Prototype for everything corner.

[JZ]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

It's a CSX loco, so USA.

Shouldn't it be an Alligator?😄

It is, but not my video and to many, anything scaly is a crocodile. FWIW, I believe it's in Florida.

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, JZ said:

It is, but not my video and to many, anything scaly is a crocodile. FWIW, I believe it's in Florida.

There are crocs in Southern Florida but far more gators.

[Southernman46]

19 minutes ago, melmerby said:

There are crocs in Southern Florida but far more gators.

Having witnessed one float under the villa jetty I was sat on (on the Great Banana River in 2016) - they are MUCH MUCH bigger than the Gators - sat very very still until it was way way away .................................................... 😲

[Wickham Green too]

About the right colour for a Great Western Crocodile anyway !

[Metr0Land]

1 minute ago, Wickham Green too said:

About the right colour for a Great Western Crocodile anyway !

 

....and an RhB one

[pendlerail]

Ran out of blank card for signs? 

[melmerby]

In the USA trains with locomotive(s) on the front, locomotive(s) in the middle and locomotive(s) at the end are normal practice these days.

However this practice was not unknown in the steam era in the UK:

 

One on the front

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch863.htm

 

One in the middle:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch862.htm

 

There's also one on the rear pushing (banking)!

 

 

 

[Ian Morgan]

16 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch862.htm

 

 

 

 

 

I like the stack of motor car chassis roped to an open wagon. Seems odd to transport so few at a time. You would imagine much larger numbers would be required to keep up with manufacture, or are they not car chassis?

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

35 minutes ago, melmerby said:

In the USA trains with locomotive(s) on the front, locomotive(s) in the middle and locomotive(s) at the end are normal practice these days.

However this practice was not unknown in the steam era in the UK:

 

One on the front

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch863.htm

 

One in the middle:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch862.htm

 

There's also one on the rear pushing (banking)!

 

 

 

 

i doubt that picture shows one train. More likely two trains stopped on a goods loop or goods line waiting for another train to pass on the through line.

[Wickham Green too]

7 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

i doubt that picture shows one train. More likely two trains stopped on a goods loop or goods line waiting for another train to pass on the through line.

I'd agree it's probably a combination of two trains - but unless the fence and pole route are on the move, they are.

[Titan]

Indeed, the two photos are taken from almost exactly the same spot. Interpret that and the brake van immediately in front of the loco as you will!

[Stoke West]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

In the USA trains with locomotive(s) on the front, locomotive(s) in the middle and locomotive(s) at the end are normal practice these days.

However this practice was not unknown in the steam era in the UK:

 

One on the front

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch863.htm

 

One in the middle:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch862.htm

 

There's also one on the rear pushing (banking)!

 

 

 

Looks like a thro goods at the front with a local tripper behind which will stop and follow after the front one clears the block . I reckon the trippers ending up at Longbridge with the cct's in the consist . This was a very busy line the same happened at Gloucester with trains doubled up too and from Over sidings

[The Stationmaster]

On 25/08/2023 at 08:42, melmerby said:

In the USA trains with locomotive(s) on the front, locomotive(s) in the middle and locomotive(s) at the end are normal practice these days.

However this practice was not unknown in the steam era in the UK:

 

One on the front

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch863.htm

 

One in the middle:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrch862.htm

 

There's also one on the rear pushing (banking)!

 

 

 

Fairly common operating practice in some parts of the country.  There were various written permissions continuously available if needed permitting freight trains to be coupled in certain circumstances.  In some cases freight trains were only permitted to be coupled where authorised in the relevant Appendix but there was a generak authority to couple, in particular situations, in the the Rule Book

 

I think it's fair to those involved working the trains shown in those photos that they are coupled as the Guard of the leading train has removed the side lamps from his brakevan as was required by the Rules.

Edited August 26, 2023 by The Stationmaster

[melmerby]

On 25/08/2023 at 09:02, Ian Morgan said:

I like the stack of motor car chassis roped to an open wagon. Seems odd to transport so few at a time. You would imagine much larger numbers would be required to keep up with manufacture, or are they not car chassis?

I was wondering that.

It's coming up from Saltley direction. It's mid '50s. I wonder where they would be from?

Many cars by that period were becoming chassisless

Edited August 26, 2023 by melmerby

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

... Many cars by that period were becoming chassisless

... and you'd expect any specials that were to receive coach-built bodies would be supplied as a complete chassis with wheels, engine etc. !

[JZ]

On 25/08/2023 at 08:42, melmerby said:

In the USA trains with locomotive(s) on the front, locomotive(s) in the middle and locomotive(s) at the end are normal practice these days.

 

Not just normal practice these days, but in steam days too.

Two big 2-10-0s cut in as mid-train helpers assist in lifting a train up the Western Maryland main line west of Cumberland, Md., at famous Helmstetter’s Curve in May 1952. The road engine and rear-end helper are also Decapods. WM’s class I-2 engines were the heaviest 2-10-0s ever built.
Edward Theisinger photo

Edited August 26, 2023 by JZ

[Sitham Yard]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

I was wondering that.

It's coming up from Saltley direction. It's mid '50s. I wonder where they would be from?

