Shunting locomotives in steam days?

[Muzer]

I'm very ignorant about how things worked in steam days (being born about 35 years too late!), so my apologies for the obvious question. How did shunting work in the days of steam (for yards and depots controlled by major railway companies, let's ignore industrial uses for now)? Were there specific classes of locomotive that were designed for shunting duty and would be allocated to depots (something like a steam equivalent of the Class 08), or were there just whichever locomotives they happened to have on hand doing the shunting?

If special shunting locomotives were used, what did BR do in the standardisation? I can't seem to see any reference to them creating their own shunters. Why not?

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'm very ignorant about how things worked in steam days (being born about 35 years too late!), so my apologies for the obvious question. How did shunting work in the days of steam (for yards and depots controlled by major railway companies, let's ignore industrial uses for now)? Were there specific classes of locomotive that were designed for shunting duty and would be allocated to depots (something like a steam equivalent of the Class 08), ...

YES. Like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Fowler_Class_3F

Every one of the Big 4 had hundreds, or even thousands of similarish locos, although the ST had far fewer than the rest.

Usually, but not always, 0-6-0 tanks. The SR had some chunkier locomotives for its hump yards. For lightly laid lines, eg docks and steelworks, most companies has some lighter 0-6-0Ts or 0-4-0Ts.

If special shunting locomotives were used, what did BR do in the standardisation? I can't seem to see any reference to them creating their own shunters. Why not?

That is because the didn't Probably for two reasons:

a) the WR continued building 57xx pannier tanks up until about 1950 or even later. There was, in fact, a surfeit of such locos, and hence some were sent to the SR, which had a lack of 'modern' small locos.

The ER also continued building J52s into BR ownership.

EDIT: i meant J72s, as Bevan Price wrote below.

b) the SR and LMS had already shown that diesel shunters (more or less similar to Cl 08s) were cheap and far more efficient than steam shunters. So, having proved that possible (unlike the higher power needed for main line roles), the way forward was more clearly favourable to go diesel for shunting locomotives.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

If special shunting locomotives were used, what did BR do in the standardisation? I can't seem to see any reference to them creating their own shunters. Why not?

What later became the Class 08 was already under development by the LMS. The Southern had a parallel programme.

I'd presume that diesel shunters were seen as the way ahead. BR did continue to build 0-6-0 Pannier tanks to a GWR design until the mid 1950s. These could have been used as shunters if there had been a need for new steam designs.

In general the smaller steam locomotives, particularly the 0-4-0 s would have been used as the shunters. The larger 0-6-0s would not only shunt but take the train away as well.

 

[chorleyjeff]

I'm very ignorant about how things worked in steam days (being born about 35 years too late!), so my apologies for the obvious question. How did shunting work in the days of steam (for yards and depots controlled by major railway companies, let's ignore industrial uses for now)? Were there specific classes of locomotive that were designed for shunting duty and would be allocated to depots (something like a steam equivalent of the Class 08), or were there just whichever locomotives they happened to have on hand doing the shunting?

If special shunting locomotives were used, what did BR do in the standardisation? I can't seem to see any reference to them creating their own shunters. Why not?

They built lots 08 to do a job that was rapidly disappearing.
Shunting steam locos were long lived. I remember the very aged L&Y saddle tank locos pottering around Lostock Hall and Preston East Lancs yard. They were replaced by 08s as were the LNWR 0-8-0s. Check Wikipedia for details of said
locos.

 

[ac6000cw]

The common shunting/yard/station pilot/branch line/local freight steam loco was an 0-6-0 tank engine with two inside cylinders - the Great Western 'pannier tank' is a prime example of the breed, but every railway had their own variation of the idea, usually with ordinary side tanks. Without a tender there was good visibility in both directions. In concept, a Class 08 is pretty much the same but with steam propulsion replaced by an electric motor (under the cab) plus diesel engine.

 

[30907]

A couple of extra points:

There was a lot of passenger/parcels shunting (as well as empty stock to and from sidings) and many large stations had an 060T as pilot (Liverpool Street an N7 062T and a J69 060T which I remember from a tender age - the former in particular could do suburban work in an emergency!).

One reason the WR continued to build panniers rather than diesel shunters was that they were multi-purpose (local passenger, trip freight, shunting) - whereas the diesels were much more limited.

