British Railway Operations

[martin.knoepfel]

AFAIK, there are not many commuters from Paris to London or back, but more and more British citizens buying weekend houses on the French shore of the Channel. Northern France is an economically depressed area - smokestack and textile industries largely being gone - and real estate is cheaper than in southern England.
If you look for a job, it is easier to find one in Britain, e.g. London, than in France, because British economy is doing very well.

As far as screw couplers are concerned: they are certainly dangerous and labour-intensive to handle, but many European passenger trains practically run in fixed-consists, even if they are not m.u.s. It is cheaper to run an extra coach than to couple on or off during the day. In the seventies, a modern automatic-coupler-design was finally not adopted by the European railroads, largely because of French opposition.

[Murphy Siding]

M636C: What kind of problems occured with the licence built Swiss and German engines? *Baby Deltic*? Was that developed at the same time as the Deltic that I'm familiar with?

Thanks

[TH&B]

If New York and LA were just 300 miles apart there probably would also be a big interest in Hi Speed Rail in the USA.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

On the Great Northern Thread, there is mention of Britain's dieselization. The poster said that Britain did studies of American dieselization, and felt that we moved to quickly to get rid of steam. That makes sense to me, as I've read much about U.S. railroads that were scrapping fairly new steam locomotives. The inference is that Britain eased into dieselization slower to avoid some of the same pitfalls. I guess that I had always assumed that it was simply because Great Britain's economy wasn't moving along so great, having just finished 6 years of war, followed by Indian independance. Can someone enlighten me plead?

Thanks

There are a number of factors that resulted in slow conversion to diesel, but at the time, Britain had no domestic oil production, and this, combined with the debts from WWII and the generally poor economic situation contributed. Many items were still rationed, even after the war, and some British made items were reserved for export to improve the economic situation, including automobiles.

The Labour Party came to power in 1945, and nationalised the railways (in 1948) the railways being previously formed (in 1923) into four large merged systems with varying degrees of government support, but nominally privately operated. These private railways were interested in diesel (and gas turbine) power, and five diesel units of 1600 to 2000 were built by English Electric. These were effectively demonstrators, heavily supported by the builders, and more might have followed but for nationalisation.

The 1948 British Railways imposed a national numbering system and centralised locomotive design and procurement policy. For whatever reason, a set of standard steam locomotives was designed and built (a total of 999 locomotives being built). No serious consideration was given to diesel locomotives, apart from shunting units, which had been built to a standard English Electric design during and after WWII until about 1955 when a "Modernisation Plan" was instituted. Electrification of main lines was the long term plan, but operating costs were so high that the purchase of diesel locomotives for the short term was adopted. The locomotives had be built in England, and EMD was excluded because they would not allow licence construction of the 567 engine in England. Given the problems that occurred with Swiss and German engines built in England, this might have been a good move on EMD's part. They still don't allow licence building, but in the USA there is a considerable market in EMD engines and parts many made by outside companies now. But in the short term they lost the big UK market.

A so-called "Pilot Scheme" was adopted, where ten or so locomotives of a range of powers were ordered from each of a number of builders, including BR's own workshops. These arrived around 1958, by which time the operating losses were so bad that many of these "Pilot" types were just ordered in production quantities (except for a couple of types that didn't look good before they entered service - the Type1 "Baby Deltic" with its turbocharged 9 cylinder Napier "Deltic" never made the cut)

So BR went into full scale conversion to diesel with very little experience of the locomotives concerned (except for the English Electric Type 4 D200 series, later class 40, which was based on the 1948 prototypes which had stayed in service for ten years art that stage). Later, the Type 3, class 37 was introduced, a cut down 12 cylinder version of the 16 cylinder class 40 which also proved to be very reliable.

The class 47 was introduced in 1962 based on the Sulzer engined classes 44,45 and 46, and it was more reliable than earlier types.

