Turning tank engines?

[jamespetts]

May I ask - in what circumstances were tank engines turned? I had assumed for a long time that tank engines were generally not turned as they could equally well run bunker first. There are plenty of photographs of large tank engines such as LMS 2-6-4Ts being run bunker first (such as here and here). There is also this photograph of an LNER V1 operating bunker first.

 

On the other hand, one does not seem to see photographs of locomotives such as LBSCR I3s, Js or Ls running bunker first. The photographs of the LMS tank engines running bunker first seem to be on local services. This leads me to wonder whether tank engines on passenger trains would generally be turned if the train was not a local train (i.e., if it was a secondary express train, or even a major express train on the lines, such as the LTSR or LBSCR, which ran tank engines on their main expresses).

 

I also note that North Woolwich once had a turntable at the end of the platforms, but that the passenger trains were exclusively hauled by tank engines.

 

Does anyone know the circumstances in which tank engines would have been turned, and whether this changed through time? I should be very grateful.

[pH]

That V1 is running chimney first. It's banking a train up Cowlairs bank out of Glasgow Queen Street.

 

On the lines to Gourock and Wemyss Bay out of Glasgow Central, all engines, including tanks, were turned at the termini to run chimney first back to Glasgow. Very occasionally, a train would arrive with a tank running bunker first from Glasgow. I presume that there hadn't been time after a previous arrival in Central to run it out to the engine lye at the large Central power signalbox to turn it.

 

Pictures at places like Largs, Ardrossan and Ayr on the lines out of Glasow St. Enoch show tanks running chimney first in both directions on those lines as well.

 

Closer in to the city, where the termini of some services did not have turning facilities, tanks would obviously run bunker first in one direction.

[BR60103]

There might be a case for turning a tank to put the driver on the appropriate side.

Photographers/publishers may have preferred to show locos running chimney first.

 

Somewhere I read of a branch (on the Southern?) which had a small turntable; tank engines were all turned but tender engines all had to come back tender first.

 

[adriank]

If there was a gradient on a branch, a tank engine might be turned for the return journey to stop the water draining from the boiler.

 

Adrian

[MarkC]

If possible, even tank engines would be turned. Footplate crews would always prefer to run chimney first, as the controls are laid out for forward running, and who wants facefuls of coal dust when running bunker first?

[TheQ]

1 hour ago, adriank said:

If there was a gradient on a branch, a tank engine might be turned for the return journey to stop the water draining from the boiler.

 

Adrian

I think you wrote that wrong, A loco (tank or tender) might NOT be turned to keep the water over the firebox on a steep line.

 

Sometimes tender locos might not be turned if they were two long for the turntable, I remember reading that occuring occasionally on the Kyle line...62 miles of tender first!!.

 

Generally if possible chimney first, that puts the driver on the correct side for the signals, if fitted with tablet exchange mechanisum, that puts that on the correct side (few locos had them both sides).

[pH]

4 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Sometimes tender locos might not be turned if they were two long for the turntable, I remember reading that occuring occasionally on the Kyle line...62 miles of tender first!!.

 

Sorry for going OT, but what was sent out to Kyle that was too long for the turntable there? Black 5s were regulars, and the Highland 4-6-0s that were still around at Nationalisation were OK, I think.

[eastglosmog]

The 22mile long Fairford branch had a turntable and the tank engines that normally worked it appear always to have been turned (as were the tender engines, naturally).  No requirement for smokebox leading up steep gradients as there wern't any!

[mike morley]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

 Footplate crews would always prefer to run chimney first,

 

Not necessarily.   Tank engine crews often preferred running bunker first because of the improved view.  It's easier to see round a bunker that is only three or four feet long than it is past a boiler that is thirty or forty feet long.

Edited April 9, 2019 by mike morley

[TheQ]

31 minutes ago, pH said:

 

Sorry for going OT, but what was sent out to Kyle that was too long for the turntable there? Black 5s were regulars, and the Highland 4-6-0s that were still around at Nationalisation were OK, I think.

