Pole Shunting

[cctransuk]

 

Browsing through the RCTS archive, I can across this image of J71 68255, fitted with a shunting pole.

 

I don't recall previously coming across a photo of a loco with what appears to be officially approved equipment - though I am aware that such practices were sometimes used on an ad hoc basis.

 

Comments would be welcome.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Boris]

They weren't  entirely unknown on some NER engines, I seem to recell the official term was propping, although I may be wrong.

[jim.snowdon]

It was common enough in the US at one time for locomotives and stock to be provided with sockets for the pole, but I rather suspect that in the UK it was effectively prohibited except where specifically authorised.

 

 That loco was probably reserved for a specific duty.

 

Jim 

[rockershovel]

Didn’t one of the Welsh narrow gauge lines practice “chain shunting” ?

 

- found it, there are references to chain shunts in “Railway Adventure” (running round coaches at Towyn) and in “Little Wonder” (moving coaches on the FR)

Edited December 28, 2019 by rockershovel

[62613]

18 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Browsing through the RCTS archive, I can across this image of J71 68255, fitted with a shunting pole.

 

I don't recall previously coming across a photo of a loco with what appears to be officially approved equipment - though I am aware that such practices were sometimes used on an ad hoc basis.

 

Comments would be welcome.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Going off on a slight tangent, that photo emphasises the point about obtaining a photo of the loco you want to model; Without really trying, I can spot two, maybe three, differences between two locos which are the same class, aside fro the shunting pole.

 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It was common enough in the US at one time for locomotives and stock to be provided with sockets for the pole, but I rather suspect that in the UK it was effectively prohibited except where specifically authorised.

 

 That loco was probably reserved for a specific duty.

 

Jim 

Spot on Jim..  Shunting using a prop or pole, or a chain attached to a loco or vehicle on an adjacent line or to a road vehicle, was prohibited except where specially authorised -  Rule 110(c) in both the 1950 Rule Book and the 1930s RCH Standard Rules.

[spikey]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 ... except where specially authorised -  Rule 110(c) in both the 1950 Rule Book and the 1930s RCH Standard Rules.

 

Sorry, but I have to ask - in what sort of circumstances might that special authorisation have come into force?  And am I right in assuming that pole-shunting involved shoving a wagon on an adjacent track via the pole?

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, spikey said:

 

Sorry, but I have to ask - in what sort of circumstances might that special authorisation have come into force?  And am I right in assuming that pole-shunting involved shoving a wagon on an adjacent track via the pole?

In many places it would have been downright difficult to get an engine onto wagons to move them or to get them into the right place when it was moving  them because over the years track layouts had been crammed into all sorts of odd spaces.  But if the engine could move along an adjacent siding then it could either use a pole/prop to propel wagons on an adjacent road or it could use a chain to haul them.  Most likely this sort of thing would occur at places where there were no capstan - either because one couldn't be suitably sited or because no source of power was available for it or - most likely - prop and/or chain shunting was already established so why spend money if that worked? 

 

So hardly likely in most goods yards unless there was a particularly awkwardly sited siding and the use of engine power was needed rather than relying on pinch bars or using a horse.

Edited December 28, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[spikey]

Thank you, sir.  I've seen pinch bars used, and a chain (on Grimsby docks), and even on one memorable occasion the coal merchant's old 'orse shifting a wagon, but never a pole.

[The Johnster]

Pole shunting, like fly shunting, is not a hazardous operation so long as the poles, or the flies, are tied together for safety...

[Chris Turnbull]

There is a wonderful anecdote in Gerard Fiennes book "Fiennes on Rails" which relates the amusing tale of fly shunting gone wrong.  I have taken the liberty to photocopy the relevant section entitled "Tow Rope" which I think you will find most entertaining.

 

Tow rope.pdf

 

They may not have had a copy of the Supplement to the Appendix to the WTTs in the box at Padnal but I happen to have one and here is the relevant page.

 

Supplement to the Appendix 1937 Duck Drove.pdf

 

Chris Turnbull

 

[Covkid]

20 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It was common enough in the US at one time for locomotives and stock to be provided with sockets for the pole, but I rather suspect that in the UK it was effectively prohibited except where specifically authorised.

 

 That loco was probably reserved for a specific duty.

 

Jim 

 

Indeed Jim. It took a little while to realise what the dimples were for in loco headstocks !!. 

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, 62613 said:

Going off on a slight tangent, that photo emphasises the point about obtaining a photo of the loco you want to model; Without really trying, I can spot two, maybe three, differences between two locos which are the same class, aside fro the shunting pole.

