A Nod To Brent - a friendly thread, filled with frivolity, cream teas and pasties. Longing for the happy days in the South Hams 1947.

[Donw]

We really need Staionmaster Mike to give a definite answer on GWR double heading.

 

From what I remember the GWR preferred to have a bogied engine (usually a 4-6-0) at the front rather than one with a pony truck (prairie or Mogul)  and one with neither (such as Dean goods) would be preferred least.  However I believe if the problem was engine trouble rather than an excessive load the good engine would be placed in front. In WR days I believe a 57xx had to be put put on to help a failing Diesel when the diesel recovered somewhat the 57xx ran probably the fastest run of its life!

 

Few of us have layouts were double heading can be employed.

Don

[buffalo]

We really need Staionmaster Mike to give a definite answer on GWR double heading....

 

Until Mike gets here, I can start the ball rolling with the following from the 1936 General Appendix;

 

"As a general rule, any type of engine with coupled wheels not less the 4'6" diameter may be used to assist a passenger train from the bottom to the top of an incline..."

 

For "Assisting or double heading on the level or on falling gradients"

"(i) Engines of the 4-6-0 or 4-4-0 types may be coupled in front of any engine (subject to special regulations respecting the "King" class), and, if available, an engine of one of these types should always be the leading engine.

 

(ii) If the engine to be attached  is not of the same type as the train engine or of the 4-6-0 or 4-4-0 type, it must be placed between the train engine and the train.

 

(iii) Except where shown below (*) engines of the 2-6-0 and 2-6-2T types with wheels 5'8" in diameter may assist in front of any engine except the 60XX "King" class between the following points only..."

 

Newton Anbbot and Brent are amongst the routes listed after (iii) where these engines may assist.

 

The special regulations for Kings include:

 

"King" class engines may run coupled to any engine of the tender type except those in the "red" group, but engines of the 83XX and 93XX types are specially authorised. Tank engines of the "yellow" group only may be coupled to a "King" class engine."

 

"When any tender engine is run coupled to a "King" engine, they must not be coupled funnel to funnel."

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

I won't add much to what Nick has said apart from one tiny rider - things were changed a bit in detail over the years, sometimes significant detail, so you need all the amendments to be absolutely accurate for any date.

 

However for Rob's purposes there isn't much to worry about as the most significant change was made in October 1948 from which date item ii above in Nick's list was superseded by the following -

 

ii. In all other cases an engine with a pony truck (i.e. 2-8-0, 2-6-0,2-4-0,2-8-2T, 2-8-0T or 2-6-2T types if available should be the leading engine.  Otherwise the more powerful engine must be placed in front.

 

It should also be noted that the Instructions for assisting freight trains were different from those for passenger trains and it always remained a requirement that only 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 assisting engines could be attached in front of the train engine, double heading of fitted and partially fitted freights was only permitted on rising gradients or where specially authorised (which included the Severn Tunnel but seemingly not South Devon).

[kandc_au]

Does anyone know why the Kings could not be attached funnel to funnel?

Just curious because it has been mentioned!

 

khris

[gwrrob]

Double headers look great in photos but are a pain to get right running on the layout.For a start I've removed the couplings off the front of my tender engines and getting two locos running in tandem is not easy without putting undue loads on them.Not worth it it in my opinion.

[Mallard60022]

Two solutions.

1. DCC

2. Have a 'Pilot' loco without a motor.

Result.

Quackers.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Mallard60022

[Mulgabill]

I won't add much to what Nick has said apart from one tiny rider - things were changed a bit in detail over the years, sometimes significant detail, so you need all the amendments to be absolutely accurate for any date.

 

However for Rob's purposes there isn't much to worry about as the most significant change was made in October 1948 from which date item ii above in Nick's list was superseded by the following -

 

ii. In all other cases an engine with a pony truck (i.e. 2-8-0, 2-6-0,2-4-0,2-8-2T, 2-8-0T or 2-6-2T types if available should be the leading engine.  Otherwise the more powerful engine must be placed in front.

 

It should also be noted that the Instructions for assisting freight trains were different from those for passenger trains and it always remained a requirement that only 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 assisting engines could be attached in front of the train engine, double heading of fitted and partially fitted freights was only permitted on rising gradients or where specially authorised (which included the Severn Tunnel but seemingly not South Devon).

I sweem to recall earlier in this thread the question of double headed Kingscoming up!

 

I was fortunate enough to invest £2 in my local charity bookshop recently, in return I got Western Signalman by Adrian Vaghan in which (p 24) he quotes Larry Crosier as meeting the 11:50 down Paddington Mail at Totnes, on his way home from Tigley box. On one occassion hauled by 2 Kings, with each crew (supposedly) believing the other loco to be castle!

 

This event is not dated, but would appear to have been about 1948/49 - near enough I would say to give Rob an excuse.

 

TONY

[Donw]

The special rules for Kings would probably be due to the axle loading and the hammer blow I assume that is why the kings could not be coupled funnel to funnel

 

If you use 'proper' screw link couplings there is not problem attaching them. However they do need to have similar characteristics in the motor and drive otherwise the load will not be shared very well. As qualers says it would be easier with DCC as one motor cannot starve the other one of current, and you can adjust the power seperately.

In some ways using three links banking freights is easier. The train engine will pull all the wagons where the links are taught and the banker pushing those where the links are slack. Of course on passenger trains three screw links will all have been tightened

Don

Edited April 13, 2015 by Donw

[The Stationmaster]

I sweem to recall earlier in this thread the question of double headed Kingscoming up!

 

I was fortunate enough to invest £2 in my local charity bookshop recently, in return I got Western Signalman by Adrian Vaghan in which (p 24) he quotes Larry Crosier as meeting the 11:50 down Paddington Mail at Totnes, on his way home from Tigley box. On one occassion hauled by 2 Kings, with each crew (supposedly) believing the other loco to be castle!

 

This event is not dated, but would appear to have been about 1948/49 - near enough I would say to give Rob an excuse.

 

TONY

If Larry - who I knew quite well in his later career when he moved to Reading after leaving the Signalling grade  - said it then I believe it (I wouldn't necessarily do the same in the case of the other name ).  

 

Some of the restrictions on coupling 'Kings' when running light engine were eased in 1948, but this was not extended to the assisting Instructions.

[The Stationmaster]

The special rules for Kings would probably be due to the axle loading and the hammer blow I assume that is why the kings could not be coupled funnel to funnel

 

If you use 'proper' screw link couplings there is not problem attaching them. However they do need to have similar characteristics in the motor and drive otherwise the load will not be shared very well. As qualers says it would be easier with DCC as one motor cannot starve the other one of current, and you can adjust the power seperately.

In some ways using three links banking freights is easier. The train engine will pull all the wagons where the links are taught and the banker pushing those where the links are slack. Of course on passenger trains three screw links will all have been tightened

Don

It was almost certainly due to axle loading and total weight spread over the standard Bridge Curve.

[Captain Kernow]

Two soloutions.

1. DCC

2. Have a 'Pilot' loco without a motor.

Result.

Quackers.

So the result would be quackers? That I can quite believe.

 

Deep in the Heart of Texas.

[john dew]

Good Morning Gentlemen!

 

Thank you so much for the discussion about double heading.  I run with DCC and RR&Co and it works brilliantly....its fascinating to see the different locos working together yet separately....if you follow me.

 

Like Rob I remove the front couplings from 4-6-0s..........I guess the ones I re-installed in Alderley Hall, the designated pilot on the Up Birkenhead-Granby-Paddington, will have to be transferred to Wellington and Broughton Castle. It will however make the coupling routine far simpler

 

Again many thanks

 

Regards from Vancouver.......The best known Canadian duck type is a Loon .....or stretching a point the Goose.....but I dont think I will go there  

[gwrrob]

A few waifs and strays.

 

 

 

[coachmann]

BELOW  Left......Looks like you have just the kind of GWR brick waiting rooms etc I was looking for. Were they from a kit?

 

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

I hope the duck doesn't get too excited but JA will be on the spotlight news shortly.

 

More details after the report.

[gwrrob]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69664-a-nod-to-brent/page-2

 

In a sense yes but it came as a kit of parts that were scratch built by David Amais that I finished.See post 33 on page 2.Very enjoyable.

 

[Siberian Snooper]

She was attending the premier of "Tin" in which she stars, sorry ducky, but there was no nudity in the clip shown.

[Mallard60022]

Oh yes, her film being premiered in Newquay or somewhere?

P

[Siberian Snooper]

Oh yes, her film being premiered in Newquay or somewhere?

P

Yes it was somewhere abroad, may well have been Newquay.

[brianusa]

For those who need it,  todays Jenny fix: http://www.tinmovie.com/.  She needs to get out of the convent and Victorian parts and into the 21st century!

 

Brian.

[46444]

For those who need it,  todays Jenny fix: http://www.tinmovie.com/.  She needs to get out of the convent and Victorian parts and into the 21st century!

 

Brian.

 

Starring a 'feisty young maid' related to Ron Bendell of West Country TV weather forecasting fame!

[colin penfold]

Tinker's looking more like an antique than some of those bits he used to help Lovejoy sell.

 

Anyhow Rob, fancy a new advert for the wall?

 

 

[gwrrob]

Mine would lap that up.

[Mallard60022]

Any pus5y would be drooling over that.

Quackers.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Mallard60022

[M.I.B]

Like Rob I remove the front couplings from 4-6-0s..........I guess the ones I re-installed in Alderley Hall, the designated pilot on the Up Birkenhead-Granby-Paddington, will have to be transferred to Wellington and Broughton Castle. It will however make the coupling routine far simpler

 

Me too - all tender engines have couplings removed, as well as my  72XX , my parcels railcar and my 97XX.