Jump to content

The last push pull service on BR


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

You sure it wasn't the cabbed half of a class 13 ? ............................... never heard of ANY other shunter with MU controls !

The 03s on the line from had MU fittings on the cabs, allowing them to work in pairs. I believe Bradford Hammerton Street, had some similarily fitted

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Which must come as quite a shock when they go to get the Royal Scot and find that not only is the train now a set of coaches with no visible smoking beast but also the Doric Arch has gone.

 

Or their trip from Farringdon to Kings Cross to pick up the Flying Scotsman is purely undergroud now.

 

But at least they still have the completely original Flying Scotsman to see on the mainline although sometimes they see an A1 that has a number that isn't in their Ian Allan 1959

 

Knowing about something is different than recognising it. People can have very blinkered views.

 

China for example doesn't recognise Taiwan even though it exists.

 

 

How many numpties on here refer to steam as kettles and then post derogatory remarks....

 

It works both ways.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

The 03s on the line from had MU fittings on the cabs, allowing them to work in pairs. I believe Bradford Hammerton Street, had some similarily fitted

 

There were a few o3s and 04s on the NE region with MU gear but it was for two to be coupled cab to cab.

It was a sort of pneumatic system with several small pipes between the locos

But there were certainly no 09s with MU gear , they had mechanical throttle linkages 

As stated above 13s had remote control over the slave using an air throttle,  not sure if the master also had an air throttle. 

I heard it said that there was an 08 at tinsley which had equipment to stand in as a 13 master but never seen any evidence of this.

To work a 4TC set I believe you need ETH which certainly wasn't fitted to any 350

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, russ p said:

I heard it said that there was an 08 at tinsley which had equipment to stand in as a 13 master but never seen any evidence of this.

 

According to the excellent book 'Tinsley and the Modernisation of Sheffield's Railways' (Chris Booth and Alex Fisher, Platform 5 2019), Class 08 3707 was equipped for hump shunting as per the Class 13s, but AFAIK to stand in for a Class 13 on its own, rather than replace part of one !

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
20 minutes ago, russ p said:

I heard it said that there was an 08 at tinsley which had equipment to stand in as a 13 master but never seen any evidence of this.

 

No other shunters were fitted with the equipment which was in the cab of the hump shunters. The nearest thing would be the portable radio equipment code named Delta which was used when the yard was short on hump locos and a "normal" shunter was used, although one night I did see a Brush 4 propel its own train over the hump, although the loco didn't continue over.

 

Mike.

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

As regards the traditional steam hauled push pull service the Horwich branch closed in Sept.1965 but I believe was outlived by the Seaton (Rutland) to Stamford sevice which lasted to 6 June 1966. IIRC 1466's runs on the Wallingford branch were featured on a cover of Railway World c.1970.  I found this article which details some of the last steam push pull operations https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-railway-magazine/20200803/281547998224445

Ray.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, russ p said:

There were a few o3s and 04s on the NE region with MU gear but it was for two to be coupled cab to cab.

It was a sort of pneumatic system with several small pipes between the locos

The Burry Port & Gwendraeth Valley class 03s were fitted for MU working, I imagine using the same system. Here is a picture:

https://www.philt.org.uk/BR/Shunter/i-sTJsVfP/

29 minutes ago, russ p said:

To work a 4TC set I believe you need ETH which certainly wasn't fitted to any 350

Apparently the ETH supply is for provding auxiliary power. I expect that for as short a run as the Kenny Belle, the 4-TCs batteries would suffice. However I don't recall ever reading of class 09s having MU capabilities, nor do I recall seeing any with jumper cables or sockets. If the need arose, I expect an 09 could be converted to MU control, but I really cannot see the need arising. Who would plan to use an 09 on a push-pull working?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 09 had mechanical linkages from the controls to the traction as suggested, then making it capable of multiple working would have involved major modifications to connect these to some sort of actuator instead.  What did the 13s do?  The GWR used mechanical linkages between vehicles in their push-pull system, which worked tolerably well, so I guess the 13s could have had that too - but obviously not a SR EMU.  

 

Possibly the Kenny Belle with the 09 was being worked as push-pulls sometimes were if the locomotive wasn't fitted with the relevant equipment or it wasn't working.  There would be a driver (or even a fireman) controlling the power in the 09 and another at the front controlling the brake and signaling via the horn when power was needed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marshall5 said:

As regards the traditional steam hauled push pull service the Horwich branch closed in Sept.1965 but I believe was outlived by the Seaton (Rutland) to Stamford sevice which lasted to 6 June 1966. IIRC 1466's runs on the Wallingford branch were featured on a cover of Railway World c.1970.  I found this article which details some of the last steam push pull operations https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-railway-magazine/20200803/281547998224445

Ray.

