Diesels "pushing" on steam railtours

[Domeyhead]

Apologies, because I'm sure this has been covered in other threads, but over on Faccebook there has been some "heated" but uninformed discussion about whether or not the diesel at the read of a steam railtour is actually providing traction power as well as hotel power. I expressed doubt that the diesel would be allowed to push at speed for obvious reasons but was shouted down, so can someone please educate me - is that ubiquitous Class 47 at the back actually assisting the Black 5 at the front? (Because in my experiene a Black 5 can easily manage an 8 coach train without any assistance!)

 

[LowLevel]

Yes, they can assist and might do for a multitude of reasons. The 2 drivers will be in radio contact. They might try to make up lost time, to clear a congested area more quickly, to reduce the risk of a steam locomotive working hard causing fires when it's dry or to save coal and water when required.

The steam driver will be in charge and request assistance if wanted. Bear in mind the diesel loco is the equivalent to nearly another 4 coaches on the train.

 

[Sean Emmett]

I have been a very keen patron of main line steam specials for nearly 40 years, but my enthusiasm has significantly waned due to the issue of 'shoveage' i.e. diesel assisting at the rear.

Not sure about faceache, but it has been a hot topic on the NatPres (National Preservation) website for some time!

My principal interest is train timing / loco performance. I want to appreciate what the loco at the front is doing, not having to work out how much help is coming from the rear.

In my experience, the addition of a diesel makes it highly likely that assistance will be given as the load is increased and it's more difficult to maintain adhesion and/or keep time.

I did the Clun Castle tour in May 2024 because of the specifically advertised unassisted steam sections viz Bristol - Plymouth on the Friday and Plymouth - Bristol - Paddington on the Saturday.

But claims (including from the organisers) that Clun wasn't being assisted on the opening Birmingham - Bristol section were not just disingenuous but downright fanciful, especially given the running between Swindon and Bristol Parkway. Castle + 9 + 47 diesel topping Fosse Road in the mid 60s mph (mid 50s mph would be excellent for a Castle on 12!) was one thing, but sustaining 75+ mph on the 1:300 up to Badminton was quite another!

The arguments for and against a diesel on the back were brough into sharp focus on the South Devon banks. On the outward run, a 30 mph platform slack at Newton Abbot meant Dainton wasn't approached as quickly as it might and there wasn't the roar I've heard from other engines, speed falling to a minimum to 9 mph. The climb of Tigley / Rattery was a bit better.

But on the Saturday, despite a good speed at Plympton, the Castle stalled on Hemerdon, in ideal rail conditions. Again, other locos have been worked audibly harder. So the support 47 diesel running a block behind coupled up to give a shove. But in this instance, the suggestion the diesel gave no further assistance once we got up Hemerdon was more plausible and the Castle audibly worked very hard to regain the time lost waiting for the 47 to couple up.

Some railtour operatours (e.g. Vintage Trains) are more transparent than others (don't push me!) re whether a diesel will be attached. Also some loco support groups (Tornado and Clan Line spring to mind) don't like/want diesel assistance unless absolutely necessary, and so you have more chance of a proper steam run.

As a result of the shoveage I'm spending more time - and money - visiting our heritage railways, maybe not such a bad thing. I'd rather have unassisted steam at 25 mph on a heritage railway than 75mph shoved steam on the main line, and there's a vast range of locos to travel behind on heritage railways that will never be sampled on the main line.

 

[renegademaster]

Its easy to say charter operators should be purists and not use the diesel to help speed things up, but you aren't going to get much mainline steam anymore if the dine and sightseeing crowd that financially support these tours stop going because they got 5 minutes in Carlisle because it took 2 hours to get up Shap. (And having the operator take big delay attribution fines from NR)

 

[Krokodil]

In two cases I can recall (same week, same county, different operators) the 47 on the front conked out and the one on the rear shoved the train until it reached a place where it could be run round.

I also remember a tour years ago which started very late (a Voyager blocking the depot exit or something) so the 47 did some shoving to conserve water and skip the booked water stop.

It is nice to be without an assisting loco, I had a cracking run over Shap with Leander when the wires were down near Lockerbie so there was no need to wait in loops for other trains to overtake so non-stop we went.

