Page 1 of 2
| Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 07/04/2012 at 21:00 #31372 | |
John
884 posts |
We run charter trains out of Victoria most days. The normal practice is for the empties to arrive from Stewarts Lane (usually hauled by a 67) detach loco and attach another 67 on the country end. Then, once the charter has left, the loco returns to Stewarts Lane. When the return working arrives back into Victoria, the same light engine then returns and re attaches ready to haul the stock back to Stewarts Lane. So, why doesn't the charter come out of the Lane with a loco at both ends and just run top and tail throughout? I asked a Southern driver who thought that it was something to do with 67's, but he wasn't sure of the specifics. Just curious that's all. Any ideas? Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 07/04/2012 at 21:06 #31373 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
Because the rear 67 would need to be manned throughout which costs money
Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 07/04/2012 at 21:08 #31374 | |
|
John
884 posts |
Thanks, Noel - but it begs the question: why would it need to be manned throughout?
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 07/04/2012 at 21:11 #31375 | |
|
alan_s
152 posts |
Also its a waste of fuel hauling several tons of dead weight around!
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 00:46 #31380 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
Didn't know the 67 had to be manned, on the Berwick tour I did, the driver shut of 67016 and went to the 90, and the 67 was unattended for the 600 odd mile round trip. Same when the Bristol to Weymouth had TnT 67's. However, I don't know if it was a circular tour out of Victoria or not. Added to the fuel cost and weight etc that Alan mentions, they also don't like being dragged in one direction for a long time, like that London to Edinburgh (or something) tour where the 67 was left on the back for miles and as the tour was turned on the move, the wheels were always turning the same way, and eventually it got some bad flats! John - As for manning, when the Cardiff to Taunton diagrams were on, I noticed someone manning the 67 then as it was lead by a 66. It had something to do with the fire protection system I believe that wouldn't come on automatically if the 66 was leading, or something like that... Last edited: 08/04/2012 at 00:48 by Underwood Log in to reply The following user said thank you: John |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 05:07 #31384 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
You need an engine to "Bank" the charter out of Victoria. The gradient is very steep, and without banking the charter could come to a grinding halt before even getting to the Thames! So rather than manning (or more accurately 'running' the loco all day, or adding extra weight to the charter, after said loco has banked the charter out of Vic it heads to Stewart's Lane until the charter returns.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 05:59 #31385 | |
|
ralphjwchadkirk
275 posts |
A driver needs to be present in the cab of the 67 at the rear if it is hauled running, as the fire equipment does not work throughout the train.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: John |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 11:50 #31389 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
Matt - It is steep to Gosvenor Bridge indeed, steam charters are banked but Class 67s are powerful enough to haul the VSOE on it's own without a banker, leaving the 67 to run light from Victoria, been done before. Cheers, James. Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 14:20 #31391 | |
|
handle
42 posts |
couldn't you use MK3 coaches cos then both locos are plunged in and the rear loco is controlled by the leading loco electrically
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 14:29 #31392 | |
jc92
3689 posts |
" said:couldn't you use MK3 coaches cos then both locos are plunged in and the rear loco is controlled by the leading loco electricallyim not sure if 67s can top and tail in that way, only with a DVT "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 17:26 #31396 | |
|
BoxBoyKit
166 posts |
Just for those that may be interested, Network Rail seem to believe that a 67 cannot haul a rake of coaches and a dead 67 into Victoria, as is evident by a photo in the recent Railway Magazine, in which three 67s are seen to be hauling a train, but one has failed, and second ran round from the rear after TnT a tour, and the third was added to provide extra power into Victoria. The main reason that 67s are tun Top n Tailed on railtours, I believe, is when they are is that there isn't enough fuel capacity in the one 67 to do the entire run from A to B and back to A. Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 17:45 #31397 | |
|
Sam Tugwell
494 posts |
They havent got too bad fuel consumption I dont think, They could do Paddington - Plymouth - Laira on the mails on 1 tank at least.