 

An interesting article detailing some of the specific locos used on individual push-pull services. However Seaton-Stamford appears to have been dieselised before closure, and there are photos of M50358/M56113 running this service - BR Database has the three 84xxx (84005/6/8) as withdrawn on 30/10/65, whilst Railcar.co.uk has the 2 car GRCW unit allocated at Leicester Midland from 3/7/65 to 10/9/66. For DMU fans this was an interesting unit as the power car is shown in Ian Allan Combined Volumes as having CAV Ltd automatic gear change equipment - for those spotters in the West Midlands, it was annoyingly the only one of the LMR's M50348-58/56103-13 which didn't work from Ryecroft/ Monument Lane between the late 1950s and mid 1966.  Presumably it was at Leicester for that specific service. The whole LM batch moved to Chester and subsequently Longsight after that. 

Edited by MidlandRed
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bécasse said:

Oh yes it could, even if the Southern kept very quiet about it. As I said, 09s occasionally worked the Kenny Belle push-pull and the one I saw on a Hampton Court-Waterloo service was propelling the 4-EPB that provided the passenger accommodation. An 09 couldn't provide power for lighting (or heating) but neither could a 73 in diesel mode.

 

I assume this is a joke?  The only locomotives which could push a TC were 33/1, 73 and 74.  The 09s had waist level brake pipes for ease of moving epb stock around in depots etc but did not have the 27 way EPB control jumper cable.  The only way an 09 could push a TC is if it had a driver on board ie a propelling move.

 

13 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

Apparently the ETH supply is for provding auxiliary power. I expect that for as short a run as the Kenny Belle, the 4-TCs batteries would suffice. However I don't recall ever reading of class 09s having MU capabilities, nor do I recall seeing any with jumper cables or sockets. If the need arose, I expect an 09 could be converted to MU control, but I really cannot see the need arising. Who would plan to use an 09 on a push-pull working?

 

09s did not have MU capability.

 

The eth supply to a TC powers the compressor, MG set and provides heating (obviously).  With no supply the batteries power, for a limited period,  the control circuits, emergency lighting (which is very dim) and headcode blind lighting.  The longest runs I am aware of where the TC batteries were relied on were the diversions between Eastleigh and Southampton via Romsey during various works in Southampton Tunnel.  Unlike the more common Laverstock diversions these workings had a REP in the formation and so the eth jumpers were not connected to the 33/1 meaning no TC eth supply off the juice.

Edited by DY444
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2020 at 21:27, Edwin_m said:

If the 09 had mechanical linkages from the controls to the traction as suggested, then making it capable of multiple working would have involved major modifications to connect these to some sort of actuator instead.  What did the 13s do?  The GWR used mechanical linkages between vehicles in their push-pull system, which worked tolerably well, so I guess the 13s could have had that too - but obviously not a SR EMU.  

 

Possibly the Kenny Belle with the 09 was being worked as push-pulls sometimes were if the locomotive wasn't fitted with the relevant equipment or it wasn't working.  There would be a driver (or even a fireman) controlling the power in the 09 and another at the front controlling the brake and signaling via the horn when power was needed.  

As others have said, the 09s were equipped purely with high level air pipes to enable them to shunt EMU stock. No ETH was required pull or propel a 4TC. If an 09 was used on the Kenny Belle as Becasse says, then it would have been pulling, unlikely to be pushing. That would require a driver or passed man on the loco and a driver or passed man on the 4TC plus the guard. there would be no light or heat on the 4TC and with the 09 limited to 20 mph that was well within the timings in those days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would both the loco and the TC need a driver if the loco was pulling?

 

I thought it would only be necessary to have a driver on both if the loco was “assisting from the rear”.

 

Or, is that what you are saying?

 

K

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Why would both the loco and the TC need a driver if the loco was pulling?

 

I thought it would only be necessary to have a driver on both if the loco was “assisting from the rear”.

 

Or, is that what you are saying?

 

K

 

 

yes, driver at each end with loco pushing. But then you'd need a secondman on the Kenny Belle to uncouple and couple up for the run-round. Not the guard's job on the SW except in emergency. :)

 

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

I saw the Belle on many occasions when I worked in the area though I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a 33/1 on the end. Observations not comprehensive of course.

