Steam Loco Drivers loco knowledge

[2192]

In BR steam train days if an employee was passed as a loco driver, was he qualified to drive any steam loco on the system (if he knew the route), or could s/he say "Sorry I don't sign class XX" if one turned up on a train that s/he was due to take over? In other words were the controls on one steam loco much the same as any other? (I appreciate that the controls on a modern diesel or electric are far more complex and one needs to learn each class).

 

[godfreycomplex]

In BR steam train days if an employee was passed as a loco driver, was he qualified to drive any steam loco on the system (if he knew the route), or could s/he say "Sorry I don't sign class XX" if one turned up on a train that s/he was due to take over? In other words were the controls on one steam loco much the same as any other? (I appreciate that the controls on a modern diesel or electric are far more complex and one needs to learn each class).

Much as now really, it’s not so much the location of the controls which is the key component of traction knowledge but acceleration and (especially) braking characteristics, fault finding and rectification, signal sighting, gauging on particular routes, performance in different types of weather all these details to do with the operation of the traction concerned. Knowing where the regulator is is very much the easy bit.

How the system for traction competence worked in steam days I’m not sure but I would think it would have at least a superficial similarity to the system in use today

 

[PaulLothian]

I've read a few tales of crew picking up a loco of a type they'd never been on before, and relying on a couple of minutes of explanations from the crew they were relieving before setting off!

 

[Taunton]

Very different. You just got on with it. Of course, the established structure of a few years cleaner (of all types) and then 10 or more of fireman, working your way up, always with a more experienced senior, helped with understanding. But an oddball type from another Region, just work it out on the spot. As invariably happened.

For example, when the Britannias came onto the Western Region, they were driven from the opposite side (so the fireman had to work the other way round as well). The (unlabelled) controls were all in different places, and there was a longer boiler. This last meant that when you tipped over the top of Dainton bank beyond Newton Abbot, from 1 in 36 up to 1 in 36 down, the water level at the firebox dropped further than had been known before. And thus there was more than one case of a fusible plug being blown, for drivers who had been over the line all their lives. This was just, sort of, accepted.

 

[6Gman]

As @Taunton writes I believe things were different. Or, as somebody* said, "the past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".

Just to take Llandudno Junction as an example (says 6Gman ) on summer Saturdays weird things could arrive without any prior notice and traincrew would just be expected to get on with it. B1s from the Eastern, for example, were not unknown and probably hadn't been seen locally since the previous summer - you just climbed aboard and set off.

My father's most un-LNW/LMS loco at the Junction was probably working a Gresley K4 (only six were ever built and they spent most of their career on the West Highland) on a railtour - it was, of course, the preserved The Great Marquess.

EDIT. * It was L P Hartley.

 

[Taunton]

As @Taunton writes I believe things were different. Or, as somebody* said, "the past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".

Indeed. For example, in 1925 the GWR and the LNER exchanged locomotives for a week. GWR "Pendennis Castle" did a Kings Cross to Leeds round trip each day, while LNER Pacific "Victor Wild" did three round trips on the Cornish Riviera, down one day, back the next. They were driven by their own enginemen, and given a local pilotman who knew the road. Preparation and "signing the road"? Collett wanted his men to have an understanding, so the previous week he gave them tickets for a couple of trips on the LNER train, to travel standing at the front coach droplight with a printed explanation of the line, leaning out all the way there and back. That was it. Gresley gave his crew running over the GWR no preparation at all, they just reported to Old Oak Common on the Monday and met their pilotman. Each used the host systems'coal, though apparently Pendennis was sent over to Kings Cross the night before with the tender stacked with hand-picked Welsh coal right up to the loading gauge. It would only last one trip though. It was also given the GWR "Royal Train" preparation, tender tank flushed out, etc.

Pendennis made a spectacular Monday morning start from Kings Cross, which the crew knew full well was being recorded to the second by Cecil j Allen back in the train, by then well known from his performance articles in the Railway Magazine; they stormed up to Finsbury Park as never before, which Allen reported as such. Next week Victor Wild did pretty poorly on the GWR, and actually lost time. Apparently Gresley had a subsequent uncomfortable meeting with the LNER directors, which given that Allen was actually an LNER management employee at the time he must have been a bit hacked about. But as for the crews knowing the road ...

