Push pull27’s&47’ s. No buckeye why

[Taunton]

Going back to the class 27 buckeye question, 24 were pushpull fitted for 10 daily diagrams (5 sets), so they would have spent half of their time in traffic with the buckeye dropped dropped (even if working passenger trains unless every crew who worked class 27s at numerous depots was buckeye trained rather than potentially just Eastfield and Haymarket).

It's actually something I wrote about here a while ago, discussing the service in the 1970s, but while 27/0 were all around Scotland, from Ayrshire to Mallaig, the push-pull locos were little used outside their designated orbit, and just seemed to be kept on Eastfield or Haymarket depots when not assigned. Item here :

ScotRail Express in the 1980s

I'm wondering what the service frequency/stopping patterns of the 47/7 push-pull ScotRail Express services were in the 1980s? If I remember correctly from the logo used on window stickers, the ScotRail Express routes were considered as Glasgow Queen Street - Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Queen...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Rescars]

Given the apparent safety benefits of buckeyes and the challenges of screw coupling, why were screw couplings preferred as the best means of attaching a loco to a passenger train for so long? Presumably most loco hauled coaching stock has been fitted with buckeyes since well before the end of steam. Brake connections and jumper cables would need connecting separately, whichever means of coupling is used. Do buckeyes perhaps need more accurate alignment (as suggested by Taunton), whilst screw couplings are more tolerant of variations in buffing gear etc? Or are screw couplings, despite the comments above, simply quicker and easier to connect?

 

[Ken H]

It's actually something I wrote about here a while ago, discussing the service in the 1970s, but while 27/0 were all around Scotland, from Ayrshire to Mallaig, the push-pull locos were little used outside their designated orbit, and just seemed to be kept on Eastfield or Haymarket depots when not assigned. Item here :

Werent the push pull cl 27's a but unreliable? They were quite old and the duties were quite punishing. So maybe the 'spare' ones were on shed getting fixed.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

It's actually something I wrote about here a while ago, discussing the service in the 1970s, but while 27/0 were all around Scotland, from Ayrshire to Mallaig, the push-pull locos were little used outside their designated orbit, and just seemed to be kept on Eastfield or Haymarket depots when not assigned.

Having now read your interesting piece I have to disagree where you say 'the surplus push-pull locos, which there appear to have been plenty of, rarely turned up elsewhere'.

Perhaps it depends on your definition of rarely, but the appearance of a 27/1 on the West Highland was by no means unusual on both passenger and freight, and very occasionally, yes, in this case rarely and on freight, a class 27/2. Also four daily Glasgow Central pilots were booked for dual braked class 27s (sub class not specified) which would normally have to be be 27/1s or 27/2s (a buckeye could have been useful here) as there were only 4 non push pull dual braked class 27s which were so fitted for Speedlink workings - and for which a 27/1 or 27/2 might also occasionally substitute.

 

[Richard Scott]

The polmont accident is something i have often wondered if the loco had been buckeye fitted would it have helped

Doubt it as the DBSO derailed and rest of coaches followed.

 

[Carlisle]

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

ETH will have likely been required all the time in service to power the motor generator for ancillaries as unlike LHCS they didn’t have belt driven dynamos /alternators.

 

[delt1c]

During the push pull era of the 27’s I can’t recall seeing the 27/1,s or /2’s on any other services

 

[dubscottie]

As someone said, the buffing forces with a 27 at each end would be balanced out.
Someone posted here ages ago about the 47/7. The extra weight of the drawgear was not worth it. Extra 3 or tons per loco I think.