 

Sometimes it was a 3TC...

Edited by wagonman
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/08/2020 at 23:50, woodenhead said:

if two class 27s top and tailing is push pull then every HST service is the same as well.

 

 

HST was a unit train formation. The power cars were different from locomotives in that they carried the train Guard (initially, anyway) and also payload in the form of parcels, mails and luggage. On the Edinburgh - Glasgow push-pulls, the Class 27s and later 47s provided traction power to move the train but nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also saw the 6TC and 33/1 on the Kenny Belle before the end of steam. It had to run round as the p/p gear didn't work so the driver told me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EddieK said:

 

HST was a unit train formation. The power cars were different from locomotives in that they carried the train Guard (initially, anyway) and also payload in the form of parcels, mails and luggage. On the Edinburgh - Glasgow push-pulls, the Class 27s and later 47s provided traction power to move the train but nothing more.

'Plan A' was for the HSDT to comprise two locomotives which could operate sleeper trains, parcels trains and even freight trains as well as expresses - and the prototype 'Power Cars' were built as such ................... so, incidentally, were the class 91s !

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

'Plan A' was for the HSDT to comprise two locomotives which could operate sleeper trains, parcels trains and even freight trains as well as expresses - and the prototype 'Power Cars' were built as such ................... so, incidentally, were the class 91s !

Sort of, HSDT was configured with coaches which were loco hauled types with buffers and 850V supply fed MA sets and the power cars were set up like locos with standard ETH supply, buffers both ends. I suppose they could have been used back-to-back on other traffic but any thoughts of using them like that were abandoned before the prototype was actually built., although a small second driving desk at the van end was capable of being used for shunting with the ability to apply two of the five power notches. As the 1970's rumbled on BR "got over" mixed traffic jack of all trades, master of none and realised there were to be considerable cost savings and reliability gains by making HST a stand-alone train capable of highly intensive utilisation as an express passenger trains, and at the same time developed the first type 5 bespoke freight locos. The idea to use the Class 91's on "other trains" between daytime use on Mk4's had two fatal flaws- the incredible daily mileage they would encounter meaning they needed maintenance at night, and the fact that you might well end up with a Mk4 set or five sat on a depot all dressed up with nowhere to go if their "power cars" had failed to make it back off the other duty in time!

Edited by fiftyfour fiftyfour
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The multi-use of the 91s was covered in the 'Running to Time' documentary. The software would configure the traction package differently for,say, an ECML express (for maximum acceleration and top speed) and a long-distance Sleeper (heavier train with a lower top speed).

That could kind-of work, but i think use on freight would be a step too far.

As mentioned above, the real obstacle to this would have been the lack of adequate downtime for the necessary maintenance needed for high-mileage, high-speed intensive-use diagrams (especially with a limited fleet)

Edited by keefer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned it before on this forum but I've seen HST powercars hauling barrier coaches once with a couple of trailers the other time not but both hauling a number of speedlink vans .

All the vehicles had been on the lathe at Thornaby and were heading to heaton.  Both times I saw this were at night but I've been told that it was a fairly regular occurrence. 

I really wish I'd taken photographs 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

S The idea to use the Class 91's on "other trains" between daytime use on Mk4's had two fatal flaws- the incredible daily mileage they would encounter meaning they needed maintenance at night, and the fact that you might well end up with a Mk4 set or five sat on a depot all dressed up with nowhere to go if their "power cars" had failed to make it back off the other duty in time!

 

Three flaws actually.

By the time they came out, the overnight trains they were supposed to work had either;

Permanently disappeared in the case of the Sleepers - At the time of their transfer from the ECML to the WCML it was meant to be be a temporary measure to allow for the overnight electification possessions, but they never returned.

Or;

With the Postal / parcels trains, they now 'belonged' to someone else post-sectorisation, so Intercity locos couldn't work them.

 

They wouldn't have worked freight anyway, as Keefer suggests. With 6,000+ hp and 80t adhesion, they'll slip if a cloud comes over!!

In wet conditions they have enough trouble with a 400t Mk4 set behind, put one on a freight and you'd just have a very efficient rail-grinder

Edited by Ken.W
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it was classed as BR or LT at the time, but I miss the steam Epping-Ongar push-pull. I just got to see it once, but had no time to travel on it then.

 

Andy

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.