Swanage Railway General Discussion

No news here, local crews, local knowledge. It worked. But that was 60 years ago

 

When the GWR railmotor was allowed out on NR I had two rides; on the Colnbrook and Looe branches. I would like another chance, but the last I knew was that the railmotor wasn't even in operational condition for the Didcot demonstration lines. I would likewise regard a traditional steam push-pull operation as an additional reason to visit the SR (or any other line) but I accept that it seems unlikely for reasons given in the last few posts.

 

They did a scrap a Bulleid EMU car a couple of years ago, which in theory would have yielded a full set of seats etc. Whether any of that would be used on 4366 I don’t know.

 

Superb!

 

Another image of "The Beast" (as I have nicknamed it) taken at a gloomy Norden on the way back from Poole Hospital after the joys of having "nuclear waste" infused in to me for a PET CT yesterday.
I was not "glowing in the dark enough" to improve the lighting.
I wonder what they cost new?

 

That is quite a beast!

Noel

 

Remember it on the ELR a couple of times, in the period between the line being passed to the heritage railway and it actually reopening, ex MSC 32 Gothenburg, two Mark 1 TSO s and a BR 20 ton brake van. Had a trip up as far as Summerseat on it, there was, as yet, no run round loop

 

?

 

I thought that but I guess it could be a reference to push-pull operation and not the tamper

 

So are we not talking about the yellow trolleys in the foreground of the photo?

 

Certainly are not P1 profile

 

So did the Hudswell Clarke "Gothenburg" loco, now used for "Thomas" at ELR have some kind of push pull operation where a turning loop was unavailable.

Guess the M7 on the SR might work top and tail to the River From bridge in the 2026 Autumn steam gala? Which might create some interest to restore the push pull kit?

From https://www.bloodandcustard.com/SR-CoachingSets-PullPush01.html

push pull steam was used a lot on the Southern region post 1949 on non electrified lines. Presumably push pull started even earlier in 1930s with air control with M7s (and other locos?)?
Otherwise means looking in books?

So does the Bluebell railway already have a restored push pull coach?

 

No, Gothenburg just propelled the two coaches and goods brake on the return journey to Bury, no push pull gear. AFAIK, the GWR used some sort of rods and mechanical linkage between the loco and auto trailers, the other three used pneumatic control with hoses

 

No - as I explained, we sometimes use what you might call a "poor man's motor train", i.e. propel a brake carriage with a guard who has a forward lookout, a horn and access to a brake. Control is from the locomotive, but the guard can sound the horn at appropriate points and, in an emergency, apply the brake.

Photo: https://www.facebook.com/100064707248087/photos/641921507974752/?_rdr

Edit to add: The IoWSR does have a restored set of motor train carriages, but doesn't use them as such.

Tom

 

All three constituents of the SR used motor train working from the Edwardian era onwards. (The history basically starts with competition from trams leading to a desire to work more cost-effective services. That led to interest in railcars, but those as a general type had significant problems, so very rapidly each company independently developed motor train, or pull-and-push, working. The same pattern was repeated right across the country's there was a very brief flowering of railcars followed by their almost equally rapid demise and replacement with push-pull working, which the SR generally referred to as motor trains).

The LBSCR system used compressed air to operate the locomotive controls. The SE&CR I believe had a mechanical system, and the LSWR used a Heath-Robinson contraption of pulleys and wires strung across the cab roof and supported from brackets mounted on the dome cover and chimney. In SR days and continuing into BR(S), the system was standardised on the LBSCR compressed air version, which was deemed the most reliable and easiest to operate (not least I suspect because coupling just relied on connecting up air pipes, and no mechanical adjustment to make). Former LSWR and SECR locos adapted for motor train working thus sprouted Westinghouse pumps and the necessary air reservoirs. Amongst the M7s thus fitted, only the long-frame variants were used, since they had sufficient space under the front running plate (in front of the cylinders) for the air tank; short-frame M7s didn't work motor trains.

Tom

 

The LMS used vacuum controlled push pull gear.
Ray.

 

What did the LNER use?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if, like the SR, they inherited multiple systems, but there was certainly a vacuum system used on vacuum/steam braked N7s, a class which could otherwise have been obvious candidates for a compressed air system.

The SR didn't make any obvious push towards standardising until I think the early 1930s (if I remember my Bradley correctly), when some incidents with the LSWR system led to its use being hastily withdrawn. This resulted in ex-LBSCR locos and stock temporarily migrating across the system to cover pull-push services until the necessary conversions of ex-LSWR locos and stock could be made. Whatever the state of the LBSCR system in later years, it was clearly considered the safest and most effective system in use on the SR network at the time.

I suspect another barrier to reintroducing it on 30053 might be finding any drawings of the relevant equipment. Descriptions are somewhat vague, and the exact operation of an air-operated regulator and its associated control valve is not as immediately obvious as a set of mechanical links.

 

I expect the members of the Drummond Society will be glad just to get 30053 back in revenue earning service soon.
Thanks Tom and 8126 for the detailed replies.
It's possible 30053 may be able to adapt commercial air kit (or some modern electronics!) to work with push pull coach 6699 when restored, but currently not a priority.

 

It would be interesting to know how any of the systems actually worked in practice.

Of the three main controls for a driver, the brake is fairly easy to arrange to work remotely; indeed every guard already has access to a brake application valve.

The reverser I'd suggest is near impossible. Firstly because there are so many different types to worry about (lever, screw, steam-operated etc) each of which would require automating some different form of motion. That motion is actually complex: for example, on a lever reverser, you first have to disengage a catch handle, then move a lever which requires significantly more force to move in one direction than the other, and where the force required varies depending on the regulator opening; then reengage the catch with the position lined up with a slot in the reverser quadrant. And secondly, you are doing all of that without any visual feedback. So in practice, I'm sure that actually using the reverser to notch up was just left to the man on the footplate, whatever the official position was.

That leaves the regulator, and they are notoriously fickle beasts to move specially if you want to go into 2nd valve, and can be tricky to shut. You also want quick reactions if the loco slips or primes.

So I strongly suspect that more or less whatever the system, in practical terms, that when the carriage was leading the man in the driving trailer sounded the whistle and controlled the brake, and the man on the footplate did the regulator (in practice if not in design), reverser (by design) and also fired the loco and looked after the water.

Tom