35018 British India Line

Wasn't it also intended to prevent buffer lock ?

 

Always thought the most powerful loco was attached to the train, with the other as pilot? In this case, with 2x Class 8's (and on load 2!) it wouldn't really matter. Guess shunting at Carnforth (or B.I.L.'s steam leak) was the deciding factor?

 

Not heard that before, why would there be a greater risk of buffer locking it they were coupled the other way round and the other companies didn't have a similar rule.

 

Not on the LNER in the case of an 0-6-0 and a Pacific it would be the Pacific on the front.

 

it depends on which was doing most of the work, having just repaired BIL , it might make sence for no9 to do most of the work hense why it was leading.

 

Martin - it was two class 8s on a two coach train. I doubt either of them was exactly being flogged!

Tom

 

Sledgehammer and Nut spring to mind!

 

IIRC that was the NBR way of doing things. Not sure that the southern parts of the LNER adopted similar methods.

 

Surely it's just a simple case of aerodynamics in this case?! ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I seem to recollect that this also applied on the GWR. If, say, a Castle hauled train required a pilot and only a Mogul was available the latter would be put 'inside' the Castle.
Ray.

 

That's what I said but it was for a different reason, the GW rule was that the train engine driver should be in charge of the brake so to take on a pilot for, say, the S Devon banks required a bit of shunting so on a busy summer Saturday I think that rule was quietly forgotten. The question is, in those circumstances did the the crews change footplates?

 

Somebody won a coin toss.

 

I've never read of an account o it happening, and I can imagine all sorts of issues with the management of the fire if crews were to swap round.

 

I expect the need for the train engine to be on top of the assisting engine on gWR came about due to the arcane rules of “seniority” of drivers.
A gWR express driver would have been “senior” to the average assisting engine driver, so therefore would have to drive the train.

 

Here's a quote from ' Summer Saturdays in the West'.

'At Newton Abbot nearly all expresses for the Plymouth line took on pilot engines for the South Devon banks. The pilots were mainly of the Grange, Manor and 41xx classes. Larger engines of all kinds took their turn as pilots, incorporated in main line duties. If the pilot was an engine with a pony truck leading instead of a bogie (eg a 41xx tank), it was supposed to be coupled inside the train engine if going beyond Brent but could be coupled ahead if detached there............'

There are photos in the book from 1957 of (lead engine first) 70024/6018 ; 6860/4928 ; 6908/1021. The first pair, running nearly three hours late, were replaced at Plymouth by 7909 and 4906, a quadruple engine change!

 

I got my information from one of Jim Russell's books but I can understand why, at a place like Newton Abbot, on a busy day it would be quite impractical to allow for the extra shunting movement. The rule probably ceased in 1948 but old practices on the railway took a long time to die.

 

As interesting as all this lead engine stuff is, do we know when the next possible tour 35018 could haul is? Not sure if she'd be in gauge for the Tin Bath which is down for 48151 or she could do the Santa Specials from Lancaster to Hellifield.

 

Not the Tin Bath. Even Jubilees are out of gauge for the Penistone Line.

 

Probably the Santa Specials then as they don't currently have a loco listed.

 

Tin Bath cancelled, letter received yesterday.