 

[chorleyjeff]

In BR steam train days if an employee was passed as a loco driver, was he qualified to drive any steam loco on the system (if he knew the route), or could s/he say "Sorry I don't sign class XX" if one turned up on a train that s/he was due to take over? In other words were the controls on one steam loco much the same as any other? (I appreciate that the controls on a modern diesel or electric are far more complex and one needs to learn each class).

Had to work on whatever turned up and get on with it.

 

[neilmc]

At the end of steam at Carlisle in 1967, 70004 William Shakespeare worked a parcels train north to Kilmarnock on the penuntimate day of steam, 30th December. But the Scottish driver refused to take it back to Carlisle.

 

[M&NEJ]

777 "Sir Lamiel" apparently failed between Culgaith and Appleby, hauling a "Northern Belle" excursion over the S&C on 20th August 1984. As I understand it the ex-Southern engine had injector controls of the opposite hand to other locomotives (left- or right-hand turn to open or close the valve). The fireman thought he was opening when in fact he was closing, and lost control of the boiler water level; so the fusible plug did as it was supposed to do.

 

[6Gman]

777 "Sir Lamiel" apparently failed between Culgaith and Appleby, hauling a "Northern Belle" excursion over the S&C on 20th August 1984. As I understand it the ex-Southern engine had injector controls of the opposite hand to other locomotives (left- or right-hand turn to open or close the valve). The fireman thought he was opening when in fact he was closing, and lost control of the boiler water level; so the fusible plug did as it was supposed to do.

In my day planning steam charters we would have had a Traction Inspector on the loco who would - hopefully - have made sure nothing like that would happen (one hopes!).

 

[2192]

For example, when the Britannias came onto the Western Region, they were driven from the opposite side (so the fireman had to work the other way round as well). The (unlabelled) controls were all in different places, and there was a longer boiler. This last meant that when you tipped over the top of Dainton bank beyond Newton Abbot, from 1 in 36 up to 1 in 36 down, the water level at the firebox dropped further than had been known before. And thus there was more than one case of a fusible plug being blown, for drivers who had been over the line all their lives. This was just, sort of, accepted.

Thanks everyone for your replies. Presumably the remedy in Taunton's case quoted was to put more water in the boiler as you approached the summit, but to start doing it earlier than you would for a King or a Castle or a Hall? -- or were Britannia's then banned from working over Dainton?

 

[Taunton]

Thanks everyone for your replies. Presumably the remedy in Taunton's case quoted was to put more water in the boiler as you approached the summit, but to start doing it earlier than you would for a King or a Castle or a Hall? -- or were Britannia's then banned from working over Dainton?

Ah. Now I am not a steam driver, so defer to the several members here who are, but it's not as simple as that. Going up the bank from Newton Abbot uses a huge amount of steam, in fact more than the boiler can generate (known as "the cylinders beating the boiler"), this is one of the upsides of a steam loco compared to a diesel, that in using the boiler as a power reservoir it can actually do this. Of course, in doing so the pressure falls. Now when you are generating steam at maximum rate, if you put cold water in then the generation rate falls, so there is a critical balance between all the elements. It was common to start attacking Dainton with a full boiler of water and steam pressure blowing off, and by the time you got to the top pressure fallen off a bit (though not too much, because you need maximum power), and water pretty much down to the bottom mark in the gauge glass. You have an injector putting some in, but not too much. Down the other side it's max both injectors, and regulator just enough to storm through Totnes and get a good charge at equal Rattery bank beyond, where the same applies.

Think of your kettle at home making the tea. It boils, the steam is coming out of the spout, you lift the lid and pour more cold water in. What happens to the steam coming out of the spout? To keep it steaming you can put the fresh water in, but as just a trickle.**

** : Don't try this at home, folks, careful of burning yourself on the steam

 

[John Webb]

Both Bill Alcock (in "A Locoman's Log) and Terry Essery (in "Saltley Firing Days") record their footplate experiences and mention a number of occasions when they found either a loco type they'd not worked on before or were handing over to a crew who'd no experience of the loco and had to be given or to give instructions on the controls. This happened particularly on inter-Regional trains.

Bill Alcock's book covers from 1937 to 1985, so gives a lot of information on the transition from steam to diesel and the extra training the latter imposed.

