Doubleheading in the 1980's

[drewn]

Hi there,

 

I model early/mid 80 diesels and I was wondering if doubleheaded trains ever used two locos of different classes. eg. did 25's ever doublehead with 26's/33's etc?

 

I can't remember ever having seen a mixed pair!

 

Drew

['CHARD]

Check on line for Multiple Working Codes.

 

You'll see the commonest, Blue Star, is fitted to plenty of classes. Mixed pairs of all these were incredibly common.

There are loads of examples, 25 + 40 being one of the tidiest

 

A quick Google Image search on Double Headed Diesels didn't disappoint either.

[Coach bogie]

There was a class 40/25 double header I saw more than once at Northenden junction. I'll post a pic when I have time to find it. Around the North West 24/25 was common but they are almost the same class.

 

You can also consider the weekend 'drags' off the overhead network. Regular was the sight in Manchester VICTORIA of class 86/87's/Mk111's hauled by class 47 and 40's

 

Mike Wiltshire

[dvdlcs]

Hello.

 

As CHARD stated, if the coupling codes were the same, then in theory they could work together.

 

From memory - yes, I know - anything from Class 20 to Class 47 inclusive that was still around and in BR mainline use was Blue Star and could theoretically work together. Class 50 had a different coupling code (I think?). Something was Orange Square, I'm sure. Class 56 and 58 were Red Diamond and could pair up with each other but not other classes. I believe that the OH electrics (81-87) could work together, but again, this is from memory. I'd look it up but I'm too lazy :-)

 

Some combinations were unlikely due to geography; Class 26 and 27 were all Scottish based and Class 33 were all Southern based, so were unlikely to meet up, other than depot open days and other special events.

 

From ScR, 20+26, 20+27, 26+27, 20+37 were common mixed pairings.

 

Hope this helps,

 

 

David.

[edcayton]

What about the double-headed 50's before the WCML electrification?

 

Ed

[eastwestdivide]

Also worth considering are running-in turns for locos just overhauled. Seem to recall Derby would turn out 25s which ran coupled in front of a 45 on a London train as far as Leicester.

[Coach bogie]

Found them. And a 25/37 combo to add to the discussion

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Depends if you mean multiple-working or double-heading.

 

Mutiple working is where more than one locomotive can operate with only one driver...in the head loco. Some working codes spread across various classes, whereas some are unique. For example I believe the class 50s could only work in multiple with one another; however there are plenty of examples of them double-heading with other classes...so long as both locos were manned, or the second loco was dead (not really double-heading in the truest sense). There is a well known photo of 50013 'Agincourt' double-heading a china clay train near St Blazey with a class 25.

 

In theory any loco - provided their couplings were compatible - could double-head.

[Rivercider]

I thought that mixed pairings were not that uncommon in some parts of the country, but having had a quick look through some of

my photos I can only find one example at present. Perhaps I was so excited at seeing something unusual I forgot to take the shot?!

 

 

 

9th March 1981 and a rainy Exeter St. Davids sees 47026 and 46052 with the 08.15 Plymouth-Leeds,

my notes say that both locos appeared to be providing power.

 

cheers

[Rugd1022]

Nice shot that, odd to think it's three decades old though!

 

Chances are if both locos are under power, the 47 was put on to save a light engine path. There were quite a lot of unbalanced workings in the West back then, so bringing spare locos back up country to Exeter, Newton Abbot and Bristol was fairly common, with some trains booked for two locos despite not being over the booked load.

[31A Driver]

Hi, 47's were not fitted with multiple working equipment until Railfreight Distribution start fitting the "Green Circle" equipment in the headcode panels. Any pairing including a 47 before then would require 2 drivers.

 

Andy

[eastwestdivide]

Quick look in some of my old notebooks...

March 1982, 87005+86005 on a freightliner at Preston (sorry, no photos), and the same day, 86032+87019 on another, and 86325+87029 on a third.

April 1982, 45034+25212 on 40-50 Redland PGA hoppers at Leicester (but not a usual working).

But not a lot else.

 

Maybe a bit early for a summary, but in general terms, from comments so far, regular workings of two locos of different classes, both under power would be relatively unusual in the OP's 1980s period, especially compared to double-headers of the same class.

Best bets might be "balancing" workings, 40+25 in the NW (BOC trains in particular?), Scottish pairs as post no4 above, and 86+87 on WCML freight.

