Were locos too heavy for coal drops?

[nutford]

Well - what it says up there!

I'm modelling a prototype location on the NER. The station had a small run of coal drops, but to get to them the train had to back from the (double track) main line into a siding, then travel forwards into what would normally be seen as a headshunt, at the end of which were the coal drops. (There was no loop at the drops, but there was one in the station, though that was on the main line. There was a goods yard, but that was the other side of the main line).

So to access the drops, the loco would have to be at the rear of the train. (Perhaps having run-round in the station, but hardly ideal). It would have to pull the train back into the siding, then propel the coal wagons onto the drops. The track extended slightly forward of the drops - enough so that, for example, if there was a brake van at the end of the train that could be pushed beyond the drops, and would not have to be decoupled for coal wagons to reach the farthest drop.

However - there would be an alternative; if the loco was at the FRONT of the train, it could reverse into the siding, then pull the train over the drops. Much simpler. That is - IF you could take a loco over coal drops.....? What do people think/know?

[JASd17]

Yes.

J

[markindurham]

Agreed. Locomotives were too heavy for coal drops

Mark

[exile]

It is of course possible - even probable - that the drops were accessed from trains in one direction only.

If you think about it, many stations would be served from collieries that were in one direction from the station. Some locations (the high moors between Manchester and Leeds, or the North of Nottingham) might conceivably have received from either direction, but the majority will have had coal fields located in just one direction from the station.

With that thought, does it help to rationalise how operations would have been carried out?

[john coffin]

Don't forget in many cases when they were built, the coal drops only had to take loads of about 7-8 tons, so they would have been built
with that in mind. Strengthening would have been done with lumber as loads increased up to 12 Tons.

I have often wondered whether or not they would have been either hand shunted, or roped up?, but as others have said, the coal loads
would only have come from one direction to remove the need for the kind of movement you are talking about.

Beamish has a really nice set of brick built coal drops but obviously they would be of a later design and build, but even so would not have
been designed to carry locos.

The "headshunt" would have been to allow empty wagons to be moved forward to allow more to be emptied.

Paul

[nutford]

Thanks very much for the replies guys. Yep, thought a loco on coal drops probably wasn't a good idea....

I may have confused some people - the 'headshunt' wasn't a headshunt - it would have been, but it simply lead to the coal drops. The tail of the siding was, in effect, the headshunt for the coal drops, if that makes sense.

And yes Exile, the point is to work out how the whole track layout would have been worked. Some of the workings I do know of are themselves strange, but the more you look at the layout the more problems you can see, and thus start to understand why things may have been done as they were.

The station is Melmerby (the Yorkshire one), and the whole setup is, I think, quite unusual. Anyone interested can see it here - https://maps.nls.uk/view/125630812
I'd show a drawing but can't see how to insert it, sorry.

The double-track main line north from Ripon diverged at Melmerby, north to Northallerton, and north-east to Thirsk. At the same time, a single-track branch diverged north-west, to Masham, so there were 5 platform faces. This for a station that wasn't even in Melmerby, it really was the middle of nowhere. South of the station, on the west side was the coal drops, reached in the manner described above. On the east side, was a small goods yard, with 3 sidings but no headshunt, and barely space for a loco at the head of the siding fan - any shunting of much more than a small wagon would have had to have been done on the main line! And it would therefore have been impossible to shunt a train at all between the 3 sidings, unless there was a brake van at the loco-end of the train - as you could not have uncoupled a brake van at the end and then split the wagons between the sidings, without going back onto the main line.. Likewise any running-round to reorganise the train for the branch, or indeed the goods yard or coal yard, had to be done on the mainline.

Because, judging from photographs, ALL trains using the Masham branch went engine-first,(no doubt there were some exceptions) and always had a brake at the tail (there was a run-round loop at Masham), it soon becomes clear that certain trains could only have been worked effectively from one direction; for example, working a goods train coming from the north onto the Masham branch with only a single brake van would have been well-nigh impossible, especially remembering that at times, especially before the ECML was doubled, this was the main route north from Harrogate and Leeds, with over 70 trains a day passing through including several principal expresses.

It was basically a plan of how not to lay out a station complex, and if I modelled it as a freelance effort I don't think people would be very impressed! But that's how it was.....

