Pilot and banker locos - the difference?

[RailWest]

On 21/02/2013 at 22:41, The Stationmaster said:

In this case I suspect that 'BR' directly copied it from that which had gone before - like the 1933 S&D JtR Appendix in this case which also says the the staff is marked 'Bath Bank Engine' and which is covered under that part of the Appendix dealing with banking engines (which, in the index, comes immediately after 'Bankers' cheques - acceptance of').  So very clearly as far as teh S&DJtR was concerned the term 'banker' was associated with money, not engines

Just come across this. If you are interested to learn more about the bank staff arrangements on the S&DJR, then might I humbly suggest you read here please...:-)

 

http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sdjr/sh-staff.html

[pH]

According to David L. Smith, an assistant engine provided at the front of a train was called a 'couple' on the G&SWR, and the procedure was called 'coupling'.

[Nearholmer]

Train dynamics and speeds.

 

Assisting from the front, using a loco with capability to run at ‘line speed’ allows the train to run at ...... line speed. The forces in the train are more or less in the same directions as they usually are (a tiny bit more surging if things get out of kilter).

 

Shoving from the rear with locos not under MU control from the front causes a very different distribution of forces and has plenty of potential for trouble once speed rises or if things get out of kilter.

 

A purpose-designed ‘banker’ in steam days was a low-speed, high tractive effort brute, which would run hot if it was pushed too fast.

 

With MU control the forces can be far more controlled, in fact very neatly so with modern systems, which is why very heavy-haul railways schlepping very long train distribute locos through the train, evening-out coupler forces and preventing snatch or surge (which can occur when braking even with air brakes, so they often have remote control too).

 

But, assisting locos are removed where not needed, even on heavy haul railways, because they burn fuel.

[The Johnster]

On 22/02/2013 at 15:13, roythebus said:

Hmm, Kings Cross in the mid 70s had a station pilot, usually a class 31; Clapham Yard had a pilot, usually a class 09; I sometimes had to pilot a Strawberry Hill driver to Guildford because he didn't know the road; another time I had to attach a pilot engine (class31) to a failed down train just past Welwyn viaduct because the train engine had failed...the pilotman was used becuse we had engineering work...sometimes a pilot would ride with me from Windsor to Feltham

 

So

pilot 1 = station shunter;

pilot 2 = yard shunter

pilot 3 = conductor driver with relevant route knowledge

pilot 4 = assisiting locomotive on the front of a failed train;

pilot 5 = pilotman

pilot 6 = British Airways employee (plane driver) who lived at Windsor and wanted a cab ride!! I never got a reciprocal ride in the cab of his Concorde!!!

 

Differing terminology depending on region!

 

Pilot 7 =The original meaning, a maritime term for a person whose local knowledge assists a ship into or our of a port.

[roythebus]

Reviving this old topic, a banker was always at the rear of a train and in certain circumstances would bot be coupled to the train, it would just buffer up and push; when it got to the top of the hill it would drop back, give a whistle code to let the driver on the train engine(s) know it was clear and they could carry on. A pilot engine on the front would of necessity be coupled!

 

Whether the brake pipes (if fitted) would be coupled would again be down to local instructions! It could be that an unfitted LMS 0-6-0 could assist a passenger train, in which case the 2nd loco would be the "train engine" as that driver would control the brake. If the leading loco was brake fitted, that would become the "train engine" as the driver had control of the brake.

 

The instances of that happening today I can think of are on heritage railways when an air braked only loco is "on loan". for instance, the Isle of Wight 02 is air-braked only. When it went to Swanage it worked with the DEMU as that was air-braked so no problem. When it worked vacuum braked stock, it was coupled to the front of the train engine and in effect assisted the train engine as that driver would have control of the vacuum brake.

 

Similarly one of the Island Army locos is vacuum fitted and has an air brake pump and air brake valve, but the air brake does not work on the loco. So it can work either, but when it's working on the island, is always a "swinger" inasmuch as the loco brake does not work with the air brake. Complicated huh?

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

My understanding was that a locomotive banking (ie pushing) in rear was not normally coupled unless local instructions required otherwise. A well known example of the latter were the bankers out of Glasgow Queen Street, which departed coupled but slipped the coupling at the top of Cowlairs bank, using a wire rope passed over the top of the boiler, without stopping. Otherwise, coupled banking would have to be restricted to trains which stop at both the bottom and top of the incline.

