Reversing a steam locomotive

[NorthEndCab]

I was watching Burt Lancaster’s 1964 film “The Train,” the other night, and noticed in this scene where the light loco is being pursued by a spitfire,  that he appears to throw it into reverse once reaching the safety of a tunnel.

 

Now, I’m aware that films take massive liberties with reality and this wouldn’t happen in real life, and even if it did I doubt it would have much more effect than just braking, but I was wondering, is it technically possible to throw a steam loco into reverse whilst travelling at speed without seriously bending something?

 

Many thanks

 
 

 

[The Johnster]

It can be done, but it isn’t good for anyone or anything.  Looks good in the cinema, but it’s usually shown as an attempt to stop the train; it is as useless a method of stopping a train as can be devised and you’ll actually coast to a stop in mid gear in less distance!  This is because, once the reversed gear makes the wheels lose their grip on the rails, there is no friction at all between wheel and rail, and the train will actually increase speed if it is going downhill. 
 

Similarly, if the brakes are applied to the extent that the wheels stop revolving and slide along the rails, the train is harder to stop than with with the brakes released (as is a car in a skid), but will retain enough friction to wear a ‘flat’ in the tyre, which has to be replaced.  
 

The most efficient and effective way of stopping a train other than running it into a solid object is with the brakes.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by The Johnster

[LMS2968]

It was done as an emergency brake on all railways except the LNWR, where 'poling' the engine was standard practice. The LNWR generally had four braking systems: the loco's and tender's steam or vacuum brake; the tender handbrake; the reversing wheel and, in only slightly more desperate cases, opening the regulator with the loco in the opposing gear. This was standard practice.

 

It wouldn't necessarily lock up the wheels, and if it didn't added considerably to the brake force. If it did lock the wheels, it did, as The Johnster says, increase the braking distance as the co-efficient of friction between rails and wheels has been reduced

[luckymucklebackit]

I remember reading an old Locospotters Annual article about the introduction of the Britannias, and how initially there were incidents where the pin holding the tender and loco together failed, and one one occasion the loco separated from the train, with no brakes on the loco, putting it into reverse was the only means of stopping it in a reasonable distance.

 

Jim

[The Johnster]

The loco would have had the steam powered loco brake available and could have been stopped with that, but would have taken a lot longer to pull up then with the train brake. You can put the loco ‘just’ into reverse gear and open the regulator to slow down, but actually reversing the driving wheels will not slow you down at all; you need to keep them rolling in the direction of travel and in contact with the rail head to retard them, whether by friction or steam pressure.  

[LMS2968]

Sorry Johnster, but no. The engine and tender had a steam brake with a connecting hose between them. Once the tender broke away the entire steam pressure for the loco brakes escaped through the ripped hose, and the loco had no braking effort. Apart from rolling resistance, the reverser was the only means of retardation until they came to an upwards incline.

[JimC]

My understandng is it was common practice in the very early days when brakes were at best minimal. AIUI unlike an internal combustion engine there is no direct physical connection between the power source and the wheels, and so if the locomotive is reversed the steam pressure is acting against the pistons in the opposite direction. Its kinda analogous to the use of reverse thrust on an aircraft. 

 

Johnster is of course correct to state that if the wheels locked up or even reversed the braking effect would be very greatly reduced, but in the early days at least there wasn't that much power if rail condition was reasonable.

 

I believe that once there were efficient, especially continuous brakes then reversing the locomotive wasn't normally useful,  so I reckon it would have been an obsolete technique decades before a film set in WW2, but Hollywood...

 

I think I've read accident reports from the transition period where drivers still believed throwing the loco into reverse was the ultimate emergency braking even though it was no longer true.

[eastglosmog]

Harold Gasson in "Firing Days" relates an incident during WW2 when they had to put a Collet goods into reverse when the steam brake pipe blew out coming down from Churn to Upton on the Dicot, Newbury and Southampton.  Does not seem to have been a pleasant experience!  Although not stated, from the description I think they were careful to keep the wheels rotating forwards, even though the locomotive was in reverse - the pistons acting as a pressure brake. 

[Right Away]

As a young nipper, I sometimes accompanied my engine driver father when he collected his wages (in a tin) at the pay office. 
Returning from one such occasion, I remember watching with curiosity, one of the last H2 Atlantics running light, tender first on the approaches to the station at Brighton with its big drivers “going the wrong way.”  Intrigued, I pointed this out, but Dad calmly replied “He’s just trying to stop.”