 

Safety Valves

Sandbox/splasher

Sandpipe

Deeper platework

Loco steps

Number of handrail knobs

Something (?) at top front of tank.

Cab roof?

Dome looks like it's further forward on the front loco.

 

Any more?

Edited December 28, 2019 by melmerby

[62613]

27 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Safety Valves

Sandbox/splasher

Sandpipe

Deeper platework

Loco steps

Number of handrail knobs

Something (?) at top front of tank.

Cab roof?

Dome looks like it's further forward on the front loco.

 

Any more?

Agree with all of them. You missed the sight-feed lubricator on the side of the smokebox of the rear engine. i think the different steps is to do with the shunting pole. Also I think that's the fire irons on top of the tank of the leading engine.

 

[Dave John]

Are they both the same class ? 

 

683?? could be J71, J88, J73, J66 or J77. 

 

Could the rear one be a J77 ? . Deep valence, separate square sandbox, rounded roof and the lubricator on the smokebox suggest it might be ? 

 

Just a thought, and something to liven up tea time. 

[pH]

6 hours ago, spikey said:

And am I right in assuming that pole-shunting involved shoving a wagon on an adjacent track via the pole?

 

Here's a video of a caboose being poled by a loco on an adjacent track:

 

 

North American diesels were available with poling pockets on the frame until 1966 at least.

[Paul Cram]

17 hours ago, Dave John said:

Are they both the same class ? 

 

683?? could be J71, J88, J73, J66 or J77. 

 

Could the rear one be a J77 ? . Deep valence, separate square sandbox, rounded roof and the lubricator on the smokebox suggest it might be ? 

 

Just a thought, and something to liven up tea time. 

Rear one looks like a J77 BTP rebuild.

[jcm@gwr]

1 minute ago, Paul Cram said:

Rear one looks like a J77 BTP rebuild.

 

Did they add blue lights and a siren as well?

[cctransuk]

18 hours ago, melmerby said:

Safety Valves

Sandbox/splasher

Sandpipe

Deeper platework

Loco steps

Number of handrail knobs

Something (?) at top front of tank.

Cab roof?

Dome looks like it's further forward on the front loco.

 

Any more?

 

Can I detect lining around the tank of 68255?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Compound2632]

22 hours ago, Dave John said:

Are they both the same class ? 

 

 

Given the LNER experts commenting there, how come it takes a Caley man to spot that?

 

Looking through Locomotives of the LNER Part 8B (RCTS, 1983), I think you're right, @Dave John, that it's a J77, in the range 68390 - 68399. J71s and J73s had Worsdell-style combined splashers and sandboxes, J88s had outside cylinders, J66s no splashers at all. Only the J77s retained the Fletcher-style separate sandbox and spring above footplate level.

[Ken.W]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Given the LNER experts commenting there, how come it takes a Caley man to spot that?

 

Looking through Locomotives of the LNER Part 8B (RCTS, 1983), I think you're right, @Dave John, that it's a J77, in the range 68390 - 68399. J71s and J73s had Worsdell-style combined splashers and sandboxes, J88s had outside cylinders, J66s no splashers at all. Only the J77s retained the Fletcher-style separate sandbox and spring above footplate level.

 

Also smaller diameter wheels (note splasher size) and larger diameter boiler

And with the Fletcher style cab, definately J77

The only NER 0-6-0Ts to make it to BR were were J71, J72, j73, and J77. First three were all Worsdell types.

Early J77 rebuilds retained the Fletcher cab, last batch received the Worsdell type cab.

One I made earlier, as the saying goes...

On the subject of differences within the same class though, note the safety valve housing and cab spectacles.

 

 

16 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

Did they add blue lights and a siren as well?

 

Rebuild of Class BTP - Bogie Tank Passenger (LNER G6), a Fletcher 0-4-4WTof 1874 largely made surplus by the later Class O (G5).

Edited December 30, 2019 by Ken.W

[Ken.W]

Just straying briefly back on topic;

The RCTS "green book" 8B illustrates another J71 and a "44*", both at Shildon, and a J72 at near-by West Auckland with these shunting poles.

Interestingly though, the 44 and J71 show the opposite side, so maybe they were on both sides?

The text states they were customary for shunting engines at Shildon for moving vehicles on adjacent lines when working the wagon works there, and the locos transfered to West Auckland on closure of Shildon shed in 1935.

They were condemned due to injuries when the poles splintered, and noted as removed from 1939 and the last mentioned still fitted was 68255 in May '49. Again a West Auckland engine at that time, until withdrawl Aug.'52.

 

* 44, a class that didn't survive long enough to receive an LNER class

Edited December 30, 2019 by Ken.W