Imaginary Locomotives

[tythatguy1312]

26 minutes ago, JimC said:

Mea culpa, I shouldn't have started this diversion. 

I'm more confused as to how we went from a conceptual extended Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Class 28 to an extended discussion on pre-WW2 IC Railcars personally

[whart57]

Keeps the thread lively though

[AlfaZagato]

ASLEF seems to have been more thorough than the American unions were.    I'm not aware of a UK equivalent to a union dodge like the 44-tonners.   Was there?

 

If there wasn't, what size loco do you think ASLEF would have deigned small enough for one-man operation?  What would the different builders have found for such a thing?

[Northmoor]

23 hours ago, The Johnster said:

ASLEF certainly would not have accepted this without a struggle; they did not have good relations with the NUR, which represented other 'Traffic' grades, including shunters, travelling shunters, and guards.  The 'Footplate' grades were a different line of promotion, and men from the Traffic line could not apply for Footplate grade jobs except by sacrificing their seniority and starting again as new entrant engine cleaners.  ASLEF, and indeed footplate culture in general, was pretty protectionist.  It might be possible to have reached a compromise solution in which the little tractor diesels were manned by shunters within yards, not on running lines, and under drivers' supervision, but there is a demarcation here, in that movements in the yard are by handsignals given by staff on the ground under the authority  of the yard foreman .

 

The drivers therefore did not 'sign the road' within yards. route knowledge applied to running lines.  Drivers, and passed firemen, had to sign that they were familiar with a route in regards to permanent speed restrictions, route availability, signals including subsidiary signals, signal box opening hours, gradients, permitted loads for all classes of trains, track circuits and so on.  In a yard, they were under the handsignalled instruction of a man on the ground acting under the yard foreman's authority, and he moves the loco in accordance with these handsignalled or verbal instruction, so does not need to know where he is going, as his speed will be controlled by the man on the ground, who does.  Of course, in practice, drivers were intimately familiar with the yards and private sidings they worked in, but this was not covered by route knowledge.  The signals allowing entry to and exit from the yard, and the speed limits of those movements were covered by route knowledge.

 

Would a shunter trained to drive the little yard locos be allowed to apply for jobs in the Footplate Grade line of promotion?  Would the yard loco need to have a qualified driver from the Footplate Grade and with route knowledge if it was required to move outside the yard confines, on a trip. transfer, or pickup working for example?  Would it's Traffic Grade driver be allowed to drive it on running lines with a Footplate Grade man who had signed the road as a route pilot?  Would the Traffic Grade man be allowed to act as a route pilot to a Footplate Grade driver of a 'proper' locomotive?  Traffic Grade guards and travelling shunters had to sign for route knowledge and be passed out on signalling and other matters relating to working trains on running lines, and in this respect were 'equal' to the Footplate Grades.

 

There were some drivers who were NUR men and not members of ASLEF, and some who were members of both; would this have made a difference?  A lot of questions to be sorted out, and my basic instinct is that this is a good idea but would not have been taken up by the main line companies in the UK.  Ideal solution for some private sidings, though.

Thanks for that Johnster, incredibly informative as always.

 

My first thought about a British "Sik" was the demarcation can-of-worms, but I wonder if the railway companies could have circumvented this if the shunting tractors had road tyres and track in station yards had been routinely inset.  Then the shunting/station staff only needed to be qualified to drive a road vehicle....  It would have also given the railway the flexibility to move unaccompanied farm and other trailers around while loading, so the farmer's vehicle could shuttle back and forth multiple trailers.

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

As these are not locomotives, wouldn't they best be discussed in the 'Fictional Units' thread?

 

3 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I believe such a division is meaningless given discussion of a shrunk NSW Tangara Set took place in this thead

The LBSC overhead electrics had a Bo-Bo power unit sandwiched between carriage stock with driving cabs at the outer ends. The power units could be operated as individual units also having driving cabs but never operated as such. They also matched the carriage stock but they were effectively a push-pull unit not an EMU. They also carried the guard and had a luggage capacity. I was thinking in terms of a similar unit to operate the GWR push-pull, diesel electric powered although the diesel engine/generator would occupy the space on the unit used for the guard/luggage on the LBSC locomotives. 

