Jump to content
 

Prototype for everything corner.


Recommended Posts

re remarks about 'double headed kings'

about 3 posts up

quote

Two pairs of GWR Kings running side by side to test bridge deflections on the newly 4 tracked line south of Birmingham.

 

(A King was not allowed to pilot a King in normal traffic)

 

I have a memory that the summer Saturdays CRE was usually a double headed king from newton Abbott to Plymouth.

A king worked a Paignton (?)train - and came off at NA and was attached to the main CRE train over the banks.

 

1956 I thought

 

am I wrong?

perhaps a difference between GWR and BR days?

 

mike j

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, brushman47544 said:


Wasn’t the ban from around 1979? I remember watching Peaks leaving and arriving in Carlisle via the G&SW as late as 1977-78. They worked into Glasgow Central for years, e.g. on the Thames-Clyde Express so I wonder what changed infrastructure-wise to cause the derailments and the resultant ban.

 

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

The ban was quite late in the lives of the affected classes so wasn't really a major issue. I can only assume an actual derailment had occurred !

Certainly nothing in the 1969 or 1977 ScR Sectional Appendices

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, mikejames said:

re remarks about 'double headed kings'

about 3 posts up

quote

Two pairs of GWR Kings running side by side to test bridge deflections on the newly 4 tracked line south of Birmingham.

 

(A King was not allowed to pilot a King in normal traffic)

 

I have a memory that the summer Saturdays CRE was usually a double headed king from newton Abbott to Plymouth.

A king worked a Paignton (?)train - and came off at NA and was attached to the main CRE train over the banks.

 

1956 I thought

 

am I wrong?

perhaps a difference between GWR and BR days?

 

mike j

 

 

 

I quoted from the GWR appendix 1936 edition, which of course when the locos were being tested it was still GWR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

My only recollection of restrictions into Central is from diesel days, when Classes 40, 44/5/6 were banned due to the risk of derailment with their long bogies.

 

The ban was quite late in the lives of the affected classes so wasn't really a major issue. 

 

 

2 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Wasn’t the ban from around 1979? I remember watching Peaks leaving and arriving in Carlisle via the G&SW as late as 1977-78. They worked into Glasgow Central for years, e.g. on the Thames-Clyde Express.

 

1 hour ago, keefer said:

Certainly nothing in the 1969 or 1977 ScR Sectional Appendices

 

I only found out about that ban very recently - perhaps in a topic on here. The EE Type 4s (class 40s) started to replace the LMS Pacifics and other big steam on trains to/from Central in the early 1960s. Peaks also appeared daily in Central once St Enoch's closed (and occasionally before that). I travelled on the Thames-Clyde quite regularly in 1973-8 and it was Peak-hauled throughout that time. So hearing about these classes being banned from Central was a surprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, keefer said:

Were there any major track renewals at Central in the late '70s? Must've been a tight radius or reverse-curve somewhere on the tracks feeding into the low-numbered platforms.

 

https://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/80s/841228re.htm

 

This tour I was on - some Class 40 thrash at the end of their lives - wasnt allowed to take the 16 wheelers in to Central in 1984.

Edited by Phil Bullock
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, pH said:

 

Caradoc, is my memory correct that Duchesses could not be piloted over the bridge into Glasgow Central? (Despite the photo that I linked to above!) I seem to remember that any engine piloting a Duchess on a down train was removed alongside Polmadie shed.

This - and the two Kings  - might have been a matter of overhang on curvature and the risk of buffer locking ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing electrics off route on non-electrified lines is no new occurrence, but fairly uncommon now except for ECML diversions...or taking locos to the Toton paint facility:
11696B07-F258-4805-B138-DCF57A383C4F.jpeg.d2625c0cd3c4de2f65b1d06283406d4f.jpeg

 

And quite recently a few class 60s have done test runs around Toton in shabby liveries, but this 90 looks like it’s been filled and not primed; perfect excuse to run an unfinished model that's used filler!

E6BE1DAF-8AD2-49EE-A3CE-73A077B1BB45.jpeg.72088e7377bfdf853d185da2ffe6d919.jpeg

 

Jack.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, pH said:

 

Caradoc, is my memory correct that Duchesses could not be piloted over the bridge into Glasgow Central? (Despite the photo that I linked to above!) I seem to remember that any engine piloting a Duchess on a down train was removed alongside Polmadie shed.

