Tender Locos and Pull-Push Trains

[Greg Wetzel]

I've been thinking about push-pull trains, and it occurred to me how I only know of tank engines being used for this work. Which got me thinking; were tender engines used for push-pull trains too?

 

[Irascible]

That's an interesting one ( I can't think of any ) - the reasons for using push-pull does tend to overlap the sort of service you'd use a tank engine for though.

 

[Greg Wetzel]

Very true.

 

[hexagon789]

Not in the UK that I can think of, but they did abroad. France certainly did, and I think Germany, Poland, Czechia, Hungary and Russia may have.

 

[32475]

With push-pulls used largely on branch lines and lines with plenty of curves, the line of sight for the driver and fireman on a tank loco is much better than on a tender loco. If you’re driving a tender loco backwards with a full width tender in front of your line of sight then you’ve got to lean out of the cab to spot signals, obstructions etc or else see over the top of it which is virtually impossible.

 

[61058]

Not in the UK that I can think of, but they did abroad. France certainly did, and I think Germany, Poland, Czechia, Hungary and Russia may have.

I believe in Germany the DB 2-6-2 class 23 tender loco's worked Push-Pull trains.

 

[etr221]

In steam days push-pull operation was quite severely restricted in Britain - certainly in train length (I think two vehicles max to be propelled), if not other aspects. In other countries, things were more liberal: and in more recent times, more advanced control systems have provided for greater use of p-p working.

 

[hexagon789]

I believe in Germany the DB 2-6-2 class 23 tender loco's worked Push-Pull trains.

Having checked, yes - they were exactly the class I was thinking of for German

 

[30907]

I believe in Germany the DB 2-6-2 class 23 tender loco's worked Push-Pull trains.

And the P8/38 4-6-0 that preceded it, I think?

Certainly considerably longer p/p sets were used in France (eg out of Paris Nord, up to 1969 or so) and Germany than in GB (3 bogies maximum on the SR).

 

[Western Lord]

In push-pull working the locomotive stays at one end of the train, so there is no problem about visibility when running tender first as the driver is in the leading carriage. There is no practical reason why tender engines could not be used for push-pull, but most such trains were very short so even the smallest tender engine would have been too big for the job.

 

[randyrippley]

Problem with a tender would be the extra complication of the remote control linkages

 

[Irascible]

Problem with a tender would be the extra complication of the remote control linkages

They weren't all mechanical - the LMS system was vacuum controlled ( one hopes the pipes were physically incompatible with the brake pipes! ) and one of the SR constituents had an air system.

 

[Greg Wetzel]

Makes sense that a tender engine wouldn't be used. I'm guessing it must have been hard work depending on the push-pull system used in those countries that used tender locos for the task.

 

[edwin_m]

Makes sense that a tender engine wouldn't be used. I'm guessing it must have been hard work depending on the push-pull system used in those countries that used tender locos for the task.

Many Continental steam locos had electric lighting so must have had a fairly powerful generator, whereas British ones generally didn't. If they also used an electrical push-pull system, then this would have worked regardless of train length.

 

[rogercov]

Can anyone confirm that the Crowhurst-Bexhill West branch was push-pull?
I seem to remember that they used the bay platform at Crowhurst. If that's the case, the loco would not have been able to run round.

Although it mainly used tank engines, I remember that on at least one occasion towards the end of steam they used a Q1 (and allowed me on the footplate at Bexhill).

Would that have been an instance of a tender loco working push-pull?

 

[hexagon789]

Can anyone confirm that the Crowhurst-Bexhill West branch was push-pull?

Believe so, using SECR H Class until dieselised in 1958.

 

[Gloster]

Can anyone confirm that the Crowhurst-Bexhill West branch was push-pull?
I seem to remember that they used the bay platform at Crowhurst. If that's the case, the loco would not have been able to run round.

Although it mainly used tank engines, I remember that on at least one occasion towards the end of steam they used a Q1 (and allowed me on the footplate at Bexhill).

Would that have been an instance of a tender loco working push-pull?

I believe that they normally arrived in the Up Bay and then shunted across to the Down Bay for the return. Running round before shunting across would have been possible, but a bit of a nuisance.

 

[Taunton]

They weren't all mechanical - the LMS system was vacuum controlled ( one hopes the pipes were physically incompatible with the brake pipes! ) and one of the SR constituents had an air system.

