Appreciate that 33/1’s were frequently coupled /uncoupled but buckeyes were meant to be safer in collisions
Makes sense, a journey on the WCML was smoother with a 90 than an 86 or 87
Tapchanger control on the 86s and 87s would also be a factor in that, wouldn't it?
This thread raises a further question. As buckeyes were meant to be safer in collisions, can anyone explain why, in the pre push-pull era, all traction that I recall was attached to the train by a screw coupling, given that the rest of the train would be coupled with buckeyes?
Thanks Randyrippley. This may answer my question. But shunters were presumably happy (and needed) to couple up addition carriages using buckeyes when trains were divided and attachments made en route.
Perhaps that was the union issue - to keep secondmen/firemen in work? Presumably with no boiler on a 33 or 73 the firemen had already been removed?
By the time the 27/2s came in for push pull I am pretty sure they were single manned like the DMUs which they replaced (unless on occasions when a secondman was required to work the boiler on a 27/1 due to ETH failure or as a rider on a non push pull fitted 37 or 25), likewise by the 47/7 era single manning was the norm. As fixed formations any coupling/uncoupling would have been done on depot rather than in stations and therefore by depot shunter, whereas on SR coupling would often be in stations in traffic e.g. Bournmeouth, but whether by secondman or shunter might depend on whether the job was single or double manned.
My experience on the 27x2 push-pull was universally with two in the cab. This even extended to any ad hoc Met-Cam dmu replacement, where the fireman was in the cab with the driver, because that was their turn. You are correct that the 79xxx dmus which they replaced and which had held the service down for the preceding 15 years were single-manned like other dmus, but these were locomotives and thus under a different agreement.
Believe buckeye was standard on Southern to reduce risk of third rail contact when coupling/uncoupling. Only problem was TC units required ETH to be coupled but assume in summer this wasn't used so no-one required to go between when coupling/uncoupling as used platform height jumpers and can release buckeye from platform too?
I believe you are right as well. Gerry Fiennes had one of his myriad stories, that the Royal Train, no less, at Kings Cross, had the A4 back on to the brand new van at the front, there was a mismatch of buckeye heights, and they couldn't get them apart again to use the screw coupling. Finally succeeding after much effort by everyone, with minutes to go, Fiennes then had to make sure he was in the second line of greeters, to avoid any direct contact with the Royal party, and only smile; best suit but filthy hands!
I have never worked this out; the Southern used buckeyes, and duplicated high level jumpers on each side so could be done from the platform level, but what happened when a train arrived with the jumpers done up now on the opposite side to the platform. At the various country places where trains were joined/divided the normal platforms appear usually to be on the opposite sides for Up and Down.
Isn't the rubbing plate essentially the bottom part of the corridor connection?
Wrong.
Um, this is not a steam locomotive, handled from the cab leaning out and trying to look backwards round the tender with the controls out of reach; diesels have cabs at both ends so one is driving with full view. In fact, isn't that exactly why the Class 20 were required to be coupled in permanent pairs, cabs outermost, so there wasn't any backing up even of those?
That's a minor point.
It's not that hard. Only time vac bags are hard is if they're new. Nothing unusual on some railway systems for driver to couple/uncoupling the train.
No-one is suggesting that drivers were expected to couple locos. Just that maybe the union blacking of the couplings may be related to the removal of firemen. Whatever, despite your pontificating to the contrary there was a union issue reported in the press. Perhaps someone else can better remember?
It can be bloody awkward though, a second (or third) pair of hands is never a bad thing, just requires a bit of coordination.
Was that ever a requirement?
No it wasn't a requirement. It was convenience.
Ot can be awkward but not the big deal it was being made out to be. Agree sometimes a second pair of hands is useful.
The polmont accident is something i have often wondered if the loco had been buckeye fitted would it have helped
There was no requirement for class 20s to be coupled in pairs. Much of their use in Scotland was as single locos. Other regions may have had their own practices. Also it was not unknown to see a pair coupled cab to nose.