[tythatguy1312]

3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

railway companies could have circumvented this if the shunting tractors had road tyres

I have a more unique solution, at least for light shunters. Driving a traction engine is apparently a 1 person job, as is driving a Sentinel. I'd say theoretically that 1 man operation could be achieved with these, but the LNER bought 56 Sentinels, possibly for this exact reason.

[brack]

10 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

My first thought about a British "Sik" was the demarcation can-of-worms

What about hiring in the local industrial shunter? Plenty of those were registered to run over BR.

[The Johnster]

By and large, the industrial registered locos that were allowed to run on 'big railway' metals were restricted to exchange sidings or yards, and not allowed on to running lines.  There were exceptions, particularly in the North East of England where NCB locos crewed by NCB men who were passed out on big railway rules and regulation and who signed the roads, and freight/passenger stock, with NCB brake vans and guards, who also had to be passed out on rules and sign route knowledge.

 

This is a common error that I see on exhibition layouts, where privately owned industrial locomotives venture out on to running lines and take on station pilot or goods yard work; never happened.  Unless you are modelling a specific location where it did happen, industrials should be kept to such exchange roads as the registration specifes, and there are specifed limits to where in the exchange sidings the big railway engines are allowed as well in many cases, usually indicated by a 'stop' board or a notice along the lines of 'GW/Railway Executive/whatever engines must not pass this board'.  Sectional Appenices, which make fascianating reading, additionally provide restrictions concerning particular classes, and prohibit specific sidings in places where the big railway engine does all the shunting. 

 

These include big railway places; see 'Engines Must Not Enter The Potato Siding'.

 

A vehicle with pneumatic tyres would probably have been regarded as a direct replacement for a horse.  Horses were used to move wagons around in yards, as were capstans and winches, and the Footplate Grades were not involved.  Any powered vehicle with flanged wheels to the appropriate gauge is another mattter altogether, and the situation might resemble that of Plassermatics etc, which have qualified drivers who are not from the Footplate Grades but are passed out on rules and regulations and who, where necessary, are route piloted by Footplate Grade men/

 

Self propelled tamping and track laying machines, and self propelled cranes, have their own qualified drivers but work within temporary occupations of the stretch of running line they are working on, usually on a Sunday, and under the authority and control of the officer in charge of the occupation.  They are delivered to the site by normal locomotives normally manned, with normal brake vans where required, also normally manned.  Same goes for the 'PWM' series of 204hp shunting locos on the WR; these worked as pilots in PAD (Pre-assembled track) depots but, with diesel electric transmission, could be hauled dead to relaying sites by normal locomotives at up to 40mph, then work at the site under the direction of the officer in charge, driven by their regular driver.  At a relaying or similar worksite where an occuptaion is in force, 'normal' locos and their crews, and the guard. are under his direction and available for him to use as well, and route knowledge is of limited help when the track has been taken up!

 

I was once on a per.way job and stranded with my train, loco, and crew on an isolated section of track between two worksites that had overrun their occupation, and had to be relieved on site!  We were given a budget agreed by the officer in charge and the local pub for Sunday Lunch and amassed 15 hours on duty, all on Sunday overtime rates.  Awful job but somebody had to do it; our intial instruction had been to shut the loco down, apply the handbrakes, and wait in the mess&tool (where there were hot food, tea, and comfy bunks) until we were needed, which we weren't.   We wen't home exhausted, by which I mean fully refreshed and relaxed after a very pleasant pub Sunday Lunch and a few beers.  Shame to take the money sometimes, not that I ever offered to give any of it back...

[John Besley]

8 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

 

 

 

For one moment I thought the above was taken from the road just after Starcross before Cockwood Harbour....heading in the Newton Abbot direction 

[The Johnster]

11 hours ago, JimC said:

A process which if taken to its logical extreme leaves us with a single topic of "stuff". I

 

You have just described my filing system.

 

10 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

ASLEF seems to have been more thorough than the American unions were.    I'm not aware of a UK equivalent to a union dodge like the 44-tonners.   Was there?

 

If there wasn't, what size loco do you think ASLEF would have deigned small enough for one-man operation?  What would the different builders have found for such a thing?

