Lickey Incline Anecdotes

[RichmondCommu]

Hi everyone,

A very pleasant couple of hours was spent with an ex Saltley driver (over a few beers in a pub) a few months a go.

Two anecdotes really stood out and I'm curious to know what others think.

1. Heading back down the Lickey in a 'banker' (in this case a Pannier tank) as a fireman. By all accounts moving at a rare old pace; the young fireman hanging on for dear life whilst the driver looked as cool as custard.

2. In later years as a driver at the controls of a Peak as it reached 100 mph at the bottom of the Lickey.

Your thoughts would be very much appreciated.

Thanks for reading this.

 

[alistairlees]

Going straight up the Lickey on a fully-loaded 1S19 (21.24 Bristol - Glasgow / Edinburgh sleeper) without banking assistance, hauled by a 45/1. Would have been 1985 or 1986.

 

[Bald Rick]

Standing at the classic spot by the ‘B’ road bridge with my Dad, whilst Mum and sister stayed in car (en route from Midlands to the south). Seeing all sorts of trains. Then someone (with binoculars) shouted “FLYING BANANA COMING UP!” which completely threw me, I had no idea what he meant!

 

[pdeaves]

It's the Lickey decline to me. Approaching from Birmingham in a single car DMU (the 'Midline' one I think) looking forwards through the driver's cab you could see the gradient so sharp that it looked like you were about to plunge off a cliff. I always wondered how the driver kept the speed back to negotiate the crossover into Bromsgrove's single (at the time) platform.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Going straight up the Lickey on a fully-loaded 1S19 (21.24 Bristol - Glasgow / Edinburgh sleeper) without banking assistance, hauled by a 45/1. Would have been 1985 or 1986.

I'm really curious to whether the driver of the Peak would have requested assistance if his loco had been in anything other than good nick.

 

[Cowley]

One that’s always stuck with me was being a passenger behind 47517 on the 1S19 Plymouth to Glasgow/Edinburgh in May 1988, stopping at the foot of the incline for a pair of 37s to buffer up and shove us over, I think our train was 16 coaches that night.

There’s a great YouTube clip here of one of the last times a 37 was used as a banker in 2003...

 

[RichmondCommu]

One that’s always stuck with me was being a passenger behind 47517 on the 1S19 Plymouth to Glasgow/Edinburgh in May 1988, stopping at the foot of the incline for a pair of 37s to buffer up and shove us over, I think our train was 16 coaches that night.

There’s a great YouTube clip here of one of the last times a 37 was used as a banker in 2003...

Thanks for sharing this @Cowley. I'm curious to know why the driver of the Peak decided to make a run for it when the driver of your train asked for assistance. I guess we'll never know!

 

[Cowley]

Thanks for sharing this @Cowley. I'm curious to know why the driver of the Peak decided to make a run for it when the driver of your train asked for assistance. I guess we'll never know!

I notice that the one @alistairlees was on started from Temple Meads, the one I was on started at Plymouth, and three or four extra sleepers were added at Temple Meads making it a very long train.
I don’t know what the load was when it started from Bristol though?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I notice that the one @alistairlees was on started from Temple Meads, the one I was on started at Plymouth, and three or four extra sleepers were added at Temple Meads making it a very long train.
I don’t know what the load was when it started from Bristol though?

Ah, well that's a very good point! I only asked because I always assumed that the class 47 was more powerful than the class 45. However three more carriages and perhaps a loco not in the best of health might have made all the difference?

As an aside I'm assuming that there was a change of loco to a class 86 at New Street?

 

[Cowley]

Ah, well that's a very good point! I only asked because I always assumed that the class 47 was more powerful than the class 45. However three more carriages and perhaps a loco not in the best of health might have made all the difference?

As an aside I'm assuming that there was a change of loco to a class 86 at New Street?

45s are very similar in power (around 2500 hp) to a 47, I’m not sure if the 5mph difference in top speed would have helped with hill climbing? Maybe someone would know?
Yes it was an 86 (I’d have to look up which one though) from New Street and we were on the Edinburgh portion, which was powered by 47535 University of Leicester from Carstairs.
Five locos involved with one train. Not bad really...