Many cars by that period were becoming chassisless

How about Rubery Owen at Rubery?

Andrew

[Michael Hodgson]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Fairly common operating practice in some parts of the country.  There were various written permissions continuously available if needed permitting freight trains to be coupled in certain circumstances.  In some cases freight trains were only permitted to be coupled where authorised in the relevant Appendix but there was a generak authority to couple, in particular situations, in the the Rule Book

 

I think it's fair to those involved working the trains shown in those photos that they are coupled as the Guard of the leading train has removed the side lamps from his brakevan as was required by the Rules.

Such trains ran under a special ILC bell code 1-5-2 (freight trains coupled - where authorised) in the 1947 LMS block regulations (details in relevant Sectional Appendix), though this was not included int the 1960 BR regulations.   By coupling two trains sitting waiting in a permissive goods loop for a path and running a single longer one, this offered a solution to insufficient line capacity.

 

 

There is also a "Dynamic coupling" initiative to couple trains together to overcome capacity restraints while they are in motion!

Essentially the concept is similar to that used in military aviation for in-flight refuelling, but would rely on the trains concerned communicting with one another and doing it automatically - rather than asking a driver to buffer up at speed

https://directrains.com/technology/ 

 

That's one for the bright lads designing DCC software to work on.

[Wickham Green too]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

... There is also a "Dynamic coupling" initiative to couple trains together to overcome capacity restraints while they are in motion! ... https://directrains.com/technology/  ...

That website starts off talking about freight trains where - so far as I'm aware - air brake hoses are not generally incorporated within the couplers ... and then starts talking about passenger trains where, at present, splitting or joining of services is done at a regular station stop. I'm not sure what they think will be gained.

[melmerby]

On 25/08/2023 at 09:19, Joseph_Pestell said:

i doubt that picture shows one train. More likely two trains stopped on a goods loop or goods line waiting for another train to pass on the through line.

It's on the down main line (The original Midland line from Birmingham to Gloucester)

The Line next to it is the Up Line and the far one with the stationary train is the goods line which gives access to Camp Hill goods yard and Highgate Wharf.

[Michael Hodgson]

43 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

That website starts off talking about freight trains where - so far as I'm aware - air brake hoses are not generally incorporated within the couplers ... and then starts talking about passenger trains where, at present, splitting or joining of services is done at a regular station stop. I'm not sure what they think will be gained.

They assume adoption of the Digital Automatic Coupling which doesn't require a shunter to couple vehicles by going between and connecting drawhooks and hoses.  I don't know to what extent this is an active project or whether it's just wishful thinking with little prospect of getting the necesary significant investment for phased rolling stock upgrades.

[Wickham Green too]

I wonder who they expect such investment to come from ? ......... little doubt we'll be hearing "flap flap oink oink" overhead before anything happens.

[iands]

One question re the 'dynamic coupling' (at speeds of ~120km/h), if it ever gets the go-ahead, who would hold the 'go to jail' card when it goes wrong? 

[The Stationmaster]

26 minutes ago, iands said:

One question re the 'dynamic coupling' (at speeds of ~120km/h), if it ever gets the go-ahead, who would hold the 'go to jail' card when it goes wrong? 

I can't see how it would be done at speed as that implies  the wagon chasing the train would come from a different line or siding. and that could pose some interesting questions for signal engineers!!

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Such trains ran under a special ILC bell code 1-5-2 (freight trains coupled - where authorised) in the 1947 LMS block regulations (details in relevant Sectional Appendix), though this was not included int the 1960 BR regulations.   By coupling two trains sitting waiting in a permissive goods loop for a path and running a single longer one, this offered a solution to insufficient line capacity.

 

As the Rule remained in force until at least 1970 (and probably until 1972).  The situation of freight trains being permitted to run coupled definitely lasted into the 1960s so  wonder if it was ended by dieselisation or loss of freight traffic or simplt faded away in the end.

 

While I don't have all the necessary source information so far the longest distance on the Western over which I can find it to have been permitted is 95 miles although that does rely on a little bit of 'interpretation\ in the vocinity of Swindon to join two sections together.  The longest single section I can currently find on the Western is Paddington to Highworth Branch Jcn, Swindon, a distance of 76.5 miles permitted on all running lines.  No special restrictions east of Didcot but west of Didcot in the Down direction the total load was limited to 70 wagons plus 2 brakevans although in the Up direction a maximum of 120 wagons plus two brakevans was permitted.

 

In some cases on the Western trains for two different routes were permitted to run coupled as far as the junction where the two routes divided, e.g Chippenham to Thingley Jcn and Frome to Witham.

 

I cant trace any special bell code for coupled freight trains in the GWR Signalling Regulations but presumably a box-to-box message would be sent for such trains.

[Michael Hodgson]

 

I haven't checked earlier LMS books, I suspect the special 1-5-2 code was introduced as an expedient to cope with WW2 congestion.  I assume it carried on where authorised on LMR lines after the 1960 book came in, but the details would have been transferred to the Appendices.

 

That is certainly case for the special ILC codes used on the CLC and LNER for trains that were over specified lengths (and therefore meaning you had to plan where you could loop them and not leave it to signlamen to regulate), codes which lasted well into BR days.