Movement of dead steam locomotives

[Tony Cane]

I am investigating the movement of dead locomotives, particularly during WWII, when over 1000 locomotives were towed to Southampton or Dover and loaded on to train ferries.

Research so far has revealed the following. A pre-war picture and documentation confirms the use of barrier or spacer wagons between each locomotive. In both cases 2 wagons were used but a picture of a BR diesel pulling at least three Bulleid Pacifics   has 4 wagons between. Further confusion is caused by the movement of locomotives to scrap yards where they are all coupled together.

From this it would seem that the barrier wagons are providing some kind of protection.

The other issue is the removal of the coupling rods. As far as I can tell this because of cylinder lubrication. If mechanical lubricators are used then the rods can stay on, but if lubrication requires the assistance of steam then they must be removed. With the connecting rods in place the loco is put in full forward gear and the drain cocks opened.

Has anyone got access to the regulations for this type movement?

I look forward to further enlightenment on this subject.

[LMS2968]

The barrier wagon(s) was to spread the weight so it wasn't concentrated, when crossing bridges, etc.

 

There is a difference between coupling and connecting rods. The former couple the wheels so they rotate in phase together; the connecting rods transmit the piston forces to the wheels to cause them to turn. Mechanical lubricators would feed the coupled axleboxes and the oil supply was 'solid', i.e. there was no steam atomisation and so there was no difference whether the engine was in steam or not. The mechanical oil feed to the steam chests of superheated engines was generally atomised so steam was needed, and if being moved dead over a long distance removal of the connecting rods was almost universal. The coupling rods might be also removed (i) to reduce rolling resistance; (ii) without the connecting rod (or its big end brass) there was only the stiffness of the coupling rod joints to keep them in line on the driving crank pin. Note that removing the rods would upset the balance of the coupled wheels and would (or should) impose a speed limit.

[Wickham Green]

The need barrier wagons would depend on the route and any weight-restricted bridges that are to be crossed.

[TravisM]

I remember reading years ago that the GWR moved a batch of S160’s under the direction of the USATC, still with all their rods connected. It was said that you could hear them gasping and wheezing as the pistons moved in the cylinders probably doing untold amount of damage lol.

[The Johnster]

I recall a Hymek towing 3 Bulleid Light Pacifics at Marshfield, between Newport and Cardiff and obviously heading for Barry, in 1967, with a brake van but no barrier wagons.  The motion was disconnected and in the tenders.  The working was probably from Gloucester, where withdrawn locos from the Southern were stored pending disposal.

 

IIRC dead locos have to have the motion disconnected from the pistons because the lubrication of the cylinders is dependent on the loco being in steam.  The loco could be marshalled in a class 7, 8, or 9 train, either behind the loco or directly behind the fitted head.  These included non BR locos being transferred between locations or brought to Canton for the wheel lathe.  

Edited November 12, 2019 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

14 minutes ago, jools1959 said:

I remember reading years ago that the GWR moved a batch of S160’s under the direction of the USATC, still with all their rods connected. It was said that you could hear them gasping and wheezing as the pistons moved in the cylinders probably doing untold amount of damage lol.

The gasping and wheezing would come from the open drain cocks as the pistons blew or sucked air in and out of them.  If the move was for a short distance and at low speed (Cardiff Docks to Ebbw Jc for storage, about 7 miles), not much damage would be done, and presumably (though it it's a heck of a presumption) the USATC knew what they were doing and what their engines could withstand.  'Merkan locos are different to ours and this may be one of the differences!

[phil_sutters]

Somewhere on RMWeb there was quite a long thread on the movement of condemned locos, with a number of photos.

[DavidB-AU]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

IIRC dead locos have to have the motion disconnected from the pistons because the lubrication of the cylinders is dependent on the loco being in steam.

 

That would be the case for hydrostatic lubricators. There were plenty with mechanical lubricators.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

[Phil Bullock]

With many locos actuation of mechanical lubricators - which presumably would also feed the axle boxes and hence desirable to have functional in a dead engine move to reduce risk of a hot box - was via the valve gear. I had often wondered in the past why - when as discussed above - when connecting rods were removed so there was no movement of pistons fitters had then gone to the trouble of reinstating the return crank on locos with Walschaerts valve gear - after all they would have had to remove it to get the connecting rod off. I guess maintaining drive for mechanical lubrication is the answer....

[LMS2968]

29 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

With many locos actuation of mechanical lubricators - which presumably would also feed the axle boxes and hence desirable to have functional in a dead engine move to reduce risk of a hot box - was via the valve gear. I had often wondered in the past why - when as discussed above - when connecting rods were removed so there was no movement of pistons fitters had then gone to the trouble of reinstating the return crank on locos with Walschaerts valve gear - after all they would have had to remove it to get the connecting rod off. I guess maintaining drive for mechanical lubrication is the answer....

It is. I recall when we going to Barry to rescue 2968 the right hand return crank was in place but the left hand one missing. I searched the entire site for it but it was never found. I now know that it wasn't on the engine when it left Wigan; the right hand one had been refitted to operate the mechanical lubricators, but the fitters hadn't bothered with the other side as it was redundant - no lubricator on that side.