Pilot engines are, as I understand it, always added to the front of the train and (necessarily) coupled. They are added as and where required, and to me, not to be confused with double-heading, when two locomotives are used over the whole of the train's journey, as once exemplified by the Midland Railway.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

My understanding was that a locomotive banking (ie pushing) in rear was not normally coupled unless local instructions required otherwise. A well known example of the latter were the bankers out of Glasgow Queen Street, which departed coupled but slipped the coupling at the top of Cowlairs bank, using a wire rope passed over the top of the boiler, without stopping. Otherwise, coupled banking would have to be restricted to trains which stop at both the bottom and top of the incline.

Pilot engines are, as I understand it, always added to the front of the train and (necessarily) coupled. They are added as and where required, and to me, not to be confused with double-heading, when two locomotives are used over the whole of the train's journey, as once exemplified by the Midland Railway.

 

Jim

The governing principles for engines assisting rear were normally as follows -

 

Continuous rising gradient - normally no need to couple to a non-passenger train, couple to a train conveying passengers.

Undulating rising gradient - normally assisting rear was not permitted but it could sometimes be allowed where short stretches of level or slightly falling gradient intervened.

Thus usual practice on undulating routes was that an engine assisting a passenger train was at the front end of the train although whether it was the leading or inside engine varied according to all sorts of factors and, of course Company/Regional policy.  But for obvious (I hope) reasons irrespective of which engine was leading the Driver of that engine controlled the brake and the speed of the train.

 

But there were exceptions for various local conditions

[Nick Holliday]

2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

My understanding was that a locomotive banking (ie pushing) in rear was not normally coupled unless local instructions required otherwise. A well known example of the latter were the bankers out of Glasgow Queen Street, which departed coupled but slipped the coupling at the top of Cowlairs bank, using a wire rope passed over the top of the boiler, without stopping. Otherwise, coupled banking would have to be restricted to trains which stop at both the bottom and top of the incline.

Pilot engines are, as I understand it, always added to the front of the train and (necessarily) coupled. They are added as and where required, and to me, not to be confused with double-heading, when two locomotives are used over the whole of the train's journey, as once exemplified by the Midland Railway.

 

Jim

As The Stationmaster has noted, pilot engines were not always added in front of the train engine, although for most people that would seem to be the obvious thing to do. I've found a reference to the North British Railway placing the pilot engine behind the train engine, even though this would make its removal rather time consuming, and I am sure there were other lines with a similar policy. I suspect the intention was that the original driver of the train engine would remain in control of the whole of his train.

Just to add a bit of confusion, in the 1922 LBSCR regulations, in the section on banking, it refers to Pilot engines detaching at Norwood, but the proposed actions seem to only be possible if the loco were at the rear of the train.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

My understanding was that a locomotive banking (ie pushing) in rear was not normally coupled unless local instructions required otherwise. A well known example of the latter were the bankers out of Glasgow Queen Street, which departed coupled but slipped the coupling at the top of Cowlairs bank, using a wire rope passed over the top of the boiler, without stopping. Otherwise, coupled banking would have to be restricted to trains which stop at both the bottom and top of the incline.

Pilot engines are, as I understand it, always added to the front of the train and (necessarily) coupled. They are added as and where required, and to me, not to be confused with double-heading, when two locomotives are used over the whole of the train's journey, as once exemplified by the Midland Railway.

 

Jim

No such things as a 'pilot engine' nowadays.  The use of Pilot engine running ahead of a Royal Train finished many years ago and the only other engine termed a 'Pilot Engine which might get anywhere near a train would be a Pilot(man's) Engine used during Single Line Working - and the last time I came across one of those was in 1969 (I think the fact that it was derailed in alcohol related circumstances might be the reason why the WR went off the idea). The correct term for any engine attached at the leading end of a train for whatever reason, be it in front of or inside the train engine, is an Assistant Engine/Loco (the latter word has varied over the years) and has been for more years than anybody on RMweb would be able to remember.  You can go right back to the c.1912 RCH Rules and the term 'Pilot Engine does not appear in them - even back then the official term is 'Assistant Engine; and that has been the case in all reissues of the Rule Book since then

 

As ever plenty of sloppy use of language about the railway but the term Pilot Engine vanished from the official vocabulary a very long time ago.  Pilot Driver lasted a lot longer but it too has been swept away from official use for almost 70 years.

