Diesel + Steam double heading

[birchesgreen]

During the latter years of steam it was not uncommon for a steam and a diesel engine to work together (piloting, assistance and so on). Obviously they couldn't work in multiple so how did (and how difficult) was it for the 2 sets of crews to work together on the same train with quite different locomotive characteristics?

 

[Taunton]

On the Western this was not allowed with the steam loco leading, after multiple incidents with the early Warships where loose large coals from a leading steam loco would blow back from the tender and smash the diesel's windscreen.

One of the more common reasons for such assistance was failure of the train heating boiler, where the steam loco did little or no traction and just provided a steam heat supply.

The overall operation even under power would be little different from steam double heading, where the leading loco did the subtlety and handled the brake etc, while the second loco just did an on/off of power as necessary, at points that could generally be predicted in advance and were likely discussed between the crews beforehand. If you ever read David L Smith's book "Tales of the GSW Railway" of life 100 years ago on this line, various humorous escapades with double heading that was less than co-ordinated get described.

 

[70014IronDuke]

My own memories are that steam + diesel combinations occurred more in the early 60s, in 61-62 time, rather than later years - but maybe I'm wrong.

I'd assume this was more to cover for train heat problems than need for traction.

If anything, I would imagine working with diesel might be easier than working with another steam loco, because of the problem of picking up water at troughs if on an express passenger working - no such problem when coupled to a diesel.

I would guess that if coupled to a 90 mph and especially 100 mph diesel, the steam driver might drop a word to the diesel driver if he thought the steamer was in a run-down condition and couldn't take a long period of high speed running, risk of running hot etc.
Just my surmising here, however.

 

[Taunton]

My own memories are that steam + diesel combinations occurred more in the early 60s, in 61-62 time, rather than later years - but maybe I'm wrong.

I'd assume this was more to cover for train heat problems than need for traction.

I never quite understood how the early BR diesel manufacturers managed to make such a cods of train heating boilers, given that they had been in successful use in the USA for a generation. Every element of them went wrong - the burner would not light, or went out. The pumps that lifted both oil and water from underframe tanks failed. The water froze, the water tanks leaked at the welds, you name it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Bad enough apparently double heading with steam - I asked one of my old drivers about this (seasoned WCML worker who did 50 years of service) - apparently you took your lead from the pilot engine as to where to shut off / open up etc and he firmly controlled the train braking.

 

[AndrewE]

My own memories are that steam + diesel combinations occurred more in the early 60s, in 61-62 time, rather than later years - but maybe I'm wrong.

I'd assume this was more to cover for train heat problems than need for traction.

If anything, I would imagine working with diesel might be easier than working with another steam loco, because of the problem of picking up water at troughs if on an express passenger working - no such problem when coupled to a diesel.

I would guess that if coupled to a 90 mph and especially 100 mph diesel, the steam driver might drop a word to the diesel driver if he thought the steamer was in a run-down condition and couldn't take a long period of high speed running, risk of running hot etc.
Just my surmising here, however.

Actually the steam drivers instructions reminded them that they were not allowed to exceed the maximum for the particular class of diesel! Can't remember whether this is in the steam manual or the particular diesel loco instructions.

 

[Taunton]

Bad enough apparently double heading with steam - I asked one of my old drivers about this (seasoned WCML worker who did 50 years of service) - apparently you took your lead from the pilot engine as to where to shut off / open up etc and he firmly controlled the train braking.

The Western, of course, looked at what others did, and then did the opposite. The pilot loco was placed inside, behind the train loco, whenever they could, at the expense of some extra shunting to get the pilot attached and detached.

This meant it was the main train crew who were in the lead, watched for signals, and handled the brake etc. As a pilot for a mainstream express would commonly be provided by spare crews at the loco shed, and might well be crewed by a Passed Fireman and a Passed Cleaner, this made sense for high speed main line running.

 

[Calthrop]

On the Western this was not allowed with the steam loco leading, after multiple incidents with the early Warships where loose large coals from a leading steam loco would blow back from the tender and smash the diesel's windscreen.

One of the more common reasons for such assistance was failure of the train heating boiler, where the steam loco did little or no traction and just provided a steam heat supply.

(My bolding). This reason for diesel-plus-steam double-heading had a particular way of showing up on the Polish State Railways in the last years of regular steam working on that system (mid-1980s to early 1990s). On lines / in areas where passenger workings could be, variously, steam- or diesel-loco-hauled: diesel locos of classes designed essentially for freight haulage -- thus with no train-heating equipment -- were quite often rostered to haul passenger trains (this being basically a matter of local trains working on local lines). In summer, this caused no problems; in winter (and Polish winters can be very cold) locos’ inability to heat trains was definitely an issue. It was thus not at all rare in the more wintry part of the year, to see a passenger train headed by a freight-class diesel loco; with a steam loco cut in behind the diesel, to provide steam heating.

The diesel was always positioned first, with the steamer behind: frustrating for photographers, and for “non-photting” purists such as myself, who wanted steam trains to be steam trains, “no messing” ! One could not but wonder why in these particular circumstances, those in charge did not just have the steam loco working the train, dispensing with the diesel -- under communist regimes, common sense often seemed to be a commodity in short supply. There might, though, have been sense-making reasons for what was done here -- not evident to visiting laymen, with their own agenda for how they wished things to happen !

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Western, of course, looked at what others did, and then did the opposite. The pilot loco was placed inside, behind the train loco, whenever they could, at the expense of some extra shunting to get the pilot attached and detached.