The EMD types started with the JT26CW, Class 59, purchased by Foster Yeoman for their own trains running on BR. More class 59 were purchased by other operators, paving the way for the JT42CWR class 66, introduced by EW&S after privatisation of the freight operation.

I hope that explains it!

M636C.

[Murphy Siding]

On the Great Northern Thread, there is mention of Britain's dieselization. The poster said that Britain did studies of American dieselization, and felt that we moved to quickly to get rid of steam. That makes sense to me, as I've read much about U.S. railroads that were scrapping fairly new steam locomotives. The inference is that Britain eased into dieselization slower to avoid some of the same pitfalls. I guess that I had always assumed that it was simply because Great Britain's economy wasn't moving along so great, having just finished 6 years of war, followed by Indian independance. Can someone enlighten me plead?

Thanks

[Simon Reed]

To put things in perspective it takes 30 minutes to get from the centre of London to Heathrow or Gatwick airport, and even longer to Stanstead. It's probably a similar distance from Charles De Gaulle Airport to the centre of Paris. Why fly?

If you take the Eurostar to Brussels, which is the same distance and time roughly, you can make a cross-platform change onto a Thalys High Speed Express towards Amsterdam or Cologne - another hour each.

Many of the Amtrak threads on this forum have contained teeth gnashing and chest beating over the future of passenger rail in America. If you'd suggested in Europe 20 years ago that you could get from London to, say, Zurich in five hours by rail you'd not have been taken seriously.

The passenger train has, sadly, fallen out of idealogical currency in the US and the High Speed, dedicated track networks we see in mainland Europe are unlikely to usurp the Airlines as your favourite waste of taxpayers money.

Still, the European model shows what can be achieved with a willingness to transform the moribund into the dynamic.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by cogload
Paris will be less than 2hrs away from London.....superb for a quick day out.

2 hours? That's almost a typical US commute.

So which would be preferable: Live in London and *work* in Paris, or live in Paris and work in London?

[(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cogload
Paris will be less than 2hrs away from London.....superb for a quick day out.

2 hours? That's almost a typical US commute.

So which would be preferable: Live in London and *work* in Paris, or live in Paris and work in London?

[Anonymous]

not the deltics, nor the kettles. I think the "Northern Lights" which runs from London Kings Cross - Aberdeen (Peterborough, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh being the first four stops) is booked to run at that speed for at least the southern half of the journey....On a hugely intensive mixed traffic railway like we have over here it can be very difficult to timetable those speeds, however with part II of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link opening in 2007 (max speed 186MPH) - Paris will be less than 2hrs away from London.....superb for a quick day out.

[TH&B]

What trains?Not the Delticsc nor any steam train?

[Anonymous]

Murphy..yes you are and yes it was.

Average speeds for some of those trains are in excess of 120MPH. Which will be square root of nothing compared to 2007.......

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

The "Flying Scotsman" is both the name of a train service and a locomotives. Since the 1860's there has traditionally been an express train from London King's Cross to Edinburgh departing at 10am. At first it was called "The Special Scots Express" but the title "Flying Scotsman" was adopted in the 1920's.

It was in 1922 that Nigel Gresley's 4-6-2 "Pacific" A1 class locos entered service. The name "Flying Scotsman" was given to one of these and this particular one is the only survivor of the class. She was bought for preservation in 1963. For a time after British Rail got rid of steam she the only steam loco they would allow to run on their lines. She toured the USA in 1969-1970 but the cost of this bankrupted her owner. Fortunately another guy stepped in and paid of the creditors and returned her to the UK. More recently in 1988 she visited Australia. After her last owner went bakrupt last year she was bought by the National Railway Museum at York who are continuing to maintain her in main line running condition.

Nigel Gresley went on to design the streamlined A4 Pacifics of which "Mallard" holds the all time speed record for a steam loco of 126mph. (The London and North Eastern Railway used letters to classify steam locos by wheel arrangement eg A - 4-6-2, B 4-6-0, C 4-4-2, D 4-4-0 and so on; when "Flying Scotsman" was rebuilt with a higher pressure boiler in the 1930's she was re-classifed A3).

On the East Coast Main line the Gresley A3 and A4's remained in service till the 1960's when they were replaced by the Deltic diesels. These 3,300hp beasts rules the rails until the advent of the Diesel High Speed Trains in the 1970's (which have a streamlined 2,300 hp loco at each end, ie 4,600 hp on tap). Then in 1984 the decision was taken to electrify the East Coast Main Line so now the "Flying Scotsman" service is worked by a 140mph class 91 electric loco operating in push pull mode.

If I'm reading this correctly, the Flying Scotsman *route* was run by Deltics at one time?

Thanks

[mhurley87f]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

The screw coupler seems kind of dangerous and labour intensive, especialy when switching freight cars in marshaling yards. There is at least one interesting advantage of the screw coupler to the knuckle coupler and that is the loose slack can be manualy adjusted. The screw can be tightened so that there is no loose slack. On some routes in the mountains the screw is backed off a couple of turns on heavier trains or on lines with sharper curves to give the train some slack. The French TGV use the screw coupler between the loco and the passenger cars at each end. A TGV train could consievably be coupled to the Stevensens ROCKET !

US railfans might be very surprised at how little shunting (switching) is actually performed in the UK, e.g. due to massive shifts in our energy needs, domestic coal traffic is virtually non-existent, and the number of potential end-customers, and destinations accordingly dramatically reduced. So we have no hump yards, and the yards that remain are needed basically to prepare / recess / combine / split trains as opposed splitting up for dozens of customers.

My favourite place to watch the world go by is at Margam Yard, at the exit of Corus's Port Talbot Steel Works in South Wales, where EWS traffic is 90 - 95% trainload. Most of the sorting for customers is done within the works sidings, and much of EWS's shunting is picking out "Red Carded" wagons and those scheduled for mileage / time dictated inspections at the nearby wagon maintenance / repair facility.

[Tulyar15]

The "Flying Scotsman" is both the name of a train service and a locomotives. Since the 1860's there has traditionally been an express train from London King's Cross to Edinburgh departing at 10am. At first it was called "The Special Scots Express" but the title "Flying Scotsman" was adopted in the 1920's.

It was in 1922 that Nigel Gresley's 4-6-2 "Pacific" A1 class locos entered service. The name "Flying Scotsman" was given to one of these and this particular one is the only survivor of the class. She was bought for preservation in 1963. For a time after British Rail got rid of steam she the only steam loco they would allow to run on their lines. She toured the USA in 1969-1970 but the cost of this bankrupted her owner. Fortunately another guy stepped in and paid of the creditors and returned her to the UK. More recently in 1988 she visited Australia. After her last owner went bakrupt last year she was bought by the National Railway Museum at York who are continuing to maintain her in main line running condition.

Nigel Gresley went on to design the streamlined A4 Pacifics of which "Mallard" holds the all time speed record for a steam loco of 126mph. (The London and North Eastern Railway used letters to classify steam locos by wheel arrangement eg A - 4-6-2, B 4-6-0, C 4-4-2, D 4-4-0 and so on; when "Flying Scotsman" was rebuilt with a higher pressure boiler in the 1930's she was re-classifed A3).

On the East Coast Main line the Gresley A3 and A4's remained in service till the 1960's when they were replaced by the Deltic diesels. These 3,300hp beasts rules the rails until the advent of the Diesel High Speed Trains in the 1970's (which have a streamlined 2,300 hp loco at each end, ie 4,600 hp on tap). Then in 1984 the decision was taken to electrify the East Coast Main Line so now the "Flying Scotsman" service is worked by a 140mph class 91 electric loco operating in push pull mode.

[Murphy Siding]

2500 tons would be 30-40 cars,more or less? I can see where that would be less of a concern in needing slack to start a train.