Each railway did their own thing. I think the LSWR also had a taut wires system that went over the carriage roof. The GWR had a mechanical system with a rotating rod and universal joints under the centreline of loco and carriages. Some systems allowed the remote driver to sound the whistle, but the GWR had a large gong on the front of the trailer.

The GWR system was such a stiff nuisance, especially if two vehicles were being propelled, that crews often preferred to run the loco round anyway if that was possible. A tender would have just added to this. Some duties were quite mainstream and busy, such as Plymouth to Saltash before the road bridge was built, which was run with two trailers either side of the loco in the middle, so always driven remotely. This was done to allow rapid turnrounds on the main line tracks in the very cramped Saltash station.

 

[John Webb]

Can anyone confirm that the Crowhurst-Bexhill West branch was push-pull?
I seem to remember that they used the bay platform at Crowhurst. If that's the case, the loco would not have been able to run round.

Although it mainly used tank engines, I remember that on at least one occasion towards the end of steam they used a Q1 (and allowed me on the footplate at Bexhill).

Would that have been an instance of a tender loco working push-pull?

There are some interesting photos of Bexhill West trains at http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bexhill_west/index.shtml and also at http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/crowhurst/index.shtml - the latter station is still open but was included for completeness.

 

[30907]

Can anyone confirm that the Crowhurst-Bexhill West branch was push-pull?
I seem to remember that they used the bay platform at Crowhurst. If that's the case, the loco would not have been able to run round.

The Up bay had a loop (see the photos linked by John Webb) so running round was possible but the SR used push-pull wherever it could and Bexhill W was no exception.

Although it mainly used tank engines, I remember that on at least one occasion towards the end of steam they used a Q1 (and allowed me on the footplate at Bexhill).

Would that have been an instance of a tender loco working push-pull?

No, even if it was hauling a PP set, as it wasn't PP equipped.
The Etchingham school train might have been worked with an unfitted loco, as it did only the one return trip, and there would presumably have been a goods working as part of one of the diagrams.

 

[Gloster]

The LSWR used a system with cables, but these needed to be carefully adjusted and, after a number of incidents, in March 1929 the SR decided to replace it with a compressed air system as on the LBSCR. I believe that the SER had used a similar wire system and it was replaced at the same time.

 

[rogercov]

Thanks for the replies. I conclude that the instance to which I was referring (with the Q1) was not operating push-pull and that it must have used the up/down lines at Crowhust.

 

[Gloster]

Thanks for the replies. I conclude that the instance to which I was referring (with the Q1) was not operating push-pull and that it must have used the up/down lines at Crowhust.

The Q1 was not push-pull fitted, so it would have had to run around at both ends of the jpurney: at Crowhurst this would have been on the Up side. It was probably just a late substitution for a failure; it might have been the goods loco that had been borrowed.

 

[Irascible]

You don't have to run round in the platform anyway - it wasn't uncommon to propel a train out of the platform to run round & then propel it back in again.

 

[Gloster]

You don't have to run round in the platform anyway - it wasn't uncommon to propel a train out of the platform to run round & then propel it back in again.

All the track and signalling diagrams that I have seen mean that the only alternative to running round in the Up Bay would involve using the through roads and getting in the way of main line trains. Better to get it done in the Up Bay and then do a quick shunt across to the Down Bay.

 

[30907]

All the track and signalling diagrams that I have seen mean that the only alternative to running round in the Up Bay would involve using the through roads and getting in the way of main line trains. Better to get it done in the Up Bay and then do a quick shunt across to the Down Bay.

I think Irascible was making a general point?
From memory, on the SR Sidmouth Jn was an example where propelling out was necessary, or Cowes with gravity to help - overall fairly unusual though.

 

[Irascible]

Yes, I should have been more clear I wasn't specifically referring to that site. Also I suppose "not uncommon" was overstating things a bit, but it was definitely an accepted practice.

 

[30907]

Yes, I should have been more clear I wasn't specifically referring to that site. Also I suppose "not uncommon" was overstating things a bit, but it was definitely an accepted practice.

And indeed essential at the two I mentioned. I am sure there are other examples.

 

[Richard Scott]

Many Continental steam locos had electric lighting so must have had a fairly powerful generator, whereas British ones generally didn't. If they also used an electrical push-pull system, then this would have worked regardless of train length.

Believe a number of German steam locos were fitted with the KWS system, which many electric and diesel locos used.

 

[zwk500]

And indeed essential at the two I mentioned. I am sure there are other examples.

Rather more modern, but the NYMR used to propel out of Whitby to run round until they got their extra platform with it's own loop.