 

I am sure I read somewhere that this applied to the old four track bridge which towards the end of it's life became a bit dodgy.  SInce the main WCML platforms, P! and P2 were only accessable from this bridge before it was dismantled it would make sense.

 

But why on earth would a Duchess require a Pilot?:D

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

In Scotland any move with more than two locos coupled together has to be specially authorised. For short notice moves Control issue a notice which is passed to the relevant TOC/FOC and on to the Driver, and also to the controlling Signallers. This is because there are speed restrictions over various structures, even on main lines such as the WCML, and some routes where more than two locos are banned altogether; An example being Holytown Central Jc to Wishaw Jc (due to the Calder Viaduct), requiring a train booked via that route with 3 locos or more to divert via Motherwell (of course, occasionally things have gone wrong and a 3 loco move has gone that way, requiring a structural examination of the viaduct afterwards !).

 

However, AFAIK, Scotland is the only route that issues such notices, presumably elsewhere the onus is on the Driver to be aware of any restrictions in the Sectional Appendix which apply to their train ? The Signallers would surely still have to be advised as well, for routing and regulating reasons ?

 

 


I suppose the driver is effectively getting an RT3973HAW form, (heavy axle weight) and I would have thought the train should run as an x-ray (I.E 0X01) so it will alert the signaller that it’s restricted so have to be pathed accordingly

Creeped rs c

There are of course trains that run with restrictions that run as normal classifications, a couple I can think of off hand Are the bridge into the now demolished ironbridge power station was 5mph and trains Could to me not be double headed over it

 

Whalley bridge has is a bridge that cannot have a loco hauled train pass another train of any sort on it due to weight restrictions, you normally have to sit at Furness vale when on an IM service for the Buxton train to arrive into the platform before the signaller will pull off for you 

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

IIRC When Train Planning arranged a light multi-loco move, as sometimes happens for major engineering work, they gave it an 0Xxx headcode and issued an RT3973 Form; When we in Control arranged such moves, usually more than two locos on a booked freight, we issued the wire to the FOC and relevant signalboxes, and advised the Signallers verbally too, but we did not alter the headcode.

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

Quote

but this 90 looks like it’s been filled and not primed; perfect excuse to run an unfinished model that's used filler!

 

Loving the white-walled tyres on that 90!  An excuse to run a non-powered old bodyshell on a layout, with 90's Hornby wagon-wheels ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 13/01/2020 at 10:15, bimble said:

Was looking through my photos for something else when I spotted this... three different fonts and four different sizes... doesn't mean you can't number your shed! (Tilehurst 2014)

 

14014099271_7b7f115c9f_c.jpg

 

 

Did you use a stepladder to get that view or are you very tall?  The new bridge has some fairly high sides.

 

On 14/01/2020 at 08:21, Phil Bullock said:

 

Surely train sequence numbering only has a hope of working on local confined routes - not a hope on a cross country route such as Bristol to Derby where many traffic flows would converge and diverge.

 

although it could be argued that 9fs were not foreign as Eastleigh had an allocation to work the Fawley - Bomford Bridge oil trains via the DN&S. Those trains went over to BRCW type 3s in 1963 however.  92116 was never an Eastleigh loco however - IIRC they were ex WR locos with BR1G tenders, inset coal bunker. According to https://railuk.info/steam/getscrap.php?id=54 no 9fs were scrapped at Eastliegh but whatever is going on the loco crew seem to be enjoying themselves!

There were usually sets of agreed number sequences for inter-Regional movements in order to avoid any chance of confusion.  But it could still happen with freights if a train was delayed and yesterday's train arrived over the boundary at about the time at which today's train should arrive.  And  yes that did actually happen between the WR and the LMR on one well know (internally) occasion with the almost unfortunate consequence of the wrong petroleum product being unloaded because yesterday's oil train from West Wales was destined elsewhere from today's and was carrying avtur instead of motor spirit.   It was a common feature for trains carrying teh same number to go to differeent destinations on differeent days of the week - one reason why trains now have individual numbers (and therefore use far more alpha codes than was originally the case).

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

7 hours ago, luckymucklebackit said:

 

I am sure I read somewhere that this applied to the old four track bridge which towards the end of it's life became a bit dodgy.  SInce the main WCML platforms, P! and P2 were only accessable from this bridge before it was dismantled it would make sense.

