The Castle sent down was the prearranged standby, one of those specially prepared for the Special. It was to face west in the morning, then be turned the other way by the afternoon. We were gone from the town by then, but it was apparently immaculately prepared and polished to old GWR Royal Train standards - tender tank washed out, etc. Taunton shed prime crew ready on it, shed foreman in best suit, all ready to give a good blast on the whistle as the Special passed. When the message came through that it was required all were galvanised, alas the main line crew, including innumerable inspectors, just transferred straight from the substitute Hall to 7025, hardly a word said. Taunton crew hoping for their moment of fame were crestfallen.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Pilot Engines
- Thread starter Andy873
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Puddock
Member
Yes, a lot of them were very old and generally unchanged from big four days (some may well have pre-dated the grouping).
What an interesting list of codes and sources. Given the general coverage given to signalling bell codes and railway telegraph codes, I wonder why loco whistle codes seem to have been somewhat ignored, despite their sophistication.
These extracts prompted me to check my facsimile copy of the GWR's Rules and Regulations for 1904. There are a couple of references about whistling at junctions and as a warning when passing through tunnels, yards and similar, but I have found no specific codes - so far. Surely whistle codes would have been in use by then, given the complexity of operations and the number of train movements being handled at busy locations.
Whilst on the subject of whistle codes, can someone please explain what a "crow" whistle is and how to sound it?
Ashley Hill
Established Member
Imagine blowing "cock-a-doodle-doo" on a whistle and there`s your crow.
Some modern day banking as 57605 banks 57603 up to Exeter Central with the up sleeper.
Last edited:
Other codes were in use when approaching junctions to ensure the signalmen correctly routed the train. Such codes tended to be local in nature and specified at which signal box they were to be sounded. I recall seeing a list of codes to be sounded when approaching Cricklewood from the north when Cricklewood had the engine shed and the various coach and goods sidings, as well as the turn-off to the Dudding Hill line. But I don't have a copy.
Thank you!
Reverting to pilots at the front of the train, I have just found a tale from the GSWR about the time a goods train heading south from Ayr had a pilot. When it stopped at Kilkerran the driver on the train engine found all he had in front of him was a tender. The pilot loco had broken away and, given the prevailing down grade at that point, its driver had decided the safest course of action was to keep going! What the pilot's fireman thought about this appears not to have been recorded.
Nice video of modern day banking, thanks.
That's such a shame, it would have been great to see a list of local codes and possibly compare them with other regions / locations.
On the subject of whistles:
That's how a crow whistle has been described before to me, but I wanted to clarify that by hearing one and I think I've found one in this video. From 6.30 to 6.50 when the caption says "Thanks for watching" there is a line of narrow gauge engines. Two maroon and two green.
From around 6.30ish they sound off, as we approach the 6.40 mark the last green one sounds like it does the crow whistle?
It's also a nice watch too - Thank you RailView!
Wow! we seem to be getting some fabulous stories about pilot engines.
When banking, did they always run engine first? was that for visibility reasons?
Last edited:
chorleyjeff
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2013
- Messages
- 677
In the 1960s ( and no doubt in other decades ) a 2P class 4-4-0 engine would pilot the heavy Man/Liv to Gla/Edb from Preston to Carlisle when needed . Usually a 7P train engine. Preston had a small number of 2Ps and I don't recall they had much else to do.
Bankers did almost always run facing forward, for the best lookout, one has to be careful that the train does not start to get ahead, and then lose speed and be run into by the banker. There have been one or two serious collisions because of this.
One exception was at Glasgow Queen Street, heavy trains were banked up the steep grade that starts pretty much at the platform end. The pilots used to bring empty stock in had the slip couplings, as described above, but for incoming arrivals being taken up to the carriage sidings they had to be banked by the incoming train loco running tender first.
The GWR principle that the pilot had to be inside was indeed so the "experienced" crew lad, and controlled the brake, instead of the likely passed fireman and passed cleaner on the pilot. So an exception between Newton Abbot and Plymouth, where piloting was an everyday scheduled event for the crew, who knew the line well and did the round trip every day (and sometimes twice). They went on the front. When this was changed from a Hall to a Class 22 D63xx, they could end up in front of a King. Apparently the descent steeply down into Totnes, charging for the equally steep climb immediately beyond (both ways, and a 60mph speed limit, supposedly ...) was a bit of a terror on the small diesel once the King opened up full throttle.
One exception was at Glasgow Queen Street, heavy trains were banked up the steep grade that starts pretty much at the platform end. The pilots used to bring empty stock in had the slip couplings, as described above, but for incoming arrivals being taken up to the carriage sidings they had to be banked by the incoming train loco running tender first.