 

[Cowley]

I have been a very keen patron of main line steam specials for nearly 40 years, but my enthusiasm has significantly waned due to the issue of 'shoveage' i.e. diesel assisting at the rear.

Not sure about faceache, but it has been a hot topic on the NatPres (National Preservation) website for some time!

My principal interest is train timing / loco performance. I want to appreciate what the loco at the front is doing, not having to work out how much help is coming from the rear.

In my experience, the addition of a diesel makes it highly likely that assistance will be given as the load is increased and it's more difficult to maintain adhesion and/or keep time.

I did the Clun Castle tour in May 2024 because of the specifically advertised unassisted steam sections viz Bristol - Plymouth on the Friday and Plymouth - Bristol - Paddington on the Saturday.

But claims (including from the organisers) that Clun wasn't being assisted on the opening Birmingham - Bristol section were not just disingenuous but downright fanciful, especially given the running between Swindon and Bristol Parkway. Castle + 9 + 47 diesel topping Fosse Road in the mid 60s mph (mid 50s mph would be excellent for a Castle on 12!) was one thing, but sustaining 75+ mph on the 1:300 up to Badminton was quite another!

The arguments for and against a diesel on the back were brough into sharp focus on the South Devon banks. On the outward run, a 30 mph platform slack at Newton Abbot meant Dainton wasn't approached as quickly as it might and there wasn't the roar I've heard from other engines, speed falling to a minimum to 9 mph. The climb of Tigley / Rattery was a bit better.

But on the Saturday, despite a good speed at Plympton, the Castle stalled on Hemerdon, in ideal rail conditions. Again, other locos have been worked audibly harder. So the support 47 diesel running a block behind coupled up to give a shove. But in this instance, the suggestion the diesel gave no further assistance once we got up Hemerdon was more plausible and the Castle audibly worked very hard to regain the time lost waiting for the 47 to couple up.

Some railtour operatours (e.g. Vintage Trains) are more transparent than others (don't push me!) re whether a diesel will be attached. Also some loco support groups (Tornado and Clan Line spring to mind) don't like/want diesel assistance unless absolutely necessary, and so you have more chance of a proper steam run.

As a result of the shoveage I'm spending more time - and money - visiting our heritage railways, maybe not such a bad thing. I'd rather have unassisted steam at 25 mph on a heritage railway than 75mph shoved steam on the main line, and there's a vast range of locos to travel behind on heritage railways that will never be sampled on the main line.

Very interesting post. We went down to the fields between Cowley Bridge and Stoke Canon to watch 44871 go past on Sunday and from a standing start at St David’s the driver cut the power off just after the junction and coasted past us before opening up again.

Steam locos are generally still working quite hard by that point so I was quite surprised to see that. I did wonder if the 47 had pushed it slightly just because of the dry conditions.

 

[DarloRich]

I'd rather have unassisted steam at 25 mph on a heritage railway than 75mph shoved steam on the main line

having a diesel assist from the rear doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I expressed doubt that the diesel would be allowed to push at speed for obvious reasons but was shouted down, so can someone please educate me

the last time is saw Flying Scotsman, pulling out of MKC, the 47 on the back was making more smoke than the steamer. It was hammering away!

 

[YorkshireBear]

We are trying (success rates are variable) to run a 21st century railway and so there is always an element of reducing the risk to the passengers and freight who rely on the railway if that involves a 47 on the bag occasionally giving it a shove, then I think that is quite an unobtrusive mitigation.

 

[bleeder4]

Its easy to say charter operators should be purists and not use the diesel to help speed things up, but you aren't going to get much mainline steam anymore if the dine and sightseeing crowd that financially support these tours stop going because they got 5 minutes in Carlisle because it took 2 hours to get up Shap. (And having the operator take big delay attribution fines from NR)

Charter operators don't pay delay attribution fines. Network Rail covers the cost. Some charter operators (such as Vintage Trains) are run on a shoestring budget and don't have massive financial resources. If they had to start paying delay attribution fines they would have to stop running charters.

 

[LowLevel]

Charter operators don't pay delay attribution fines. Network Rail covers the cost. Some charter operators (such as Vintage Trains) are run on a shoestring budget and don't have massive financial resources. If they had to start paying delay attribution fines they would have to stop running charters.