 

[alistairlees]

45s are very similar in power (around 2500 hp) to a 47, I’m not sure if the 5mph difference in top speed would have helped with hill climbing? Maybe someone would know?
Yes it was an 86 (I’d have to look up which one though) from New Street and we were on the Edinburgh portion, which was powered by 47535 University of Leicester from Carstairs.
Five locos involved with one train. Not bad really...

I think it was at the discretion of the driver as to whether to request banking assistance or not. I’m sure most did. Very embarrassing if you didn’t and failed halfway up. I don’t recall how long the train I was on was but I would expect the standard formation of 15 or 16 vehicles. From what I remember Bristol drivers also preferred peaks to 47s for 1S19.

 

[Cowley]

I think it was at the discretion of the driver as to whether to request banking assistance or not. I’m sure most did. Very embarrassing if you didn’t and failed halfway up. I don’t recall how long the train I was on was but I would expect the standard formation of 15 or 16 vehicles. From what I remember Bristol drivers also preferred peaks to 47s for 1S19.

That’s a great point about failing half way up.
Re the 45s - I think they were quite well thought of by crews, in part I think because of the Crompton Parkinson electrical equipment. Our own @70014IronDuke would probably know a thing or two about this subject.

 

[muddythefish]

One that’s always stuck with me was being a passenger behind 47517 on the 1S19 Plymouth to Glasgow/Edinburgh in May 1988, stopping at the foot of the incline for a pair of 37s to buffer up and shove us over, I think our train was 16 coaches that night.

I saw IS19 going through Bromsgrove many times in the 1980s - always an important and heavily loaded train. Why did it come off ?

 

[Richard Scott]

45s are very similar in power (around 2500 hp) to a 47, I’m not sure if the 5mph difference in top speed would have helped with hill climbing? Maybe someone would know?
Yes it was an 86 (I’d have to look up which one though) from New Street and we were on the Edinburgh portion, which was powered by 47535 University of Leicester from Carstairs.
Five locos involved with one train. Not bad really...

45s have 5 stage of field weakening generally meaning their power output is more consistent so likely to be better hill climbers (maybe someone who drove them could verify/disprove?), very little to choose between the two with regards to Rail Horse Power (about 80hp, I think), which probably meant a 45 in good condition may well perform better than a 47 in average condition.
As an anecdote do remember having 47281 dragging 47664 being banked by 37215 - think it was 31st July 1988. 47664 sat down in Cheltenham station and 47281 was sent from Gloucester (assume wrong line as ran through Cheltenham wrong line and don't think there were any crossovers between Cheltenham and Gloucester by then).

 

[Cowley]

45s have 5 stage of field weakening generally meaning their power output is more consistent so likely to be better hill climbers (maybe someone who drove them could verify/disprove?), very little to choose between the two with regards to Rail Horse Power (about 80hp, I think), which probably meant a 45 in good condition may well perform better than a 47 in average condition.
As an anecdote do remember having 47281 dragging 47664 being banked by 37215 - think it was 31st July 1988. 47664 sat down in Cheltenham station and 47281 was sent from Gloucester (assume wrong line as ran through Cheltenham wrong line and don't think there were any crossovers between Cheltenham and Gloucester by then).

Great post.
I just had a look through my records and it was 37059(1) and 37133(2) that banked us that night (and 86247 forward from New Street @curlcurlimp).
Would anyone know what the line speed was at the bottom of the bank westbound?
I remember tearing down there behind various locos back then.
It’d be interesting to know what speed the pairs of 31s on Summer Saturday Paignton turns reached at the bottom too...


(1) Just realised that I’ve travelled behind 37059 this year on a railtour - I’d only been pushed by it before.
(2) Also just realised that my friend has an N gauge model of 37133 which I was driving around his dads layout on Monday. Not made the connection before...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Great post.
I just had a look through my records and it was 37059(1) and 37133(2) that banked us that night (and 86247 forward from New Street @curlcurlimp).
Would anyone know what the line speed was at the bottom of the bank westbound?
I remember tearing down there behind various locos back then.
It’d be interesting to know what speed the pairs of 31s on Summer Saturday Paignton turns reached at the bottom too...


(1) Just realised that I’ve travelled behind 37059 this year on a railtour - I’d only been pushed by it before.
(2) Also just realised that my friend has an N gauge model of 37133 which I was driving around his dads layout on Monday. Not made the connection before...

