Splitting and joining of loco hauled trains

[burty76]

This used to happen quite a lot, but Im wondering how they did it.

Well, more specifically, the joining.

For example at Carstairs, a train would come in from Glasgow, and one from edinburgh would arrive from the opposite direction. How did this then become one train with one loco pointing towards Carlisle?

Similarly, trains from Newcastle and Leeds were joined at Sheffield... again how did this work?

There would seem to be a loco in the middle of the train on both occasions?

 

[Old Timer]

This used to happen quite a lot, but Im wondering how they did it.

Well, more specifically, the joining.

For example at Carstairs, a train would come in from Glasgow, and one from edinburgh would arrive from the opposite direction. How did this then become one train with one loco pointing towards Carlisle?

Similarly, trains from Newcastle and Leeds were joined at Sheffield... again how did this work?

There would seem to be a loco in the middle of the train on both occasions?

Carstairs - one train overran the station platform and then set back onto the rear of the other.

At other locations the station pilot would attach to the rear of one portion and shunt it onto the rear of the other.

Of course H&S has had much to do with stopping such practices, as indeed has been the movement towards MU stock.

 

[jopsuk]

Has there ever actually been any citing of "health and safety" as a reason to end splitting/joining loco hauled trains? Granted, it is one of the cited benefits of MUs having auto-couplers with full connections- though even then I think that's partly as "H&S" makes a good cover for reducing staff requirements
Of course, at Carstairs the operation you describe still takes place six nights a week, and there's a more complicated ballet occurs at Edinburgh to join the three Highland Sleeper portions.

 

[burty76]

Carstairs - one train overran the station platform and then set back onto the rear of the other.

At other locations the station pilot would attach to the rear of one portion and shunt it onto the rear of the other.

Of course H&S has had much to do with stopping such practices, as indeed has been the movement towards MU stock.

Thanks. Carstairs makes perfect sense now.

Still not sure about the Sheffield example when two loco hauled trains come in the same way. I assumed they arrived on the same platform, but do you mean they arrived in adjacent ones?
...then the loco was removed from the front of one, with a shunting engine attached to the rear. this would then shunt the carriages back the way theyd came, then push them forward onto the rear of the other trains carriages?

 

[Liam]

Thanks. Carstairs makes perfect sense now.

Still not sure about the Sheffield example when two loco hauled trains come in the same way. I assumed they arrived on the same platform, but do you mean they arrived in adjacent ones?
...then the loco was removed from the front of one, with a shunting engine attached to the rear. this would then shunt the carriages back the way theyd came, then push them forward onto the rear of the other trains carriages?

This sounds like the shunting at Edinburgh for the Highland Sleeper. The Aberdeen portion arrives first and stops at the Western end of the platform (usually 11), the class 67 is taken off and moved out the road. The Fort William portion arrives, runs down platform 10 to the crossover points, then reverses onto the Aberdeen portion, the same goes for the Inverness portion. Then a class 90 joins the front and takes it away down the WCML.

 

[burty76]

This sounds like the shunting at Edinburgh for the Highland Sleeper. The Aberdeen portion arrives first and stops at the Western end of the platform (usually 11), the class 67 is taken off and moved out the road. The Fort William portion arrives, runs down platform 10 to the crossover points, then reverses onto the Aberdeen portion, the same goes for the Inverness portion. Then a class 90 joins the front and takes it away down the WCML.

Wow sounds like a hell of a job every night! But that is done in the early hours of the morning, I wonder how Sheffield (or any other examples?) coped with all that shunting about in the middle of the day! (even tho it was the 80's with less services). It would have blocked 2 platforms and a few more tracks for about 20 minutes!

 

[moggie]

Has there ever actually been any citing of "health and safety" as a reason to end splitting/joining loco hauled trains? Granted, it is one of the cited benefits of MUs having auto-couplers with full connections- though even then I think that's partly as "H&S" makes a good cover for reducing staff requirements.