[Rivercider]

In my photo album I have a pic of 47094 at Newton Abbot on the XX.XX St. Blazey (?) - Dover Polybulks of export clay dated 5th November 1981.

My note says it had been assisted over the South Devon banks by 50030 Replulse, but that loco had been detached before I got the shot.

I think that train ran weekly/fortnightly? and would have been a regular candidate for double heading.

 

cheers

[DerekEm8]

A couple from Teignmouth

 

The morning vans was sometimes used to get locos west from Exeter

 

33019, 47515 0786

 

47587,500xx 0991

[Boris]

I'll fish out a photograph I have from Morpeth in the late 80s, 50 MGR hoppers, hauled by 2 37s, 1 31 and a 56!

 

I keep fishing the photo out from time to time because nobody believes it, if memory serves the 56 was the train engine, the 31 was on a positioning move and the grid died, so the 31 limped the train as far as the Up loop and the 2 37s were sent out as relief. The 31 & 56 were in tandem but the 37s were in multiple.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

I agree, and was aware of the informative points you raise, but the OP was specific in referring to different classes coupled together - whether they be working in multiple or as double-headers is interesting, and adds to the information, but the original question was specifically about double-heading or multiple-working when locos were not of the same class, so a pair of class 50s in multiple is not what the thread is about.

 

Hi Simon,

 

Slight misunderstanding here. I was referring to the OP as opposed to your comments... My point to the OP was that practically anything can double-head, and there would photographic evidence to back that up - I recall a rather nice shot of a class 58 heading 45130 on a flyash train back in the early 1980s in RAIL magazine. Multiple working restricts the loco types in tandem, whereas double-heading does not... In terms of modelling, this sort of means that anything goes...

 

Apologies if my comments weren't clear.

[roythebus]

Maybe we should clarify what is meant. Double heading or tandem = 2 or more locos, each with its own driver; multiple working = more than 1 loco all driven by one driver.

 

Until the introduction of the modern multiplex working, locos were restricted by the coupling code mentioned above, blue square etc codes. Those that were incompatible would have to work double headed. after the advent of the mulitplex system, virtually anything can work in multiple.

 

The AC electric locos as originally built were not fitted for multiple working operation. Again, it was only after multiplexing they were adapted. a tell-tale sign in later years is the carriage lighting lead on the loco!

[mjkerr]

The AC electric locos as originally built were not fitted for multiple working operation. Again, it was only after multiplexing they were adapted. a tell-tale sign in later years is the carriage lighting lead on the loco!

The Class 86/0 (later converted to 86/4) and Class 87 locos were fitted with multiple working equipment

The jumpers can clearly be seen just below the cab windows

During the 1980s any two such locos would work together but later the preference was two locos of the same type

After TDM was installed as standard on all AC locos these jumpers became redundant and in many cases were removed and plated over

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Photo%20File%20Loco/86_09.jpg items marked C and D

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Photo%20File%20Loco/87_5.jpg items marked B, the jumpers plated over

[Rugd1022]

Maybe we should clarify what is meant. Double heading or tandem = 2 or more locos, each with its own driver; multiple working = more than 1 loco all driven by one driver.

 

Until the introduction of the modern multiplex working, locos were restricted by the coupling code mentioned above, blue square etc codes. Those that were incompatible would have to work double headed. after the advent of the mulitplex system, virtually anything can work in multiple.

 

The AC electric locos as originally built were not fitted for multiple working operation. Again, it was only after multiplexing they were adapted. a tell-tale sign in later years is the carriage lighting lead on the loco!

 

 

Just to add.... when double heading with the second loco being 'dead in tow' simply for a positioning move, it wasn't neccessary to have a second driver.

 

[Boris]

Just to add.... when double heading with the second loco being 'dead in tow' simply for a positioning move, it wasn't neccessary to have a second driver.

 

 

Indeed, they are effectively just part of the train, IIRC in the last Network Rail WON I saw there was a piece about allowing dead class 66 locomotives to be marshalled as part of a train from Tyne Yard. There are/were certain restrictions on doing this though.

[johnw1]

Also worth considering are running-in turns for locos just overhauled. Seem to recall Derby would turn out 25s which ran coupled in front of a 45 on a London train as far as Leicester.