I would define a locomotive for this purpose as being any vehicle capable of moving under it's own power and hauling a train, fitted with drawhook and buffing gear to enable this, irrespective of tonnage.  If it was intended for use on running lines under the control of signals, it needed a qualified driver (including passed secondmen) from the Footplate Grades and Line of Promotion, passed out on Rules and Regulations and having read the weekly notices, and with the appropriate route and traction knowledge.  This definition of a locomotive and it's driver is, in part, a matter of signed agreements between the managment and the trade unions, and any single manning would have to be subject to these.  Diesel shunting locomotives with duties entirely within yards or depots such as yard pilots or hump shunters were single manned, as were locos working on quite extensive dock systems so the 49ton 350hp class 08 shunting engines were single manned on these duties, and the class 13 master/slave locos were over 90tons all-up.  Dual controls were fitted so that the locomotives could be driven from either side of the cab.  They had to be manned in the same way as any other locomotives if they were used on running lines, but I believe station pilots working entirely within station limits could be single manned as well, even before the 1969 single manning agreement (which I'll come back to later).

 

 

ASLEF had historically accepted single manning when electric multiple unit trains were first used, the term 'motorman' being used to describe the drivers of such trains.  They appeared first on routes that had a lot of tunnel, such as the various London cut'n'cover and tube lines and the likes of the Mersey Railway, and spread to overground suburban use in the Edwardian era, with the LSWR, LBSC, Midland, LNWR, NER, and others developing DC powered networks of either overhead or third rail types.  This meant that at the Grouping only the GW were not taking part in this game, though their diesel railcars were single manned once they were introduced.

 

Which begs the question of why diesel and electric locomotives were double manned, as after all there was no boiler to keep filled to the mark with water and no fire to tend to, and the view out of the cab windows meant that the driver did not need to have a fireman to sight signals for him.  The reasons are to be found in the steam heating that was still in use until the last of it was phased out in the late 70s; the 'secondman', as he was known, was responsible for the steam heating boiler, and in the agreements with the unions for manning certain types of trains.

 

Union agreements specified that a secondman accompany the driver of a diesel or electric locomotive until the 1969 single manning agreement, which allowed some loco-hauled trains to be driven by a driver alone in the cab.  But there were restrictions to where and when he could be alone in the cab; if he was scheduled to be driving for more than 5 continuous hours after booking on duty without a 'physical needs' break of 20 minutes minimum, or if the working was a special or excursion train not featured in the Working Timetable, or if it was a light engine movement, he could not be alone in the cab. 

 

Light engine movements were allowed to use a guard as an 'acting secondman' for up to 15 miles away from the depot on the way to attach the train, or any distance returning to a depot after detaching.  All steam heated workings were double manned, of course. 

 

There was also the matter of training.  A second man might be seen in the secondman's seat learning the road or the traction, and he would naturally perform the normal duties of a secondman as well, such as looking behind regularly on his side of the train to confirm that all was in order, or passing handsignals to the driver from that side. 

 

On a diesel or electric locomotive, the secondman has access to a deadman's override, so the driver can release the handle or pedal to rest his hand or foot while the secondman or acting secondman is holding the lever or pressing the button that isolates the deadman's.  The spring against which the secondman holds this lever or button is fairly strong, and he cannot hold it for long periods.  The secondman also has his own horn, and windscreen wiper control, and usually has the hotplate or food warming oven close to him.  He also has a steam pressure gauge on locos fitted with steam heating, and on some LMR class 40s, had a wheel operated water scoop to replenish the steam heating boiler's water tank from troughs, mounted on the cab rear bulkhead, with a level gauge next to it.  On locos with 2 cabs and an enclosed engine room, there is a small urinal in the engine room which can be flushed if the loco crew have need of one, though finding one with the flush working and water in the tank was a bit hit and miss.

 

I worked as a freight guard at Canton between 1970 and 1977, and am not fully familiar with how matters were managed after that, but the trend was for more and more single manning and eventually driver only operation of freight trains, without guards.  Locomotives still have 2 seats in the cabs, however, as there are occasions when 2 men are needed, route or traction piloting or riding inspector for example.  IIRC Royal Train working required 2 fully qualified drivers to be in the cab and a riding inspector, so somebody had to stand.