They do - but the amount per incident is capped.

 

[Iskra]

having a diesel assist from the rear doesn't bother me in the slightest.


the last time is saw Flying Scotsman, pulling out of MKC, the 47 on the back was making more smoke than the steamer. It was hammering away!

I don’t think most passengers would mind a bit of tactical assistance, but I was on a tour over the S&C the other year where a diesel did most of the work and it was a bit underwhelming. Is it really a steam tour at that point? I’d have rather they just put a diesel up front and have some decent diesel thrash instead.

 

[Meole]

The steam effect also depends on the carriages being used, not all tours use Mk1 with open windows etc.

 

[31160]

I'm sorry but if you want to go somewhere on a steam hauled train that accelerates about as slowly as a slow thing on today's busy railway you have to accept it or don't travel why should the rest of the public be held up because of the "majesty" of yesteryear, steam trains were replaced for many reasons and there lack of being able to cope accelerating is one

 

[Merle Haggard]

Someone I know well, still a TOC current driver, travelled with his wife on a rail tour down a very busy main line as a celebration of a wedding anniversary. It was not steam hauled but the loco on the front was not able to power the train sufficiently to reach line speed seemingly because of a controller defect. Nonetheless, high speed seemed to have been achieved by considerable use of the Cl 47 on the rear. We are both puzzled how the driver of the rear loco achieves this; signals will have already reverted to danger by the time the rear loco reaches them, (implies also that the AWS must be isolated). How does the rear driver see forward at speed? - presumably he can't In the case of steam locos, is the view not obscured by exhaust anyway?
Mention has been made of radio contact between the front and rear cab. In my own railway career (retired years ago, so possibly out of date) there were locations where slow speed propelling moves of up to 100 slu length trains were made into sidings. These were under control of a shunter and the special radios carried by driver and shunter had a continuous signal in both directions to ensure that if contact was lost - not an infrequent occurrence - the movement would be stopped immediately.
Just wondering, perhaps some stones would be better left un-lifted...

 

[LowLevel]

Someone I know well, still a TOC current driver, travelled with his wife on a rail tour down a very busy main line as a celebration of a wedding anniversary. It was not steam hauled but the loco on the front was not able to power the train sufficiently to reach line speed seemingly because of a controller defect. Nonetheless, high speed seemed to have been achieved by considerable use of the Cl 47 on the rear. We are both puzzled how the driver of the rear loco achieves this; signals will have already reverted to danger by the time the rear loco reaches them, (implies also that the AWS must be isolated). How does the rear driver see forward at speed? - presumably he can't In the case of steam locos, is the view not obscured by exhaust anyway?
Mention has been made of radio contact between the front and rear cab. In my own railway career (retired years ago, so possibly out of date) there were locations where slow speed propelling moves of up to 100 slu length trains were made into sidings. These were under control of a shunter and the special radios carried by driver and shunter had a continuous signal in both directions to ensure that if contact was lost - not an infrequent occurrence - the movement would be stopped immediately.
Just wondering, perhaps some stones would be better left un-lifted...

There's nothing untoward about it - the ORR regularly ride on the footplate or trains of charter operators given the use of heritage traction on varied routes increases risk.

The driver on the rear loco cancels the AWS.

The front loco driver generally relays requests for power to the rear loco. They will also ask them to shut off in good time should they encounter restrictive signals or speed restrictions. They will usually ask for a certain amount of power to be applied based on the their route knowledge.

The train guard will also be on the radio channel.

In an emergency with a diesel locomotive on the rear dropping the brake below a given level will cause traction power to be cut automatically and immediately - to be avoided as it comes with the risk of a flashover on a diesel electric but as I say in an emergency it's a fail safe.

Steam locomotives on the rear generally apply no more power than required for lubrication purposes on locos with steam powered lubrication.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There's nothing untoward about it - the ORR regularly ride on the footplate or trains of charter operators given the use of heritage traction on varied routes increases risk.

The driver on the rear loco cancels the AWS.

The front loco driver generally relays requests for power to the rear loco. They will also ask them to shut off in good time should they encounter restrictive signals or speed restrictions. They will usually ask for a certain amount of power to be applied based on the their route knowledge.

