The LNER Encyclopedia

Can anyone point me towards the location of an article on this subject, written, I think, by W A Tuplin and appearing in, probably, TI in the 50s but quoted elsewhere.

Anyone who watched a Pacific start from 9N, especially the gantry watercolumn spot just N of the footbridge where the rail was always greasy, will be familiar with the spectacular slips and pyrotechnics which accompanied many starts.

In this article W A T compared two starts, actually from the platform end column. The first was accompanied by much slipping and delay. The second was very quiet and efficient.

W A T put much of the problem down to the additional drag induced by the curve in the track and not very competent driving.

As I recall, he put the successful technique down to something like the following. The train was brought to walking pace on the vacuum brake, then the tender handbrake was applied causing the train to buffer up to the loco, the vacuum brake then being reapplied to hold the train buffered up. On restarting, the tender brake was released, then vacuum created allowing the train to give the loco a gentle push and overcome the initial inertia.

Interesting, especially as the ex LNER or BR Mk 1 stock would (should?) have been buckeye coupled and the buffers pinned back to rely purely on the buckeye which surely should have allowed little buffering up.

Any memories/comments on this?

I suspect that a lot of the problem was caused by flange friction on the train, the flanges being pulled towards the rail on the inside of the curve by braking of the whole train holding the loco back. I case 2 mentioned, with the final braking being done by the loco only, the intention (hope?) was that with coaches being 'bunched up' against the loco this would result in the flanges being more against the rail on the outside of the curve, thus making the start easier.

Starting from no.9 platform at York is mentioned during a 55 minutes recorded interview given by Alan Driver a former LNER/BR driver in 1979 in the cd An Engineman's Life For Me available from okrollem@gmail.com

Alan said that the start from no.9 platform could be a bad start due to the curvature of the track at the north end of the station along with the greasy and wet rails due in part to water splashes from the water column and a bad crossing where a loco would 'pick it's feet up' and could still be slipping on passing Waterworks (Junction).

The article by Dr Tuplin which patmyhill is looking for was called 'A Critic at York' and appeared in the March 1950 issue of Trains Illustrated. The inevitable brickbats followed in the May issue.

I saw many a Pacific and V2 struggle to leave York northbound. Occasionally on a busy day, one of the station pilots such as a J72 would give them a gentle nudge to help them on their way. One such event saw a J72 give a somewhat extra large shove and the train set of like a rocket, much to the dismay of the train Driver but jolly amusing to we kids.

NG

patmyhill wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:52 pm ...Interesting, especially as the ex LNER or BR Mk 1 stock would (should?) have been buckeye coupled and the buffers pinned back to rely purely on the buckeye which surely should have allowed little buffering up.

There is still sprung action between the vehicles, the bottom section of the Pullman gangway faceplate is a central buffer, and the knuckle coupler is also spring mounted. (This may be seen very clearly on knuckle coupled non gangwayed EMU's for SR and BR, where the central buffer portion is retained even though there is no gangway.)

I rather feel that Prof Tuplin's 'braking ballet' needed a commentary from a driving inspector. If it was truly practical enough to be worthwhile, they would be the staff to ensure this method was transmitted among the crews.