What could have ended the Midland's 'small engine' policy

[Ohmisterporter]

Part of this was due to their customers, particularly coal mines, not having in place an infrastructure for handling bigger wagons. The owners were reluctant to spend money developing bigger loading docks and improved track layout to accommodate heavier wagons, especially those who had their own fleet of PO wagons built to the lowest acceptable standard at the cheapest  cost. Even in North Eastern Railway territory the mine owners were averse to this, remember the NER provided the wagons, saving the mine owners a considerable amount. Of course if the railway companies wanted to improve loading facilities at their own cost, that was acceptable too. The situation changed a bit after nationalization as both BR and the NCB theoretically  came under the same ownership. Even then the change from 10T and 16T wagons was to more four wheelers, we had to wait a lot longer for high capacity bogie wagons even though several pre-grouping companies had used their own, rather bizarely for loco coal. Another problem with using higher capacity and more expensive wagons was the propensity for local coal merchants to hang onto them in their sidings and use them as free storage.

[Poggy1165]

I would imagine the average small coal merchant much preferred a 10 ton wagon (or better still an 8 ton one) to a 20 ton jobbie. After all, he had to unload it, sharpish, and he might have nowhere to put the coal but the back of his lorry.

 

The GCR was another railway that tried to 'encourage' the use of larger goods vehicles, but by and large the punters weren't having it. So the big coal wagons (20 ton and upwards) ended up being used for loco coal. I don't think the big 15 ton vans were a massive success either - most were eventually converted into fish trucks.

[Poggy1165]

Robinson got it absolutely right later, with his D10s and 11s for passenger trains and with his O4s and J11s for freight work the GCR had an excellent collection of locos. Good enough that when the grouping came along, the LNER wanted him to be their CME.

While I agree with everything Tony has written here, I should also like to point out that GC engines didn't have to be that hot to match those of its competitors. The only outfit clearly ahead of the pack was the GWR, and that was an ally of the GC, not a rival. (Well, I suppose there was competition for the lucrative Chester-Wrexham traffic, but that was about it.)

[Clive Mortimore]

I do not think coal wagon size was a MR problem. They did have some 20 ton locomotive coal wagons diagrams D349 and D350 and some 30 ton bogie coal wagons diagrams D346, D347 and D348.

 

The Midland's small engine policy was not a problem to them. It became a problem after being used for 20 odd years when applied to the new much larger LMS. Had the grouping not taken place it could well have been a problem waiting to happen.

[Guest Belgian]

I do not think coal wagon size was a MR problem. They did have some 20 ton locomotive coal wagons diagrams D349 and D350 and some 30 ton bogie coal wagons diagrams D346, D347 and D348.

 

The Midland's small engine policy was not a problem to them. It became a problem after being used for 20 odd years when applied to the new much larger LMS. Had the grouping not taken place it could well have been a problem waiting to happen.

As per Dagrizz' post 26 at the top of page 2 of this topic, I think it was still not a problem in LMS days or even early BR days on ex-Midland lines: there was never a requirement for anything bigger than a 5XP. The problem became apparent on the other lines which became part of the LMS, notably the LNWR, when Midland practices were foist upon them, and generally after the notorious strikes of the mid 1950s which changed the payroll beyond recognition, thus undermining the Midland philosophy, at a time when the railways in general were being attacked on all sides.

 

JE

Edited January 20, 2013 by Belgian

[coachmann]

According to O.S. Nock,

 

"...The whole policy of Midland operating since 1907 had been to run a frequent service of light trains with relatively small engines. Nothing could be further from this than North Western practice prior to grouping, but after 1923 a sustained attempt was made for some years to reduce train weights on the West Coast in preparation for a remodelling of the timetable on Midland lines". This tended to concentrate attention on medium-powered rather than top-line express locomotives. It was indeed a problem in waiting!

 

With Midland polices failing the mighty LMS empire particularly on its key West Coast route....Enter the 6P 'Royal Scot' class hurriedly designed and constructed by an outside builder. Derby built the final 'Scots', the MR people that some folk consider were not idiots were finally put out to grass after inflicting even more misery up to 1932, Stanier was put in charge.....Coupled axleboxes on the 'Scots' were altered on his direction in 1933, then.......Enter the Pacifics.

Edited January 20, 2013 by coachmann

[DerekEm8]

Some other railways (notably the L&YR) had started constructing much larger wagons, often of 20 Tons capacity. They had worked out that it was cheaper for them to haul a smaller number of higher capacity wagons, than the opposite. So the question is why did other railways not follow the same practice & indeed the LMS went back to making smaller RCH based designs of 12 Tons.