"Signalman Exeter" Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 17:57 #31398 | |
|
John
884 posts |
I think it's only the Victoria - Folkestone Harbour working that runs top and tail currently.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 19:04 #31399 | |
58050
2659 posts |
The original reason for top n tail working on charter trains was brought about due to Railtrack as it was known then concern about the reliability of older traction working charter trains in the main referring to Cl.47s. Usually charter trains worked by Cl.47s today tend to have another one dead in train on the rear. Fuel utilization was never a concern. When you consider most Cl.47s on the mainline have over 1,200 gallons fuel capacity & a Cl.47 on full power dragging 11 or so coaches would be using approx. 1 gallon of diesel per mile (if anything to be more accurate probably just under 1 mile per gallon) another 119 tonnes on the rear won't make much difference in its performance.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 19:39 #31402 | |
postal
5265 posts |
" said:The original reason for top n tail working on charter trains was brought about due to Railtrack as it was known then concern about the reliability of older traction working charter trains in the main referring to Cl.47s. Usually charter trains worked by Cl.47s today tend to have another one dead in train on the rear. Fuel utilization was never a concern. When you consider most Cl.47s on the mainline have over 1,200 gallons fuel capacity & a Cl.47 on full power dragging 11 or so coaches would be using approx. 1 gallon of diesel per mile (if anything to be more accurate probably just under 1 mile per gallon) another 119 tonnes on the rear won't make much difference in its performance.To back up what Pascal has said, they used to put some mileage in on the postals and mails, so I've been doing a bit of delving. According to where you look on the internet, the fuel tank is quoted as 4900 litres to 5300 litres (1100 to 1200 gallons). Elsewhere on the internet are some figures for Class 66 fuel consumptions. At full power, (notch 8) a Class 66 uses about 550 litres per hour. The Class 67 has the same power unit as the 66 so it is reasonable to assume that the consumption would be similar. This allows for 9 to 10 hours of full throttle running (or probably getting on for twice that on a railtour given the amount of part and closed throttle that would take place). Now that would be a good railtour! “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 08/04/2012 at 19:40 by postal Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 19:51 #31403 | |
|
58050
2659 posts |
Following on from what John has said the fuel range on Cl.67s isn't as good as that on Cl.66s. The first time we (power controllers) encountered Railtracks insistence on Top n Tail locos for charters was during 1999 when Railtrack Great Western insisted on charters trains working to an event in the west country had to be worked by either Cl.67s or Cl.66s. If Cl.47s were used then they had to be top n tailed. Typical Great Western attitude there, when you considered most 'Thunderbird' locos dotted around the country were Cl.47s. Although I understand over the past 12 months the freight TOCs had placed a ban on drivers working freight trains using notch 8 on Cl.66s to save fuel. Whether that restriction is still in place or not I don't know without speaking to some friends of mine who drive for Freightliner Intermodal.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 20:02 #31404 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:Following on from what John has said the fuel range on Cl.67s isn't as good as that on Cl.66s. The first time we (power controllers) encountered Railtracks insistence on Top n Tail locos for charters was during 1999 when Railtrack Great Western insisted on charters trains working to an event in the west country had to be worked by either Cl.67s or Cl.66s. If Cl.47s were used then they had to be top n tailed. Typical Great Western attitude there, when you considered most 'Thunderbird' locos dotted around the country were Cl.47s. Although I understand over the past 12 months the freight TOCs had placed a ban on drivers working freight trains using notch 8 on Cl.66s to save fuel. Whether that restriction is still in place or not I don't know without speaking to some friends of mine who drive for Freightliner Intermodal.As far as I know most of the FOCs still have the notch 8 ban. In fact didn't one go as far as to blank it off on some locos? "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 20:09 #31405 | |
|
58050
2659 posts |
I think you are right they probably did blank notch 8 off. I think its totally pointless as restricting the performance of the traction unit would mean a negative aspect on the locos performance in respect of acceleration & its ability of maintaining train speed on a climbing gradient. I wouldn't be surprised if Network Rail haven't imposed further restrictions on freight train regulation as trains would lose time over the length of there journey. The only other way would be to lower the trailing tonnages, but that would impact on the contracts drawn up between the customer & the relevant FOC.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 20:21 #31406 | |
|
headshot119
4869 posts |
It was defintaly done on some of the 67's. It can be seem in this photo.
"Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Last edited: 08/04/2012 at 20:22 by headshot119 Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 08/04/2012 at 20:36 #31407 | |
|
guidomcc
246 posts |
I remember reading somewhere that notch 8 was locked out but could be unlocked fairly easily by the driver - for climbing hills etc. If I recall correctly it was an article in either RAIL or Railways Illustrated where the journo was sitting behind the driver, on the ECML I think. At one point the driver did unlock notch 8 for a short while Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 09/04/2012 at 06:34 #31412 | |
|
crompton
4 posts |
Drivers are not stopped from using notch 8 on class 66 & 67 locos. A modification was made to the controller so that when required the Driver needs to pull the power controller out slightly (it's spring loaded) & can then gain access to notch 8. The reason for this is for fuel efficiency. A Driver will not be penalised for using notch 8 when & where necessary. Obviously if used for light loco or trains with a few wagons this would be different. David Log in to reply The following user said thank you: guidomcc |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 09/04/2012 at 11:24 #31414 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
" said:It was defintaly done on some of the 67's. It can be seen in this photo.Sorry Karl for me being dim, I need some help please, what am I looking at in the picture :dry: As for needing more than one 67 for arriving INTO Victoria, that sounds mad! They won't let one go downhill but it's fine to haul out to the bank with a single loco! Also, good point on the 47s too, they still are TnT as far as I am aware, especially the Compass Tours ones, but at least they make use of the two as generally both 47s have a chance of hauling the train. However, I have only seen 2 47 hauled tour stock where the 47 is solo; 1. 47580 hauling the Southall - Bristol ECS for the Weymouth Sunday tour. 2. 47xxx hauling a charter back to Tyseley from Bristol after a pair of GWR Kettles were detached (sometime in 2010) That's all I have ever seen, rare event indeed! Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 09/04/2012 at 11:35 #31415 | |
|
sloppyjag
480 posts |
" said:" said:I think the little silver coloured "addition" on the throttle control stops it going to notch 8. I've seen other pics of 67 cabs without this.It was defintaly done on some of the 67's. It can be seen in this photo.Sorry Karl for me being dim, I need some help please, what am I looking at in the picture :dry: Planotransitophobic! Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 09/04/2012 at 11:55 #31417 | |
|
crompton
4 posts |
The photo does show the additional part on the throttle controller. It does not stop you using notch 8. When you try to go beyond positio 7 it does stop forward movement but if you pull the throttle control up it will move to position 8. It is to make you think before selecting notch 8 David Log in to reply |
| Re: Charter trains - why not top and tailed? 09/04/2012 at 11:57 #31418 | |
|
58050
2659 posts |
I personally don't rate Cl.67s at all. Give me a Cl.47 any day. Some drivers I know hate them & others like them, but all say they are attrocious for shunting with as you sit in the centre part of the cab, so everytime you shunt with them you have to get out of the seat unless you have radios. I remember when we (EWS) not long had them & there were 2 charter trains running from London - Manchester Piccadilly, one with a Cl.67 & the other with a Cl.47 conveying Arsenal supporters to Old Trafford for a FA Cup round match. The difference was the Cl.67 was booked to run out of King's Cross via the ECML to Doncaster & then round the curve into Hexthorpe & onwards to Sheffield & via the Hope Valley. The Cl.47 was booked out of St. Pancras via the midland mainline & onto the Hope Valley line via Dore. It was a pity the train out of King's Cross was booked to depart earlier than the one out of St. Pancras to see which one got to Dore & the Hope Valley line first (reminded me of the races the West Coast & East Coast had back in the steam days to see who could get to Kinaber Junction first). Needless to say the train with the Cl.67 got to Dore before the one with the Cl.47. Both trains were hauling 11 coaches, but if I was travelling on them I would have gone behind the Cl.47. All of us on the loco control that day were watching the trains on TRUST to see which one won the race so to speak. A bit like watching horse racing but in this case the horses were a Cl.47 & a Cl.67.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |