Hauling coal trains

[Graham Boak]

Excuse me if there's an obvious answer, but were the coal trains regularly seen being hauled with the locomotives travelling backwards? They don't seem to appear that way in photographs: is this just a matter of photographers preferring the more aesthetic appearance of the locomotive travelling forwards? I'm particularly thinking of the North-East coalfields and tender engines such as the J27. I've looked at the layouts of several collieries and they appear to lack turntables (not surprisingly) or triangles.

So did trains bring empties with the engine facing forward, and then return to the docks tender-first? Or vice-versa? Or am I missing something?

[hq1hitchin]

Can only answer in general terms, Graham. Enginemen would prefer to work a tender engine chimney first simply because it was more comfortable on the footplate that way especially if, for example, it was raining, snowing or a bitterly cold day. Apart from tender first running providing less shelter, there were also the problems of restricted vision with a large tender and the problem of coal dust being blown back onto the footplate. Some drivers and firemen would even try to turn tank engines to run chimney first if they were about to set off on a reasonably long main line journey and a turntable was available (the example I'm thinking of is on the LMR when Bletchley men were booked to work a 4MT tank into Euston and then work it on a passenger train bunker first to Northampton). You're quite right though as not everywhere, particularly collieries and docks, would have them so a certain amount of tender first working was inevitable with trip working and the like.

Another example might be a main line engine diagrammed to haul the empty stock for another train from the carriage sidings into a terminus so that it would be the right way round for working another express out of the station once released.

Cannot say whether photographers found tender first running aesthetically pleasing, perhaps not, or perhaps because it just wasn't that common on the main lines.

[v3man]

Coal trains in the Edinburgh area worked by St.Margarets Shed were invariably taken chimney first up the various branches to Smeaton, Lady Victoria Pit, Loanhead etc. with empties and returned with loaded coal trains tender first to Granton, Leith, Meadows yard. etc.

[Colombo]

Graham,

Long distance goods trains of any sort would be worked boiler first as engine crew need to be protected from the elements.

Short pick up goods on an out and back run would obviously need to do half the journey tender first, unless there was a turntable at the far end.

One important proviso though: when working up a gradient there will be a large demand for steam leaduing to rapid evaporation of hot water in the boiler which must be replaced by injecting cold water to avoid exposing the fusible plugs in the top of the firebox. The water level above the firebox will be more easily maintained when working boiler first. As there is little work to do on the return journey down hill, there is less of a problem, but it makes sense to return tender first.

Colombo

[Graham Boak]

Thank you for some interesting points.

Main line long distance goods, including minerals, I can see would normally be locomotive first. I was thinking more of trip working: colliery to docks and back. These would normally be fairly level, near the Durham coast at least, though of course a steam engine's idea of an incline might be more restrictive than the motor age's view. The docks would inevitably be lower than the pits, or at least no higher.

Let me try this on you. Given no turning facility at docks (perhaps not so?) or colliery then how the locomotive was used would depend upon how the first job of the day was introduced from the depot. Presumably they would start the day light engine travelling locomotive first, then run onto their train of waggons, pick them up and proceed tender first? So a locomotive that started the day with a run from the docks would arrive at the colliery tender first, and then work full waggons to the docks locomotive first. Whereas one that started with a run light engine to a colliery would be just the reverse. This way either way of running could be seen in either direction.

The Edinburgh runnings described imply that the first train of the day was always taking empty waggons to the pit. I can see that this is a more efficient way of working the fleet than running light engine, which implies it was probably the norm elsewhere. So the first trip would be to the docks, or waggon sidings. However, it does imply that the locomotive backs onto the train of empty waggons, presumably someting easier to arrange by started tender-first at the depot, or by adjustment at or before the docks?

[Hatfield Shed]

...So did trains bring empties with the engine facing forward, and then return to the docks tender-first? Or vice-versa? Or am I missing something?

What you are missing is the extent of local custom and practise, much of which was in the heads of the shed, traffic and signal staff and the footplate crew and guards engaged in the work.

For the reasons already explained tender first working was generally avoided if at all possible, and the steam railway network provided significant opportunities for getting the loco boiler leading without benefit of turntable, by using a handy triangular junction, or even alternative routings for out and return legs of trips. So the shed would aim to position the loco right way round for the allocated turn it was on, and the route used would often supply the means to turn the loco when direction of working altered. But there would still be stretches where the loco was worked tender first, even if only in the movements to do the turning. A not uncommon photograph from the coalfields districts of the UK is of a locally allocated mineral engine with just a guards van coupled onto the front bufferbeam. Even if there is no trail of exhaust or water vapour you can be pretty sure that is a tender first working, going out to collect a train or returning to a yard with a van kip, with no opportunity to turn.

As for the loco always running to the load point with empties, then returning with a loaded train, not so. Unless there is a very significant gradient consistently against the empty train, a loco can work well past twice the empties than it can loaded. It was often much more efficient in terms of engine mileage, crew time and line occupancy to run larger and thus fewer trains of empties than loaded, and make the resulting unbalanced engine move(s) light, sometimes two coupled up.