Unrelated: I've read mention of the "Flying Scotchman". Is that the name of a particular engine,or train, or a route? Is it still around?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

I'd say they were about the same level of danger as knuckle couplers - yes, there was and is far more potential for injury, but rail workers learned how to handle them safely and had a very strong "by the book" approach to their jobs that reduced the level of risk. Even with knuckle couplers someone still needs to go between cars to hook up a brake hose and/or HEP lines, so the danger would be about the same.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Having read recently that the heaviest train pulled by steam in the UK weighed out at about 2500 tons, I would think that slack action is less of a problem in the UK than in the USA because the trains are much lighter.

I may be a little bit off the mark here but link-and-screw couplers seem to be only slightly less dangerous to brakemen and switchmen than link-and-pin couplers.

[Murphy Siding]

I thought the slack in a freight train was to help in getting it moving-one car at a time. Are typical British freights lighter, so that is not as much of an issue?

Thanks

[TH&B]

The couplers can have some slack, or no slack, it can be adjusted by the scew.

[Anonymous]

They don't have much slack action now due to the screw couplers - the buffers hold the coupler in tension. With the old three-link couplers there was considerable slack, add in the fact that most freight trains then had no continuous brake (the loco and brake van were used to slow down) and the results could be interesting to say the least... In reality rail staff learned how to handle the couplers quickly in yards (three links can be uncoupled using a shunter's pole without crawling underneath - you rest the pole on one buffer and use the end to flip the chain off the hook).

[Murphy Siding]

This does,to me,sound dangerous and labot intensive also. Do I understand this correctly that the screw coupler takes the tension loading, and the buffers take the compression loading? It sounds like your trains still have slack action, but maybe they don't rumble when the train is handled a little rough?

Thanks

[TH&B]

The screw coupler seems kind of dangerous and labour intensive, especialy when switching freight cars in marshaling yards. There is at least one interesting advantage of the screw coupler to the knuckle coupler and that is the loose slack can be manualy adjusted. The screw can be tightened so that there is no loose slack. On some routes in the mountains the screw is backed off a couple of turns on heavier trains or on lines with sharper curves to give the train some slack. The French TGV use the screw coupler between the loco and the passenger cars at each end. A TGV train could consievably be coupled to the Stevensens ROCKET !

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Does each car connection then have to be manually "screwed" (?) together by a trainman?

What Tulyar has called "Buckeye" couplers are Janney/AAR couplers, most of which are hinged horizontally through the shank to drop into a vertical position, revealing a hook which can be used with a screw coupler. Virtually all long distance passenger cars built since 1951 have these couplers and are coupled together with the knuckle couplers within the train, and only the couplers at the end are dropped to allow coupling to the locomotive with the screw couplers. When the knuckle is raised, pins are removed from the buffers to allow them to be retracted, all forces being taken by the "Buckeye".

The screw coupler takes only the tension load, when it is in use, the buffers taking all the compression load. To couple, the screw coupler is usually partly screwed up and the locomotive carefully runs up to the train and partly compresses the buffers, enough for the the coupler to be dropped over the hook on the end coach. The coupler is then screwed up a little more while the buffers are still compressed and the end loops are restrained by the hooks. The locomotive then cuts power or releases its brakes, and the buffers pu***he locomotive back, putting the screw coupler in tension.

This involves a trainman climbing under the buffers of the locomotive and car, and lifting the link into place and tightening it in a very confined space, particularly since the end gangway of the passenger car will be projecting over the coupler on that vehicle. There is a risk of the man slipping and falling against all the MU equipment or the air brake pipes. On the GNER Mk4 trains running London to Edinburgh, the trains are fixed in composition and the end car on the locomotive end has no gangway fitted (to make this task easier). A driving control vehicle is at the other end.

