Loose Coupled Freight Trains

[Locoman69]

In a previous article mention was made of ‘loose coupled’ freight trains?

These trains were very common pre-war and up until the early 1960’s when most freight, particularly coal – iron ore and most bulk cargo’s were moved in this way. Under today’s very strict Health and Safety laws such workings would never be allowed to happen. Why? Because the relative dangers of stopping and possible break-aways (couplings parting and trains splitting) would never be allowed. However all freight trains today are fully fitted with brakes throughout.

The bulk of freight wagons at that time were ‘12 or 16 ton load’ wooden constructed wagons fitted with three link couplings whereas most covered vans had screw couplings whereby the couplings could be screwed up tight so that the buffers of each were touching with no distance between.

Three link couplings left a considerable gap between wagons of around 8 inches when pulled taught. I can only think that one of the reasons for this was that it was possible for a locomotive to move a heavy loaded train from stationary by picking up the weight of each wagon one by one. By the time the guards van at the rear of a 40 – 50 wagon train began to move the engine itself had moved 10 to 12 yards, creating quite a jolt at the guards van end. Obviously if starting on an uphill gradient and each coupling was taught, the engine had greater difficulty in moving the bulk load. Very often under such conditions an engine had to be reversed forward and back several times to get the train under way.

Ideally if such type of freight trains could be hauled with fully pulled taught couplings there would be no problems, but that was impossible due to slowing down - braking and the fact that all track throughout the country varied in uphill/downhill gradient levels, therefore driving such trains required a great deal of skill and experience.

A gradient of 1 in 100 (rising 1 foot in every 100feet) is relatively minor to road transport but on the railways is quite steep and gradients of any degree had always to be taken into the drivers consideration when controlling his train, especially ‘loose coupled’. Another fact to consider was the fact that only the engine had brakes fitted. Apart from the guards van at the rear the rest of the train had no braking capabilities except a hand brake for applying when stationary.

When moving off, the regulator had to be opened very gently so that the engine moved very slowly initially, pulling each coupling taught without creating a snatch, otherwise it was possible to snap the coupling. Likewise when braking, the engine brake had to be applied very gently to allow each wagon to buffer up gradually before the engine brake could be fully applied. These trains ran under the Eastern Region coding of class F or H freight workings i.e. unbraked freight trains running at a maximum speed of around 35 mph. Other freight classes were C – fully brake fitted throughout, D at
least one third of the train fitted with brakes and E at least four wagons brake fitted, all controlled by the driver. Working time table speeds were assigned as per class of train.

Steam locomotives and all rolling stock had great free wheeling ability due to their extreme weights, thus when running down hill the wagons would push the engine and increase speed. The problem arose when at the bottom of a down hill gradient and the driver applied more steam and the engine began to pull once again. This was when the driver had to judge the precise moment when to apply steam and gradually tighten the couplings taught again otherwise if he applied too much it was possible a violent snatch could occur and a coupling part and the train break into two.

On another note, to give a perfect example of the freewheeling capabilities of steam hauled trains, drivers of express passenger trains after climbing the North London Heights on the approaches to London, would close the regulator after passing Potters Bar station and if the road ahead was clear, the train would freewheel the whole of the 13 miles downhill run into Kings Cross at speeds of 70–80 mph. Most of the gradient was 1 in 200 downhill but the driver would gradually bring the train under control by braking where the final descent around Finsbury Park was steeper at 1 in 70. The only problem was if meeting a train travelling at speed in the opposite direction while passing through one of the many double tracked tunnels, the fire would often burst into the cab due to the intense build up of back pressure. But that’s another story.

[strang steel]

Thanks for that informative post Locoman. Driving a loose coupled freight was certainly a skilled job, but without them I would not have the wonderful memories of freights stopping at signals (and sometimes being reversed onto the opposite track to allow a faster train to overtake) with the clang, clang, clang of buffers all the way down the train, followed by a lesser version as they bounced back off the guards van that had brakes on.

And then a repeat performance after the signal came off and the locomotive started the train again.

As an aside, for those who like to read about the travails of railwaymen in steam days, there is a nice 2 page article on pages 614/5 of the October issue of Backtrack magazine. It is written by a fireman describing his first trip on the ECML.

[Flamingo]

When I lived in that area, 'climbing the 'Northern Heights' meant what down (i.e. northbound) trains did between Wood Green and Potters Bar: 7 miles of 1 in 200 up. Trains approaching London came down this gradient, not up it. And I don't recall anything as steep as 1 in 70 between Finsbury Park and Kings Cross, unless this figure refers to the notorious Platform 16 at KX. Holloway bank is usually quoted as 1 in 105 or thereabouts.

Many times I witnessed the skill of the crews in restarting loose-coupled trains of 60 or 70 empty coal wagons on the way from Ferme Park to New England. That was before the Hadley Woods bottleneck was eliminated in the mid to late 1950s. Before that those trains of coal empties would often be stopped at Greenwood box just short of Hadley South tunnel to await a clear passage up to Potters Bar. Locos were usually WDs from New England shed, that was before they had the 9Fs. Occasionally the loco might be a V2 or K3, but whatever it was the method was the same, a slow gentle progressive pull to get the train moving then a more vigourous effort to accelerate through the tunnels. It was great to hear the gradual clinking of the 3-link couplings and then a few minutes later listen for the exhaust barking from the engine's chimney, by now well into its stride somewhere near Ganwick curve.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[Locoman69]

When I lived in that area, 'climbing the 'Northern Heights' meant what down (i.e. northbound) trains did between Wood Green and Potters Bar: 7 miles of 1 in 200 up. Trains approaching London came down this gradient, not up it. And I don't recall anything as steep as 1 in 70 between Finsbury Park and Kings Cross, unless this figure refers to the notorious Platform 16 at KX. Holloway bank is usually quoted as 1 in 105 or thereabouts.

My reply to Manna
As far as my knowledge of geography goes I was always under the impression that to attain the summit of any hill (in this case the North London Heights (means having to climb up towards it from any direction). Then once achieved it is then downhill. In my article I refer to climbing up to the summit on the ‘up’ main line from the northerly direction from Hatfield through Brookmans Park up to Potters Bar. Once breasted it was downhill all the way then to Kings Cross. As far as my memory goes, there was a short stretch of 1 in 70 between Gasworks Tunnel and Finsbury Park, but whatever the configuration it was certainly steep for main line working and hard work when climbing out of Kings Cross.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[Flamingo]

As far as my knowledge of geography goes I was always under the impression that to attain the summit of any hill (in this case the North London Heights (means having to climb up towards it from any direction). Then once achieved it is then downhill. In my article I refer to climbing up to the summit on the ‘up’ main line from the northerly direction from Hatfield through Brookmans Park up to Potters Bar. Once breasted it was downhill all the way then to Kings Cross. As far as my memory goes, there was a short stretch of 1 in 70 between Gasworks Tunnel and Finsbury Park, but whatever the configuration it was certainly steep for main line working and hard work when climbing out of Kings Cross.

It's not worth falling out over, but your post is the first time I've ever heard the term 'North London Heights' used in such a way. Potters Bar is or was in Middlesex, Hatfield in Hertfordshire. No way did residents of London N postal districts ( we lived in N14) ever think of either Potters Bar or Hatfield as parts of North London. They were north of London, yes, but not parts of North London.

[StevieG]

Interesting original post Locoman69, especially to one only just old enough to remember any steam age (pre-end of steam; not later '60s onwards specials, like Alan Pegler's 4472) trains through Hadley Wood/Greenwood.

Though I see Flamingo's point, I followed Locoman69's meaning about Up trains downhill into King's Cross straight away.
High Barnet was in "Greater London" by about 1970, so I suppose New Barnet was as well, but Potters Bar and northwards wasn't.
But the ridge through Potters Bar was 'The Northern Heights' wasn't it?
And anyway, in the cause of being good to be careful of ambiguity risk, the GN/LNE's 'Northern Heights' lines were, as far as I recall, the lines from Finsbury Park, terminating at Edgware, High Barnet and Alexandra Palace (the proper one): The main line wasn't included.

Anyway, welcome to the Forum Locoman69. I appreciate the info, and thanks indeed for it.

[Flamingo]

Potters Bar was most definitely a summit for down trains, but not really thought of as one for up trains. I don't have a gradient profile to hand but would be very surprised to learn of any really significant climb towards Potters Bar from the north which might cause a Pacific to break sweat. I believe there was a climb of 1 in 200 or thereabouts southwards through Hitchin and Stevenage but those places were both 10 miles or more north of Potters Bar. One thing I do remember about it was when our geography master told the class that if you travelled east from Potters Bar you could go hundreds of miles, as far as the Ural Mountains in Russia, before coming across any higher point. Just one of the useless facts that sticks in the brain.

[strang steel]

Yes it is 1 in 200 up, Southbound through Hitchin to Stevenage, then again Langley Junc to Knebworth with a 'summit' just before Woolmer Green. Downhill through the Welwyns (except for the viaduct) then up again at 1 in 330/200 to Potters Bar.

[StevieG]

Flamingo,
Good luck when you make that eastwards trek !

Re the particular points of the gradients discussion : In case of any help, the Up direction general detail, as shown in Ian Allan's Main Line Gradient Profiles (price 30/-) : -

From a trough (not the Water sort ) just N. of Arlesey ; -

- Rising at between 1 in 400 and 200 from Arlesey to a short level at Hitchin.
- Rising at 200 onwards to Stevenage ('old')
- About a half-mile of Level
- Falling at 330 for about a mile (to approx. Langley Water troughs), then a short Level to Langley Jn.
- Rising at 200 from Langley to a short level through Knebworth
- About a mile of Rising 330, then short 330 Falling to Woolmer Green box
- Falling at 200 from Woolmer to Welwyn North station
- Level over Welwyn Viaduct at Digswell
- short 200 Rising, then Falling at mostly 200 through Welwyn GC to about a mile N. of Hatfield
- 330/200 Rising to a short Level through Hatfield
- About five miles of Rising at variously 550/390/330/200 from Hatfield to Potters Bar, punctuated en route by only a couple of short Levels
- the Eight miles of Falling at 1 in 200 from Potters Bar, to about halfway between Wood Green and Hornsey
- Rising at 285 onwards through Hornsey, to Harringay
- Falling at 445 from Harringay, through Finsbury Park to a Level approaching Holloway ('North')
- Falling at 1 in 107 from top of Holloway bank until inside Gasworks Tunnel near the KX end, below the canal.

