Corridor tenders

I've just come across this short clip of Kings Cross in 1956.

There's nothing exciting about it but does anyone else notice something rather dodgy in it? The film set me thinking, which brings me on to the main question; there were 22 corridor tenders built and found service on some A1/A3's, A4's and the W1. They were obviously used on the non-stop but were they routinely used for their intended purpose on any other trains? 22 tenders just for use on what was essentially two trains a day seems excessive.

 

On the face of it 22 tenders is excessive, but when you take into account that any given shed would need several locos so fitted to cover ones undergoing routine maintenance, repair, in works for overhaul, and to cover the (hopefully not) failure as well, would need several to cover the job. Not only that, but the non-stops were mainly covered by Kings Cross and Haymarket, this doubling the number required. Without looking things up other sheds like Gateshead and York could be considered sheds at which one loco so fitted might be desirable.

 

The loco certainly seems to be moving back just after the shunter sets the buck-eye! Eightpots post above covers all of the suggestions I was going to make re the numbers.

 

I presume several "takes" would have been needed, and the editor may not have appreciated the significance of the actual sequence. However in the first shot of the shunter preparing to lift the buckeye coupling head, he has not taken the vacuum bag off the dummy, whereas in the next shot from below it can be seen correctly hanging free. Apart from which the whole setting of buckeye process seems to be taking place when the loco is very close to the stock,

 

I agree that several takes seem to have been made. In the first, the loco backs almost onto the train, as can be seen from the shadow of the leading coach. In this take not only is the buckeye not set but the emergency coupling is over the draw hook which I find strange. I always thought that if the loco was joining a buckeye vehicle then the buckeye was used. If it was a screw coupled vehicle then that vehicle's shackle would be used. In the second shot the loco has stopped further away from the train as its shadow shows. I agree that the loco appears to start moving back once the buckeye is set but the shunter is remarkable unfazed by this. The third shot looks like it shows the shunter setting the coach buckeye, but I guess it could be another shot of the loco again. It certainly shows how just how hazardous every day railway work was in the fairly recent past.

Peter

 

I did wonder if the shot showing the loco moving back after the buckeye was raised, was actually a shot of the loco pulling forward and the shunter dropping the buckeye, that clip being then played backwards. My iPad doesn't allow me to watch it slowly enough to be sure.

 

I hadn't spotted the coach shadow so i agree that thee must have been more than one take. The loco does start to move as soon as the buckeye is lifted and the pin inserted, which was the thing I noted. The shot with the vacuum hose off the dummy is one of coaching stock and not the loco (note the oval buffers) and the shunter will have done that prior to coupling up. I can't comment on the practice of leaving the emergency screw coupling on the hook but it may well have depended on what the loco last did, possibly a freight or parcels train or simply shunting around the depot.

As regards the number of tenders, even allowing for sufficient locos being available, IMHO, it seems a lot. The non-stop started in 1928 and 11 tenders were provided for this service. That sufficed for several years until the A4's were built. I believe that each year two locos were selected from both Haymarket and Top Shed for this service and were specially shopped. That would allow for washouts, etc and a couple more at each end would provide sufficient back up. If necessary, a non-corridor loco could substitute with a crew change stop if circumstances dictated. Lack of a corridor tender was not a show stopper.
However, it is the number of such tenders which has prompted my original question, which no one has attempted to answer. Was the corridor tender routinely used on any other trains apart from the non-stop?

 

I'm struggling to think of any circumstances where they would have been used for crew changes on anything but the non-stops. Top shed and Gateshead loco's/ crews did have some though workings to Newcastle/London...so no requirement there and loco/crew changes at Grantham/Newcastle were common for a large proportion of the rest. It's an interesting question for sure and I doubt we will ever know the specific reason why so many were built!

 

The LNER introduced a number of streamlined trains, first the Silver Jubilee, then Coronation and also the West Riding limited which went to Leeds.
I have a photo in a book of one with a corridor tender backing onto the West Riding at Leeds station, so it may be they intended that Locos used on all 3 services would have corridor tenders so they could easily swap them between services. Also they would probably use them on the Flying Scotsman train too. Who knows as well they may have expected to introduce further services had WW2 not occurred.

 

I suppose that depends on your definition of used. I do know that the four "Silver" A4s were all built with brand new (1935-pattern) corridor tenders, which implies that the Silver Jubilee was customarily run with a corridor tender while it was restricted to the pool of silver A4s. However, I wouldn't totally rule out that being partly for the look of the thing - the corridor tender is wider and the bow-ended corridor tenders as fitted to those A4s probably matched very well the end profile of the Silver Jubilee coaches. I suppose it also meant there was a pool of corridor tenders to cover the ones taken out of service for modification to suit the next batch of A4s.

The oddity is why, having covered the existing pool, the LNER then re-started building corridor tenders for the 1937 A4s, having built several with non-corridor tenders from 1936. Perhaps there were more services planned, or perhaps the hope was that it wouldn't be necessary to maintain a special pool of engines for the non-stop.

 

It might be worth considering what the disadvantages of the corridor tender were. If the cost difference wasn't too dramatic and there were no other disadvantages...

 

I have never had to deal with an A4 or indeed any other buckeye fitted steam loco. However on coaching stock the buffers after being extended are secured in that position by saddles, whereas on cl73 electro-diesels and cl33/1 diesels the buffer head is rotated and locked in the extended position by a pin. Does anyone know which system was used on the A4s?

If the loco in the clip in question was actually setting back to couple as soon as the buckeye was raised, then that suggests that the buffers had already been retracted.

As for the emergency screw on the hook, I would think most useful when shunting other locos around at the shed rather than raise both Buckeyes and drop again after the shunt. I presume the Buckeyes were only on the tenders so no use if both locos faced the same way.

 

Were the coal and water capacities lower than the non corridor version?

 

There are four articles on this subject by Mel Haigh on the SNG Loco Trust website. I think the short answer is that the water capacity was unchanged at 5000 gallons. But the coal story, no simple answer.

 

Apart from on the Gresley corridor tenders I do not think any other UK steam locos had buckeye couplings. Unlike coaching stock, the buffers on these corridor tenders are fixed and do not extend or retract. There is no need to use the awkward (short) emergency coupling when shunting - you use the shackle on the other vehicle as they all have them in normal circumstances.

While I'm no expert on these tenders, I was buried deep in the innards of 60007's rear tender drag box yesterday, so I do have a little experience of them.

Peter

 

This thread started me thinking about the second tender for Flying Scotsman. Assuming it has a corridor, it must have a gangway connection at each end. Would it still work if it was turned, relative to the locomotive?

 

It definitely had a corridor and the connections would align both ways. I'd assume that the water connections would be double ended to allow such use?

 

It's an interesting coincidence between the number of corridor tenders, Deltics and Class 91 locos. All are roughly the same - but I am sure it is just coincidence because the utilisation of a Class 91 is most certainly much higher than an A3 or A4.

 

I don't think so - I believe it was, and still is, single ended with regards water connections. Certainly all the photos I can find show the tender running the same way round ie. the brake gear is covering the rear three sets of wheels.

 

Hi Flying Scotsman second tender then for bittern only hand one end with water conneection.