 

[Spartacus]

As much an issue as anything was the fireman being unfamiliar with the loco type. Many locos needed, and still need, firing in vastly different styles from each other. There's been numerous occasions when successful locos have moved to 'foreign' locations and given terrible performances, more than likely due to firemen not having a clue how they should be fired, though no fault of their own. Locos with wide fireboxes moving to places where wide fireboxes were weird exotic things is one big cause. Other times crews more familiar with locos that would happily steam with a firebox filled might label a class a disaster if it needed a thin fire.

 

[Rescars]

As much an issue as anything was the fireman being unfamiliar with the loco type. Many locos needed, and still need, firing in vastly different styles from each other. There's been numerous occasions when successful locos have moved to 'foreign' locations and given terrible performances, more than likely due to firemen not having a clue how they should be fired, though no fault of their own. Locos with wide fireboxes moving to places where wide fireboxes were weird exotic things is one big cause. Other times crews more familiar with locos that would happily steam with a firebox filled might label a class a disaster if it needed a thin fire.

IIRC such an issue arose a long while back on the Bluebell, where one of the resident ex-SECR locos had a reputation as a lousy steamer until a visiting ex-SR driver advised them how to fire it. Problem instantly solved!

 

[eldomtom2]

The question then arises of when the modern system of formal traction certification came into being.

 

[Irascible]

The question then arises of when the modern system of formal traction certification came into being.

Also whether crews needed to be passed out on early diesels - one wonders what a GWR 48xx driver thought about the railcar that turned up on his usual autotrain patch.

There's a lot of different things that can go wrong with an IC engine installation, I guess that was a big incentive behind it. And also, someone must have worked out how to make the most out of a specific boiler/firebox, was that ever written down somewhere?

 

[Welshman]

I think the answer "take what comes and work it out as you go along" applied not only to steam traction but to the first gen. dmus when they arrived.
I remember reading an account of a driver at Birmingham New St, who, although he was trained on dmus found himself with a type he'd not driven before. Although controls such as throttle, brake, etc, were in the same place, he searched high and low upon the desk to find out where to insert his key. Help eventually came in the form of a someone sitting in the saloon behind the screen pointing at a key hole as far away from the driver as possible, under the desk on the passenger's side.

 

[Efini92]

I think the answer "take what comes and work it out as you go along" applied not only to steam traction but to the first gen. dmus when they arrived.
I remember reading an account of a driver at Birmingham New St, who, although he was trained on dmus found himself with a type he'd not driven before. Although controls such as throttle, brake, etc, were in the same place, he searched high and low upon the desk to find out where to insert his key. Help eventually came in the form of a someone sitting in the saloon behind the screen pointing at a key hole as far away from the driver as possible, under the desk on the passenger's side.

In fairness they were never in the same place on any dmu.

 

[Magdalia]

Also whether crews needed to be passed out on early diesels

On the Eastern Region, yes they did.

 

[Taunton]

The question then arises of when the modern system of formal traction certification came into being.

Well, of course it was always there, in doing a few years as a cleaner and being checked out at the end, by which time you had polished every control, in every place, and also had a very good idea about what connected to what etc. Then you started again as fireman, easily at first on a shunter, but always had a mate with you who had done the job before. After say 10 years of that, there was (on the Western) a formal and severe test at Swindon by the inspectors before you were passed out as a driver. But now, at first, it was back to a shunter.

Same result, different approach.

 

[Irascible]

On the Eastern Region, yes they did.

How about pre-nationalisation though ( oir even further back ) - NER electrics, I guess the GWR was the only one with significant numbers of DMUs... how about everyone's EMUs? did drivers come from the same pool as steam?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Anecdotally , steam drivers were just expected to get on with it.

A Bletchley senior driver , a young fireman in WW2 were ordered to relief a special from Oxford to Cambridge one dark knight in the blackout , which was some odd GWR double framed tender engine - possibly a 4-4-0 , a quick handover and off they went. Wartime - no excuse.

 

[Taunton]

I believe the USA-supplied S160 2-8-0s in WW2 had a number of incidents because they were just too different for crews compared to what they knew. They had three boiler explosions in their first year here. None of the railways here showed any interest in them.

 

[Elecman]

Wasn’t that due to them not having the ussual glass tube sight gauges but test holes in a pipe to check boiler water level?