 

ASLEF resisted single manning on locomotives as strenuously as it could, but it was always going to be a lost cause.  The 70s, following the major job losses associated with the end of steam and and the Beeching cuts and with what were seen as attacks on the remaining secondman jobs, were a period of pretty low morale on the railway in general and among the Footplate Grades and LIne of Promotion in particular.  In the early 70s especially, some drivers resented guards riding on their engines, as acting secondmen or in the rear cab on fully fitted trains, and new recruits like me had to prove ourselves a bit before we were accepted by such men, but by and large we managed to do this reasonably successfully.  Part of this was that prior to the 1969 agreement, guards had booked on duty at goods yards or stations, whereas after it they were considered to be 'traincrew' and booked on at loco depots and signing on points with the drivers and secondmen,  My experience was that, once this slightly fraught period was over, by about '72 or 3, most drivers considered that being on their own in a cab was daft when there was a guard available who could keep them company, ensure they were alert, and perform secondman duties on fully fitted single manned duties, and asked us to ride in the front cab with them, and even take the controls under supervision if they were tired.  The driver was in charge of the locomotive, and it was my view that I was obliged to conform with his wishes if they were not directly against the rules or overtly dangerous.  It made the job a great deal more pleasant and interesting.

 

Much of this was culturally centred around tea, the fuel that the railway really runs on.  On a single manned fully fitted freight duty, the guard normally made a brew as the driver prepped the loco to leave the shed, or before relieving a train on the main line, and the driver returned the favour when you got to your destination, ready for the back working if there was one.  A standard tea can holds six BR green refreshment room cups, or 6 lid fulls, which is 3 cups each, which takes about a half hour to consume at a reasonably civilised rate.  If you relieved a down train of oil tanks outside Canton, for example, you were down as far as Pencoed before you'd finished the tea, and it seemed daft to have to make your way back through the engine room (not a particularly safe or pleasant activity on a 47 swaying unpredictably all over the place like a trawler in a gale at 60mph or so burdened with the guard's satchel) when you were expecting relief at Llanelli, only just over an hour away...

 

Even when the job was double manned and you climbed up into the rear cab, the secondman would have made the tea and you would not have moved an engine length before the firebell, the test button for which was the default communication method between cabs, summoned you up front with your cup. 

[AlfaZagato]

I just double-checked my information on the 44-tonners.   The US common carriers and the operating unions agreed to one-man operation, if that operation was inside yards and by locomotives less than 45-tons overall weight.   

 

Curious that the Class 08 wouldn't qualify.   I'd like to see an 08 next to one of the 'Euro' GE 44-tonners, or one of the Whitcomb machines.  GE 44's aren't small, from what I remember.

[tythatguy1312]

I believe the 44 tonner may have been deliberately lightened to fit those union rules, as GE also built an 80 ton shunter and a 65 ton shunter using the same body shell. They certainly look like they should weigh more than a Brighton E1 given their size.

[PhilJ W]

The 44-tonner would be the equivalent of a pair of 03's/04's. The majority of Whitcombe locomotives used during WW2 were the 65 ton road switcher type.

http://www.robertsarmory.com/whitcomb.htm

[AlfaZagato]

@tythatguy1312  Probably right.   Also, most common engines for them were a pair of 180hp Cat V8s.

[The Lurker]

On 21/12/2021 at 19:00, The Johnster said:

 

 

9 Mile Point 

Incidentally where my Grandma was born. Her father was the local methodist* preacher in the first decade of the last century.

 

* not sure which flavour of methodist

[The Johnster]

in that part of the world, pretty strong flavour I would think.  Mind you, they had a fair bit of sinning to contend with...

[Welchester]

3 hours ago, The Lurker said:

Incidentally where my Grandma was born. Her father was the local methodist* preacher in the first decade of the last century.

 

* not sure which flavour of methodist

 

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

in that part of the world, pretty strong flavour I would think.  Mind you, they had a fair bit of sinning to contend with...

 

That's why the Calvinistic variety were called Galvanised.

