Jump to content

Alex TM

Freight on London Underground - late 1960s?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I understood that the 08's were not allowed on lines with third/fourth rails. The Southerns own version of the 08 had larger wheels, this was to avoid the connecting rods coming into contact with the third rail.

I've never heard of that. As far as I can tell, the 08s, 09s (SR variant) and the original SR diesel shunters all had wheels of 4' 6" diameter. There were a number of ex-SR steam locos that operated in the electrified area that had smaller wheels, namely the Terriers and the Ps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
21 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I've never heard of that. As far as I can tell, the 08s, 09s (SR variant) and the original SR diesel shunters all had wheels of 4' 6" diameter. There were a number of ex-SR steam locos that operated in the electrified area that had smaller wheels, namely the Terriers and the Ps.

I think it may be due to the connecting rods being further outboard due to the outside frames and problems only occurred on the sharper curves. The original Bulleid designed 0-6-0 diesel shunters did have slightly larger wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I think it may be due to the connecting rods being further outboard due to the outside frames and problems only occurred on the sharper curves. The original Bulleid designed 0-6-0 diesel shunters did have slightly larger wheels.

I don't follow that. The Maunsell (15201 - 15203), Bulleid (11001, Class 12), Class 08 and Class 09 shunters all had 4'6" diameter wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'Day Folks.

 

I hadn't heard of that, Southern wheels etc, on the Northern Heights/Barnet line, it's five minute schedule, and 08's couldn't move along with the flow, so Class 15, were used instead, I've heard about class 20's were also used, but I've never seen a picture of one.

Below is a picture of a Class 15's in use on the Northern Line.

 

manna

800px-East_Finchley_Station,_with_Diesel_on_local_goods_geograph-2398832-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Class 15s were used because they were fitted with LT train stop arms, the various diesel shunters weren't and that is why they were prohibited.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this, quite by accident, which seems to answer almost any question posed by the OP originally, and further questions posed (but in most cases answered already by others). It should  be useful as a summary of all Freight on LT, and perhaps some of you may contest some of it. (Apologies if someone else has already posted this, but I did not see it!)

 

I for one, vividly remember the sound of diesels late at night/early morning, when I was a kid living near the Northern at East Finchley, in the early 60's, but this site too says that all such trains ran during the daylight hours, as others have already stated. I am sure that must be true for the Mill Hill/Edgware trains, as there is photo evidence to prove it, but I cannot see any way that the coal yards at Totteridge and at High Barnet could have been shunted in between daytime tube services. The fact that, despite much searching, I have never found a single photo of such trains between Finchley Central and High Barnet, adds weight to my belief.  But, I guess, I shall never know for sure.

 

http://www.lurs.org.uk/02 jan 17 FREIGHT ON THE UNDERGROUND.pdf

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That  was very interesting to read .  All we need now is more photos.  I feel sure lots more pictures were taken of goods trains on the underground  but they have yet to surface they may be in private collections and the owners  just forget they have them. 

Also it was not just the use of Distant signal discs that made the signalling interesting. But in some places the operation of points and signals in conjunction with goods trains could be complex. For most locations a ground frame would  be Ok but with more complex track layouts sometimes more was needed.  On the central a brand new signal box was built for the task at South Woodford and they extended the one at Leyton each had Two lever frames a full sized one for points and shunt signals used by BR goods trains and a miniature Westinghouse frame for colour light signals and power operated points used by the underground. I am not sure if Two signalmen were needed ? On the ground as far as goods trains were concerned point locks were  required not just on facing points but trailing as well and maybe in the goods yard if the points were worked from the box  and far greater use was made of trap points as well one for each siding. Mixing the two signalling systems was not always easy.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bécasse said:

  Class 15s were used because they were fitted with LT train stop arms

Trip cocks are fitted to trains, train stops are fixed to track.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2019 at 09:18, PhilJ W said:

I understood that the 08's were not allowed on lines with third/fourth rails. The Southerns own version of the 08 had larger wheels, this was to avoid the connecting rods coming into contact with the third rail.

No, the concern was on the original English Electric shunters as pioneered by the LMSR, LNER and GWR that had 4' wheels, and spawned the class 11 (12033-12138). (I'd love an RTR model of them, by the way!). But BR increased the wheel to 4'6" for the 08 so as to alleviate the concerns over 3rd rail and connecting rods that the SR had.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with 4' wheels, there is 10" clearance between the bottom of a crank and a positive rail, so this can't be the reason.

 

Possibly a frame clearance to the positive rail is a more likely cause of potential concern.

 

The electrical clearance for a positive rail was usually 3".