 

[Spartacus]

Wasn’t that due to them not having the ussual glass tube sight gauges but test holes in a pipe to check boiler water level?

It was a glass tube arrangement, but it had to be operated manually with a pair of valves, rather than being automatic, and because of that it was prone to reading wrong if both valves weren’t operated correctly. Reading low wasn’t a safety issue, but reading high certainly was. And I say specifically IT rather than THEY as there was only one of them, not two. There weren’t any boiler explosions, that would have been the result of something much more extensive going wrong, but there were cases of dropped plugs and collapsed firebox crowns.

 

[6Gman]

How about pre-nationalisation though ( oir even further back ) - NER electrics, I guess the GWR was the only one with significant numbers of DMUs... how about everyone's EMUs? did drivers come from the same pool as steam?

Down on that there Southern the man sitting at the front end was called a Motorman, so I assume there were separate Driver and Motormen Links at depots?

Hence the full name of ASLEF : The Associated Society of Loco Enginemen (or was it Engineers?) and Firemen, Motormen and Cleaners.

 

[Taunton]

Wasn’t that due to them not having the ussual glass tube sight gauges but test holes in a pipe to check boiler water level?

As I understand it (you technical lot will doubtless correct me) the S160, a couple of which came to Taunton for a few months, had just one gauge glass, not two, so you didn't have a cross-check between them. This had as normal manual stop valves top and bottom, and outside those normal auto protector valves so if a glass burst, a periodic issue, and there was a sudden rush of steam, the protector valves sensed this and operated pretty quickly to stop the flow. Trouble was they were too sensitive, so if you say shut the manual valves, changed a glass, then opened the manual valves again, if you did that a bit too quickly the protectors on seeing the inrush would operate and shut off, with the glass now stuck showing full water and nothing to worry about. Don't forget all this was happening in The Blackout.

I believe there were multiple explosions in the short while they operated; a GWR fireman was killed in one of them. I suspect the difference between "collapsed crown" and "explosion" is a bit moot. I also believe that US locos in general did not have fusible plugs, which if so on these would be another issue - Tuplin the author and professional engineer rode on one in the USA and was most surprised to find no plugs on it (he was also surprised to be allowed to go on a lengthy main line footplate run on one without an inspector/road foreman, he just had to show his pass to the engineer).

 

[randyrippley]

As I understand it (you technical lot will doubtless correct me) the S160, a couple of which came to Taunton for a few months, had just one gauge glass, not two, so you didn't have a cross-check between them. This had as normal manual stop valves top and bottom, and outside those normal auto protector valves so if a glass burst, a periodic issue, and there was a sudden rush of steam, the protector valves sensed this and operated pretty quickly to stop the flow. Trouble was they were too sensitive, so if you say shut the manual valves, changed a glass, then opened the manual valves again, if you did that a bit too quickly the protectors on seeing the inrush would operate and shut off, with the glass now stuck showing full water and nothing to worry about. Don't forget all this was happening in The Blackout.

I believe there were multiple explosions in the short while they operated; a GWR fireman was killed in one of them. I suspect the difference between "collapsed crown" and "explosion" is a bit moot. I also believe that US locos in general did not have fusible plugs, which if so on these would be another issue - Tuplin the author and professional engineer rode on one in the USA and was most surprised to find no plugs on it (he was also surprised to be allowed to go on a lengthy main line footplate run on one without an inspector/road foreman, he just had to show his pass to the engineer).

There was a similar crown collapse on the Gettysburg Railway in 2005 ( a small family run affair).
This accident report (50+ page PDF) describes in detail the misuse, and failure to maintain the sight gauge

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9605.pdf

 

[david1212]

I think the answer "take what comes and work it out as you go along" applied not only to steam traction but to the first gen. dmus when they arrived.
I remember reading an account of a driver at Birmingham New St, who, although he was trained on dmus found himself with a type he'd not driven before. Although controls such as throttle, brake, etc, were in the same place, he searched high and low upon the desk to find out where to insert his key. Help eventually came in the form of a someone sitting in the saloon behind the screen pointing at a key hole as far away from the driver as possible, under the desk on the passenger's side.

I have the book, it is Diesels by L.C. Jacks. Without finding the page I think that rather than a passenger it was the guard who said he had seen drivers do something under driving panel at secondman's side of the cab.