 

[JohnW1]

The LMS stopped building steam shunting engines in the mid 1930's and moved over to diesel shunters. World War 2 slowed the development somewhat but by nationalisation the LMS were building at Derby Works a steady stream of diesel shunters (which eventual became Class 11 under the TOPS scheme). The design was subsequently developed by BR into the Class 08.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pics-by-john/6927178476/

 

[AndrewE]

A couple of extra points:

There was a lot of passenger/parcels shunting (as well as empty stock to and from sidings) and many large stations had an 060T as pilot (Liverpool Street an N7 062T and a J69 060T which I remember from a tender age - the former in particular could do suburban work in an emergency!).

One reason the WR continued to build panniers rather than diesel shunters was that they were multi-purpose (local passenger, trip freight, shunting) - whereas the diesels were much more limited.

Class 08 Diesels were limited to 20 or 25mph, you don't often see a max speed quoted for steam locos!
I agree that BR built the class 08 which eliminated the need for most steam shunting engines. Train (diesel and electric) locos were used for ECS working, simply dropping onto the next main line train after being released (and cutting the number of paths occupied in and out of busy termini.)

We forget how many trains used to join or split en route let alone the horse box and parcel van traffic being dropped off or picked up all over the place, all needing station pilots. Even though I'm now in my mid 60s I never saw any of this other than the Bristol-Glasgow and Edinburgh trains splitting and joining at Carstairs.
A

 

[Bevan Price]

Many steam shunters were also used for freight trip workings along (mostly) short branches. As noted above, GWR Pannier tanks were often also used for light passenger duties in addition to shunting and trip work. However, there were some Pannier tanks with small driving wheels that saw little use on passenger work. Building of 1500 & 9400 classes continued well into the BR era, and many had very short lives. It might have been sensible to cancel the build orders, but Western Region seemed to be a law unto itself, and continued the tradition by building the diesel equivalent of pannier tanks - Class 14. (D9500 class).

Southern Railway only built 8 shunters - the Class Z 0-8-0T, largely relying on pre-1923 shunters, but after WW2, it bought 14 Class USA 0-6-0T from the US military.

LNER bought 75 Class J94 0-6-0ST from the War Department after WW2, quite possibly at a bargain price, which might be one reason why they did not rush into changing to diesel shunters. (Many similar locos found their way to NCB and other industrial locations.) For some strange reason, they also ordered 28 Class J72 0-6-0T - a NER design from 1898 - builsing of which was not completed until the BR era.

The LMSR had almost stopped building steam shunters by the late 1930s, although in 1953, the London Midland Region bought 5 0-4-0STs to a Kitson design, mainly for use in areas with tight curves (docks, etc.) - although one found a home on part of the Cromford & High Peak line.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...
Southern Railway only built 8 shunters - the Class Z 0-8-0T, largely relying on pre-1923 shunters, ..

I was thinking of the other big tanks - G16 or H16? Were they not 4-8-0Ts?

but perhaps built by the LSWR, pre 1922?

LNER bought 75 Class J94 0-6-0ST from the War Department after WW2, quite possibly at a bargain price, which might be one reason why they did not rush into changing to diesel shunters. .......

yes, I thought about the J94s after posting earlier. 75 very useful locomotives, I imagine. Rated as 4F. I remember seeing some at Darlington as pilots. I think they used them a lot in the former NER.

 

[Bevan Price]

I was thinking of the other big tanks - G16 or H16? Were they not 4-8-0Ts?

but perhaps built by the LSWR, pre 1922?

.

Yes, G16 Class 4-8-0T (4)
and H16 Class 4-6-2T (5)

Both introduced by LSWR in 1921.

Of course, unlike other railways, the Southern did not serve large areas with manufacturing industry, and had only smallish coalfields, so there was probably little need for huge numbers of shunters.

 

[JohnW1]

LNER bought 75 Class J94 0-6-0ST from the War Department after WW2, quite possibly at a bargain price, which might be one reason why they did not rush into changing to diesel shunters. (Many similar locos found their way to NCB and other industrial locations.)

The real cost argument is the massive cost savings (around 45%) on operating costs as diesel shunters could be single manned and were available for traffic for far longer periods (almost 24/7) not requiring stops for water, coal, ash disposal. One tank of diesel would last a week or more for a diesel shunter.

 

[Monty]

Yes, G16 Class 4-8-0T (4)
and H16 Class 4-6-2T (5)

Both introduced by LSWR in 1921.