[Tony Cane]

Thanks to all those who added to this topic

[6990WitherslackHall]

I found this photo on Pinterest (not mine) of a Class 37 hauling what looks like four Ex-LMS Stanier 8Fs. There also appears to be a brake van at the rear of the train.

 

[pH]

I’ve been trying to find a picture I know I have in books/magazines somewhere of some of the V2s that were scrapped at Swindon being hauled down the GCR mainline. IIRC there were 4 or 5 of them, with single wagons between each pair of engines and a brake van. I’ll keep looking.

[Gwiwer]

36 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

There also appears to be a brake van at the rear of the train.

I would hope so.  Four 8Fs are quite a weight and if not "fully-fitted" are also one large lump of un-braked metal.  A van at the rear adds brake force if nothing else; it can also help on gradients when deft application of the guard's brake would prevent the dead-in-tow locos buffering up against the leading loco and pushing it downhill.  

[Wickham Green too]

5 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

... Four 8Fs are quite a weight and if not "fully-fitted" are also one large lump of un-braked metal.  ...

Indeed - there's no way the steam brake would be operable .................. some other railway's locos would have had vacuum brake on loco and tender which might have been usable unless fittings had been robbed for use elsewhere. 

[LMS2968]

11 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

I would hope so.  Four 8Fs are quite a weight and if not "fully-fitted" are also one large lump of un-braked metal.  A van at the rear adds brake force if nothing else; it can also help on gradients when deft application of the guard's brake would prevent the dead-in-tow locos buffering up against the leading loco and pushing it downhill.  

You'd be looking at about 400 tons, well within the constraints of a normal goods train. A brake wasn't necessary and Dallam Dave on Flickr has many photos of dead engines heading south. In one, there are three Black Fives with 8F 8006 bringing up the rear - no brake van.

 

And the vacuum system would not be operable on an engine out of steam, except possibly as blow through..

[Gwiwer]

8 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

about 400 tons, well within the constraints of a normal goods train

Brake force of a class 37 was around 50 tons. I'm not sure how you convert brake force into maximum unbraked dead load on the hook.  

[pH]

I’ve found the picture of the dead V2s on the GCR that I referred to above. It’s of 60941 (which was also scrapped on arrival at Swindon) hauling 60831, 60935 and one other through Ruddington in September 1964. There’s an empty wooden open wagon between each pair of engines and there is a brake van. (Steam Days, May 1999, p277)

[Phil Bullock]

In Life on the Lickey there’s an account of a dead engine working that ran away… 75002/6/13 were being towed from Stoke to Birds Long Marston by a Class 40. The Lickey Incline caused problems for the braking ability of the 40! 

 

 We subsequently saw them together with 9F 92138 hauled by D1725 through Worcester… suspect the 9F was in a seperate working which picked up the Standard 4s from Bromsgrove after the 40 retired hurt. Shame…. It was very poignant seeing the steamers on their last journey, copping a 40 would have helped with that.

[LMS2968]

19 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

In Life on the Lickey there’s an account of a dead engine working that ran away… 75002/6/13 were being towed from Stoke to Birds Long Marston by a Class 40. The Lickey Incline caused problems for the braking ability of the 40! 

No surprise there, then! The Class 40's braking ability was very poor: its 130 tons produced only 50 tons of brake force. As a guard in the early- to mid-1970s, I often had one at the front on a loose-coupled train; if memory serves the highest loading I had personally was a hardly exceptional 850 tons behind the 40. That brake van worked hard for its living as we came down the grade from Wigan through Prescot to Huyton and on to Edge Hill!

[Phil Bullock]

8 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

No surprise there, then! The Class 40's braking ability was very poor: its 130 tons produced only 50 tons of brake force. As a guard in the early- to mid-1970s, I often had one at the front on a loose-coupled train; if memory serves the highest loading I had personally was a hardly exceptional 850 tons behind the 40. That brake van worked hard for its living as we came down the grade from Wigan through Prescot to Huyton and on to Edge Hill!

Thanks for that! Hand brakes not up to

much either IIRC …. D326s run away from Monument Lane for example.

[LMS2968]

Yes, when you tied a 40 down in the yard it was compulsory to scotch the wheels front and back. All that was then needed was for the driver to remember to remove the scotches before moving off!

[Mark Saunders]

The load for unfitted trains is purely dependent on brake force available from the locomotive, hence fully fitted loads are dependent on haulage capacity with the speed dependent on brake force on the train (certain wagons having max speed’s dependent on suspension/wheelbase).

 

Yesterday is a different world!

[adb968008]

On 03/04/2023 at 16:05, 6990WitherslackHall said:

I found this photo on Pinterest (not mine) of a Class 37 hauling what looks like four Ex-LMS Stanier 8Fs. There also appears to be a brake van at the rear of the train.

 

Class 37’s and scrap trains seems to be a constant through out their career.

D6739 above today is 37603, now with HNRC, but was also Steel sector 37504.