[pH]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The governing principles for engines assisting rear were normally as follows -

 

Continuous rising gradient - normally no need to couple to a non-passenger train, couple to a train conveying passengers.

...

But there were exceptions for various local conditions.

 

Mike, were those WR instructions or more general? I'm asking because Beattock bankers were definitely not coupled to the train they were assisting, passenger or freight. 

[Nearholmer]

OT, but in light of what you say, what is the proper term for a 'pilot' on the footplate with a driver to conduct/guide him/her over a road with which they are no familiar? I've been party to this, inside a possession oddly, and all concerned called the person concerned 'The Pilot' by nautical analogy.

 

 

[LMS2968]

33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The governing principles for engines assisting rear were normally as follows -

 

Continuous rising gradient - normally no need to couple to a non-passenger train, couple to a train conveying passengers.

Undulating rising gradient - normally assisting rear was not permitted but it could sometimes be allowed where short stretches of level or slightly falling gradient intervened.

Thus usual practice on undulating routes was that an engine assisting a passenger train was at the front end of the train although whether it was the leading or inside engine varied according to all sorts of factors and, of course Company/Regional policy.  But for obvious (I hope) reasons irrespective of which engine was leading the Driver of that engine controlled the brake and the speed of the train.

 

But there were exceptions for various local conditions

As queried by pH. LMS/LMR practice wasn't the same. Shap and Beattock bankers were at the rear and were  not coupled to the train, goods or passenger. The Lickey operations are well know, but not only were multiple bank engines not coupled to either goods or passenger trains, but were not coupled to each other. They moved on to the rear of the train separately and dropped off at Blackwell separately, then buffered up to each other, still not coupled, for the journey back down the bank. Incidentally, all bankers carried a head and tail lamp throughout the operation.

 

Local to me was the Whelley, which was basically an ex-LNWR Wigan avoiding line, with notorious steep and short up and down inclines such that a train could be on three separate inclines simultaneously. All loose coupled trains were assisted in rear, although that's not the correct terminology. The rear engine kept the regulator open throughout, and the train engine mostly or entirely closed, but used the brake to keep the train buffered up.

[pH]

36 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

As ever plenty of sloppy use of language about the railway but the term Pilot Engine vanished from the official vocabulary a very long time ago.  

 

Perhaps from the real railway official vocabulary, but it was still being used in official documents referring to the railway. Here's a line from the 'Report on the Collision that occurred on 18th May 1969 near Beattock in the Scottish Region British Railways':

 

"Arrangements were then made for the 22.15 Euston to Glasgow express passenger train, consisting of 12 coaches including sleeping cars, with the Beattock pilot locomotive coupled to the rear, to be used to assist the Inverness train to Beattock Summit."

 

The 'Beattock pilot locomotive' being an EE Type 1 diesel and, confusingly, being at the rear of the train it was assisting. The report indicates that a banker ('pilot' in the terms of this report) was not normally coupled to the train it was assisting, but was in this case because they were going to the assistance of a train stuck in section.

Edited March 24, 2020 by pH

[pH]

17 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

They moved on to the rear of the train separately and dropped off at Blackwell separately, then buffered up to each other, still not coupled, for the journey back down the bank.

 

Obviously, that arrangement worked, but it certainly does not sound the safest possible! Uphill, OK, since all of them were pushing each other and the train, but downhill ...?

[LMS2968]

I believe the leading engine wound down the handbrake, applying the steam brake as necessary, and others leaned on its buffers. It worked safely enough for many, many years!

[keefer]

And from Glasgow Queen St. passenger trains were often banked up to Cowlairs by the loco that brought the train in - on a given handsignal, the loco buffered up to the train departing (without coupling up) then had to remain in contact with the train up to a certain point, where the loco dropped off and stopped to await clearance of the next signal and the route to Eastfield depot.

This was often done whether or not the train required it, as it saved a separate loco move to the depot.

If the loco did not push the train out, it was only authorised to follow to the platform stop signal and then had to wait for its own path.

Instructions for assisting engines would be in the relevant Sectional Appendix, with any conditions listed (coupled up or not, brakes connected, front/back etc.)

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/deadmans_handle/6638570557/

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by keefer
Add photo

[LMS2968]

24 minutes ago, keefer said:

And from Glasgow Queen St. passenger trains were often banked up to Cowlairs by the loco that brought the train in - on a given handsignal, the loco buffered up to the train departing (without coupling up) then had to remain in contact with the train up to a certain point, where the loco dropped off and stopped to await clearance of the next signal and the route to Eastfield depot.