[LMS2968]

59 minutes ago, JimC said:

I believe that once there were efficient, especially continuous brakes then reversing the locomotive wasn't normally useful,  so I reckon it would have been an obsolete technique decades before a film set in WW2, but Hollywood...

The significant phrase here is continuous (automatic) brakes, but in steam days, especially prior to 1955, the majority of trains were unfitted goods, and if you've got 800 tons pushing you down the grade with only a 20T brake van to assist, you need all the help you can get. It wasn't a metter of simply dropping into full back gear, and an object lesson in how not to do it is in the crash scene at the end of Jack Warner's 'Train of Events'.

 

Alan Wilkinson in 'Stanier 8Fs at work' provides two example 41.110 and 41.107,s, both with engines on WD service in the Middle East. Two 8Fs met in a head on collision, and the photo and caption reveal that ". . . 41.107's driver has managed to get her into reverse."

 

In 'Great Preserved Locomotives No.1' the same author relates: "'Leaving Koupang on the outward journey, the train went out of control almost immediately at the top of the 1 in 67 grade. Speed built up to about 50mph, with the brakes having little effect. Putting the engine two notches into back gear without steam prevented any further increase in speed, but it was a terrifying experience on the Persian track. Fortunately, the two miles of level track north of Anjivaland allowed the train to pull up at the extreme south end of the loop without hitting anything. No41.103's wheel tyres were smoking hot, the paint on the cylinder lagging was blistered, and the brazing on one of the steam chest lubricator pipes had given way with the heat! There were however, no flats on the tyres, and after two hours to cool off, the return trip was suc­cessfully made without further trouble. A blockage was found in the pipe leading to the tender steam brake cylinder, causing a 40% loss of brake power, but clearly the Persian gradients were not to be trifled with."

 

Another story, although I can't remember where, was from a young fireman paired with a new driver on a 4F. The train took them down the Lickey, and having stopped and pinned down, drawn on to the incline, he screwed down the tender brake. Had they got it right, the train woul rumbled down at an even, constant speed, but sometimes the driver might have to apply the steam brake now and then if it started to gather pace. He saw the drive do this a few times, then leave the brake full in, sit down on his seat (a piece of wood above the reverser!), pull out his newspaper and begin to read. Nervously, the young man asked, "Are we running away?"

"Yes," replied the driver, "and I'm not going to 'pole' her."

And while the reverser was not resorted to in this case, it does show that such use was not uncommon.

[Marshall5]

Conversely on a traction engine using the reverser to slow or stop is standard practice and, being geared down, this is much more effective than on a loco.  My engine was a compound with good rings and bores so holding the lever between 3rd notch and middle was enough to stop quickly.  On the other hand I've seen drivers on worn singles go into full backgear with steam on to stop.  Makes for a 'brown trouser' moment when some prat cuts in front of you at the lights!

Cheers,

Ray.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Marshall5
Clarification

[DCB]

Reversing as it applying reverse steam  does not necessarily mean the wheels revolve backwards.  A lot of early locos pre 1880 sort of era did not have brakes, apart from the tender handbrake so reversing the loco was quite a normal way of slowing down . The big advantage of reversing a loco to slow down is that the wheels will usually keep revolving either forwards or backwards and not skid a locked  skidding wheel produces flats on the tyres, which cause very poor riding and need the tyres re profiled.   It does not  do the big ends or crank axles much good.   Adhesion is best when wheels are slipping slightly, 

Revolving somewhere around 90% of the rail speed a wheel exerts its maximum retardation, as the speed decreases further the grip decreases rapidly so wheels don't usually lock when steam is reversed but start revolving in reverse.   Obviously when using rim  brakes hard speed drops rapidly from 80% or so to zero and flats result. That is difficult when loco and tender brakes are controlled from the same valve... 

I understand locos with Vacuum brakes rather than independent steam brakes were often stopped by applying reverse steam  to close up the buffers on the coaches to make restarting or uncoupling easier, the alternative being to back up slightly on starting before winding the reverser into forward gear to start away.    

Edited October 1, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[LMS2968]

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I understand locos with Vacuum brakes rather than independent steam brakes were often stopped by applying reverse steam  to close up the buffers on the coaches to make restarting or uncoupling easier, the alternative being to back up slightly on starting before winding the reverser into forward gear to start away.

A technique described by 'Torem Beg' (Norman McKilllop of Haymarket), especially in restarting on the tight curve at York station.