The train guard will also be on the radio channel.

In an emergency with a diesel locomotive on the rear dropping the brake below a given level will cause traction power to be cut automatically and immediately - to be avoided as it comes with the risk of a flashover on a diesel electric but as I say in an emergency it's a fail safe.

Steam locomotives on the rear generally apply no more power than required for lubrication purposes on locos with steam powered lubrication.

Thanks for the detailed reply - I take it that the radio channel is similar to the one I described.

 

[Krokodil]

Thanks for the detailed reply - I take it that the radio channel is similar to the one I described.

The important thing is that the leading driver can apply the brakes. Something a shunter cannot usually do (the exceptions being longer propelling moves like around Newport where a Queen Mary, a Shark, and eventually an adapted container flat were used for the shunter to ride on).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I have been a very keen patron of main line steam specials for nearly 40 years, but my enthusiasm has significantly waned due to the issue of 'shoveage' i.e. diesel assisting at the rear.

Not sure about faceache, but it has been a hot topic on the NatPres (National Preservation) website for some time!

My principal interest is train timing / loco performance. I want to appreciate what the loco at the front is doing, not having to work out how much help is coming from the rear.

In my experience, the addition of a diesel makes it highly likely that assistance will be given as the load is increased and it's more difficult to maintain adhesion and/or keep time.

I did the Clun Castle tour in May 2024 because of the specifically advertised unassisted steam sections viz Bristol - Plymouth on the Friday and Plymouth - Bristol - Paddington on the Saturday.

But claims (including from the organisers) that Clun wasn't being assisted on the opening Birmingham - Bristol section were not just disingenuous but downright fanciful, especially given the running between Swindon and Bristol Parkway. Castle + 9 + 47 diesel topping Fosse Road in the mid 60s mph (mid 50s mph would be excellent for a Castle on 12!) was one thing, but sustaining 75+ mph on the 1:300 up to Badminton was quite another!

The arguments for and against a diesel on the back were brough into sharp focus on the South Devon banks. On the outward run, a 30 mph platform slack at Newton Abbot meant Dainton wasn't approached as quickly as it might and there wasn't the roar I've heard from other engines, speed falling to a minimum to 9 mph. The climb of Tigley / Rattery was a bit better.

But on the Saturday, despite a good speed at Plympton, the Castle stalled on Hemerdon, in ideal rail conditions. Again, other locos have been worked audibly harder. So the support 47 diesel running a block behind coupled up to give a shove. But in this instance, the suggestion the diesel gave no further assistance once we got up Hemerdon was more plausible and the Castle audibly worked very hard to regain the time lost waiting for the 47 to couple up.

Some railtour operatours (e.g. Vintage Trains) are more transparent than others (don't push me!) re whether a diesel will be attached. Also some loco support groups (Tornado and Clan Line spring to mind) don't like/want diesel assistance unless absolutely necessary, and so you have more chance of a proper steam run.

As a result of the shoveage I'm spending more time - and money - visiting our heritage railways, maybe not such a bad thing. I'd rather have unassisted steam at 25 mph on a heritage railway than 75mph shoved steam on the main line, and there's a vast range of locos to travel behind on heritage railways that will never be sampled on the main line.

Interesting post. I was also on the 1Z48 tour and would concur with everything you said, although I didn’t hear anyone attempting to claim that the Birmingham-Bristol leg was unassisted, as it most clearly was, audibly for those of us in the tourist class coaches at the back. On Saturday after the Hemerdon stall (dragging brakes, there was nothing amiss with the loco) the 47 gave us a little nudge to get over Dainton and then as far as I could tell, absolutely nothing until Bristol. Given that put the trailing load at about 390 tons, the high speed to Taunton to Bristol was quite something and with retrospect the highlight of the weekend.

For those actually interested, unassisted steam is far better than diesel-assisted which inevitably becomes a means to its own end. But I entirely agree that timetabled operations should be protected from delays and failures. On quiet routes though it shouldn’t be necessary and certain charter operators are more guilty of ‘diesel-assisted convenience’ than others.