Off the top of my head I can't remember, but IIRC it was in the during the LMS period  before the turntable got extended again.

 Of course today there is no turntable so any steam loco has to run backwards..

[LMS2968]

28 minutes ago, mike morley said:

 

Not necessarily.   Tank engine crews often preferred running bunker first because of the improved view.  It's easier to see round a bunker that is only three or four feet long than it is past a boiler that is thirty or forty feet long.

Not many. As MarkC said, it was better to run chimney first: you were right way around for the controls, for the signals and didn't have coal dust blowing out of the bunker into the cab. Most men would turn to be chimney first if the opportunity was available.

[31A]

A bit "horses for courses"; on the GN suburban lines N2 0-6-2Ts normally ran chimney first heading out of London (and were not turned at the terminus); this direction is on a generally climbing gradient which meant the water in the boiler tended to be over the firebox.  I have also read that they tended to run better bunker first with the carrying wheels leading and as higher speeds were more easily achieved running downhill, this made for greater comfort.  A lot of the places the suburban trains terminated at didn't have turntables, anyway.

[LMS2968]

A story I read, although I can't remember where, was the crew of a tender engine which had worked a train from the north into Winwick Quay and had then to run the engine light down to Wigan Springs Branch shed. They were routed up Vulcan Bank to Earlestown where they were signalled right on to the L&M line to Parkside to head north again. The driver stopped at Earlestown No. 1 and refused to move until the signal was cleared for the left hand road, which thereby made the engine chimney first for the rest of the trip. The distance would be about six miles...

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your responses: that is most helpful. The impression that I get is that, generally and with some exceptions, tank engines would be turned where there were suitable facilities for doing so, but there were many places without suitable facilities.

 

That gives rise to one further question: I had always assumed that the purpose of express tank engines (such as the River class or the Brighton Baltic) was to reduce the time spent turning engines. If these engines would have been turned in any event, how were these preferable from the railway company's point of view to the equivalent tender engine?

[burgundy]

I believe the Brighton was very particular about running its big tanks chimney first. 

Most runs on the Brighton were sufficiently short for a tank engine to be able to cope quite well - as demonstrated when the Brighton and LNW ran some comparative trials using a superheated I3 vs an LNW 4-4-0. The longest route on the Brighton would have been London to Portsmouth, which I think is about 90 miles.

One problem on the Brighton was that it had a legacy of short turntables so that its big tender locos - the Atlantics and the K class Moguls - were restricted until longer turntables were installed. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[jamespetts]

That is very interesting - thank you.

[Caledonian]

My understanding is that aside from some of the excellent reasons given above, it was also considered good practice to turn tank engines in order to equalise the wear on the tyres.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Don't forget that film was relatively expensive, so photographers might not want to 'waste' a shot on a tank engine running bunker first. So this might have happened more often than photographs seem to indicate. 

 

That said, there's a wonderful photo (possibly in one of the Bradford Barton albums) of a LBSCV J tanks actually on a turntable, and in the process of being turned. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, 31A said:

A bit "horses for courses"; on the GN suburban lines N2 0-6-2Ts normally ran chimney first heading out of London (and were not turned at the terminus); this direction is on a generally climbing gradient which meant the water in the boiler tended to be over the firebox...

And the inner sub allocated N2s were turned to this orientation if one had gone off somewhere on a trip which led to a return wrongly oriented.  The crews got inconvenience on the inner sub turns in both directions, coal dust from the bunker, dirty water vapour venting from the hot water in the tanks due to running in the required condensing mode 'down the hole' if put on a Moorgate turn. And a fair proportion of the work North of KX was in tunnels too...

10 minutes ago, Caledonian said:

My understanding is that aside from some of the excellent reasons given above, it was also considered good practice to turn tank engines in order to equalise the wear on the tyres.