[Flamingo]

Flamingo,
Good luck when you make that eastwards trek !

Re the particular points of the gradients discussion : In case of any help, the Up direction general detail, as shown in Ian Allan's Main Line Gradient Profiles (price 30/-) : -

.

Good to see you still quote the book price in real money, not in that foreign decimal stuff.

No immediate prospect of my hiking east to check our teacher's facts. One evening I got as far as train watching on P Bar station, I think it was probably in summer 1953. Definitely in the days before they widened the line. You could get much closer to the action then and get smoked out as V2s pounded through northwards. Wonderful sounds accompanied by smells too.

Geography was my best and favourite subject, about the only one I ever came top of the form in. But with useless trivia such as his claim about Potters Bar it's not hard to see why some pupilswere put off by the subject.

[strang steel]

I'm sure your teacher was correct, but it is a bit of a cheat because if you follow the line of latitude at Potters Bar, you travel over northern Holland (Netherlands for pedants) northern Germany, and northern Poland quite close to the coast.

[Locoman69]

from Flamingo
Potters Bar was most definitely a summit for down trains, but not really thought of as one for up trains. I don't have a gradient profile to hand but would be very surprised to learn of any really significant climb towards Potters Bar from the north which might cause a Pacific to break sweat. I believe there was a climb of 1 in 200 or thereabouts southwards through Hitchin and Stevenage but those places were both 10 miles or more north of Potters Bar. One thing I do remember about it was when our geography master told the class that if you travelled east from Potters Bar you could go hundreds of miles, as far as the Ural Mountains in Russia, before coming across any higher point. Just one of the useless facts that sticks in the brain.
------------------

Oh Dear, my article 'Loose Coupled Trains' certainly has created some critical comment where I related climbing the North London Heights with Express trains, but this is what this Forum is all about: discussing railway matters, especially in steam days.

Fortunately, being an East Coast main line fireman in the late 50-early 60's I can at least relate what it was really like to actually work every type of train between Kings Cross - York and Grimsby. The M&GN Peterborough - Kings Lynn and also workings in the Immingham MPD area.

Unfortunately or fortunately as may be the case, the introduction of diesel locomotives -trains etc at that time, was to cause massive redundancies in all the Motive Power Dept's and halted any hope of myself being an engine driver. So I resigned to follow another career. But despite all the hard work and long unsociable hours it was a wonderful experience and gave me a great deal of confidence and ability in myself to master these magnificent machines.

By chance, yesterday, Oct 24th, I visited the National Railway Museum at York, once again, to join the hundreds of many visitors, world wide, to gaze at so many wonderful locomotives and their sheer size. And yet without a fire, water and a crew capable of the know-how, basically they are a massive piece of immovability.

Now, to get to my reason for writing. This is a reply to ‘Flaming’ above, who questions the phrase “very surprised to learn of any really significant climb towards Potters Bar from the north which might cause a Pacific to break sweat.” Now I don’t recall stating this in my article, but fair comment. However in reply. Starting an express out of Kings Cross, (down line) from a stationary start, with the long drag up to Potters Bar, it required a great deal of effort to gradually build up speed and broach the top there. On the other hand approaching from the north (up line) the train had built up a good cruising speed (80-90mph) over quite a distance, and with a good engine, short uphill gradients were had little effect apart from the driver increasing cut-off slightly to maintain speed. In fact the fireman’s job was done after passing Hitchen and he was running down his fire. The last thing he wanted was having a large fire when stationary at the terminal end of Kings Cross and ‘blowing off’. That would be an ear splitting disaster.

Finally ‘Flamingo’s’ other comment about heights north of Potters Bar. What about the climb to Abbotts Ripton from either Huntingdon or Connington, or Essendine to Highdyke near Grantham? Another story.

[James Brodie]

Nice to read about loose coupled trains-
in our part of the world (Teesside)we worked loose coupled,permissive block and NO brake van in the rear or anywhere else on the train. daytime the last wagon had a strip of red flag on the rear drawhook night time a guards tail lamp hung on the drawhook. The guard rode in the cab with us (J21 25 26 27 Q6 J39 type locos) and when shunting at pick up/drop off points the fireman would be on the floor hanging on or lousing off as need be at the engine end, the guard at the far end. (this was bonus working) when setting onto the train as soon as the buffers touched the driver would be in reverse and put steam on-you had to get the coupling on first swing with the coupling pole (stick). In the 50s the norm for train loads was equal to 60 or 70. When my firing rate of pay was £7-0s-1d I could pick up extra on top a further £10-0s-0d.
.Jim Brodie