Best & Worst Locos to Drive

Possibly, but they don't work very well like that! They're running as unfitted, which takes us back to the start!

 

Does anybody on here remember the Dowty wagon coupler? BR had a small scale trial of it in the 1950's. I think that 50 16T mineral wagons were fitted with it. It coupled the vacuum brake, as well. There was an article on it in an Ian Allan Locospotters annual but I've never ever seen any other reference to it.

 

No, even I'm not that old! But I do remember seeing an article in either Trains Illustrated or Railway Magazine from some time later entitled something along the lines of, "Wanted: an Automatic Coupling (but it must also couple Brake Pipes.).

 

That'll be the same article as that's the title I recall. My memory puts it in a Locospotters Annual but it could well be a T.I. Definitely not Railway Mag.

 

No problems with the short WB 26ton Iron Ore tipplers used in the early 1960s with vac cylinder space ,two cylinders for loaded ,one for empties ,there was a lever on each side for changing from one to two cylinders , tipping also no problem. Trains were formed of 70 empties for the return to the quarries.Instaner couplings had a two small lips at the narrow end of the middle link,a shunting pole could easily alter to the long position. Chains for the vac pipes were taken off with no problems of the pipes coming apart in transit .Uncoupling could then be done in the normal way.(Strings still had to be pulled tho' ) There were two types of instaner coupling ,one for 13 tonners or less, the other with a much heavier centre link for 16tons or more .The light weight one could be thrown on in the normal way with a pole.With the heavier type it was best to lever it on with the shunting pole over the top of the buffer. Putting the centre coupling link to the short position and joining the vac 'pipes up, there was only one way go under .I often wonder if I could still couple up with a shunting pole ,it had to be swung not lifted to do the job properly ,maybe its like ridding a bike ,never forgotten .

 

Yep, I remember it well! those two little lugs allowed the Instanter to be nudged by the pole into the long position and then the coupling knocked off in the normal way. If there was some means of getting the Instanter into the short position just using the pole, I never found it! I reckon I could still use a pole though; as said, once mastered, never forgotten.

I wonder how many guards on preserved lines can use one?!

 

It runs in my mind that there was an instruction that fitted wagons which had the vac pipe at low level should not have the pins inserted when coupling up. If done this way, the pipes would stay together but easily part without damage when uncoupled so it was only necessary to go between to couple the vac pipes up. However, I've searched high and low for this and failed to find it!
I can still use a shunting pole to couple up 3-link and instanters in the time honoured way under the buffers but I never mastered shortening or lengthening an instanter with a pole. I much prefer using a pole to going under and do so whenever possible.

 

It is not technique that helps you with using a pole, it is muscle, certainly for swinging a coupling on. Yes, you develop technique, but you still need biceps!

Flipping them off is easy, as you use the buffer as a fulcrum; likewise flipping an Instanter from short to long. I have never been able to do it the other way, nor do I know anyone else who could.

I have long thought that this should be taught to guards and shunters, but there are those on the SVR who would like to see them banned as they are a "safety hazard."

Can you believe it? They are a piece of safety equipment, designed to remove the need for shunters to go in between.

Jinties used to shunt 16 coach rakes at Crewe every day and I had a blissful week on 47383 on the Valley, with, I think, 7, one October in 1991. Steam - heated, ran like a deer and was effortless: what a machine!

As regards the load limits applied to SVR tank engines, this was nothing to do with being gentle with the machinery, but more to do with water, perhaps not suitable for discussion here.

Personally, I have fired, and, later driven them on 8 coach, steam - heated trains without problems, for 30 years. We are only doing 25mph, don't forget...

 

Yes, there's no doubt in my mind that, from a safety point of view, using the pole is far the better option. Having only just got out in time from unhooking 6443 from an ecs rake and have the engine and train move off (the trainee driver had left the reverser in the drift position, the small ejector blowing up, and at the time the regulator blew through fairly strongly) I'd recommend staying outside the four foot whenever possible.

 

Our goods guards are trained to use shunting poles and brake sticks - our goods trains are also routinely completely unfitted. It's when (as loco crew) you really learn the gradients in detail. I remember firing "Captain Baxter" (about 20 tons of loco; handbrake only) with 55 tons of train behind, coming down from West Hoathly. Mostly it is 1 in 75, but there is a section of 1 in 60 that became very obvious by the extra tweak of handbrake needed - far more obvious that when running a fitted train, or when going up the hill on a big loco. (Uphill on a small loco, you also tend to notice it by a definite slowing down).