Fair play to you @Cowley for keeping such detailed notes; I wish I'd not thrown mine out 30 odd years ago!

 

[Cowley]

Fair play to you @Cowley for keeping such detailed notes; I wish I'd not thrown mine out 30 odd years ago!

Unfortunately I did lose a couple of books over the years, but I still have some of them from that period which I’m so pleased to have kept now as the years have gone by.

 

[Shrewbly]

2. In later years as a driver at the controls of a Peak as it reached 100 mph at the bottom of the Lickey.

Would anyone know what the line speed was at the bottom of the bank westbound?
I remember tearing down there behind various locos back then.

I don't know what the linespeed was then (I think it's 90 now), but I vividly recall hurtling down the bank behind a Peak headed for Plymouth in the mid to late 70s. We were running around 2 hours late and the driver was giving it everything. By the time we reached the top of Lickey, stood in the end doorway of a packed carriage with my mate, it was already terrifying. Down the bank we both took timings from the quarter mileposts - and we both recorded 108mph!

 

[Cowley]

I don't know what the linespeed was then (I think it's 90 now), but I vividly recall hurtling down the bank behind a Peak headed for Plymouth in the mid to late 70s. We were running around 2 hours late and the driver was giving it everything. By the time we reached the top of Lickey, stood in the end doorway of a packed carriage with my mate, it was already terrifying. Down the bank we both took timings from the quarter mileposts - and we both recorded 108mph!

Wow. That’s hair raising!

 

[Shrewbly]

Wow. That’s hair raising!

The one and only time that I think I have felt genuine fear while on a train! We made up around an hour of lost time by Plymouth if I remember rightly. Though I no longer have hair enough left to raise, I'm glad that safety has moved on since the 70s!

 

[Cowley]

I saw IS19 going through Bromsgrove many times in the 1980s - always an important and heavily loaded train. Why did it come off ?

47517 stayed on to New Street, we stopped at the bottom of the bank for the 37s to assist as the train was heavy. They weren’t coupled, and they dropped off once we started to gather speed at the top...

 

[alistairlees]

The one and only time that I think I have felt genuine fear while on a train! We made up around an hour of lost time by Plymouth if I remember rightly. Though I no longer have hair enough left to raise, I'm glad that safety has moved on since the 70s!

I imagine that was fairly terrifying. Not just the top speed, but also knowing that there was a bend and speed restriction at the bottom.

A few memories that were terrifying for me
- a 47/3 on an interregional train; I was on it from Sheffield to Leeds. The driver clearly forgot about the curve at Rotherham Masborough. We were belting along (80mph or so... I think it was a 40mph curve in the mid 1980s?) and he only braked as we got close to the curve. Full brake application. We came to a dead stand after the curve itself, maybe in the station (can't remember)... people looked very worried as they knew where we were and what was coming up
- a 45/1 coming into Lime Street. We were coming down from Edge Hill at some speed - maybe 50mph. Driver didn't brake much. I would swear that we entered platform 5 or 6 at something like 30mph, followed by a very sharp brake and we stopped just fine. I really thought we were going to hit the buffers
- a 45/1 going round the curve at Church Fenton at exactly 100mph. Limit was 70mph I think? Mid 80s again. Exhilarating to say the least.

 

[muddythefish]

47517 stayed on to New Street, we stopped at the bottom of the bank for the 37s to assist as the train was heavy. They weren’t coupled, and they dropped off once we started to gather speed at the top...

The train as a working , not the loco!

 

[ac6000cw]

Would anyone know what the line speed was at the bottom of the bank westbound?

i *think* it was 80 mph after the 1960's re-signalling and re-design of the layout at Bromsgrove. That allowed the northbound passenger trains to have a good run at the bank - and diesels are better at hill climbing than steam, so it meant banking became unnecessary for nearly all passenger trains (with benefits to their timings).

General consensus among enthusiasts in the 1970's was that the 45's could stand up to more abuse more than the 47's. I certainly saw a few 'very enthusiastic' departures with them back then (the image of one departure in particular from New Street has been etched into my brain ever since - pretty much full power from a standing start...the rear of the train was doing rather more than the required 15 mph when it rocked and rolled over the east end pointwork...)

