LNWR 4-4-0s on goods trains?

[Florence Locomotive Works]

Does anyone have some evidence of LNWR 4-4-0s (preferably George the Fifths) being used on goods trains? I ask as I’m building a coarse scale railway in the style of 1924, which would have required “prototypical” trains, but with slightly unrealistic rolling stock, and my main engine is a Bing for Bassett Lowke GtV. The photo below shows my engine (it’s been cleaned and polished since then ) and a photo of if I remember correctly LNWR no 226.

 

thanks,

 

Douglas

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Florence Locomotive Works
Grammatical errors and lack of courtesy

[kevinlms]

It would be rare for such locos to be on goods trains, for two reasons. At the period you're modelling, passenger locos were in short supply (until the LMS started building revised Midland Compounds). Secondly many top passenger locos didn't have good brakes, which didn't matter on passenger trains as the train brakes did the stopping.

So on unfitted goods trains, they would have been strictly limited on loads, due to the poor braking.

 

However, they would have been fine on NPCS, vehicles used on passenger services, but not carrying passengers. These included luggage vans, 6-wheel vans and many different type. Some may have looked like wagons, but weren't. The give away for such LMS group vehicles, is that they usually wore a passenger livery.

[LMS2968]

Yes, they did. Your friend here is 'A Compendium of LNWR Locomotives 1912-1949 Pt 1', by Willie Yeadon (1995) Challenger Publications, Oldham ISBN 1 899624 01 5.

 

Precursor:

LMS 5266 Alecto pioting a L&YR Dreadnough Dillicar 1929

LMS 5311 Express Down coal empties Bushey troughs

 

George the Fifth:

 LNWR 1281 Australia Kenton with 40 loaded wagons

LMS 25334 Newcomen Cambridge October 1927

 

Experiment:

LNWR 1020 Majestic Bletchley 1918

LMS 5553 Flintshire piloting L&YR Dreadnought Tebay Up goods 

LMS 5661 Gallipoli near Stafford Down goods 

LNWR 86 Mark Twain north of Carlisle (special goods)

 

Claughton:

LNWR 2401 Lord Kitchener meat train to London

LMS 5955 Cattle at Elstree

5963 piloting Austin 7 Berkhamsted 1930

LMS 5908 with indicator shelters August 1926

 

There is also, although I can't find it, a shot of a Claughton on a goods coming off the MSJ&A at Manchester London Road in 1921.

Edited September 19, 2020 by LMS2968

[Nearholmer]

The meat train in there may be the clue to them being used for fitted goods, which does seem highly likely.

 

Some of these ‘perishables’ were very tightly timed, and they had brakes!

[LMS2968]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

The meat train in there may be the clue to them being used for fitted goods, which does seem highly likely.

 

Some of these ‘perishables’ were very tightly timed, and they had brakes!

Possibly, but many of those photos show ordinary goods trains of the period, so unfitted. This is especially true of 5311 on coal empties and 1281 with a 40 wagon Class F train.

[Nearholmer]

I know next to nothing about the LNWR, but find the GV interesting, because one minute (Before WW1) they were the most powerful, top-flight express engines, the next they were schlepping coal wagons about.

 

presumably the Express passenger trains became so much heavier, so quickly, that they were simply out-classed in those Duties.

 

 

[LMS2968]

23 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I know next to nothing about the LNWR, but find the GV interesting, because one minute (Before WW1) they were the most powerful, top-flight express engines, the next they were schlepping coal wagons about.

 

presumably the Express passenger trains became so much heavier, so quickly, that they were simply out-classed in those Duties.

The Precursors were big engines for their day, and certainly so compared with the earlier Webb designs. The Experiments were, theoretically at least, 4-6-0 versions with coupled wheels six inches smaller, intended for the hillier sections north of Carnforth were additional tractive effort (rather than power) and adhesion were deemed desirable. The Georges and Princes were the same engines but with superheaters and piston valves, which gave them a substantial power increase, which the change from 4-4-0 to 4-6-0 had not done and the former were generally better engines on express work, even north of Carnforth.

 

The real increase in power came in January 1913 with No. 2222 'Sir Gilbert Claughton', but the building of this class was delayed by the First World War and a Chief Civil Engineer who didn't understand the cause of hammerblow,, so the Georges in particular bore the brunt of LNWR express work well into LMS days.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

47 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I know next to nothing about the LNWR, but find the GV interesting, because one minute (Before WW1) they were the most powerful, top-flight express engines, the next they were schlepping coal wagons about.

 

presumably the Express passenger trains became so much heavier, so quickly, that they were simply out-classed in those Duties.

I too don't know overmuch about the LNWR, but their business practise appears to have been highly progressive. In express traction Crewe's capacity to build in volume was exploited to turn out cheap designs that would go into service and generate a return on investment that in a relatively short service life would pay for the successor design's construction. No need to call for capital, build them quick and cheap to earn the money for the next tech. upgrade.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

Possibly, but many of those photos show ordinary goods trains of the period, so unfitted. This is especially true of 5311 on coal empties and 1281 with a 40 wagon Class F train.

Similarly in their later years Midland Singles also worked on freight trains although i sudspect not very successfully as they weren't really suited to such work.