[tythatguy1312]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

fair bit of sinning to contend with

Guess I'll have to avoid that area, I'm... not well liked by smaller American sects of Christianity

[AlfaZagato]

Neither am I, and I live here.

[tythatguy1312]

In an effort to avoid discussion of what I do when not overthinking public transport, might I inquire as to what the Southern Railway would've built as a standardised medium shunter, as opposed to cutting that out of the bill entirely for electrification money

[John Besley]

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

You have just described my filing system.

 

I would define a locomotive for this purpose as being any vehicle capable of moving under it's own power and hauling a train, fitted with drawhook and buffing gear to enable this, irrespective of tonnage.  If it was intended for use on running lines under the control of signals, it needed a qualified driver (including passed secondmen) from the Footplate Grades and Line of Promotion, passed out on Rules and Regulations and having read the weekly notices, and with the appropriate route and traction knowledge.  This definition of a locomotive and it's driver is, in part, a matter of signed agreements between the managment and the trade unions, and any single manning would have to be subject to these.  Diesel shunting locomotives with duties entirely within yards or depots such as yard pilots or hump shunters were single manned, as were locos working on quite extensive dock systems so the 49ton 350hp class 08 shunting engines were single manned on these duties, and the class 13 master/slave locos were over 90tons all-up.  Dual controls were fitted so that the locomotives could be driven from either side of the cab.  They had to be manned in the same way as any other locomotives if they were used on running lines, but I believe station pilots working entirely within station limits could be single manned as well, even before the 1969 single manning agreement (which I'll come back to later).

 

 

ASLEF had historically accepted single manning when electric multiple unit trains were first used, the term 'motorman' being used to describe the drivers of such trains.  They appeared first on routes that had a lot of tunnel, such as the various London cut'n'cover and tube lines and the likes of the Mersey Railway, and spread to overground suburban use in the Edwardian era, with the LSWR, LBSC, Midland, LNWR, NER, and others developing DC powered networks of either overhead or third rail types.  This meant that at the Grouping only the GW were not taking part in this game, though their diesel railcars were single manned once they were introduced.

 

Which begs the question of why diesel and electric locomotives were double manned, as after all there was no boiler to keep filled to the mark with water and no fire to tend to, and the view out of the cab windows meant that the driver did not need to have a fireman to sight signals for him.  The reasons are to be found in the steam heating that was still in use until the last of it was phased out in the late 70s; the 'secondman', as he was known, was responsible for the steam heating boiler, and in the agreements with the unions for manning certain types of trains.

 

Union agreements specified that a secondman accompany the driver of a diesel or electric locomotive until the 1969 single manning agreement, which allowed some loco-hauled trains to be driven by a driver alone in the cab.  But there were restrictions to where and when he could be alone in the cab; if he was scheduled to be driving for more than 5 continuous hours after booking on duty without a 'physical needs' break of 20 minutes minimum, or if the working was a special or excursion train not featured in the Working Timetable, or if it was a light engine movement, he could not be alone in the cab. 

 

Light engine movements were allowed to use a guard as an 'acting secondman' for up to 15 miles away from the depot on the way to attach the train, or any distance returning to a depot after detaching.  All steam heated workings were double manned, of course. 

 

There was also the matter of training.  A second man might be seen in the secondman's seat learning the road or the traction, and he would naturally perform the normal duties of a secondman as well, such as looking behind regularly on his side of the train to confirm that all was in order, or passing handsignals to the driver from that side. 

 

On a diesel or electric locomotive, the secondman has access to a deadman's override, so the driver can release the handle or pedal to rest his hand or foot while the secondman or acting secondman is holding the lever or pressing the button that isolates the deadman's.  The spring against which the secondman holds this lever or button is fairly strong, and he cannot hold it for long periods.  The secondman also has his own horn, and windscreen wiper control, and usually has the hotplate or food warming oven close to him.  He also has a steam pressure gauge on locos fitted with steam heating, and on some LMR class 40s, had a wheel operated water scoop to replenish the steam heating boiler's water tank from troughs, mounted on the cab rear bulkhead, with a level gauge next to it.  On locos with 2 cabs and an enclosed engine room, there is a small urinal in the engine room which can be flushed if the loco crew have need of one, though finding one with the flush working and water in the tank was a bit hit and miss.