[Graham Boak]

I fully accept your comment about a lack of knowledge of local running.

Your second paragraph presents, to some extent, a different view to those describing the runs around Edinburgh. If I understand you correctly, then engines would deliver the empties front-running, then go away to turn at a convenient place, then come back to take the full waggons front-running. Then they would have to repeat the exercise at the other end. I can see that this would work if there was a local triangle, as there might well be at a docks, but would this be true at the colliery end, even over such a dense layout as the East Durham coal field? And what would the trade-off be between the preference for front-end running and the requirement to keep the firebox covered?

Yes, a locomotive can pull many more empty trucks than it can loaded ones, understood. And the relieved locomotive could then be used on some other job in the meantime, but would still have to travel light engine to the pit for the next-but-one full train. Perhaps this depends upon just how many round trips each day? If there was a large gap between successive trips, or not.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

We had some runs like this in Yorkshire. The engine went the direction the crew wanted on the way out. For example, if a single bore tunnel on a steep incline was to be negotiated, or indeed any steeply inclined tunnel, then the engine was worked so that, if the incline was ascended with the loaded train, the engine would be tender first so that the smoke and fumes were behind the footplate if possible. On the trip to Clayton West, there were inclines BOTH ways so it then depended on the weather and which way the wind blew the rain, although Yorkshire crews were masters at rigging up a storm sheet.

The comments about chimney first working being preferred are right but one major factor had been forgotten. The controls of the loco were at the front of the cab (stating the bleeding obvious again, BB!! ) so if the engine were working chimney first then the controls were in the direction of travel. Tender first, they were at the back of the cab so the crew would either have to turn their back to the direction of travel or twist uncomfortably to reach them.

The Bala to Bleanau branch in North Wales (over 10 miles long) never had anything bigger than a 57xx on it yet had turntables at both ends - that wouldn't take anything much bigger than a 57xx anyway...

[mr B]

Graham,




One important proviso though: when working up a gradient there will be a large demand for steam leaduing to rapid evaporation of hot water in the boiler which must be replaced by injecting cold water to avoid exposing the fusible plugs in the top of the firebox. The water level above the firebox will be more easily maintained when working boiler first. As there is little work to do on the return journey down hill, there is less of a problem, but it makes sense to return tender first.

Colombo

was'nt the same problem to be found with the BIG tank mallett's on the Uintah Railway whilst working both up and down gradiants ? the cure was to fit a second dome near the fire box.


mr B

[60041]

I remember watching the locos from Alnmouth shed leaving for the trip workings to the local collieries. There did not seem to be any real preference which way they worked, and I can remember seeing them working loaded trains either way. Some workings such as the trips to Amble staithes would work from Shilbottle or Whittle exchange sidings tender first to Chevington, then chimney first to Amble because this made the shunting easier at Amble. The longer distance workings such as Shilbottle to Oxwellmains (Dunbar) were usually chimney first.
If you look on good quality photo sites such as Ernies Railway Archive, there are plenty of pictures of tender first workings;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswiss ... 6465529269

[52D]

In the North East in particular the mineral trains were worked under control orders. Thats why engines and van were such a common site scurrying from pit to port and back again when not pulling fulls or emptys. I dont know if it was for financial reasons that crews would perhaps cut corners on timing by not turning the loco and trying to get an extra trip before the shift ended. Perhaps an experienced railwayman of that era can enlighten us.

[52A]

Tender first and shoveing a van! It should be remembered that collieries, power stations, shipping points and empty wagon storage sidings didn't have turntables. If you left the shed going frontwards you usually came back going backwards! Mineral turns were on bonus, the more work you did the more bonus you received (unlike bankers today). There were two elements to this, you did everything as quickly as you could and the bonus was calculated from the Gaurd's journal, so a little creative accountancy also helped.

[Graham Boak]

A curious way of doing things. How did it get into the position of propelling a van, tender first?

It raises a linked question, and that is how the guard's van was operated. On arriving at a colliery, did the crew put the van into a siding, then collect the waggons, and back the whole train onto the van; or did they haul everything into a siding and then run around to collect the van, and to place it on the end of a new loaded train of waggons?

These everyday operating methods were no doubt completely transparent to the users at the time, but don't seem to have been written up in the books I've been reading.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

No simple asnwer to this one. Normally the brake was put into a siding and the train drawn out and backed onto it but not always. Sometimes, if the train was in a loop then the brake was put into the headshunt and the train backed onto that. It also depends which way the train was going. In the piccie, the brake would have to be shunted to the back of the train, assuming the engine would work the train chimney first.

[strang steel]

A curious way of doing things. How did it get into the position of propelling a van, tender first?

Presumably space may have been at a premium at the wagons' destination, so the brake van was uncoupled just before entering the holding sidings, the loco drew the wagons into said sidings chimney first, uncoupled and ran round the train then came back up to the brake van and after coupling up just pushed it out onto the main running line, then departed to pick up another train.

Quite often the returning empties would be two sets of wagons (used for full loads) coupled together, so light engine working was quite common.