And where this wasn't practical for operational reasons, the consequent extra tyre reprofiling required as a result of the greater wear on the leading coupled wheels was tolerated. (Gresley wanted a 2-6-2T for the KX inner sub work to overcome this, but no way was found of making one fit within the many restrictions of the Metropolitan 'widened lines' route to Moorgate.)

[The Lurker]

10 hours ago, BR60103 said:

 

 

Somewhere I read of a branch (on the Southern?) which had a small turntable; tank engines were all turned but tender engines all had to come back tender first.

 

Bromley North as originally built had a turntable. But whether what you read about applied to this branch I don't know

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, jamespetts said:

Thank you all for your responses: that is most helpful. The impression that I get is that, generally and with some exceptions, tank engines would be turned where there were suitable facilities for doing so, but there were many places without suitable facilities.

 

That gives rise to one further question: I had always assumed that the purpose of express tank engines (such as the River class or the Brighton Baltic) was to reduce the time spent turning engines. If these engines would have been turned in any event, how were these preferable from the railway company's point of view to the equivalent tender engine?

Yet lines like the London Tilbury & Southend Railway, despite its comparatively long & fast runs, made little effort to turn its locomotives. In fact they only ever had two tender locomotives.

Of course the locos did get gradually turned, if used on services via the Tilbury triangle.

[Fat Controller]

2 hours ago, jamespetts said:

Thank you all for your responses: that is most helpful. The impression that I get is that, generally and with some exceptions, tank engines would be turned where there were suitable facilities for doing so, but there were many places without suitable facilities.

 

That gives rise to one further question: I had always assumed that the purpose of express tank engines (such as the River class or the Brighton Baltic) was to reduce the time spent turning engines. If these engines would have been turned in any event, how were these preferable from the railway company's point of view to the equivalent tender engine?

Might tank engines have been popular on these lines because, being shorter, they would allow more passenger-carrying capacity.

[jim.snowdon]

4 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Yet lines like the London Tilbury & Southend Railway, despite its comparatively long & fast runs, made little effort to turn its locomotives. In fact they only ever had two tender locomotives.

Of course the locos did get gradually turned, if used on services via the Tilbury triangle.

For part of its life, the rather cramped terminus that was Fenchurch Street was equipped with a turntable, although how important it was might be reflected in the way that it was later removed to allow changes in the throat trackwork. Liverpool Street had a turntable up to the end of steam, but only for the main line locomotives; the suburban services were too intensely worked to allow for either the time or light engine movements needed to turn their locomotives.

 

Jim 

[The Johnster]

The point about keeping locos running chimney first uphill to ensure the water level over the fusible plug was sufficient was the reason for the 'chimney first up the valley' practice in South Wales.  Like the KX suburban services, 0-6-2T locos were the usual suspects, and a myth developed that the popularity of the type in the area was that one had a leading axle for better riding on the downhil run.  This was not true, particularly with the coal trains which had to be dragged down the steeper portions very slowly against pinned down brakes.  The popularity of 0-6-2T in the area was really a function of the simplicity and ease of use of a 6-coupled tank and the extra bunkerage afforded by the extended frames at the rear, just the right size for an out and back trip in the area.

 

Tondu had a couple of 44xx for the very sharply curved Porthcawl branch, which had to be regularly turned in order to even out driving wheel wear.  Tondu, which never had a tender loco allocated, was a roundhouse shed with a turntable.

[TheQ]

On ‎09‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 07:08, pH said:

 

Sorry for going OT, but what was sent out to Kyle that was too long for the turntable there? Black 5s were regulars, and the Highland 4-6-0s that were still around at Nationalisation were OK, I think.

I've had a look at my books, and the turntable at Kyle was 50 ft till 1946 or 1948 depending which book I'm looking at.

it was extended to 54Ft on one of those dates.

Therefore until the extension, Black 5s and the majority of Highland railways 4-6-0s and some 4-4-0s were too long for the turntable