Class 13 question

[Western 52]

British Rail converted 6 EE 350hp 0-6-0 diesel shunters into 3 class 13 paired locos for hump shunting at Tinsley yard in the 1960s. The locos were fitted with multiple working so that one cab controlled both units. One unit had its cab removed.

My question was why they chose to do this? Would it have been simpler and operationally more flexible to just fit a small batch of standard locos with multiple control?

 

[norbitonflyer]

British Rail converted 6 EE 350hp 0-6-0 diesel shunters into 3 class 13 paired locos for hump shunting at Tinsley yard in the 1960s. The locos were fitted with multiple working so that one cab controlled both units. One unit had its cab removed.

My question was why they chose to do this? Would it have been simpler and operationally more flexible to just fit a small batch of standard locos with multiple control?

There were some other modifications too - notably adding extra ballast weight to improve adhesion.

Presumably doing it that way meant that only three cabs needed modifying instead of six. And making three "masters" and three "slaves" was probably easier than making six shunters capable of being either.
Removing the redundant cab also improved forward vision a bit, as the cab is wider than the bonnet
There was some flexibility as, at least in theory, they could swap partners, although I don't think it ever became necessary

 

[Ashley Hill]

Other than their former D numbers,did the slave units carry any other identification to tell them apart from one another?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Other than their former D numbers,did the slave units carry any other identification to tell them apart from one another?

Therev were probably serial numbers embossed on major components like the engine and the traction motors, but nothing external as far as I know. the original D numbers were not displayed after conversion - only D4500/1/2 (later 13003/1/2) on the cabsides of the "master" units.

 

[Sun Chariot]

British Rail converted 6 EE 350hp 0-6-0 diesel shunters into 3 class 13 paired locos for hump shunting at Tinsley yard in the 1960s. The locos were fitted with multiple working so that one cab controlled both units. One unit had its cab removed.

My question was why they chose to do this? Would it have been simpler and operationally more flexible to just fit a small batch of standard locos with multiple control?

The front (slave) unit's cab was removed, to aid buffering-up visibility from the rear (master) unit's cab.

The class 13 solved two needs:
1) sufficient tractive effort (class 13's' 70,000 lbft exceeded that of any "standard" loco). The EE 350's were already low geared.
2) sufficient ground clearance over the hump. A long-framed bogie loco (assuming it could be cost effectively re-geared to deliver the required TE).would risk grounding as it crested the hump.
Oh - and surplus of EE 350 locos, so taking them out for this purpose, had no knock on operational impact.

 

[Gloster]

One possible reason for removing the slave‘s cab was that they were originally intended to run cab to cab. So arranged, with two full cabs the driver would either have to keep changing locos when changing direction (and both locos would have to have full panoply of controls) or they would have had a very poor view when driving from the rear loco.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd often wondered the same thing myself- to my untrained eye the obvious solution would be to pair the two locos "nose to nose" making effectively a miniature version of a pair of Class 20s with full visibility from the rear of either cab. Of course the reality is somewhat different to how I was picturing things in my head- having to change ends more frequently was a factor I hadn't thought to consider.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Given that they spent almost their entire working lives hump shunting, chahnging ends was probably not going to be needed anyway - when pushing wagons up the hump it matters little which end of the unit you are, as the loco is at the rear of the train anyway (as long as you can see when each cut of wagons have started down the slope so you know to pause before letting the next lot go), and when going back for more, you are cab first anyway.

 

[Harvester]

Had one (13003) from Rotherwood to Tinsley yard, on a section of a rail tour, on Saturday 7th October 1978. A rare break from hump shunting!

 

[Lemmy282]

Ah I remember it well, I was also on that train.
I believe the 13's were fitted with ship to shore radio telephones to talk to Tinsley tower. They were also fitted with an accurate speedometer. From memory they approached the hump at about 1.3mph and kept that speed up throughout the shunting, so didn't need to stop. Could be wrong about the exact speed, happy to be corrected.

 

[norbitonflyer]

From memory they approached the hump at about 1.3mph and kept that speed up throughout the shunting, so didn't need to stop.

That's what seemed to be happening when I visited Tinsley - as long as each cut was long enough to not start running away from the loco until the previous one was clear of the points, the loco didn't stop pushing. (Half the wagons in a cut have to be over the hump before gravity starts to pull them away from the loco, so the longer the cut, the further the loco has to move after the previous cut has gone).