This situation has existed for at least thirty years. On my first visit to the UK in 1973, only the older diesel railcars still used screw couplers between the passenger vehicles. The distance between these cars was much greater.

I really don't understand why they don't use knuckle couplers on the locomotive. When "Flying Scotsman" visited Australia in 1989, it used the knuckle that it had had on the tender since 1928 to couple to Australian passenger cars (even though the British couplers are 3" higher than Australian (and US) knuckles). There weren't any problems with that practice that I heard of.

You do have to hit the train harder to ensure the knuckle couples, but that doesn't seem to be that big a problem. The trainman still has to couple the air pipes, of course, but that can be done after coupling with nothing being compressed.

M636C

[Anonymous]

If the stock used has screw-link couplings, then yes - coupling two vehicles involves hooking the chain from one over the hook of the other, then turning the threaded link to pull them together (then the usual brake pipes, etc). Older stock (steam-era, though some lasted into the diesel age) used three-link couplings (as the name suggests, these were a length of chain three links long) but there were problems with the slack involved - the train crew had to be very careful to avoid broken couplings or damaged cargo. Some of the most recent equipment is fitted with US-type knuckle couplers (these were standardised for passenger stock with the BR standard designs (MK1, MK2, etc) though they were originally used by the LNER and Pullman - most cars had/have a drop-head knuckle coupler that reveals a hook behind, and retractable buffers to allow them to couple to locos and other cars without knuckles).

[Murphy Siding]

Does each car connection then have to be manually "screwed" (?) together by a trainman?

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Are engines with aluninum blocks, like the Deltic,common in British Railroading or the exception?

No Deltic engines were almost unique on BR. The only other diesels with two stroke engines were the 10 strong class of "Baby Deltics" which had a single 1,100 hp 9 cylinder Deltic engine and the weird Metro-Vic Co-Bo class (The Thomas the Tank Engine character "Boco" is one of these). Both classes were withdrawn by the end of the 1960's.

QUOTE:
In checking out the Deltic website-and all the other interestings sites you guys have posted, I see something I (and most Americans no doubt) have never quite understood. *Buffers* (or boofers,as they're called on Thomas the Tank Engine[:)]):how exactly are British and other European train cars "hooked" together? I've read that they have *screw* type cuoplers. How does the British system differ from what we Americans are used to-the Janey coupler?

Thanks

British locos still have screw couplings which consist of two loops and a thred for tightening them up once the far loop has been put on a hook. There's a variety of different types of buck eye couplings used on multiple units these days; all loco hauled passenger cars have buckeye couplings but as most locos dont they have to drop the buckeye and hook on a loco using its screw coupling in general. The Virgin class 57 "Thunderbird" locos are fitted with a special coupling so they can pull an electric Pendolino train when they are diverted over an unelectrified line or they have to switch the power off.

Because BR and it successors failed to fix a standard couplings are a bit of a mess in Britain.

[M636C]

That is two driving cars coupled back to back. They are intended to run in pairs with four to six flat cars coupled between them. The flat cars need MU cables. The power car owners don't own any flat cars, and will obtain some and fit the cables when the cars enter service in their new location.

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

Is that 1, or 2, hooked end to end?

[M636C]

To go back to the "Cargo Sprinter" again, the Australian one moved from Melbourne to Sydney, where there is a lot of sea container movement in the suburban area.

This link should give a clear photo.

http://www.railpage.com.au/g-te2815-v:Cargo_Sprinter_at_Moss_Vale_12Sep2005_003.htm

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

Are engines with aluninum blocks, like the Deltic,common in British Railroading or the exception?

In checking out the Deltic website-and all the other interestings sites you guys have posted, I see something I (and most Americans no doubt) have never quite understood. *Buffers* (or boofers,as they're called on Thomas the Tank Engine[:)]):how exactly are British and other European train cars "hooked" together? I've read that they have *screw* type cuoplers. How does the British system differ from what we Americans are used to-the Janey coupler?

Thanks