Of course, unlike other railways, the Southern did not serve large areas with manufacturing industry, and had only smallish coalfields, so there was probably little need for huge numbers of shunters.

I'm surprised nobody hasnt mentioned the class 'USA' 0-6-0Ts purchased after war for use in Southampton Docks.

It's probaby also worth mentioning that the SR had large numbers of suburban tank engines that were largely displaced in the 20s and 30s through electrification. Many of these were reemployed on shunting duties at various yards. The Zs and G16s were special cases as they were designed with a specific use at certain locations in mind while the Ws and H16s were designed for trip workings.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm surprised nobody hasnt mentioned the class 'USA' 0-6-0Ts purchased after war for use in Southampton Docks.

Actually nobody hasn't! BP mentions them in post #9

 

[Bevan Price]

I'm surprised nobody hasnt mentioned the class 'USA' 0-6-0Ts purchased after war for use in Southampton Docks.

It's probaby also worth mentioning that the SR had large numbers of suburban tank engines that were largely displaced in the 20s and 30s through electrification. Many of these were reemployed on shunting duties at various yards. The Zs and G16s were special cases as they were designed with a specific use at certain locations in mind while the Ws and H16s were designed for trip workings.

Some of the Zs finished their life at Exmouth Junction, being used to bank trains from Exeter St. Davids to Exeter Central. Instead of returning light engine, they would sometimes double-head trains down the bank from Central to St. Davids (possibly to avoid the need for extra paths across the sometimes busy junction at Exeter St. Davids ??)

 

[edwin_m]

The real cost argument is the massive cost savings (around 45%) on operating costs as diesel shunters could be single manned and were available for traffic for far longer periods (almost 24/7) not requiring stops for water, coal, ash disposal. One tank of diesel would last a week or more for a diesel shunter.

Also if shunting wasn't constant, a diesel could simply be started up five minutes before it was needed. A steam loco would have to have someone raise the fire several hours before, or the fire to be kept going all night for occasional use only. Either of this would use a bit of coal and more importantly need someone nearby to keep an eye on things.

In the steam era most stations had a few sidings for goods traffic. These would have been shunted by the all-stations "pick-up goods", whose engine probably wasn't much bigger than a shunter anyway. Dedicated shunting engines would only have been at the larger goods yards or at stations busy enough to need a "station pilot".

 

[Taunton]

The SR and LMS didn't seem to have a huge number of 0-6-0Ts for the size of their system, whereas the GWR and LNER did. Just different practices really. The GWR standardised on them early on, by the 1860s, and thereafter their overall concept stayed pretty similar to the end of steam. The last such loco of all, WR No. 3409, came at the end of 1956, by which time several hundred Class 08 diesels and their similar variations were in service. Notably BR had actually given up building steam shunters by the end, and these final locos were contracted out to Yorkshire Engine in Sheffield.

The Western "Panniers", and their saddle tank predecessors, not only monopolised shunting, but also local freight and passenger. At Taunton, where like at many GW depots they were the most common class, they shunted every yard, did empty coaching stock, ran local freight in all directions, and were normal on a 2-coach "B-set" on local passenger services. The Minehead branch was typically 2-6-2Ts, but in the last steam years at least one turn a day would substitute a Pannier instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I remember the former Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Class 21 0-4-0ST "Pug", number 51207 and classed 0F, working in the goods yards that were situated at ground level with an upwards incline, near to Salford station. It was finally withdrawn in March 1962. I think it was stabled at Agecroft shed.

 

[Taunton]

I remember the former Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Class 21 0-4-0ST "Pug", number 51207 and classed 0F, working in the goods yards that were situated at ground level with an upwards incline, near to Salford station. It was finally withdrawn in March 1962. I think it was stabled at Agecroft shed.

Likewise classmate 51218, now preserved, was a Bristol Barrow Road loco. It worked at the old LMS freight depot at Avonside, just visible across the river from the London end of the platforms at Temple Meads station if you knew where to look.

 

[Bevan Price]

Message moved. The infernal "double post prevention" system put it in the wrong place.

 

[341o2]

Horses were regularly employed in yards as well as locomotives for shunting. Can anyone remind me of the rather cryptic communication regarding a request for another horse at a certain yard as the regular one was indesposed

 

[ilkestonian]

Horses were regularly employed in yards as well as locomotives for shunting. Can anyone remind me of the rather cryptic communication regarding a request for another horse at a certain yard as the regular one was indesposed

LOUGH

http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/misc/telegraph.shtm