[LMS2968]

Yes, I've heard of their use assisting Toton - Brent coal trains, although 'assisting' might be too strong a word for it!

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I know next to nothing about the LNWR, but find the GV interesting, because one minute (Before WW1) they were the most powerful, top-flight express engines, the next they were schlepping coal wagons about.

 

presumably the Express passenger trains became so much heavier, so quickly, that they were simply out-classed in those Duties.

 

I doubt the contrast was quite so extreme - Georges may have occasionally been used on mineral trains but I'd be confident that wasn't anybody's first choice. For every photo of a George on such work in the five years after the Great War, you'll find twenty of one on an express passenger train - though of course that does also reflect photographers' bias in choice of subject. By the mid-20s though, my understanding is that there was greater understanding of the effect of hammer blow on the permanent way, which counted against them. The Prince of Wales class were much more generally useful engines. When the Black 5 was first proposed, it was described as an improved or replacement Prince of Wales. Notwithstanding the Claughtons, the LMS inherited a motive power crisis on the WCML that wasn't resolved until the introduction of the Royal Scots.

 

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I too don't know overmuch about the LNWR, but their business practise appears to have been highly progressive. In express traction Crewe's capacity to build in volume was exploited to turn out cheap designs that would go into service and generate a return on investment that in a relatively short service life would pay for the successor design's construction. No need to call for capital, build them quick and cheap to earn the money for the next tech. upgrade.

 

It would be interesting to put this line of argument in front of a dyed-in-the-wool LNWR enthusiast of the sort who believes that Derby-dominated LMS management deliberately sabotaged the ex-LNWR express passenger locomotive fleet. Churchward is reputed to have said that one of his expensive-to-build Stars could pull two Experiments backwards; thirty or more years later, a couple of replacement Black 5s would, I'm sure, have had no difficulty in pulling a Castle (what is a Castle but a Star really?) backwards. Which company had better value for money?

 

44 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Similarly in their later years Midland Singles also worked on freight trains although i sudspect not very successfully as they weren't really suited to such work.

 

During the Great War and immediately afterwards, when there was no call for the sort of lightweight high-speed expresses they were designed for but every available engine was needed for goods work - 4-4-0s too. As to "not very successfully", if the locomotive worked its train from A to B without loss of time, surely that counts as success? Certainly under the circumstances. Just possibly, a single has a better chance of getting away with a heavy loose-coupled mineral train, where the load can be taken up a wagon at a time, than a heavy passenger train, where the whole mass has to be set in motion at once. There's plenty of weight on those big wheels too. Though an old Kirtley 0-6-0 coupled on for assistance, @LMS2968, to give a bit of extra adhesion over Sharnbrook, wouldn't come amiss.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Compound2632

[LMS2968]

32 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

There's plenty of weight on those big wheels too. Though an old Kirtley 0-6-0 coupled on for assistance, @LMS2968, to give a bit of extra adhesion over Sharnbrook, wouldn't come amiss.

There might be plenty of weight on the singles' wheels but there were only two of them and at seven feet diameter, I think it's safe to say they were a little out of their comfort zone on heavy goods trains. Point taken about being able to pick up goods trains one wagon at a time, but passenger stock always ran more freely, especially if the wagons were fitted with fat (grease) boxes, which they almost certainly were in the pre-Grouping days. As to the Georges on goods traffic, the LNWR was well off for suitable locos, but emergencies arose, and a a goods train might actually be part of a diagram to get an engine from one place to its next booked passenger turn - who knows? But the point is that they did, even if occasionally, work such trains, and probably at an increasing rate as the LMS grew older and Stanier engines took the top jobs.

[eastglosmog]

To add to LMS2968's examples, E. Talbot in LNWR Miscellany Vol 1 shows 2 more examples:

• Renown class 4-4-0 1910 Cavalier on what looks like a loose coupled goods train of open wagons and vans.
• George the Fifth 4-4-0 984 Carnarvon with a varied goods train headed by 6 fish/milk trucks

There is no date given for either photograph, but early 1920s seems likely

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

It would be interesting to put this line of argument in front of a dyed-in-the-wool LNWR enthusiast of the sort who believes that Derby-dominated LMS management deliberately sabotaged the ex-LNWR express passenger locomotive fleet. Churchward is reputed to have said that one of his expensive-to-build Stars could pull two Experiments backwards; thirty or more years later, a couple of replacement Black 5s would, I'm sure, have had no difficulty in pulling a Castle (what is a Castle but a Star really?) backwards. Which company had better value for money?

 

Well as an interested person in the LNWR, that bit about LMS management sabotaging the LNWR fleet, is a load of rubbish!

 

Crewe Works was undergoing a big update of the place in the early 1920s, especially the paint shop. So not surprising that the place didn't keep up. Quite a few locos were painted in the new colour scheme, up to early 1924, so the staff hardly rejected Midlandisation.

Fact is the LNWR express passenger fleet, had to work much harder to keep their heavier train service going and so they were pretty well run down after WW1.

The 'replacement' Compounds were hardly better tools for the job on the Birmingham '2 hour express', with the problem not being resolved until the initial low superheat on the Stanier 'Jubilee's' had been sorted.