[Marshall5]

Back in the 80's I had the privilege of crewing Lion when she was on one of her tours.  The owner's representative (from Merseysde Museum) preferred stopping the loco by reversing with steam on, a method with which I disagreed preferring to use the perfectly adequate hand brake on the tender.  Lion had 'Gab' valvegear with open jaws on the rods which had to be disengaged and re-engaged to effect a change in direction and you had to time it 'just right' if you were moving.  I also didn't like the strain that reversing with steam on put on the rather flimsy wooden frames.  Lion was probably the nicest loco I've ever driven once you got used to having no injector, damper or blower.  It is hard to believe now, 40 years later, that Lion went from Southport to Rocket 150 and elsewhere under her own steam with her two coaches via the up slow of the WCML!

Cheers,

Ray.     p.s. just to catch out the unwary the reversing lever was back for forwards and v.v.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Marshall5

[DCB]

I didn't realise you could reverse a loco with Gab Motion on the move.  Lion was 1837(?) ish.   "Modern" Valve gear came in around 1855, Howe known as Stephenson, patented in 1853, Walschaerts in 1854, Allan in 1855.  Curiously the best was patented first.. [I'm a GWR fan]   I guess  the early drivers really earned their money trying to reverse gab motion at night in a howling gale and torrential rain.   I wonder how many if any early locos were changed from Gab motion to something more modern .

[Phil Bullock]

On 29/09/2020 at 09:03, LMS2968 said:

 

Another story, although I can't remember where, was from a young fireman paired with a new driver on a 4F. The train took them down the Lickey, and having stopped and pinned down, drawn on to the incline, he screwed down the tender brake. Had they got it right, the train woul rumbled down at an even, constant speed, but sometimes the driver might have to apply the steam brake now and then if it started to gather pace. He saw the drive do this a few times, then leave the brake full in, sit down on his seat (a piece of wood above the reverser!), pull out his newspaper and begin to read. Nervously, the young man asked, "Are we running away?"

"Yes," replied the driver, "and I'm not going to 'pole' her."

And while the reverser was not resorted to in this case, it does show that such use was not uncommon.

Nice anecdote. It’s why the facing point at the bottom of the bank ... Bromsgrove platform or through road... was reputedly the best maintained on BR. The prospect of a derailment in the station doesn’t bear thinking about!

 

There was also the legendary 34043 Coombe Martin which according to Peter Smith would tear off forwards with its train with the valve gear indicator showing 10 degrees of back gear.....

 

Phil

[LMS2968]

3 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I didn't realise you could reverse a loco with Gab Motion on the move.  Lion was 1837(?) ish.   "Modern" Valve gear came in around 1855, Howe known as Stephenson, patented in 1853, Walschaerts in 1854, Allan in 1855.  Curiously the best was patented first.. [I'm a GWR fan]   I guess  the early drivers really earned their money trying to reverse gab motion at night in a howling gale and torrential rain.   I wonder how many if any early locos were changed from Gab motion to something more modern .

It could be done, but at low speed only, a point not always appreciated even by the technical press at the time. Following William Huskisson's death at the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, the Mechanics Magazine, I think it was, criticised Joseph Locke, Rocket's driver, for failing to reverse the engine's machinery to bring it to an instantaneous stop.

[didcot]

As already mentioned it's pretty much standard practice on traction engines and steam rollers to pull the reverser towards mid gear in order to retard speed going down hill. Usually the taps are open as well, so the pneumatic pressure in the cylinder helps slow things down. Rocking the reverser to help slosh water over the crown on really steep inclines is again pretty standard. However caution is advised on steel wheeled vehicles like rollers as they can break traction, pickup their skirts and slide. At which point full forward gear is used to get the wheels moving and restore traction, if you are lucky. White lines are a rollers nemesis. If you go over the top of a hill all guns blazing no amount of reverse is going to help once momentum is gained. Some engines have flywheel brakes, but that can lead to other problems! Sure and steady every time. 

[57xx]

On 29/09/2020 at 07:44, JimC said:

but Hollywood...