 

 

Edited by Miss Prism
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

No, the concern was on the original English Electric shunters as pioneered by the LMSR, LNER and GWR that had 4' wheels, and spawned the class 11 (12033-12138). (I'd love an RTR model of them, by the way!). But BR increased the wheel to 4'6" for the 08 so as to alleviate the concerns over 3rd rail and connecting rods that the SR had.

The Southern's own shunters also had 4' 6" wheels not 4' 0", as I wrote earlier.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Even with 4' wheels, there is 10" clearance between the bottom of a crank and a positive rail, so this can't be the reason.

 

Possibly a frame clearance to the positive rail is a more likely cause of potential concern.

 

The electrical clearance for a positive rail was usually 3".

Quote from The Diesel Shunter (Marsden) P 28.  re 15201-3 Ashford built shunters:- '..........followed the previous LMS designs except that it was slightly heavier (4 tons) and had larger diameter driving wheels - 4ft 6'' compared to 4ft 0.5'' of the LMS design. These larger diameter wheels were stipulated as the locomotives were destined to operate over the third rail and the extra diameter gave the necessary clearance.' It also goes on about the need for a higher speed (30 MPH) to do trip work amongst passenger trains, which tallies with the reason given earlier for 20 MPH 08s not being suitable for trip working over LT.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

Quote from The Diesel Shunter (Marsden) P 28.  re 15201-3 Ashford built shunters:- '..........followed the previous LMS designs except that it was slightly heavier (4 tons) and had larger diameter driving wheels - 4ft 6'' compared to 4ft 0.5'' of the LMS design. These larger diameter wheels were stipulated as the locomotives were destined to operate over the third rail and the extra diameter gave the necessary clearance.' It also goes on about the need for a higher speed (30 MPH) to do trip work amongst passenger trains, which tallies with the reason given earlier for 20 MPH 08s not being suitable for trip working over LT.

Not sure I'd completely trust something technical written by Colin Marsden. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As London Transport had three 0-6-0 Sentinel’s which worked over its 4th rail in depots, I don’t it was the cranks or frame having contact with the electrified rails, more 08’s weren’t fitted with tripcock’s and possibly register on track circuits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jools1959 said:

As London Transport had three 0-6-0 Sentinel’s which worked over its 4th rail in depots, I don’t it was the cranks or frame having contact with the electrified rails, more 08’s weren’t fitted with tripcock’s and possibly register on track circuits.

London Transports Sentinels ran with special match wagons as their wheelbase was too short to operate track signal circuits. Is this another reason for 08's not venturing onto LT tracks?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 5944 said:

Not sure I'd completely trust something technical written by Colin Marsden.  

Why is that?  It sounds like a rather a bigoted remark unless you can explain your reservations and offer an alternative explanation as to why the SR alone chose a bigger diameter wheel for their EE shunters. Lets debate stuff properly with some references we can all look up and comment on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jools1959 said:

As London Transport had three 0-6-0 Sentinel’s which worked over its 4th rail in depots, I don’t it was the cranks or frame having contact with the electrified rails, more 08’s weren’t fitted with tripcock’s and possibly register on track circuits. 

Track circuits were never an issue for the 11ft 6" wheelbase 08/9s anywhere on BR as far as I can ascertain and one regularly stabled at Farringdon for banking duties on the CWL. However class 03 204hp shunters with their shorter wheelbase of 9ft did sometimes require match wagons, when working as pilots at Hull Paragon station for example. I would imagine the Sentinel's wheelbase was somewhat similar which is why they needed them too, and perhaps someone else will know what that was. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

Why is that?  It sounds like a rather a bigoted remark unless you can explain your reservations and offer an alternative explanation as to why the SR alone chose a bigger diameter wheel for their EE shunters. Lets debate stuff properly with some references we can all look up and comment on.

Not bigoted at all. You only have to look through some of his work to realise it's riddled with inaccuracies. Such as stating the D600 Warships would've become Class 41 under TOPS. How could they, when they were withdrawn before TOPS was implemented? Or that the early AC electric locos had two pantographs, one for 25kV, the other for 6.25kV. Again, wrong, they were both connected to the same transformer. There are others if you wish to look. He takes some nice photos, but any text has to be taken with a pinch of salt. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 5944 said:

Not bigoted at all. You only have to look through some of his work to realise it's riddled with inaccuracies. Such as stating the D600 Warships would've become Class 41 under TOPS. How could they, when they were withdrawn before TOPS was implemented? Or that the early AC electric locos had two pantographs, one for 25kV, the other for 6.25kV. Again, wrong, they were both connected to the same transformer. There are others if you wish to look. He takes some nice photos, but any text has to be taken with a pinch of salt. 

 

Those aren't obviously wrong to me.

