ChatterBank6 mins ago
BARNSLEY-CUDWORTH STEAM TRAINS
4 Answers
This line closed in the late 50s I think. It operated as a push and pull service. What was the reason for this type of operation ?
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by midagetrolop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LNER push and pull coaches
Rolling stock converted or built for push & pull operation had been inherited from the NER, GCR and GER. The GCR had built some special purpose vehicles at about the same time as steam railcars were introduced. Push & pull (autocar) working in the North Eastern Area all but ceased by being displaced by Sentinel or Clayton steam railcars, but as these were withdrawn in the late 1930s push & pull services were restored. The GCR had used a mechanical system and this was used on the Wrexham to Seacombe service introduced by the LNER in 1933, but was replaced by the standard LNER vacuum system in 1936/7. The NER had introduced autocar working in 1905/6 using a W. Worsdell patented system, but this was replaced by a vacuum system, and eventually by the standard LNER system. The GER used a compressed air system. The LNER extended this system to services in the Norwich area. The GNR section was very late to use p&p services. The Scottish service was limited to that between Craigendoran and Arrochar.
Webb LNWR Coal engine (0-6-0) No. 920. R.J. Essery (caption). 131.
from the british rail website
Rolling stock converted or built for push & pull operation had been inherited from the NER, GCR and GER. The GCR had built some special purpose vehicles at about the same time as steam railcars were introduced. Push & pull (autocar) working in the North Eastern Area all but ceased by being displaced by Sentinel or Clayton steam railcars, but as these were withdrawn in the late 1930s push & pull services were restored. The GCR had used a mechanical system and this was used on the Wrexham to Seacombe service introduced by the LNER in 1933, but was replaced by the standard LNER vacuum system in 1936/7. The NER had introduced autocar working in 1905/6 using a W. Worsdell patented system, but this was replaced by a vacuum system, and eventually by the standard LNER system. The GER used a compressed air system. The LNER extended this system to services in the Norwich area. The GNR section was very late to use p&p services. The Scottish service was limited to that between Craigendoran and Arrochar.
Webb LNWR Coal engine (0-6-0) No. 920. R.J. Essery (caption). 131.
from the british rail website
It was done to save the trouble of switching the engine from one end to the other. I remember it being used in the Fitties on the North Walsham-Mundesley spur off the Norwich Cromer main line. In this case of course, switching the engine at North Walsham would have compromised both the up and down mainline while it was taking place.
http://www.railway-technical.com/pu-pl.shtml
http://www.railway-technical.com/pu-pl.shtml
The article provided by Canary gives a good potted history of the development of push-pull services, but does not include two examples to bring us right up to date.
On the West Coast Main Line (WCML) from London Euston to Scotland push-pull services were introduced in the late 1970s using class 86 and 87 electric locomotives. Until the successful trials on the Bournemouth line push-pull operation (or more precisely its “push” aspect”) was not considered safe and these locomotives originally operated as pull only (with all the attendant locomotive changes needed at the termini). When the push-pull services were introduced specially built Driving Trailers (Class 82) were provided at the trailing end of the train and speeds up to 110mph were permitted. These operations finished in about 2005 when Virgin’s “Pendolinos) were introduced. Since 1989 on the East Coast Main Line class 91 locomotives have operated operate push-pull services at speeds up to 125mph and these continue today. A member of this class (91110) holds the British locomotive speed record at 162mph, set in September 1989.
The safety aspects of locomotives pushing trains at high speed are constantly under scrutiny. The main concern is that a derailment at the front of the train whilst it is under power could cause the train to “concertina” as the loco at the rear continues to push the remaining carriages into those derailed at the front.
An accident at Great Heck near Selby in 2001 was such an example. A train being pushed by a class 91 hit a land rover on the line resulting in 10 deaths. The enquiry, however, found that the “pushing” operation had no significant effect on the outcome.
On the West Coast Main Line (WCML) from London Euston to Scotland push-pull services were introduced in the late 1970s using class 86 and 87 electric locomotives. Until the successful trials on the Bournemouth line push-pull operation (or more precisely its “push” aspect”) was not considered safe and these locomotives originally operated as pull only (with all the attendant locomotive changes needed at the termini). When the push-pull services were introduced specially built Driving Trailers (Class 82) were provided at the trailing end of the train and speeds up to 110mph were permitted. These operations finished in about 2005 when Virgin’s “Pendolinos) were introduced. Since 1989 on the East Coast Main Line class 91 locomotives have operated operate push-pull services at speeds up to 125mph and these continue today. A member of this class (91110) holds the British locomotive speed record at 162mph, set in September 1989.
The safety aspects of locomotives pushing trains at high speed are constantly under scrutiny. The main concern is that a derailment at the front of the train whilst it is under power could cause the train to “concertina” as the loco at the rear continues to push the remaining carriages into those derailed at the front.
An accident at Great Heck near Selby in 2001 was such an example. A train being pushed by a class 91 hit a land rover on the line resulting in 10 deaths. The enquiry, however, found that the “pushing” operation had no significant effect on the outcome.
1 to 4 of 4
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.