 

In fact it wasn't until BR days when they built a modest number of 21 & 24 ton wagons.

Kevin,

The L & Y 20Ton coal wagons were built for a particular purpose - export and bunker coal to Goole - hence the name 'Goole end door wagons' that was their primary purpose. They were  vacuum brake fitted, long wheelbase and high sided, designed to run in block trains from the collieries to the docks - in a way the fore-runners of MGR trains. There were other versions with side and end doors but whilst later used for loco coal they were not designed to be used for domestic coal.

Edited January 20, 2013 by DerekEm8

[kevinlms]

 

 

The Midland's small engine policy was not a problem to them. It became a problem after being used for 20 odd years when applied to the new much larger LMS. Had the grouping not taken place it could well have been a problem waiting to happen.

But surely it was becoming so, but they ignored it.

The problem was that the basic 0-6-0 chassis was little changed from Kirtley days in regards to axle bearing size & method of lubrication. What was acceptable for those small locos, was no good even for the 4F. By the time larger locos such as the Garratt's were fitted with the same equipment, in the name of standardisation, it was an achilles heel.

Worryingly for the Garratt's, they built 3 first and then ordered 30 virtually the same, with the same errors repeated, such as poor bearings, small water balancing pipes, even the water fill locations, didn't match the dual water crane spacings, amongst other things. Surely a 3 year trail ought to have revealed some weakness & the next 30 should of had some modifications. As it was, Beyer Peacock, virtually disowned their largest single order of the Garratt.

[skipepsi]

The Midland policy fell to bits with the wage inflation of the first world war after that it was never going to be economic to use two train crews when one could do the same job. Wage inflation as well as the cost of goods rising were the reason for the railways exhaustion at the end of government control and the grouping that followed. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But back to the original question, economic performance is always the likely candidate. Businesses typically go on with 'proven' until they either fly into the ground still under full control; or get some management with some vision of what the future may bring who disrupt 'the proven way' with new ideas hopefully better suited to that future. The likelihood of necessary change winning out is in inverse proportion to the number of accountants in senior positions in my experience...

 

It is worth bearing in mind when looking at a business' performance that the crew running the show do not possess the sum total of all the knowledge required, unless it is something as basic as running a burger chain - and maybe not even then. Reference was made to Doncaster - Gresley's main design shop - having trouble designing the B17; the design was parcelled out to NBL. Small wonder, since their focus had been on wide firebox development for express locos. Specialisation is like that; the contemporary kings of the 4-6-0 likewise couldn't break out of that format, and simply scrapped their wide firebox machine.

[highpeak]

The main limitations of working over the Peak District were the strength of the couplings going up the hill and the difficulty of keeping unfitted trains under control going down. The load limits quickly meant you needed a banking engine, so there wasn't much point using bigger engines. Unfitted trains going north out of Rowsley needed a banker if they had more than 26 loaded wagons, and the 4F loading limit also applied to bigger engines such as the 7Fs and the Garratts from Peak Forest down to Gowhole, so while at first sight the route seemed a natural for bigger engines, in practice they didn't help much.

There are a couple of excellent books on operating practices over the Peak District: BR Steam Operating volume 6 by Xpress Publishing and BR Operating History volume 1 the Peak District, also published by Xpress Books.

 

In the Peak District I believe that one issue was that loops were too short for longer trains, and the shorter trains were light enough for small engines to manage. In other words, to have used larger engines economically would have involved spending £££££s on civil engineering.

 

That covers the goods trains. The Midland's policy on double heading passenger trains is harder to figure.

[coachmann]

Did Gresley receive royalties for conjugated valve gear?

[billbedford]

It is worth bearing in mind when looking at a business' performance that the crew running the show do not possess the sum total of all the knowledge required, unless it is something as basic as running a burger chain - and maybe not even then. Reference was made to Doncaster - Gresley's main design shop - having trouble designing the B17; the design was parcelled out to NBL. Small wonder, since their focus had been on wide firebox development for express locos. Specialisation is like that; the contemporary kings of the 4-6-0 likewise couldn't break out of that format, and simply scrapped their wide firebox machine.

This is a travesty of what happened. The GE operating department wanted a more powerful B12 and would have taken a two cylinder loco that fitted the weight limits. Gresley insisted on a three cylinder loco, which not only would have been over weight because of the extra cylinder, but Doncaster found it impossible to fit three cylinders to drive the centre axle. This was a know problem as the A1s had to be given a tapered boiler in order to fit the middle cylinder. NBL solved to middle cylinder problem by copying their Royal Scot design and splitting the drive. However the locos they did produce were not only still overweight but their frames were made too light and all the first batch had to re-framed within a year of being built. Ironically it was Thompson as CME at Stratford who had to oversee making something useful of these pigs ears.

[billbedford]

Did Gresley receive royalties for conjugated valve gear?

Yes, and for the swing link pony trucks that bu**ered up the P2s and V2s.

[jwealleans]

Did Gresley receive royalties for conjugated valve gear?

 

Categorically not.  There was a copy of the letter offering him employment in the Gresley Society newsletter on the centenary of his appointment by the GNR.  It is explicitly stated that he will not receive royalties on any patented items used by the Company while he is in their employ or subsequently.

[jamie92208]

Gresley may not have received the royalties himself but they were still paid, presumably to the LNER. On a tour of Doncaster Plant we were told that the fee was £50 per set of which 90 sets were paid for by the Union Pacific for their 4-12-2's.

 

Jamie

[billbedford]

Categorically not.  There was a copy of the letter offering him employment in the Gresley Society newsletter on the centenary of his appointment by the GNR.  It is explicitly stated that he will not receive royalties on any patented items used by the Company while he is in their employ or subsequently.

What is the date of the letter? Gresley certainly took out patents in his own name.

[Poor Old Bruce]

As per Dagrizz' post 26 at the top of page 2 of this topic, I think it was still not a problem in LMS days or even early BR days on ex-Midland lines: there was never a requirement for anything bigger than a 5XP.

If that was the case, why has it been said that, size for size, the midland Line Jubilees were among the hardest worked locomotives on the system? Even in LMS days Jubilees were the biggest locomotives allowed on the Midland until the first of the rebuilt Jubilees were sent to Holbeck, the parallel boilerd Scots being too heavy.

[jwealleans]

Gresley may not have received the royalties himself but they were still paid, presumably to the LNER. On a tour of Doncaster Plant we were told that the fee was £50 per set of which 90 sets were paid for by the Union Pacific for their 4-12-2's.

 

What is the date of the letter? Gresley certainly took out patents in his own name.

 

I apologise for not being clear.  There was nothing in the letter about Gresley not taking out patents in his own name (indeed there is an implicit assumption that he would), or receiving royalties from their use by others, only that his employer would not be expected to pay royalties for any of his patents used. 

 

I don't have the magazine any more - my dad is in the society, not me - but next time I'm up there I'll try to look it out.  As I said, it was the issue marking the centenary of his appointment to the GNR but i'm pretty sure the letter was his appointment by the LNER.  That said, it's hard to see that the LNER would have been more generous in this regard than the GNR had been.

[t-b-g]

Someone has already commented on the LNER purchase of Robinson ROD 2-8-0s and the fact that Gresley did not need to design a more complicated 3-cylinder 2-8-0 (02). A B17 that could only develop a miserly 4P could have had 2-cylinders like all others loco of this power rating, or better still more well-proven B12's. The LNER must have looked whistfully at the simple but effective LMS and GWR locos, and despaired when he was still messing around with three cylinders and a wide firebox on the teeny little V4's just before his demise. Thompson did what he could with the materials at hand dring WW2 and served his company well in the end. Why Peppercorn had to fit three-cylinders to 'his' A2 is anyones guess when the Britannia built a year later with the same 7P power rating only had two.

 

I dont know if preservation gives any clues or not but having filmed both the A2 Blue Peter and Britannia climbing away from Llandudno Junction to Conwy Tubular Bridge, the Brit romped away with its load while the A2 showed itself to be a slippery beggar despite the more even 3-cylinder propulsion.

 

The statement about the O2s makes no sense.

 

The O2s were being designed during WW1 and first appeared in 1918. At that time, it would have needed a great deal of crystal ball gazing to know that all those surplus O4s would be available a few years later and that the GCR and the GNR would be the same company rather than competitors.

 

Have people seen the details of what sorts of performances the V4s put in? They were great second string locos and the LNER would have been well served by a fleet of them (instead of B1s) had Gresley not died when he did.

 

I am not saying that the B1s were bad locos. They were very good indeed, better than an LMS Black 5 (that comes from drivers who have driven both types). The K4 was regarded as being better still! Very sure footed and powerful for a small loco and ideal for the route it was designed specifically for.

 

As for the comparison between an A2 and a Brit, two bits of video is hardly conclusive proof. The quality (and experience)  of the drivers, the rail surfaces and the load can make a huge difference.