Tom

 

I assume that journey didn't involve pinning down brakes on the wagons for the descent, going by the relative weights and your not mentioning it. Does the Bluebell ever do this, or are the brake sticks just for shunting work?

 

I have also driven very many loose - coupled goods trains on the SVR, both with steam engines and, more usually, the Class 25 diesel - electric, all 75 tons of it, with 2 - 300 ton loaded P. Way trains. Our ruling grades are 1 in 100, rather less than yours, but you still needed your wits about you. The key was always to get a grip of the train quickly, ie. screwing the handbrake on as soon as you breasted the summit, before it started to run away with you.

On a Pannier, at 50 tons, you acted quicker, but they always seemed to be in control of the job. We used to assemble the demo goods train for the Galas some time before the event and we always left them with fitted vehicles piped up, and everything short - coupled with the Instanters, because that's the way we worked, the safest possible consist.

On turning up at the Galas, we always found that some bu88er had disconnected the vacuum bags and lengthened the Instanters. ??

 

There's nothing to say a driver wouldn't stop to pin down brakes if they considered it desirable, though in practical terms our loads are probably sufficient not to require it. Even so, my experience is that most drivers will slow right down at West Hoathly when coming south so as to definitely have everything well controlled before entering the tunnel, since at that point you have about 2.5 miles of downhill, at 1 in 75 or steeper, and which doesn't level out until the north end of the platforms at HK.

I think in practical terms, we are generally running with lighter unfitted loads than would have been considered acceptable in pre-preservation days (especially as our open wagons are generally empty). From observation and experience, about 5 wagons + a brake van behind Baxter; about 11 or so + brake van behind a medium engine like the E4, H or C; and about 15 + brake van behind the S15 or Q. At that point the practical limit is not braking capacity, but the length of the loop and siding at SP, since our normal method of working for training purposes is with only one brake van; and any longer than about 15 wagons exceeds the capacity at SP to swap ends with the brake van. (At GoS last year, the goods train ran with two brake vans, but that was because the intensity of the timetable meant there was no time to shunt ends with the brake van. When we run at other times during a normal service day, we always run with a single van and shunt ends, there being sufficient time in the timetable to do the required shunt).

Tom

 

But were their railways privately owned or state controlled, at that time? And were all their wagons owned by the railways, or were hundreds of thousands of them owned by private companies, as they were in Britain?

As I understand it, one of the sticking points in upgrading our goods fleet was that so many of them were privately owned, and the owners were reluctant to shell out the cash to fit brakes - and the reason that so many wagons were privately owned in Britain was down to the trouble the railways had in the early days with trying to get their wagons back. They would deliver a rake of wagons full of coal to a coal merchant, but he would just use the wagons to store the coal, off-loading them as and when he sold the coal. In the meantime, the collieries were complaining about the lack of empty wagons to fill with coal - and the railways were the meat in the sandwich!

That was why the railways didn't just allow but encouraged private owners to buy their own wagons (as long as they were built to the RCH Standards). That way, if an end user left his loaded wagons sitting in his siding for weeks on end, they were his wagons unavailable for service, not the railway's.

 

I think part of the problem is that the authorities no longer understand working unbraked trains. So, they panic.

After an incident a few years ago, a rule came into force where a loose - coupled goods, (usually on a Gala), was required to stop at the Outer Home signal and ring in to the signalman, who would then ask then to confirm that they had sufficient brake power to stop in the station.

As luck would have it, I was rostered to drive the Goods on a Gala, shortly after this. I had 7812, "Erlestoke Manor," on, I think 14, empty vans plus a Toad brake van.

I said to the guard, don't touch your handbrake; forget what the course told you: just sit back and enjoy the ride. Which, bless him, he did. And he had a comfortable trip.

So, I am on the way down the bank towards Oldbury Viaduct and Bridgnorth, with my train in check on the tender handbrake...and pull to a stand at the Bridgnorth Down Outer Home signal. Try to contain your excitement.