 

As for the  'Stars' being better than 2 Experiments, well hardly! A big improvement over 1, undoubtedly so. Stanier had the last laugh anyway, with the Duchess, something he could never have done, had he stayed at the GWR!

[Steamport Southport]

3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

There might be plenty of weight on the singles' wheels but there were only two of them and at seven feet diameter, I think it's safe to say they were a little out of their comfort zone on heavy goods trains. Point taken about being able to pick up goods trains one wagon at a time, but passenger stock always ran more freely, especially if the wagons were fitted with fat (grease) boxes, which they almost certainly were in the pre-Grouping days. As to the Georges on goods traffic, the LNWR was well off for suitable locos, but emergencies arose, and a a goods train might actually be part of a diagram to get an engine from one place to its next booked passenger turn - who knows? But the point is that they did, even if occasionally, work such trains, and probably at an increasing rate as the LMS grew older and Stanier engines took the top jobs.

 

I think that's the more likely scenario.

 

Light engine movements were frowned upon. If you needed a locomotive to get from say Carlisle to Crewe, better for it to do something useful.

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Well as an interested person in the LNWR, that bit about LMS management sabotaging the LNWR fleet, is a load of rubbish!

 

Glad to hear it! So much so that I will overlook the remark about the Compounds.

[J. S. Bach]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 ...snip... When the Black 5 was first proposed ...snip...

I have seen the term before and am curious as to why they are called that. TIA

[kevinlms]

28 minutes ago, J. S. Bach said:

I have seen the term before and am curious as to why they are called that. TIA

Apart from the obvious, that they were in the power category of 5 and were painted black, I don't know!

[pH]

41 minutes ago, J. S. Bach said:

I have seen the term before and am curious as to why they are called that. TIA

To be a smartass -  because they were in power class 5 and were painted black! There is, of course, more to it than that. Stanier introduced two classes of 4-6-0 on the LMS in 1934. One was a class 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Stanier_Class_5_4-6-0

 

the other was a class 5X ( somewhere between a class 5 and a class 6, later upgraded to a class 6):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Jubilee_Class

As you can see, they are similar in appearance, though if you look you will see quite a few differences. The Jubilees, being primarily express passenger engines, were painted maroon. The class 5s, intended as mixed traffic engines, were black. The different colours were a quick way of distinguishing between the two classes.

Edit. They had other nicknames - Mickeys and Hikers, at least.

Edited September 20, 2020 by pH

[pH]

13 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Apart from the obvious, that they were in the power category of 5 and were painted black, I don't know!

 

11 minutes ago, pH said:

To be a smartass -  because they were in power class 5 and were painted black!

Kevin, I don’t mean to suggest you’re being a smartass! You’re saying what you know. I knew a bit more - if I had just left it at that, I would have  been acting the smartass.

[pH]

21 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

George the Fifth:

 LNWR 1281 Australia Kenton with 40 loaded wagons

LMS 25334 Newcomen Cambridge October 1927

Since the original question emphasized George the Fifths, one from ‘Locomotives Illustrated #54 - LNWR 4-4-0s’:

 

George the Fifth 2282 at Hatch End with a down Class D express goods in July 1926.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, pH said:

 

Kevin, I don’t mean to suggest you’re being a smartass! You’re saying what you know. I knew a bit more - if I had just left it at that, I would have  been acting the smartass.

Oh, I knew about the other Class 5's. I just didn't think it was relevant, as the key is that they were Black and Class 5.

 

What you describe is why the 'Black 8's' didn't catch on, because there weren't any 'Red 8's' at the time. Later BR reclassified the LMS Pacifics as 8P, by the simple process of changing 5XP to 6P and moving larger locos, up one.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, pH said:

Since the original question emphasized George the Fifths, one from ‘Locomotives Illustrated #54 - LNWR 4-4-0s’:

 

George the Fifth 2282 at Hatch End with a down Class D express goods in July 1926.

As I did suggest earlier, these were partly fitted freights and a long way from the traditional British unbraked goods, with only the loco and guards handbrake to stop the train.

[LMS2968]

The specifications of new LMS locomotives were agreed by the Rolling Stock Committee, with a large input from the Operating Department, and H.P.M. Beames had put forward a proposal to rebuild the Prince of Wales class to eliminate their growing defects. The Tishies, with outside Walschaert's valve gear but inside cylinders, went part way along that road, but events overtook and a scrap and replace policy emerged. The operators would use new engines in replacement for previous classes, and simply added 'rebuilt', 'modified' or 'converted' as appropriate, so the Patriots and Jubilees both spent time as 'rebuilt' or converted 'Claughtons' . The PoWs were a mainstay of much Western Division traffic, and the title 'Converted PoWs' arose, although the new engines owed nothing other than usage to them.

 

Trying to suggest that LNWR 4-4-0s use on goods trains was confined to fitted goods is rather a waste of time: photos already cited show them on loose coupled workings.

[Buhar]

The Improved Claughtons, later called Jubilees, pre-dated the Black Fives and were known colloquially as Red Fives. Black Five followed from this.

Alan