[nutford]

I have often wondered whether or not they would have been either hand shunted, or roped up?, Paul

I can offer an anecdote on that, the answer in one instance apparently being 'neither'. I was speaking to a gentleman who remembers how they were worked at Masham. He is adamant that on occasions the loco uncoupled the coal trucks, went to the top of the headshunt, then drove back into the stationary trucks and gave them an almighty 'whack' - sufficient to propel them up the incline to the coal drops! Presumably the technique had been practised to gauge the speed of 'whack' required, (I don't know if there is a technical term for a 'whack' in this sense...) and some unfortunate would have had the task of running alongside to apply the wagon brake. This seems hard to believe, but he is quite adamant, and nothing surprises me anymore about ancient railway practises. I am however struggling as to how to model this.....

[jwealleans]

There were exceptions. Brafferton was one.

[Hatfield Shed]

...nothing surprises me anymore about ancient railway practises...

What was done in the past in the way of shunting vehicles into and out of yards while occupying the running line(s) would look very strange to our eyes. Stop train on running line, divide, set back or draw forward etc. to position wagon(s) for the yard entry, bring out the shunt horse, pull the wagon(s) into yard, etc.. There's a lovely pic I have seen of Welwyn North's shunt horse with a couple of wagons on, 'out on the ECML' .

I have often wondered whether or not they would have been either hand shunted, or roped up?, Paul

I can offer an anecdote on that, the answer in one instance apparently being 'neither'. I was speaking to a gentleman who remembers how they were worked at Masham. He is adamant that on occasions the loco uncoupled the coal trucks, went to the top of the headshunt, then drove back into the stationary trucks and gave them an almighty 'whack' - sufficient to propel them up the incline to the coal drops! Presumably the technique had been practised to gauge the speed of 'whack' required... and some unfortunate would have had the task of running alongside to apply the wagon brake. This seems hard to believe, but he is quite adamant...

So there had to be advantage over simply propelling the uncoupled set of wagons along the headshunt and then halting the loco so that the wagons ran on by their momentum, given the risk of both personal injury and damage to the wagons. The loco will accelerate better unloaded so attaining a higher velocity before running into the wagon(s), but the energy transfer to the wagon(s) would depend principally on the buffer springs behaving fully elastically while the buffer heads were in contact.

... I don't know if there is a technical term for a 'whack' in this sense...

'Impulse' covers it. Both the physics and the mindset behind this method...

...I am however struggling as to how to model this...

Fit a wagon with a drive I think, and independent control such as DCC. At scale speeds the energy transferred to the wagon will be too small as kinetic energy is proportional to square of velocity; and especially so to send a wagon up a gradient, as gravity is effectively overscale. (An OO model with sprung buffers running at express speed into a free running single wagon stationary on the line doesn't send it forward that far, on the basis of 'informal experiment by accident' rather than deliberate trial.)

[Danby Wiske]

...certain trains could only have been worked effectively from one direction; for example, working a goods train coming from the north onto the Masham branch with only a single brake van would have been well-nigh impossible...

I would imagine that all goods traffic for the Masham branch would have come from Starbeck (i.e. the south)...

[John Palmer]

The page http://173.254.28.51/~highlev3/chris/Pa ... rpage.html may give you some ideas...

[nutford]

Danby - indeed I think that's right re from the south, though the service itself originated from Ripon. There was one strange 'parcels' service, after Masham had closed to passengers, consisting originally of just a BC at Ripon, which stopped at Melmerby (where they added ANOTHER BC), went up to Masham, then back down again to Melmerby (detaching 2nd BC) and on to Thirsk. Why they went out of their way to run a train with 2 BCs to a station that didn't have any passengers is beyond me.

John and Hatfield - that is so clever an idea. Just one thing - how do I model the guy who runs alongside to put the brake on the wagon......

[Albert Hill]

There are photos which suggest J 39 destined for scrap were stored on coal drops at Broomielaw for a period, although I cannot recall observing them when travelling past myself.

[Rlangham]

Beamish has a really nice set of brick built coal drops but obviously they would be of a later design and build, but even so would not have
been designed to carry locos.

The coal drops at Beamish are stone and very early, being the ex-West Boldon Stanhope & Tyne Railroad lime and coal depot of 1834

[Trev21]

For anyone interested.... I asked this question 3 years ago, and now have a conclusive answer - No!

Well - not always anyway.
The attached pic shows an 08 very much over the coal drops at Masham, pulling/pushing the single hopper wagon at the end of the run.