LSWR T3 563

Yes, quite common for passenger locos of that era only to have a single link at the front end - they weren’t expected to haul trains in reverse! Couplings both ends even on passenger locos became more common in the early years of the twentieth century.

Here’s a loco of similar era from a quick search: https://flic.kr/p/2mfKoXY

Tom

 

It was certainly a LSWR thing. 3 photos (courtesy of Bob Urie):
335 at Nine Elms 1907 (Mr Drummond's Turkey);
335 at Eastleigh 1914;
492 Eastleigh 1921 (on the back of a shunting loco.!).
Pat

 

The three main constituents of the SR all did different things on their main passenger locos.

• LSWR using a single link, as you point out
• The LBSCR using three link (i.e. non screw) coupling in the Stroudley and Billinton eras (see e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/31514768@N05/51399318592/in/dateposted/)
• The SE&CR used what became the standard Southern-pattern four link screw coupling from the Wainwright era. (see e.g. https://fft-keymodelworld.b-cdn.net...ality check_D_hm170_aug21_0.jpg?itok=ITgqXXWi)

Going further back, the LCDR used a three link screw coupling - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCDR_M3_class#/media/File:LCDR_M3_class_No._23.jpg I think what became the SE&CR and then SR pattern four-link screw coupling comes from the SER, via Wainwright and then Maunsell taking it on as a standard design. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SER_A_class#/media/File:SER_A_4-4-0.png (not super clear, but on a front line express loco).

Tom






Tom

 

How do you use a single link coupling? I would think it easiest to ignore it and use the coupling of the other vehicle.

 

The only use I can see for any of the single links is if you needed to rescue the loco by towing it with a rope/witre

 

The T3 has drawhook couplings at both ends. How else could it run as second locomotive in a doubleheader? By what means could it haul empty stock when running tender first. The single D Link on the coupling hook is merely provided to give a weight to hold the screw coupling or 3 link coupling onto the drawhook.

It is the same for any other locomotive.

 

Not sure I understand what you are saying there by "The single D Link on the coupling hook is merely provided to give a weight to hold the screw coupling or 3 link coupling onto the drawhook."

Of course the loco has a draw hook at each end. But what it doesn't have at the front is a screw coupling. So the consequence is that when it is drawing carriages tender first, it has to use the coupling shackle from the carriages. That is unconventional (though prototypical for the era portrayed); normal practice when coupling is always to use the locomotive's own coupling, but that can't be done on the T3 when running in reverse.

If you look at photos of the loco in later life, it had gained a conventional coupling by the 1930s. But as built, and as currently preserved, it has a draw hook, a single link and two safety chains at the front.

Tom

 

I think that @Spinner is saying is that the D link is placed over (ie rests on top of) the screw/3 link shackle on the draw hook to prevent it from bouncing off the draw hook. Not a problem when the coupling is under tension but can (and does) happen when the train bunches up. Presumably that is why very early locos also had safety chains. Later on it was realised that the safest way to remove this risk was to fit the shackle permanently to the locos draw hook so it cannot bounce off.

I'm open to correction on this but that is how I interpret the situation

Peter

 

To illustrate the above I have found a very poor picture that I took in December 1971 in @Spinner's back yard. It shows a pilot loco in Port Waratah yard, Newcastle NSW with the D link resting above a 3 link coupling on the locos drawhook

The loco is an 1877 built product of Beyer Peacock and when withdrawn the following August it had achieved a service life of 95 years. However much younger locos than this ran with a similar coupling arrangement to the very end of steam in NSW in early 1973.

And for @Spinner 's benefit here is apicture I took the following day of his avatar


Sorry for the thread drift - back to the T3

Peter

 

There do seem to have been all sorts of variations. Looking for photos, I found an X2 (larger-wheeled variant of the T3) in SR days with a three link front coupling; and also a T3 in SR days with its own screw coupling, but an additional screw coupling hung over the draw hook.

I think the general point though was that passenger locos weren’t expected to pull trains while running in reverse, so needed no front coupling; the LSWR of the era seems to have driven the point home by therefore not providing one!

Tom

 

When hauling mk1 coaches there’s no coach screw coupling though. I’ve found a photo of 563 on the Swanage Railway thread showing it with an emergency screw coupling hanging from the draw hook so that answers the question for this.
I can understand the comment about the D shackle being used to stop the coupling from coming off. Screw couplings can become uncoupled if they are not screwed up and are left loose. I’ve had personal experience of it happening when shunting on the NYMR and I’ve seen it happen elsewhere. This is why I insist on screw couplings being tightened when shunting. Three link couplings won’t do this as they can’t form a strut, unlike a screw coupling . I’ll add, though, that on both occasions the coupling hook in question was not an RCH type with an override lug on.

 

I struggle to believe that the single link's job is to stop the actual coupling from falling off. If that were a significant risk, would it not have happened frequently with loose coupled freight trains? And would the weight of the single link on top really make much difference?

 

I don’t believe it is,either but I do believe it could be used by footplate crew as an unofficial means of preventing it.
As I said earlier, 3 link couplings won’t simply uncouple as they can’t form a strut, unlike screw couplings.

 

Indeed, that all makes sense to me. I always tighten screw links when shunting as a ground shunter, apart from the obvious about shackles riding up, and stopping some of the rough shunting if left loose, it usually makes life easier as you can often then get away without having to squeeze up to uncouple.
Still puzzled as to what the 'official' use of that single link was though!

 

The latest Railway Modeller has an article on T3's

 

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. By the way, 1904 still exists today, stored at Dorrigo. You all should know that RVR 5 (formerly Mersey No 1) also exists, stored undercover at Thirlmere.

Brett

 

On the subject of front couplings (or non-couplings) I have just obtained from HMRS a copy of the GA for the semi-mythical Drummond 4-cylinder 0-8-0. A 3-link coupling is clearly shown. So, you pays yer money and takes yer choice!
Pat

 

I don't know the loco being referred to but, being an 0-8-0 and 4 cylinders at that, it is likely to be for heavy mineral haulage and probably not going to have a vacuum brake and therefore going to have a rusty coupling. (That's the technical term for a 3 link coupling) Why fit a screw coupling when you don't need it?