894f927ab8c27b6fd6ef70bb01.jpg

DY2270

11443005_DY2270MotorTrainengine1632.jpg.f464016cbbd2398e19009de8bed6b8a6.jpg

DY2271

1147459052_DY2271MotorTrainregulatorandbrake.jpg.8ba1cd12b6fc0339dbc8302173448a01.jpg

The OP's photo is a rather poor reproduction of DY2268; DY 2273 showed a different pair of carriages with 0-4-4T No. 1257 (1907 number)

It is thought that these particular motor trains ran into the 1920s. By at least 1931, some of the Birmingham-area Bain 48ft carriages had been converted for motor train operation - a couple of D551 composites and a D552 4-compartment brake third, one pair used on the Barnsley branch and one composite with two other carriages on the Oxenhope branch. As far as I'm aware these LMS-era motor trains ran with the engine at one end.

Ref. R.E. Lacy and G. Dow, Midland Railway Carriages Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 1986).

Edited by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Midland also ran some trains using old Pullman stock.  These were also used between Harpenden and Hemel Hempstead and Earby and Barnoldswick, and for a short time between Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham before electrification.   They also returned to the Lancaster area under BR in 1952 when the Midland built electric sets were withdrawn until 1955 when the re-electrification using 50Hz power brought converted ex London area DC stock to the lines.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

That's a useful picture in light of the forthcoming Bachmann 2P tank.

I'm not quite sure, but I think the second coach is not an autotrailer.

I think that the driving trailer could be cobbled together from Ratio body parts but it looks to have shorter bogies. Can anyone tell me at what date these would have been withdrawn?

 

Both coaches would be converted to driving trailers. They would have had 8ft bogies for which kits are available from Stevenson Carriages who also does the driving ends.  Both coaches can be represented by cutting and shutting Ratio parts but, as mentioned above, the panelling is not quite right and they both end up about a foot short.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have to dissent from PoB - one cannot make a satisfactory model of a Clayton arc-roof carriage from the Ratio kits for Bain arc-roofed carriages. There are some fundamental differences - width, panel depth. If you really want to work in plastic, you could start from the old Slaters kits for Clayton 6-wheelers - who knows, it might not be too long before these are re-introduced?

 

Information on what Stevenson Carriages produce seems hard to come by but as PoB says he does do kits for Clayton arc roof carriages, or at least did when I last saw his stand at an exhibition some years ago. The 51L kits I mentioned are MRD502 for the D502 43ft third brake and MRD526 for the D526 45ft composite brake (what rational kit numbering!) - as far as I can tell from their website, they don't supply the bogies separately (I think the 8ft bogies listed are the later Bain type) but I'm not sure - I think I've seen them separately available at the 51L stand at exhibitions. I can't find mention of the driving ends so maybe it's the Stevenson ones I've seen mentioned. 

 

No connection with 51L other than as a satisfied customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to accept what 2632 says about the Ratio coaches but what I am after is what I call a 'plausible representation' rather than what would be acceptable to rivet counters (no offence meant there, I just can't think of a better expression at the mo - fine scale enthusiast might be better). If i was starting again, I would probably go brass but my particular die is cast. At the end of the day, to be frank, not many people (with obvious notable exceptions) would know or be able to spot the difference. There are far more blatant inaccuracies on some exhibition layouts than these.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This is the oldest and least soluable argument in the hobby.  It is impossible to model anything accurately in to 00 standards, the incorrect track gauge will mean that all sorts of measurements and proportions will be miles off, so everything is a compromise.  Once you've accepted one compromise, it feels a bit daft to complain about others, but most of us try to make the best of things and are reasonably happy with our models.  We accept compromises because modelling would be impossible without them; for example I like things to be as realistic as I can manage but ignore tension lock couplers after finding that I cannot manage scale ones at my age (eyesight and steadiness of hand problmes) and am happy that this retrograde step has enabled train set curves and 3 extra fiddle yard roads.  I am happy with my Hornby 2721 pannier despite it's plastic skirts and wrong wheel spacings, but felt the need to replace the chimney and safety valve cover.

 

I also have Triang shorty clerestories as a workman's train, so my advice to Poor Old Bruce formerly Young Fido is to crack on with your Ratio push-pull and enjoy it until something better comes along to replace it; if you are aware of it's shortcomings and able to live with them, 'tain't no thang...

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...