 

The class numbers which were later used as part of TOPS numbers were invented a few years before TOPS came in, and there were many classes with a "TOPS number" that never lasted that long.  (Though in this case they presumably would have kept their existing numbers after TOPS anyway as with the class 35 and 52s).)

 

As for the electric locos, I would have thought that dual voltage (whether with the same pantograph or not) would work by using different tappings on the same transformer.

 

However I am a bit wary of the captions because of the repeated confusion between the South and West Yorkshire PTE logos. A small thing perhaps, but it makes me less confident that the things I don't know about are right.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another quote, this time from  J Graeme Bruce (hope he passes muster), in 'Workhorses of the London Undergound' p.38. 'In October 1954 a BR diesel-electric shunter, No.13018, was borrowed and trials conducted at Lillie Bridge and Neasden. However this trial was received with little enthusiasm by either the local management or the operators and the problem of the replacement of steam locomotives was again shelved by the acquisition of Western Region steam engines'. (Note that no actual problems are recorded with the 08.)

 

Further down the page we read of the arrival in 1971 of Sentinel shunters DL81-3 and the following paragraph commences:- 'It became apparent that the short wheelbase of 9ft 8" of the 0-6-0 wheel arrangement was insufficient for the proper clearance of the signalling system, so that the vehicles were forbidden to move onto the track circuited areas beyond the depot precincts.' (Note that the track circuit problem has come as a surprise so it could not have been present with the 08.)

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Broadway Clive said:

Another quote, this time from  J Graeme Bruce (hope he passes muster), in 'Workhorses of the London Undergound' p.38. 'In October 1954 a BR diesel-electric shunter, No.13018, was borrowed and trials conducted at Lillie Bridge and Neasden. However this trial was received with little enthusiasm by either the local management or the operators and the problem of the replacement of steam locomotives was again shelved by the acquisition of Western Region steam engines'. (Note that no actual problems are recorded with the 08.)

 

Further down the page we read of the arrival in 1971 of Sentinel shunters DL81-3 and the following paragraph commences:- 'It became apparent that the short wheelbase of 9ft 8" of the 0-6-0 wheel arrangement was insufficient for the proper clearance of the signalling system, so that the vehicles were forbidden to move onto the track circuited areas beyond the depot precincts.' (Note that the track circuit problem has come as a surprise so it could not have been present with the 08.)

 

Interesting, thanks, but on the 08's, at a wheelbase of 10ft 6" (so only 10" longer than the Sentinel) do we know whether the 08 left the depot precincts at Lillie Bridge or Neasden, in order to test track circuits? I am not aware of track circuit issues with 08/09 classes on BR (but stand to be corrected) but certainly of much longer wheelbase units. I was led to believe that the issue for lack of detection was one of axleweight more than wheelbase?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Interesting, thanks, but on the 08's, at a wheelbase of 10ft 6" (so only 10" longer than the Sentinel) do we know whether the 08 left the depot precincts at Lillie Bridge or Neasden, in order to test track circuits? I am not aware of track circuit issues with 08/09 classes on BR (but stand to be corrected) but certainly of much longer wheelbase units. I was led to believe that the issue for lack of detection was one of axleweight more than wheelbase? 

 

 

The 08/9 wheelbase is actually 11ft 6", so 1ft 10" longer than the Sentinel. I'm not aware of lack of weight being a factor in detection. In fact the 16 ton axle load of the Sentinel was considered too heavy by the Civil Engineer for their short wheelbase and their movements were restricted so as to protect bridges. My understanding of the detection issue is that it relates to reversing movements over crossovers and the need for track circuits to be crossed so as to release points and clear signals. To deal with such very short vehicles the signalling system at certain locations would needed changing, possibly to the detriment of normal operations. 

Edited by Broadway Clive
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Broadway Clive said:

The 08/9 wheelbase is actually 11ft 6", so 1ft 10" longer than the Sentinel. I'm not aware of lack of weight being a factor in detection. In fact the 16 ton axle load of the Sentinel was considered too heavy by the Civil Engineer for their short wheelbase and their movements were restricted so as to protect bridges. My understanding of the detection issue is that it relates to reversing movements over crossovers and the need for track circuits to be crossed so as to release points and clear signals. To deal with such very short vehicles the signalling system at certain locations would needed changing, possibly to the detriment of normal operations. 

 

Ok thanks (silly mistake by me with the 08). That makes sense. I guess I was thinking of the problems encountered some years ago with detection for the single axled rail buses, of considerably longer wheelbase, and a problem still being experienced in some European countries, even with some new, but lightweight stock.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'Day Folks

 

One small point on the Widened Lines, no problem in using a class 08, as there is 'No' third rail.

 

manna

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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.