The GWR principle that the pilot had to be inside was indeed so the "experienced" crew lad, and controlled the brake, instead of the likely passed fireman and passed cleaner on the pilot. So an exception between Newton Abbot and Plymouth, where piloting was an everyday scheduled event for the crew, who knew the line well and did the round trip every day (and sometimes twice). They went on the front. When this was changed from a Hall to a Class 22 D63xx, they could end up in front of a King. Apparently the descent steeply down into Totnes, charging for the equally steep climb immediately beyond (both ways, and a 60mph speed limit, supposedly ...) was a bit of a terror on the small diesel once the King opened up full throttle.
AIUI, similar terrors could apply to any small loco piloting something much beefier when charging down a descent.
In the distant past, there were some companies which did not like double-heading. On the Great Northern, Patrick Stirling so disapproved that his famed 8 foot singles were not equipped with brake pipes on their front buffer beams, making piloting impracticable.
D L Smith's Tales of the GSWR are full of anecdotes about piloting. Amongst these is the comment that, "if you were piloting the Pullman, it was nothing unusual to have the driver of the train engine climb in over your tender for a visit, especially if he thought you had anything good in a bottle." As has been said before, the past is a foreign country where things were done differently from today!
Last edited:
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
Correct. Page 44 of "Treacy's Routes North" has a photo of just such a working in 1957. The fireman on the pilot loco is my brother aged 17. They had just piloted a train down from Preston and were immediately turned round to pilot this train back. One can only wonder if modern youth would have the stamina for such work today!
The LMS did seem fond of providing standby 2Ps rather than anything beefier.
Can't help feeling they'd sometimes be more hindrance than help - especially with 7' wheels on a bank!
chorleyjeff
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2013
- Messages
- 677
But OK for downhill. It would be interesting to know the maximum unbanked load for a 2P up Shap.
Oh, they'd fly downhill!
Depending on timing load 4P Compounds were allowed 6-10 coaches, so I would guess something like 4-7?
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,139
When a pilot loco was attached, how was the decision made - or even controlled - as to which loco was the primary power and which the secondary? In the case of the Midland 2P above, would that be essentially at full power all the time with the train engine varying its output? Or would the 2P be mainly coasting, only producing power on hill climbs?
And who made the power on/off decisions - the driver of the pilot or the driver of the train engine?
And who made the power on/off decisions - the driver of the pilot or the driver of the train engine?
D6130
Established Member
I would think that it would have to be the driver of the leading loco - tied in with the fact that they controlled the brake throughout the train. However, both drivers would know from their route knowledge and experience when - and by how much - to work the regulator and cut-off.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
The late great Peter Handford's recordings, released years ago on the Argo Transacord label, includes audio from S&D workings - such as 2P pilot surefootedly gathering pace, as the train engine - Bulleid Light Pacific - slips and gasps wildly behind it.
70014IronDuke
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 3,699
The Night Ferry, especially when worked via the North Kent route, famously had a regular 4-4-0 pilot even when worked by an 8P MN to ensure it got over Sole Street Bank - at least from what I've read. The former SE&CR 4-4-0s were 3P in the BR ratings, of course.
I think both locos would be working most of the time - as @D6130 says - both crews would know the road and work in tandem. I can imagine that a Scot crew would be less than pleased if they thought the 2P in front only worked the regulator for a few miles up Shap and Beattock in the near 200 miles from Preston to Glasgow
Also, even though locos - at least those fitted with Walscheart's valve gear - rarely 'coasted' 100% (meaning no regulator whatsoever) because the pistons needed some steam to bring in oil for lubrication purposes. I don't know what the 'minimum' regulator was when coasting (5% perhaps?) but I suspect it would not be ideal for any loco to be pushed along for mile after mile with just minimum regulator applied.
chorleyjeff
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2013
- Messages
- 677
I think the 2Ps only worked as far as Carlisle. The man/Liv to GLA/ EDB stopped at intermediate stations and no doubt had to slow for signals and speed restrictions so there would be plenty of work required from them including gradients other than Shap. As an aside I have seen a photo of an L&Y 0-6-0 being detached from a Man - GLA/ EDB at Bolton having assisted the 7P from Manchester.The Night Ferry, especially when worked via the North Kent route, famously had a regular 4-4-0 pilot even when worked by an 8P MN to ensure it got over Sole Street Bank - at least from what I've read. The former SE&CR 4-4-0s were 3P in the BR ratings, of course.
I think both locos would be working most of the time - as @D6130 says - both crews would know the road and work in tandem. I can imagine that a Scot crew would be less than pleased if they thought the 2P in front only worked the regulator for a few miles up Shap and Beattock in the near 200 miles from Preston to Glasgow
Also, even though locos - at least those fitted with Walscheart's valve gear - rarely 'coasted' 100% (meaning no regulator whatsoever) because the pistons needed some steam to bring in oil for lubrication purposes. I don't know what the 'minimum' regulator was when coasting (5% perhaps?) but I suspect it would not be ideal for any loco to be pushed along for mile after mile with just minimum regulator applied.