This was often done whether or not the train required it, as it saved a separate loco move to the depot.

 

And Euston up to Camden, where the incoming train engine dropped off to go on shed.

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

And Euston up to Camden, where the incoming train engine dropped off to go on shed.

Wasn't Turbomotive an exception, because the reverse turbine was considered too feeble to be worthwhile?

[LMS2968]

Yes, when the Turbo was bringing in a train the practice was to send an 8F to remove the stock as the usual station pilots would not lift the empty train up the bank on their own.

[The Johnster]

The ‘Red Dragon’, 10.00 off Cardiff General and a Canton Britannia duty, was followed out of platform 2 by the ‘Marshfield Flyer’, a 64xx auto working that ran between the General and Newport High St.  As the Pacific sometimes struggled to get it’s train under way (up to 16 bogies and a slight rise over the Glamorgan Canal bridge), the 64xx and it’s auto train would usually assist in rear uncoupled as far as the subway steps.  It probably didn’t take much more than two coaches off the Pacific’s load!
 

I suspect that this move was covered under the signalling regulations, the ‘Flyer’ having been signalled in by a ground disc signal, rather than Sectional Appendix instructions. 

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

OT, but in light of what you say, what is the proper term for a 'pilot' on the footplate with a driver to conduct/guide him/her over a road with which they are no familiar? I've been party to this, inside a possession oddly, and all concerned called the person concerned 'The Pilot' by nautical analogy.

 

 

In order to avoid confusion with a Pilotman provided for Single Line Working the term was altered from Pilotman to Conductor [Driver]  with effect from 01 January 1939.

 

Mind you even in the mid 1970s I had a Driver asking me for 'a pilotman' for a minor diversion one night and I was involved in an interesting conversation in a loco cab one evening when I was conducting the Guard and a Driver was conducting the booked Driver of the train we were on.  After a minor disagreement between the Conductor Driver and myself about the line speed the Conductor Driver 'made it very clear' that i was not piloting the Driver and that he was.  No problem -  I simply waited until we got, too slowly, to our destination and then showed all three of the others in the cab the Table A addition which proved I was right.  Which in turn explained why trains had been losing time over the branch ever since it had opened the previous week because a Traction inspector had given all the Drivers on the route learning trips a line speed of 10 mph instead of the correct 20mph.

 

 

18 hours ago, pH said:

Perhaps from the real railway official vocabulary, but it was still being used in official documents referring to the railway. Here's a line from the 'Report on the Collision that occurred on 18th May 1969 near Beattock in the Scottish Region British Railways':

 

"Arrangements were then made for the 22.15 Euston to Glasgow express passenger train, consisting of 12 coaches including sleeping cars, with the Beattock pilot locomotive coupled to the rear, to be used to assist the Inverness train to Beattock Summit."

 

The 'Beattock pilot locomotive' being an EE Type 1 diesel and, confusingly, being at the rear of the train it was assisting. The report indicates that a banker ('pilot' in the terms of this report) was not normally coupled to the train it was assisting, but was in this case because they were going to the assistance of a train stuck in section.

Ah,  but of course the loco used to assist was probably diagrammed (officially) as 'the Beattock pilot' although its main use was as an assistant loco.  Similarly the Up Pilot at Reading was regularly used to assist trains to Paddington - albeit mainly for boiler failures on diesels - so while it happened to be the Reading Up pilot is did the work of an assisting engine/loco.

 

As far as assisting on a rising gradient is concerned note my words about exceptions for local conditions - whether or not an engine assisting rear was attached or not would have been set out in the relevant Appendix Instruction

[Banger Blue]

The GWR Class 57 which hauls the Night Riviera Sleeper ECS between Reading TCD & Paddington is referred to as the “Pilot Loco”

It remains on the rear of the Down Sleeper until Reading where it detaches, and either stables in one of the Platforms or drops back onto the TCD, to await the arrival of the Up Sleeper in the early hours of the morning. It will then attach at the rear and trail down to Paddington, ready to bring the ECS back to Reading TCD.

 

Some of  the  Old Oak Common old hands who are now up at Reading also refer to the resident 08 as the Pilot Loco, so we have always have to check which Loco they actually mean! 

 

Going off at a tangent here but just in case you weren’t aware the GWR Night Riviera operation is currently suspended UFN.