I walk to the signal and phone in, dutifully.

"Bridgnorth Signal Box."

"Hello mate, Driver of the Goods train, standing at your Outer Home signal.

"Ah! Yes! Do you have sufficient brake power to stop in the station?"

" I stopped at your f****** signal, didn't I?"

There was more.

 

Yes . . . I s'pect there was!!

Dear, dear - how I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in Bridgnorth Box that day! Thank you, JTX - that one had me crying with laughter!

Best regards,

Jack

 

I've never worked on a 3F, but if they were basically 'Jinties with tenders', I can well believe it!

 

I think I can tell you why Derby just kept churning them out to the same pattern, Tom (put your feet up, this is a long post, even by my standards!)

Quite a few years back, I was reading a biography of William Stanier, and was struck by a section in it covering the time when he was recruited by Sir Josiah Stamp to be the new CME of the LMS. Stamp had been trying to reconcile the Wessie and Midland camps ever since grouping, but the two were still at loggerheads - which was presumably why Stamp went for a complete outsider.

Don't ask me how (the book didn't say), but for a number of years a bloke called Anderson of the traffic department had got himself into a position where he was dictating terms to the succession of CMEs; not just about what types of locos the traffic department needed, but also on key details of their design. Though he had worked in Derby drawing office pre-WWI, it was well outside his brief. Apparently - despite being called the "Fowler 4F" - the design was pretty much laid down by Anderson, especially with regards to the puny axle-boxes, and short-travel, short-lap valves. It was also Anderson who forced these features on Beyer-Peacock when they built the Garratts for the LMS, even though they pointed out that it would seriously hamper the engine's efficiency - which it did.

According to this biography, a meeting took place between Stamp, Stanier and Anderson, "at which it was agreed that Mr Anderson would leave the design of locomotives to the new CME".

"Oh, yeah?", I thought, on reading this. I've worked with people like Anderson in the past, and once they get their hands on power like that, you need a team of navvies with crowbars to prise them loose! I strongly suspected that Stanier was sharp enough to realise that he had to put Anderson in his place, and right from Day One. I also suspect that Stanier, knowing how badly Stamp needed him, gave Stamp an ultimatum; "Keep Anderson off my back, or find someone else for the job." (though he probably worded it a bit more diplomatically than that!)

It just so happened that, a few days later, I paid a first visit to the Churnet Valley line, being up that way on holiday, and got talking to some blokes in the loco shed. In the course of the chat, I mentioned reading this book, and the point about Anderson, and one of the blokes said that was a coincidence, as some time earlier, they'd had a visit from a very old man who had been a very junior apprentice in Derby drawing office when Stanier took over - and this was the tale he told.

(feel free to put the kettle on - we've got a way to go yet!)

Mr Stanier was brought into the drawing office, introduced himself very courteously, and explained that - being a Western man - he was not very familiar with Derby practises. So, he said, for the time being, before you issue any drawings to the works, I'd like you to bring them into my office so that we can go through them, and I can learn about your ways of doing jobs.

Two days later, one of the senior draughtsmen - who had been working on a fairly major job - took a batch of drawings into Stanier's office, and Stanier started looking through them. He then pointed to one feature, and said, "I see you've made this like so and so, rather than like this and this - why did you choose to do it this way?"

The draughtsman was shocked into silence for a moment, and finally replied, "Well - we've always done it that way, Mr Stanier!"

Stanier looked thoughtful, and carried on looking through the drawings. Then he came to another point which puzzled him, asked the same question, and got the same reply - "We've always done it that way, Mr Stanier!"

And so it went on . . . and on . . .

Picture the scene in the drawing office; no back-chatting, no larking about; all you could hear was the scratching of pens and pencils, and the gentle slither of slide rules. Derby was still as Midland as ever, God was in his Heaven, and all was right with the world . . . and then the lid blew off Hell!!

There was a volcanic eruption in Stanier's office, the door flew open, and Stanier came storming out, with the hapless senior draughtsman in tow. Calling the staff together, he read them the riot act, and made it absolutely clear that if ANYONE brought a drawing into his office, and was asked why he had done the job that way, and replied "Because we've always done it that way, Mr Stanier", he had better bring his letter of resignation with him, which would be accepted on the spot!