 

But why on earth would a Duchess require a Pilot?:D

 

Jim

Hi Jim,

 

If overloaded, more than 18, they would have a 2P put on the front for what they were worth, also Big Lizzies occasionally ran out of coal in the Preston and Wigan stretch of line when on the Crewe - Perth double home jobs and would have pilots attached to complete the journey.

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 hours ago, mikejames said:

re remarks about 'double headed kings'

about 3 posts up

quote

Two pairs of GWR Kings running side by side to test bridge deflections on the newly 4 tracked line south of Birmingham.

 

(A King was not allowed to pilot a King in normal traffic)

 

I have a memory that the summer Saturdays CRE was usually a double headed king from newton Abbott to Plymouth.

A king worked a Paignton (?)train - and came off at NA and was attached to the main CRE train over the banks.

 

1956 I thought

 

am I wrong?

perhaps a difference between GWR and BR days?

 

mike j

 

 

 

All depends how far back your memory is going to decide if you are right or wrong ;)   The General Appendix was amended from October 1948 to allow two 'King' Class engines to work coupled over routes where the class was normally authorised except any goods loops where the Class was limited to a speed of 5 mph.  I suspect there might also have been a limited relaxation from  some point in 1941 (possibly only in the West of England?) but can't establish any detail in that respect.

 

As always official publications such as the General Appendix reflect the situation at the date at which they were prepared and sent to print and can have (and at times really have) had amendments issued immediately on publication to take account of changes made since the contents were agreed for print.  In reality in unamended form they only provide a potentially relatively short period 'snap shot' - and the amendments are usually the hardest documents to find.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, luckymucklebackit said:

But why on earth would a Duchess require a Pilot?:D

 

I don't know, but it did happen. (Gibbo675 has given some possible reasons.) Derek Cross photographed 46230 piloted by 45082 on a Glasgow-Birmingham at Lamington - you can count 14 carriages before the tail of the train is hidden by the side of a cutting. And what about this:

 

http://www.6g.nwrail.org.uk/70046jp0001.jpg

 

(I've posted that in another topic before, but I think it's relevant here.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 hours ago, caradoc said:

The ban was quite late in the lives of the affected classes so wasn't really a major issue. I can only assume an actual derailment had occurred !

 

I seem to remember two derailments within a matter of weeks at Bridge St Junction, possibly around 1978/9. Both low speed, and no injuries. Cause put down to the worn state of the track.

 

My one and only trip up the GSW started from Carlisle behind a Peak, and  a loco change at Barrhead, finished behind a 37.

 

Regards

 

Ian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Did you use a stepladder to get that view or are you very tall?  The new bridge has some fairly high sides.

 

 

It was 2014 and I had gone along to see Nunny Castle going through so I don't recall. I might have used the screen on the back of the camera. Though the ticketing agent did say that the new bridge was too low for the then future electrification as it had been a bit of a rush job, so I don't know if there were remidial works on the bridge since?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john new said:

The obvious, and so far not mentioned, is working a spare loco back to a home depot in Scotland or similar.

 

Piloting of a Duchess, while not unknown, was a very uncommon occurence. With Duchesses working several trains a day into Glasgow, if they were being used to return Scottish engines to home depots, I would have expected pilots to have turned up on those trains more often. I think a Duchess got a pilot if the Duchess needed it (see Gibbo675's suggestions), rather than a pilot being added for the 'convenience' of the pilot.

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

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As always official publications such as the General Appendix reflect the situation at the date at which they were prepared and sent to print and can have (and at times really have) had amendments issued immediately on publication to take account of changes made since the contents were agreed for print.  In reality in unamended form they only provide a potentially relatively short period 'snap shot' - and the amendments are usually the hardest documents to find.

My modelling is based on a part of the LMR c1956-61. I had a copy of the 'Crewe and South Thereof' Sectional Appendix from 1960 covering the end of that period. The previous full issue for the LMS Western Division which I managed to pick up from ebay was 1937 IIRC. By a stroke of luck when looking for something totally different a copy of Supplement No.6 which dated from 1956 came up recently. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, big jim said:

There are of course trains that run with restrictions that run as normal classifications, a couple I can think of off hand are the bridge into the now demolished ironbridge power station was 5mph and trains could not be double headed over it

Except for pairs of Class 20s. I did the signalling alterations in the power station to cater for extra space needed to run round and unload.

  • Like 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...