[Poor Old Bruce]

I am not saying that the B1s were bad locos. They were very good indeed, better than an LMS Black 5 (that comes from drivers who have driven both types). The K4 was regarded as being better still! Very sure footed and powerful for a small loco and ideal for the route it was designed specifically for.

 

As for the comparison between an A2 and a Brit, two bits of video is hardly conclusive proof. The quality (and experience)  of the drivers, the rail surfaces and the load can make a huge difference.

The comparison between B1s and Black 5s is also subjective, Colwick men apparently didn't take well to 8Fs replacing their 04s.

[bluebottle]

But back to the original question, economic performance is always the likely candidate. Businesses typically go on with 'proven' until they either fly into the ground still under full control; or get some management with some vision of what the future may bring who disrupt 'the proven way' with new ideas hopefully better suited to that future. The likelihood of necessary change winning out is in inverse proportion to the number of accountants in senior positions in my experience...

 

From Essery and Jenkinson's “An Illustrated History of L.M.S. Locomotives” -

 

“Before considering Stanier's contribution to LMS motive power affairs – and by any yardstick this was magnificent – we should first consider how it was possible for him to do what he did. The man who made it at all feasible was neither an engineer nor an established railwayman, but an economist... Sir Josiah Stamp, ... President of the LMS executive, brought to the LMS a management style quite alien to the traditional way of operating a railway and it owed not a little to contemporary American practice … it paid scant respect to the traditional view of things and was, in some respects, at odds with many of the 'old guard' railway officers as typified by those of the former Midland Railway”.

 

Gordon

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

This is a travesty of what happened.

 How travesty? It is what happened, and is consistent with your account, the outcome of which I agree with. Doncaster couldn't make a workable design, it was parcelled out to NBL. I read it as Gresley stringing along the board (locomotive committee) to permit him to present a rather more radical solution to the GE lines traction problem. Fair bet that he really wanted authorisation to design a light wide firebox machine, with pressure on the civil engineering department to deliver the necessary infrastructure. (Never forget that OVSB is a player here: once he has a command, look what he designs.)

 

The LNER Gresley story is a fascinating one. Early on he was over-ruled on what became the J38/39. His plan had been for a 2-6-0, very similar in outline to what the LNER eventually obtained in the K1. The board insisted on an 0-6-0 format for economy, and the job was handed off to Darlington to work up a yet bigger J27. The board got their first cost economy, and paid for it ever after on the J39 which was capable in power output beyond what an 0-6-0 format was really suited to; resulting in very large repair bills for the leading coupled wheel's bearings. The operating department would allocate them to services which ran fast, because they were capable traction units. A leading truck - even a swing link design - would have made a world of difference. Gresley had been right

 

The outcome of this and other events led the LNER board to place great confidence in their CME. He earned it, and that's a fact. After the fact judgments cannot change that: this is why the Chairman initially directed Thompson to get on with building more Gresley designs.

[t-b-g]

The comparison between B1s and Black 5s is also subjective, Colwick men apparently didn't take well to 8Fs replacing their 04s.

 

The drivers at Mansfield (ex Midland) despised the LT&SR 4-4-2 tanks, which they got as replacements for their beloved Midland 0-4-4 tanks. They were, at least, both LMS (but still foreign!).

 

There were not many places where "foreign" locos were adopted with any degree of enthusiasm. Funnily enough, the D11s in Scotland and the A5s in the North East seem to have been exceptions to this!

 

The B1/Black 5/K4 comparison is a more recent one, based on preservaton era drivers and doesn't have the same degree of partisanship.

 

One who thought the Black 5 was the best loco he had ever driven to Fort William changed his mind when he had a go on the K4.

Edited January 21, 2013 by t-b-g

[PhilJ W]

The drivers at Mansfield (ex Midland) despised the LT&SR 4-4-2 tanks, which they got as replacements for their beloved Midland 0-4-4 tanks. They were, at least, both LMS (but still foreign!).

 

There were not many places where "foreign" locos were adopted with any degree of enthusiasm. Funnily enough, the D11s in Scotland and the A5s in the North East seem to have been exceptions to this!

 

The B1/Black 5/K4 comparison is a more recent one, based on preservaton era drivers and doesn't have the same degree of partisanship.

 

One who thought the Black 5 was the best loco he had ever driven to Fort William changed his mind when he had a go on the K4.

The Tilbury tanks were equally unpopular when a handful were sent to the ex GE lines in the 50's. The GE B12's and F class tanks were also quite popular with the Scottish enginemen.