Can you imagine the horror of the Derby staff, hearing this, and in the depths of the Great Depression? Basically, then, if you got yourself onto the staff at Derby, unless you blotted your copybook, you had a Job for Life - and now the Derby world was shaken to its very foundations!

The bloke I was talking to at the CVR said that the impression he got was that if you went into Derby on a quiet day, even now you might still be able to hear the echoes . . . and according to the ex-apprentice, it was four weeks before any new drawings were issued to the works.

Having said that, the old man said that if you went into Stanier's office and he asked you why you had designed the sproggle bracket like this, and you told him you had looked at these three ways of doing the job, but had rejected idea A because of this and this, and rejected idea B because of that and that, and chosen idea C because it had these advantages, Stanier might over-rule you - but he would respect you for having used your brains and imagination, and he would also take the trouble to explain exactly why he was over-ruling you on that point, so that you could learn from it.

So now, we come to the final chapter (for those of you with staying power - or insomnia . . . )

A few years later, on another visit to the Churnet Valley line, I met Terry Essery, who was driving there at the time. For those who haven't read his books (I recommend them!), Terry was a fireman at Saltley, working on what were Saltley's top-link jobs, the fitted freights from Birmingham to Carlisle. In his earlier years, though, he had fired a load of Saltley's allocation of 4Fs.

Terry told me that, a while previously, he'd paid a visit to the Keighley & Worth Valley. While he was there, one of the crews said to him that they had their 4F out that day, and would he like a go on the shovel?

"I should have known they were up to something,", he said, "their faces were so deadpan."

Terry built up the fire, thick at the back, tapering down to a very thin front - as he'd been taught to do in the past - knowing it was a stiff old climb out of Keighley, and off they went . . .

"Well,", he told me, "I didn't know what on earth was going on - she was lifting the valves at the drop of a hat, and I had to work at shutting her up, rather than trying to make her steam!"

When they got back, he gave the crew a very old-fashioned look, and said: "Right! What have you done to this engine, because I've never even heard of a 4F steaming like this one!"

Grinning like Cheshire Cats, the crew led him to the front, opened the smokebox door, and there was . . . a petticoat pipe.

Terry looked at it, and asked "Is that it? Is that all you've done?"

That was it. So Terry asked them how they'd worked out the diameters, angles, length, positioning, and so on, knowing that even tiny changes can have dramatic effects for good or bad. They laughed, and said they hadn't worked out anything; they'd just borrowed the petticoat pipe off (I think) a BR Standard which was going through a full overhaul, and stuck it in the smokebox to see what would happen!

As Terry said to me, "Just think of all the coal and water that was wasted, and the hard graft for firemen, trying to make those things steam over the years - because some of them were heartbreakers; and all it would have taken to make them good steamers was a petticoat pipe! And to think that Derby knew what they were like, and built hundreds of the things - but never even bothered to see if they could be improved!"

And, after all, a bit of rolled steel sheet and a couple of brackets - which can be quickly removed if it doesn't work - is hardly a massive job, or heavy expense. But that was Derby; "We've always done it that way!"

Later, when Ivatt found his 2-6-0s were indifferent and unreliable steamers, he could have just kept churning them out to the same pattern, and not given a damn about whether they were fit for the job or not - but he chose to enlist the help of Sam Ell at Swindon, and the result was two classes of versatile, dependable and highly efficient engines which did the LMS proud.

Jack

 

H.G. Ivatt also had problems with reactionary operating department staff who wanted more of the 1P, 2F and 4F types. He seems to have been a kindly individual but also a determined one, an unusual combination of traits but one needed to provide enginemen with what they needed rather than with what their bosses thought was "good enough" for them. The latter's rather more forward looking opposite numbers on the Southern, having tried and failed to get anything usuable out of Bulleid, managed to snaffle a fair proportion of the pitiably small numbers of 2MT tanks made. These were to replace M7s and the like.

An interesting picture survives of 41298 blasting its way up the 1 in 58 to Portland with a fair sized goods train. Needless to say the valves were lifting! Somehow it is difficult to imagine an M7 on such work, certainly without overheating its big ends.

Paul H

 

A fascinating story, thanks for posting Jack. As someone who doesn't have time to read all the relevant biographies it's very much appreciated.