 

Not always on the Derby - Leicester turn but would sometimes run light engine to Nottingham and pick up a working for a loaded test run to Leicester from there

[sulzer27jd]

Hi there,

 

I model early/mid 80 diesels and I was wondering if doubleheaded trains ever used two locos of different classes. eg. did 25's ever doublehead with 26's/33's etc?

 

I can't remember ever having seen a mixed pair!

 

Drew

 

Certainly within Scotland it was regular if not very common. Saturdays often produced mixed pairings, in the days when there were football specials as illustrated below with a 27 and a 25 working into Dundee.

 

 

There was also a working where an ex St Rollox works loco was added to a late afternoon Glasgow to Arbroath and return trip. Producing double headed type 2's on a 2 coach set!

 

33's didn't venture north until much - much later.

 

J

[Guest Phil]

roythebus, said

 

The AC electric locos as originally built were not fitted for multiple working operation. Again, it was only after multiplexing they were adapted. a tell-tale sign in later years is the carriage lighting lead on the loco!

 

mjkerr said

The Class 86/0 (later converted to 86/4) and Class 87 locos were fitted with multiple working equipment

The jumpers can clearly be seen just below the cab windows

During the 1980s any two such locos would work together but later the preference was two locos of the same type

After TDM was installed as standard on all AC locos these jumpers became redundant and in many cases were removed and plated over

 

 

Claude Dreyfuss said

 

My point to the OP was that practically anything can double-head, and there would photographic evidence to back that up - I recall a rather nice shot of a class 58 heading 45130 on a flyash train back in the early 1980s in RAIL magazine. Multiple working restricts the loco types in tandem, whereas double-heading does not... In terms of modelling, this sort of means that anything goes...

 

 

Just to clarify things.

 

Until the 87s appeared on the scene and the 86/0s were fitted with multi, all AC locos which needed more than one loco to provide power, needed a driver in each cab, so were worked in tandem. When the multiple fitted AC locos arrived, yes they started working in multiple. It was common for the air braked class 87 to be "buried", as the dual-braked 86/0 was a much more useful engine to snatch off the front of a multi worked freight, than the 87

 

I've mentioned before that two pairings of AC locos were for 4S50 Dudley-Glasgow and 4S38 Bristol-Glasgow, both being "leccies" forward from Bescot. The former pairing was off the two consecutive Euston-Wolverhampton services which ran forward to Oxley ECS then came light to Bescot to be multi'ed together for the "Scotch". Don't remember where 4S38 locos came from but the lead engine was sometimes a "roarer".

 

Correspondingly, 4M51 Glasgow-Dudley was an engine change at Bescot with the AC locos working light to Oxley to pick up stocks for Euston services from Wolverhampton. My memory does fade a little here because half of my mind tells me one of the pair went to Curzon St for a parcels service to Willesden, but that might have been a different job.

 

 

Obviously, the 86/0s metamorphosed into 86/3s then 86/4s then 86/6s, whilst the 87s became passenger only locos, both classes eventually losing their large orange jumpers in favour of TDM.

 

 

Claude's reference to a 58 on top of 45130 may well suggest the need for a slow speed loco to discharge the flyash at Ketton, it being simpler to wang an SSC fitted diesel on the front to drag the train round the circuit, rather than do a double engine change, the 45 not being fitted with slow speed control (SSC) equipment.

[bingley hall]

Hi, 47's were not fitted with multiple working equipment until Railfreight Distribution start fitting the "Green Circle" equipment in the headcode panels. Any pairing including a 47 before then would require 2 drivers.

 

Andy

What about the daily Nottinghamshire to Kent MGR Trains in the 70s with 2x47s or 47+45 combos?

[The Stationmaster]

What about the daily Nottinghamshire to Kent MGR Trains in the 70s with 2x47s or 47+45 combos?

 

No doubt they were running in tandem - the only type of anything approaching an m.u. capability on Class 47s then was the TDM kit for push-pull trains. As already noted above just because two locos are coupled together at the head of a train doesn't mean they are (were) running in multiple. And judging by my experience back in the 1970s there were plenty of locos which allegedly were capable of running in multiple but when actually connected proved they weren't very good at it - it was quite amusing to see a pair of D68XX/Class 37s trying to go in opposite directions, especially when it was of the tug-o'-war variety of 'opposite'