 

[BlueLeanie]

How much "oomph" should a diesel on the back be capable of giving, and should that diesel look more like a carriage?

Say you were to take two coaches of a 769 (or if there are any 442s capable of conversion to a 7XX series left). That's 780kW of power, then add 2x400kW of "93" style battery boost. That's 2000HP, or more powerful than a 37.

It could be dressed to look just like a pair of carriages on the back, and even give up to 800kW of push in complete silence. Probably a bit toppy for any operator to actually undertake, but would it be ethical to have a silent booster?

I suppose, technically, you could take a 442 motor carriage and, place it in the consist and install a few hundred kW of battery power and operate it via remote control desk from the steam locomotive to give a boost at any time.

 

[Cowley]

How much "oomph" should a diesel on the back be capable of giving, and should that diesel look more like a carriage?

Say you were to take two coaches of a 769 (or if there are any 442s capable of conversion to a 7XX series left). That's 780kW of power, then add 2x400kW of "93" style battery boost. That's 2000HP, or more powerful than a 37.

It could be dressed to look just like a pair of carriages on the back, and even give up to 800kW of push in complete silence. Probably a bit toppy for any operator to actually undertake, but would it be ethical to have a silent booster?

I suppose, technically, you could take a 442 motor carriage and, place it in the consist and install a few hundred kW of battery power and operate it via remote control desk from the steam locomotive to give a boost at any time.

I mean absolutely nobody has that kind of spare (and many might say completely pointless) amount of money to spend on something just for how it looks.

It would be creating something niche that wouldn’t be useful for any other situation and wouldn’t actually please any of the people that it was aimed at pleasing in my opinion!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Given that a Class 47 is roughly the weight of four coaches, having it deliver enough power just to shift itself (plus the ETS load) shouldn't be seen as cheating, so that the steam engine is only hauling the coaches. Not easy to keep the coupling between the last coach and the diesel loco from being under compression (i.e so the loco is just tagging along and not actually pushing (or being pulled))

 

[railfan99]

For those actually interested, unassisted steam is far better than diesel-assisted which inevitably becomes a means to its own end. But I entirely agree that timetabled operations should be protected from delays and failures. On quiet routes though it shouldn’t be necessary and certain charter operators are more guilty of ‘diesel-assisted convenience’ than others.

In September 2022, a Railway Touring Company trip I'd booked on was cancelled due to insufficient bookings.

In September 2023, another one I booked ran, but RTC did not give any clue beforehand as to whether it'd be diesel assisted. It was.

It'd be far better if a diesel (on main lines) ran one section behind so if needed at short notice, it could couple to the rear. I am aware at times, diesels provide steam heating to carriages during colder months.

Having a diesel on the back potentially wrecks or reduces the enjoyment of a day out with steam.

 

[YorkshireBear]

In September 2022, a Railway Touring Company trip I'd booked on was cancelled due to insufficient bookings.

In September 2023, another one I booked ran, but RTC did not give any clue beforehand as to whether it'd be diesel assisted. It was.

It'd be far better if a diesel (on main lines) ran one section behind so if needed at short notice, it could couple to the rear. I am aware at times, diesels provide steam heating to carriages during colder months.

Having a diesel on the back potentially wrecks or reduces the enjoyment of a day out with steam.

Many places railtours run you won't find two paths through a section. Not along the whole journey, but at key points. For example Scarborough Spa Express, you ain't finding two consecutive paths from the Airedale Line towards Castleford at Leeds.

 

[43096]

How much "oomph" should a diesel on the back be capable of giving, and should that diesel look more like a carriage?

Say you were to take two coaches of a 769 (or if there are any 442s capable of conversion to a 7XX series left). That's 780kW of power, then add 2x400kW of "93" style battery boost. That's 2000HP, or more powerful than a 37.

It could be dressed to look just like a pair of carriages on the back, and even give up to 800kW of push in complete silence. Probably a bit toppy for any operator to actually undertake, but would it be ethical to have a silent booster?

You need at least three vehicles as the engines of the 769 are under different vehicles to the traction motors.

So who pays, as it won’t come cheap? Increased ticket prices on what are already expensive trips is the only option.

It’s also three vehicles (rather than just one of a diesel loco) that are non-revenue earning, which means fewer seats and pushes seat prices up even further.