This meant it was the main train crew who were in the lead, watched for signals, and handled the brake etc. As a pilot for a mainstream express would commonly be provided by spare crews at the loco shed, and might well be crewed by a Passed Fireman and a Passed Cleaner, this made sense for high speed main line running.

After the Lougher bridge derailment in 1906 or thereabouts - when an express was being piloted by an 0-6-0 tank engine , the GWR wisely insisted on an engine with a bogie , leading on an assisted train.

Shunting around was no doubt slickly done by the staff. Who took it in their stride.

 

[gg1]

Does anyone know if there were ever any experiments in equipping steam locos for multiple working? A quick google search doesn't bring anything up but I would have thought it's theoretically possible using similar technology to that used for auto trains, although quite possibly more trouble than it's worth.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Does anyone know if there were ever any experiments in equipping steam locos for multiple working? A quick google search doesn't bring anything up but I would have thought it's theoretically possible using similar technology to that used for auto trains, although quite possibly more trouble than it's worth.

"Auto" push pull trains were theoretically controlled by a driver in the lead cab through mechanical linkages , in practice the fireman on the trailing loco did all the work.

No one - even in those lax H+S days would have countenanced that practice.

 

[gg1]

"Auto" push pull trains were theoretically controlled by a driver in the lead cab through mechanical linkages , in practice the fireman on the trailing loco did all the work.

No one - even in those lax H+S days would have countenanced that practice.

Aah okay, I knew it was a purely mechanical system but thought it was a little more advanced than that with the fireman just stoking and all the driver's controls being fully replicated in the cab of the autocoach.

 

[alexl92]

Please can someone define the role of the Pilot? I understand the idea of a station pilot to arrange ECS and release a train engine, but in a service train I'd always assumed that double-headed engines worked equally to supply power etc.

 

[Taunton]

As ever in steam days, different railways used different expressions. Some said "assisting engine", others "pilot", and someone will probably be along soon with further expressions. Generally "pilot" can be taken as "not the main train engine", whether it is removing the stock at a terminus, standing by at a key point in case of need, or assisting on a gradient or overweight train. At Taunton the west end Station Pilot, which assisted with shunting the stock of terminating local trains, was commonly a Hall, which could be rapidly taken to assist any main line problem. It was a nice easy turn for main line men coming up to retirement, who nevertheless knew all the routes in case of sudden need.

This applies to having two locos on the front. One assisting from the rear was generally known as a "banker".

Commonly the pilot would be a smaller, less powerful loco than the main train engine. Instances where two equal locos, just like working a pilot right through from origin to final destination, were uncommon.

The GWR put the pilot as the second loco, whereas other railways commonly put it on the front for ease of attachment/detachment. Severn Tunnel Junction had a large stud of 41xx tanks which acted as bankers to eastbound freight trains on the long continuous climb from the bottom of the Severn Tunnel and up over an outlier of the Cotswolds to Stoke Gifford. But when they assisted an overweight passenger train, they were coupled inside the main train engine.

 

[Bevan Price]

Please can someone define the role of the Pilot? I understand the idea of a station pilot to arrange ECS and release a train engine, but in a service train I'd always assumed that double-headed engines worked equally to supply power etc.

That may be the theory, but on some occasions, it seemed that each crew was trying to let the other crew do most of the work. This particularly occurred when lightweight trains were double-headed not because of train weight, but to get a loco "home" after an unbalanced working.

This occurred numerous times during the 1950s when a 18:00 Liverpool Lime St. - Wigan NW local (4 or 3 coaches) was double-headed, by assorted loco pairings (typically Black 5 4-6-0s and / or ex-LMS 2-6-4Ts)

 

[70014IronDuke]

That may be the theory, but on some occasions, it seemed that each crew was trying to let the other crew do most of the work. This particularly occurred when lightweight trains were double-headed not because of train weight, but to get a loco "home" after an unbalanced working.

This occurred numerous times during the 1950s when a 18:00 Liverpool Lime St. - Wigan NW local (4 or 3 coaches) was double-headed, by assorted loco pairings (typically Black 5 4-6-0s and / or ex-LMS 2-6-4Ts)

Same as with the Jubilee in the Harrow smash.:cry::

 

[70014IronDuke]

The Western, of course, looked at what others did, and then did the opposite. The pilot loco was placed inside, behind the train loco, whenever they could, at the expense of some extra shunting to get the pilot attached and detached.

This meant it was the main train crew who were in the lead, watched for signals, and handled the brake etc. As a pilot for a mainstream express would commonly be provided by spare crews at the loco shed, and might well be crewed by a Passed Fireman and a Passed Cleaner, this made sense for high speed main line running.

The GN did similar c 61 -64 with V2s & pacics acting as station pilots at key stations, but covering for Deltic cailures.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Does anyone know if there were ever any experiments in equipping steam locos for multiple working? A quick google search doesn't bring anything up but I would have thought it's theoretically possible using similar technology to that used for auto trains, although quite possibly more trouble than it's worth.

The means of control in those days simply wasn't available. Regulators were bloody heavy things, and needed both strength and sensitivity on the part ovf the driver. You would need, for eg wheelslip detection systems and the ability to shut off power very quickly in the 2nd loco. Such devices need modern electronic components and sevo motors.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Please can someone define the role of the Pilot? I understand the idea of a station pilot to arrange ECS and release a train engine, but in a service train I'd always assumed that double-headed engines worked equally to supply power etc.

Station pilot was as you state. Different job to train pilot.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...

Commonly the pilot would be a smaller, less powerful loco than the main train engine. Instances where two equal locos, just like working a pilot right through from origin to final destination, were uncommon.
...
e.

Generally true, but they often used 2 x Black 5s on the wcml.