I was having a discussion with a young friend of mine recently, trying to convince him that anything to do with the LNER is infinitely more interesting than a class 31, when the subject arose of a Gresley locomotive which once gained an unenviable reputation.
I recall reading in a book many years ago that in the 1920's whilst on shed a fireman was crushed between his locomotive and its tender. I believe the locomotive was an A1 pacific, maybe an A3. Then just a couple of years later the very same locomotive was involved in a similar incident resulting in another death. It became known as the Killer Pacific as a result.
However, nowadays I just cannot seem to be able to trace any reference to these incidents, so can please you knowledgeable people tell me which locomotive it was and give some more details of the accidents? Where did they happen and when? Which engine was it?
For that matter which book did I read it in too? I wonder nowadays if dementure has set in because when I try to find references like this and can't, I begin to wonder if I hadn't imagined it all! (Perhaps it 's best not to comment on the last point! )
I'm tempted to treat this story as a bit of an urban legend. I don't know about LNER pacifics acting up but I do recall a driver at Tyne Dock telling me that 9F 92066 was a bit of a bad lot, and had crushed a shunter to death in the same manner as you mention. How many times has that happened I wonder? Anyway, 92066 didn't behave herself and after another incident ( blowback) she was removed and scrapped. Any excuse!
There were several incidents - fatal in most cases, of firemen or shunters being crushed between the loco and first coach. LNER corridor stock generally had buckeye couplings and Pullman gangways which rendered the side buffers superfluous, but these were provided when it was necessary to couple up to a locomotive with a screw coupling; the buckeye coupler head was dropped, and buffers drawn out into the long position with saddles placed on top of the shanks. If one failed to put the saddles on then as the loco backed onto the coach the buffers would retract and there would be no room between coach and loco for anybody to be there. In any case the rules stated that one should not have been down on the track as the loco came back but often the person involved would save time by throwing the hook over as the loco backed up. Without the saddles on the buffers on one instance at Waverley in 1957 the fireman was trapped between the loco bufferbeam and the coach gangway with fatal results.
Some time ago in the past a well know A4 happened to be passing the time away on a preserved railway south of the M4. It drew its train into the platform and the driver put her into reverse to loosen the coupling for the shunter. Alas, the coupling was too taut and would not free up despite much threshing around by the engine. Being very close to an A4 with its 6' 8.5" driving wheels plus valve gear racing around at eye level is not for the fainthearted. (Ref 60532 & Durham). During a pause I pointed out that they had the buffer saddles in place, the fireman impolitely asked me what did I know, to which I replied more than you, you dim muppet. Admitting defeat, they found some oxy-propane and cut off the saddles.
One can only assume the A4 had gone too heavily onto the coach and then the screw coupling fully tightened when a little bit of slack should have been called for. Still it was entertaining while it lasted and one still gets that smug feeling every now and then.
neilgow wrote:On the subject of buffer saddles and A4's.
Some time ago in the past a well know A4 happened to be passing the time away on a preserved railway south of the M4. It drew its train into the platform and the driver put her into reverse to loosen the coupling for the shunter. Alas, the coupling was too taut and would not free up despite much threshing around by the engine. Being very close to an A4 with its 6' 8.5" driving wheels plus valve gear racing around at eye level is not for the fainthearted. (Ref 60532 & Durham). During a pause I pointed out that they had the buffer saddles in place, the fireman impolitely asked me what did I know, to which I replied more than you, you dim muppet. Admitting defeat, they found some oxy-propane and cut off the saddles.
One can only assume the A4 had gone too heavily onto the coach and then the screw coupling fully tightened when a little bit of slack should have been called for. Still it was entertaining while it lasted and one still gets that smug feeling every now and then.
Bit puzzled over this one. Assuming the coach to be an ex BR Mk.I or former LNER or Southern one fitted with a Buckeye coupling, the buffer saddles should be left off and the buffer heads retracted when coupling Buckeye to Buckeye. The buffer heads should be pulled out and saddles fitted only when a screw coupling is used.
Could it be in this instance that the saddles were left fitted on the coach buffers in error, but the coach was coupled to the A4 via the Buckeye coupling thus putting tension on the Buckeyes in which case the situation above could be plausible. A4 tender buffers being non-retactable, saddles would not accompany them.
If you read this again it may have been that the loco was coupled to the stock with a screw coupling. It had been tightened too much so there was no 'give' with the buffers when the loco closed up to allow the coupling to be lifted off the hook. If it was buckeye to buckeye then the fools had left the saddles on in error!
I doubt whether some preservationists would realise that A4s could be coupled buckeye to buckeye!
Saint Johnstoun wrote:If you read this again it may have been that the loco was coupled to the stock with a screw coupling. It had been tightened too much so there was no 'give' with the buffers when the loco closed up to allow the coupling to be lifted off the hook. If it was buckeye to buckeye then the fools had left the saddles on in error!
I doubt whether some preservationists would realise that A4s could be coupled buckeye to buckeye!
I just find it difficult to believe that the screw coupling could not have been slackened off by undoing the screw.
However, I am given to understand that two A4s could be coupled tender to tender with Buckeyes, but it would take an oxyacetylene cutting torch to separate them.
Only the corridor tenders were buckeye fitted and the coupling hook was in a projection from the buffer beam to ensure the buffers were "short", i.e. ineffective when the buckeye was in use. Screw coupled, as has been indicated previously, requires the collars to be in use on the carriage making the buffers "live". Coupling corridor tenders back to back with the buckeyes presents no difficulties (consider 4472 and 60019's water carriers). If it was necessary to couple with a screw coupler, the attached vehicle's standard screw coupling would be too long since the tender buffers were not extendable (no collars) so a short screw coupling was carried on a hook on the right hand side of the tender buffer beam for use when required.
If the coupling was too tight to be unscrewed, the screw coupling could have been defective, although I'm at loss to imagine a reason. Other than that, either the train was standing on a relatively tight radius curve, or the locomotive was on a dead spot and was not able to squeeze up. If another locomotive was available then it could have been used to close the vehicles up to release the coupling, or the train could have been moved on to straighter railway. I'd have thought the burning gear solution was very much a last resort and I would have been very reluctant to do that if the buffers were in compression. Not a good idea and an act of vandalism on expensive equipment.
)