 

Don't know about the loco reversing, but looks like the Spitfire had typical unlimited Hollywood ammo. They didn't need to stop the loco, the Spit had fired it's 12 seconds worth of ammo before they got into the tunnel. (assuming from the two flashing lights on it's wings it was firing 20mm cannons)

[eastglosmog]

11 hours ago, didcot said:

As already mentioned it's pretty much standard practice on traction engines and steam rollers to pull the reverser towards mid gear in order to retard speed going down hill. Usually the taps are open as well, so the pneumatic pressure in the cylinder helps slow things down. Rocking the reverser to help slosh water over the crown on really steep inclines is again pretty standard. However caution is advised on steel wheeled vehicles like rollers as they can break traction, pickup their skirts and slide. At which point full forward gear is used to get the wheels moving and restore traction, if you are lucky. White lines are a rollers nemesis. If you go over the top of a hill all guns blazing no amount of reverse is going to help once momentum is gained. Some engines have flywheel brakes, but that can lead to other problems! Sure and steady every time. 

There was a case of a steam roller picking up its wheels coming down the hill into Ford on the Toddington to Stow on the Wold road a few years ago.  Demolished a wall and a car when it came to the bend at the bottom and broke its front yoke.  A rather expensive accident. 

[Giles]

For those old enough, Casey Jones used to brake on the reverse if I recall correctly.

I don't think I ever did it as a driver on preserved steam, but I certainly did it a lot on the larger 10 1/4" locos going down long gradients. I tended to do it with slide valve engines rather than piston valve, just in case! But certainly very effective and controllable, and no indication of doing anything unpleasant mechanically.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

I had a wrong side brake failure when driving 34067 some years back on the ELR which resulted in the total loss of the continuous vacuum brake. I simply put the locomotive into full back gear and pumped the regulator with the locomotives independent steam brake just latched on to control any slip should it occur along with actuating the sanding valve.

 

Quite exciting for all the wrong reasons.

 

The cause of the failure was that end of the spindle of the vacuum valve that rests on the cam that lifts it had snapped off and not only jammed the brake handle it prevented the valve from being lifting to admit air to destroy the vacuum.

 

Gibbo.

[The Johnster]

You could have also whistled for the guard to apply his setter in the van, but that would depend on his being in the van at the time and his responding to such an unusual and unexpected request!  Even if he is performing his duties away from the van, he can pull a communication cord which will leak air into the vacuum system and bring the train to a drag stop, especially if he does it in more than one coach, but it'll take a few hundred yards even from 25mph.

 

Not a nice experience though, and one I never experienced or heard of happening in a decade of railway work in the 70s.  People were always banging on about couplings breaking as well, which they never did.  I did encounter a couple of wrong side signal failures, though.  And something approaching a wrong side brake failure of the train air brake.  The job was a special Barry Docks-Didcot MGR train of Polish coal loaded direct into the hoppers by crane grab from the ship, which was a messy procedure and there was probably as much coal (if you could call that stuff coal) on the quayside and in the dock as there was on the train.  With a Cadoxton travelling shunter and 47, we picked the train up directly from the quayside and while he coupled on, I went back to attach the lamp and do the brake continuity test.  I heard the brakes blowing off as I walked back, and opened the red cock on the rear of the last hopper to do the continuity.  Nothing happened.  I closed and opened the cock again, and nothing still happened.  

 

I then did something very foolish and thoughtless.  I removed the hose from it's bracket and looked at the end of it to see, as I'd half suspected, the end blocked with coal dust.  Like a complete idiot, I then swung the hose hard against the buffer beam.  Something happened then all right, there was. a loud bang and 4 quadrant plugs each about 6" long of solidified damp Polish coal shot past my head close enough for me to feel the wind to part my hair at 90psi and disappeared into orbit in close formation; for all I know they are still going.  I was very lucky they didn't hit me full in the face, which would have been much less funny!  The brake hose did a snake dance while I backed out of the way, and I did the continuity.  While I was doing that the hose had calmed down enough for me to make a grab for the cock and shut it, and hang the hose on the bracket.

 

Back on the loco, they didn't believe me.

Edited October 8, 2020 by The Johnster

[rodent279]

On 29/09/2020 at 01:00, The Johnster said:

The loco would have had the steam powered loco brake available and could have been stopped with that, but would have taken a lot longer to pull up then with the train brake. You can put the loco ‘just’ into reverse gear and open the regulator to slow down, but actually reversing the driving wheels will not slow you down at all; you need to keep them rolling in the direction of travel and in contact with the rail head to retard them, whether by friction or steam pressure.  

So, if I understand correctly, by putting the loco just into reverse, but keeping the regulator shut, the braking effort is being done by the pistons compressing air in the cylinders?

[LMS2968]

Yes, they are acting as air pumps and try to pressurise the boiler, which the closed regulator prevents. That's why, in my post od 29 September, there is a mention of the cylinders of the run-away engine in the Middle East becoming so hot.