The relevant Group Standard permits signalling of passenger trains into an occupied line for the purposes of attaching movements but as you might expect the obligatory risk assessment has to be conducted to see if alternative methods with less risk (of collision) to working the trains may exist. e.g. can train services be worked practically and without disproportionate commercial implications to avoid attaching movements. Each situation authorised must be documented as to the limitations on use.

In my experience, the desire to have optimum engineering factors to control a movement into an occupied line are more important than the movement itself.

 

[4SRKT]

Wow sounds like a hell of a job every night! But that is done in the early hours of the morning, I wonder how Sheffield (or any other examples?) coped with all that shunting about in the middle of the day! (even tho it was the 80's with less services). It would have blocked 2 platforms and a few more tracks for about 20 minutes!

The 1985 book has the 07:43 Hull > Cardiff Central arriving at Sheffield at 09:15. This was a 4 coach mk II rake. The 31/4 off this pulled off, and at 09:20 the 08:28 Leeds > Cardiff arrived on another platform behind a 45/1 or 47/4. The 08 on station pilot duty hauled the Hull portion back northwards and propelled it onto the Leeds portion. The whole ensemble left for Cardiff at 09:31. Although the whole thing took 16 minutes, no one platform would have been occupied for more than the 11 minutes the Leeds portion was in the station.

In the reverse direction of course it's simpler. The peak or duff pulls into the platform and the back 4 coaches are detached. After the Leeds portion has gone, the 31 sets back onto the Hull coaches and leaves a few minutes later.

 

[rail-britain]

Carstairs - one train overran the station platform and then set back onto the rear of the other

Usually the Edinburgh would arrive and make a very brief stop
Very rarely would there be passengers, but quite often members of staff
Southbound passengers would be advised to board (into the Edinburgh portion)
The local shunter would then relieve the conductor, the train would then leave for the short siding just to the north of the station, leaving the platform clear for the incoming Glasgow southbound service
The Edinburgh portion would then propel on to the back of the Glasgow portion, the loco then being detached

If the loco was not required it would the leave back to the north and then stable in the sidings next to the station
If the loco was required then it would wait until the train had departed and then take the Edinburgh route

The process would be pretty much the opposite for a northbound service
The loco would run onto the back of the train, and draw the rearmost coaches off the Glasgow portion
The Glasgow would leave first
The Edinburgh would leave next

 

[swt_passenger]

Has there ever actually been any citing of "health and safety" as a reason to end splitting/joining loco hauled trains? Granted, it is one of the cited benefits of MUs having auto-couplers with full connections- though even then I think that's partly as "H&S" makes a good cover for reducing staff requirements.

It's a bit chicken and egg isn't it, but I reckon the removal of infrastructure, staff and in some cases pilot engines would be the main reason, and increased safety would be a resulting bonus.

One thing I noticed that appeared to be driven purely by H&S was that in the last year or so of 442s being split and joined at Bournemouth, two short steel platforms were built between the running lines [1] specifically to allow connection or disconnection of the hoses and cables on the units to be made without any problem on either side. No doubt provided at a high cost within a year they were no longer used at all.

[1] Bournemouth has a massive amount of space where the through tracks once were.

 

[talltim]

Wow sounds like a hell of a job every night! But that is done in the early hours of the morning, I wonder how Sheffield (or any other examples?) coped with all that shunting about in the middle of the day! (even tho it was the 80's with less services). It would have blocked 2 platforms and a few more tracks for about 20 minutes!

You have to remember that they had been doing it at Sheffield for 140 years Before the advent of DMUs then all trains terminating, reversing and starting at Sheffield would have had some form of shunting and or coupling/ uncoupling. There were carriage sidings where the yard is now, where the Power box is and in BR days some stock was stored int he GC yards up through the Nunnery curve. There were also parcels trains to acount for.
Sheffield actually has a fair amount of non platform road capacity, those two pairs of through roads would have seen a lot more action back then.