 

[Dr Hoo]

In Humphrey Household's "Gloucestershire Railways in the Twenties" the author recalls earlier trips up the Lickey when a brace of 0-6-0 tank engines would be let out of the Banking Siding at Bromsgrove after a heavy passenger express passed, buffer up 'on the fly' and then drop off again at Blackwell! This practice was subsequently banned by the Board of Trade/HMRI.

 

[Cowley]

In Humphrey Household's "Gloucestershire Railways in the Twenties" the author recalls earlier trips up the Lickey when a brace of 0-6-0 tank engines would be let out of the Banking Siding at Bromsgrove after a heavy passenger express passed, buffer up 'on the fly' and then drop off again at Blackwell! This practice was subsequently banned by the Board of Trade/HMRI.

Sounds like a great idea to keep things moving! What could possibly go wrong?

 

[GusB]

47517 stayed on to New Street, we stopped at the bottom of the bank for the 37s to assist as the train was heavy. They weren’t coupled, and they dropped off once we started to gather speed at the top...

Was it normal at this time for assisting locomotives not to be coupled to the train in front?

The reason I ask is because of the accident at Beattock in May 1969. For those unfamiliar*, Train A was unable to get up the hill, Train B (with local pilot attached at the rear) was called to assist, but the two trains weren't physically coupled together. When a gap opened up between them, and subsequently closed again, there was a collision and the driver of Train B sadly died as a result of the injuries he sustained.

* Report here: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=436

One of the recommendations made in that report was that clear instructions be given to drivers of assisting trains that they should be coupled together. Should this have happened on the Lickey as well?

 

[Cowley]

Was it normal at this time for assisting locomotives not to be coupled to the train in front?

The reason I ask is because of the accident at Beattock in May 1969. For those unfamiliar*, Train A was unable to get up the hill, Train B (with local pilot attached at the rear) was called to assist, but the two trains weren't physically coupled together. When a gap opened up between them, and subsequently closed again, there was a collision and the driver of Train B sadly died as a result of the injuries he sustained.

* Report here: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=436

One of the recommendations made in that report was that clear instructions be given to drivers of assisting trains that they should be coupled together. Should this have happened on the Lickey as well?

That’s interesting isn’t it. All of those long banks on that route had bankers in steam days, but they were there specifically to do that job and the crews knew exactly what they were doing.
Is it possible that a locomotive (or two) pushing on their own would be able to keep the gap completely closed so that an incident like this wouldn’t occur?
If they were hauling a train as well then they wouldn’t be able to adjust their speed quickly enough to stay at the correct pace.
Makes you shudder reading that though...

 

[GusB]

That’s interesting isn’t it. All of those long banks on that route had bankers in steam days, but they were there specifically to do that job and the crews knew exactly what they were doing.
Is it possible that a locomotive (or two) pushing on their own would be able to keep the gap completely closed so that an incident like this wouldn’t occur?
If they were hauling a train as well then they wouldn’t be able to adjust their speed quickly enough to stay at the correct pace.
Makes you shudder reading that though...

I don't doubt that the crews would have known exactly what they're doing, but whether or not it's a single loco, a pair of locos or a whole train that does the assisting, there is still the potential for a similar event to occur. I'd be interested to know if those recommendations did become official policy and, if they did, how often that policy was actually adhered to. I can certainly see how having to couple up at the bottom of the bank and then having to stop and uncouple at the top would slow things down.

 

[edwin_m]

Was it normal at this time for assisting locomotives not to be coupled to the train in front?

The reason I ask is because of the accident at Beattock in May 1969. For those unfamiliar*, Train A was unable to get up the hill, Train B (with local pilot attached at the rear) was called to assist, but the two trains weren't physically coupled together. When a gap opened up between them, and subsequently closed again, there was a collision and the driver of Train B sadly died as a result of the injuries he sustained.

* Report here: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=436

One of the recommendations made in that report was that clear instructions be given to drivers of assisting trains that they should be coupled together. Should this have happened on the Lickey as well?

The report recommends this but with an exception for a light locomotive assisting an overpowered (but not failed) train in locations authorized in the Sectional Appendix. This would presumably include the Lickey.

At Beattock assistance was provided by the following train with the pilot locomotives on the rear of that. This formation would have been less able to accelerate than a light engine (although apparel still with a better power:weight ratio than the train in front) , so if the train in front started to accelerate away it was more likely to open up a gap.