In short it’s a (non-)solution looking for a problem.

I suppose, technically, you could take a 442 motor carriage and, place it in the consist and install a few hundred kW of battery power and operate it via remote control desk from the steam locomotive to give a boost at any time.

How are you charging those batteries?

 

[Sun Chariot]

Hello @Domeyhead . 2 scenarios I've seen, over the years -

1) risk of lineside fire. On 26th June, Black 5 44871's sparks regrettably created fires: near Winchfield & on Christchurch bank. The former resulted in Network Rail giving instruction for the Stanier to "coast" at the front; with the 47 at the rear doing all the work.

2) risk of stalling. A 10+ bogie "drag" is significant for Class 5 or 6, up the steeper gradients. In years past, some uassisted trains have stalled; and with main line usage (and timings) being tight, the rear diesel acts as insurance to keep the train moving.
YouTube has plenty of video footage where the rear diesel is assisting the steam loco; such as over the Devon banks.
Early 2009, I enjoyed the final steam charters up Folkestone Harbour branch's 1:30. The 'West Country' and the 'Britannia' both needed their rear 47 working flat out, to get up the bank.

 

[pitdiver]

When "Steam on The Met" first ran I believe they used LUL battery locos at the rear. Where does this style of operation fit in with the subject of this thread?

 

[Sun Chariot]

When "Steam on The Met" first ran I believe they used LUL battery locos at the rear. Where does this style of operation fit in with the subject of this thread?

I think the use of Sarah Siddons and the pair of class 20s, was because the trains ran between Harrow O-T-H and Watford / Rickmansworth with no turning facilities.

Coincidentally, the other weeek, I was looking at my 35mm photos of the mid '90s events. The morning parallel run, with both trains steam hauled north, were the highlight each year for me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2024 ==

Very interesting post. We went down to the fields between Cowley Bridge and Stoke Canon to watch 44871 go past on Sunday and from a standing start at St David’s the driver cut the power off just after the junction and coasted past us before opening up again.

Steam locos are generally still working quite hard by that point so I was quite surprised to see that. I did wonder if the 47 had pushed it slightly just because of the dry conditions.

@Cowley Have you ever seen a steam loco take the Exeter St David's to Central incline unassisted?
It's a sharp curve - I don't know whether, in steam days, Light Pacifics could manage it without banking.
I've had a 33/1 take 9 up (a WoE service, deputising for a 50). A surprising ascent - good pace all the way up - but the "bag of spanners" at the front made a phenomenal racket in the tunnel.

 

[Ducatist4]

In September 2022, a Railway Touring Company trip I'd booked on was cancelled due to insufficient bookings.

In September 2023, another one I booked ran, but RTC did not give any clue beforehand as to whether it'd be diesel assisted. It was.

It'd be far better if a diesel (on main lines) ran one section behind so if needed at short notice, it could couple to the rear. I am aware at times, diesels provide steam heating to carriages during colder months.

Having a diesel on the back potentially wrecks or reduces the enjoyment of a day out with steam.

If the diesel ran one path behind it would require its own path and they would incur another access charge so it'd work out a rather expensive way of doing things.

 

[Cowley]

@Cowley Have you ever seen a steam loco take the Exeter St David's to Central incline unassisted?
It's a sharp curve - I don't know whether, in steam days, Light Pacifics could manage it without banking.

I can’t recall a single steam loco taking a train up there but I have seen double headed steam (one of which stalled spectacularly under Queen St bridge and had to reverse back to St David’s before being cancelled) as well as steam banked by steam.

I've had a 33/1 take 9 up (a WoE service, deputising for a 50). A surprising ascent - good pace all the way up - but the "bag of spanners" at the front made a phenomenal racket in the tunnel.

Yes 33s are extremely capable little locos and they used to be thrashed fit to bursting point up there. I don’t recall one ever failing though!

 

[Krokodil]

I can’t recall a single steam loco taking a train up there but I have seen double headed steam (one of which stalled spectacularly under Queen St bridge and had to reverse back to St David’s before being cancelled) as well as steam banked by steam.

Double-heading is asking for trouble. Both locos on the worst bit at the same time.