I have seen a book that listed passenger train permitted loads for all L&Y passenger engines over all sections ( some quite short eg several between Preston and Manchester) of the L&Y so perhaps there was a similar list for N of Preston in LMS days. Surprising, to me, was that L&Y passenger engines were booked to return to their home shed every day.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
I wonder what approach is taken by crews, when driving double headed steam specials down the cintinuous 1 in 100 grades on the S&C?
Last edited:
I decided to go back and look at my 1956 freight WTT.
At Stanfield Hall (on the Copy Pit route) an assisting engine ("AE") was required. It wasn't coupled and banked trains. It was to leave the train at Copy Pit sidings box.
Going the other way (East Lancs) to West Yorkshire the 1960 sectional appendix states the following from Gannow Junction (Rose Grove) to Copy Pit sidings regarding banking:
"Up line. In clear weather only" - that is any class of train to be assisted and must not be coupled... So what would happen in bad weather?
It also says:
"Eight wheeled coupled engines must not be used for banking passenger trains" Why not passenger trains?
And are we talking about engines like the 2-8-0 WD's and 8F's?
At Stanfield Hall (on the Copy Pit route) an assisting engine ("AE") was required. It wasn't coupled and banked trains. It was to leave the train at Copy Pit sidings box.
Going the other way (East Lancs) to West Yorkshire the 1960 sectional appendix states the following from Gannow Junction (Rose Grove) to Copy Pit sidings regarding banking:
"Up line. In clear weather only" - that is any class of train to be assisted and must not be coupled... So what would happen in bad weather?
It also says:
"Eight wheeled coupled engines must not be used for banking passenger trains" Why not passenger trains?
And are we talking about engines like the 2-8-0 WD's and 8F's?
Last edited:
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,139
at a guess the small wheels geared them too slowly?
70014IronDuke
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 3,699
Fair point. I'd have thought even single locos must be barely working for significant distances on today's steam-hauled specials, given the current line's 60 mph limit. Need a footplate inspector or experienced driver to answer that one.
Missed this one at the time but the problem with double heading (apart from the cost in locos, crews and coal) on freight - and most banking was of freight - would be the strain on the couplings of unfitted trains. Having a loco at the rear reduced the danger of snatching and couplings breaking, and - if it did happen - you had a hefty unit on the back which could hold the wagons on the slope.
You wouldn't want to be the guard on Shap or Beattock trying to stop a runaway using the handbrake of a 20 ton van!
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Slightly off topic - here's another form of pilot, who joins the driver between Totton and MoD Marchwood spur (on the old Fawley Refinery branch).
The branch operates as "one train in section" and it crosses several local roads. They are mostly Auto Half Barriers; but this splendid gated crossing is still in use at Marchwood's former station.
The branch operates as "one train in section" and it crosses several local roads. They are mostly Auto Half Barriers; but this splendid gated crossing is still in use at Marchwood's former station.
Attachments
I wouldn’t think that this would be a problem at banking speeds.
LickeyIncliner
Member
That was one of the reasons for banking from the rear going up the Lickey. It was said that a runaway wagon could roll downhill all the way to the bridge over the River Avon 20+ miles away. Though obviously the worry was what it would hit, and how hard, on the way...
In answer to the question in another post about which way banking engines faced, in the Lickey case (and presumably other steep inclines) it was to keep the firebox at the lower end of the locomotive. Apparently there was a risk with some locomotive types that the water level would fall too low if the firebox was at the uphill end.
To what extent either practice was based on bitter experience I don't know - hopefully not at all!
Surprising that there were no catch points?
That sounds like a very good reason for banking engine first rather than tender.
I'm still wondering about the 1960 sectional appendix stating that (on certain routes) trains should only be banked (uncoupled) in good weather - in bad weather would they revert to double heading?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I'm sure all these inclines would have had catch points in the era of unfitted freight trains, but having a heavy freight derailed by one would most likely result in a heap of smashed wagons over both tracks and vicinity, with the guard somewhere underneath it. While the company might not have cared too much about the lives of its servants, that would be a major expense to clear up and replace the destroyed rolling stock.
However, even ignoring the possibility of a runaway, it's quicker to attach and detach an assisting loco at the rear whether coupled or not. If not coupled or fitted with a remote coupling release, it can just drop off at the summit and the train doesn't even need to stop. There's also the question of coupling load, mentioned by someone upthread.
I would guess the reason for banking uncoupled only in good weather is either more difficulty in co-ordinating the two drivers in poor visibility, or the greater risk of the trains separating and then colliding on slippery rails. I think the banking engine would still assist at the rear, but would be coupled up.
If the banker was coupled to the rear of an unfitted train, some care would need to have been taken to ensure there wasn't a snatch and a broken coupling. Did this means the lion's share of the traction would have had to come from the banker I wonder?