 

I worked as a freight guard at Canton between 1970 and 1977, and am not fully familiar with how matters were managed after that, but the trend was for more and more single manning and eventually driver only operation of freight trains, without guards.  Locomotives still have 2 seats in the cabs, however, as there are occasions when 2 men are needed, route or traction piloting or riding inspector for example.  IIRC Royal Train working required 2 fully qualified drivers to be in the cab and a riding inspector, so somebody had to stand.

 

ASLEF resisted single manning on locomotives as strenuously as it could, but it was always going to be a lost cause.  The 70s, following the major job losses associated with the end of steam and and the Beeching cuts and with what were seen as attacks on the remaining secondman jobs, were a period of pretty low morale on the railway in general and among the Footplate Grades and LIne of Promotion in particular.  In the early 70s especially, some drivers resented guards riding on their engines, as acting secondmen or in the rear cab on fully fitted trains, and new recruits like me had to prove ourselves a bit before we were accepted by such men, but by and large we managed to do this reasonably successfully.  Part of this was that prior to the 1969 agreement, guards had booked on duty at goods yards or stations, whereas after it they were considered to be 'traincrew' and booked on at loco depots and signing on points with the drivers and secondmen,  My experience was that, once this slightly fraught period was over, by about '72 or 3, most drivers considered that being on their own in a cab was daft when there was a guard available who could keep them company, ensure they were alert, and perform secondman duties on fully fitted single manned duties, and asked us to ride in the front cab with them, and even take the controls under supervision if they were tired.  The driver was in charge of the locomotive, and it was my view that I was obliged to conform with his wishes if they were not directly against the rules or overtly dangerous.  It made the job a great deal more pleasant and interesting.

 

Much of this was culturally centred around tea, the fuel that the railway really runs on.  On a single manned fully fitted freight duty, the guard normally made a brew as the driver prepped the loco to leave the shed, or before relieving a train on the main line, and the driver returned the favour when you got to your destination, ready for the back working if there was one.  A standard tea can holds six BR green refreshment room cups, or 6 lid fulls, which is 3 cups each, which takes about a half hour to consume at a reasonably civilised rate.  If you relieved a down train of oil tanks outside Canton, for example, you were down as far as Pencoed before you'd finished the tea, and it seemed daft to have to make your way back through the engine room (not a particularly safe or pleasant activity on a 47 swaying unpredictably all over the place like a trawler in a gale at 60mph or so burdened with the guard's satchel) when you were expecting relief at Llanelli, only just over an hour away...

 

Even when the job was double manned and you climbed up into the rear cab, the secondman would have made the tea and you would not have moved an engine length before the firebell, the test button for which was the default communication method between cabs, summoned you up front with your cup. 

 

When are you going to write a book, so much of this is fascinating stuff from the BR Blue era

[The Johnster]

Too many of the guitly are yet counted among the living, John.  Besides, nobody'd believe most of it...

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Too many of the guitly are yet counted among the living, John.  Besides, nobody'd believe most of it...

You can change names to protect the guilty, you know.....

[John Besley]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Too many of the guitly are yet counted among the living, John.  Besides, nobody'd believe most of it...

No names , no pack drill...

[The Johnster]

19 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

In an effort to avoid discussion of what I do when not overthinking public transport, might I inquire as to what the Southern Railway would've built as a standardised medium shunter, as opposed to cutting that out of the bill entirely for electrification money

Not completely entirely, there was the S class, a one off rebuild saddle tank which would have presumably been the basis of a Maunsell period standard had there been one, and the Bullied 500hp jackshaft drive diesel, capable of up to 40mph for transfer work.  There was also a 350 diesel of the '08' general type.  The Southern had a good supply of relatively modern 0-6-0T engines bequeathed to it at the grouping, so, as well as concentrating on the third rail, really had no need for a new loco of this sort of size.  It was divided into it's 3 divisions representing the contsituent companies, and standardisation was well entrenched within the division before the grouping.  LSW G1, LBSC E2, and SECR R classes were capable of  the work and had years left in them.