Lancashire and Yorkshire Dreadnought Tanks

[Thane of Fife]

Horwich produced ten large 4-6-4T Dreadnought Tanks.

 

Does anyone have any information on the sort of duties they performed in their short life (they were withdrawn before WWII)?

 

I think they're a great looking engine, and wonder about the use.

 

Did they get removed from express duties after the Sevenoaks accident?

 

Thanks

 

Thane of Fife

[Michael Edge]

They were far too big and overcomplicated (2 unnecessary cylinders) for the work, LMS 2-6-4Ts were all that was needed. The last of them were built as tender locos instead. There were no worries about high speed working with tank engines, the LMS 2-6-4Ts were normally run up to about 80mph. The panic on the Southern Railway was put down to bad track, one of the Rivers was tested at high speed on the GN with no problems. Southern rebuilt theirs anyway but they had an additional complication with lack of water capacity and no water troughs, on the LMS there were plenty of troughs and the big tanks all had bi-directional scoops.

[PenrithBeacon]

There was an article in 'The Engineer' (IIRC) which castigated the LMS for building these engines. There were no more built. All a big mistake!

 

Basically they were used on inter-urban services over the LYR network, which was, by then, the Central Section of the LMS.

 

Note the ME ... a kit would be nice!

 

Regards

[Michael Edge]

I have built one of these in 4mm scale - and I may have one spare set of etches.

 

[Crantock]

I have built one of these in 4mm scale - and I may have one spare set of etches.

 

07-04 rs.JPG

Michael, the world needs to see your secret etch list.  Please.

[Thane of Fife]

Thanks to everyone for the info.

 

I don't think a Dreadnought tank would fit alongside my LBSCR Remembrance tank.

 

The LBSCR 4-6-4T's had problems with water moving about in tanks. This probably helped the decision to rebuild them as 4-6-0 tender engines.

 

I saw a tender loco on the Reading Basingstoke line, at the age of ten, and was disappointed as it was IMHO inferior to a King Arthur.

 

Thane of fife

[Nick Holliday]

Thanks to everyone for the info.

 

I don't think a Dreadnought tank would fit alongside my LBSCR Remembrance tank.

 

The LBSCR 4-6-4T's had problems with water moving about in tanks. This probably helped the decision to rebuild them as 4-6-0 tender engines.

 

I saw a tender loco on the Reading Basingstoke line, at the age of ten, and was disappointed as it was IMHO inferior to a King Arthur.

 

Thane of fife

As far as I am aware the problem with the surging of water in the LBSC tanks was resolved very quickly - the tanks were reduced in height and an additional well tank was installed to make up the difference in capacity, after which they were renowned for their smooth riding.  Their reconstruction as tender engines was due to the electrification of the Brighton mainline making them redundant, and their relatively limited water capacity would have prevented them working on the South Western mainline, so by rebuilding them the Southern got another 20 years' useful service out of them, even if they weren't quite as good as their N15X designation might have suggested.

[s_ellinson]

The Hughes baltic tanks were victims of the LMS scrap and standardise policy of the thirties. They were, in any case, far too big and heavy and just not as useful as the various classes of 2-6-4 which superseded them. It's telling that the LYR intended to build fifty of them, but only the first ten were built under the LMS and the remainder were turned out as conventional tender "Dreadnought" 4-6-0s which were only very slightly different to the rest of the class (I think they had a curve to the front framing above the footplate and a very slightly bigger grate area).  Interestingly, the LMS inherited all bar one of the standard gauge baltic tank classes built in the UK (LTSR, FR, GSWR, LYR), the other being of course the LBSCR tanks. There is a book by - I think - Charles Fryer called British Baltic tanks which gives a little info on their duties. They seem to have spent at least some time operating out of Manchester on Buxton locals. I suspect their weight - 100 tons give or take - limited their use to main lines with sturdy underbridges, the 2-6-4s being rather lighter on the track. I know the LTSR Baltics spent some time operating out of St. Pancras on outer suburban services to bedford and I rather think that the Hughes baltics did a similar thing around Manchester, going to Buxton, Southport and similar places. I believe at least one of them was sent to London for comparison with the LTSR engines on the Bedford services. The GSWR Baltics performed similar services around Glasgow and it seems to have been the fate of all the LMS Baltics to dwindle away on local and semi-fast services from various cities. Only the Brighton baltics got to perform "proper" express services for any length of time! The Hughes baltics were the last standard gauge Baltics in the UK. The Brighton engines lasted longer, but only as conversions to tender engines, with the last Hughes Baltic going in 1941 or 42.

 

 

In my "one day i'll get around to it" box I've got a Millholme baltic kit and enough ratio MR suburbans to build an 8-set, which some pictures show them hauling. I've got a mad scheme to build a 4mm - foot example of all of the baltic classes; the Hughes and LBSCR engines are easy enough as they're available (sort of) as kits (Millhome and Langley), but the others are scratchbuild only - I'd probably start with the FR Rutherfords as they're handsome and interesting locos.

 

All in all, the British Baltic is an interesting beast and it's a shame that they didn't survive longer, because the pictures certainly show them to be very "beasty"!

 

Stewart

[kevinlms]

The Hughes baltic tanks were victims of the LMS scrap and standardise policy of the thirties. They were, in any case, far too big and heavy and just not as useful as the various classes of 2-6-4 which superseded them. It's telling that the LYR intended to build fifty of them, but only the first ten were built under the LMS and the remainder were turned out as conventional tender "Dreadnought" 4-6-0s which were only very slightly different to the rest of the class (I think they had a curve to the front framing above the footplate and a very slightly bigger grate area).  Interestingly, the LMS inherited all bar one of the standard gauge baltic tank classes built in the UK (LTSR, FR, GSWR, LYR), the other being of course the LBSCR tanks. There is a book by - I think - Charles Fryer called British Baltic tanks which gives a little info on their duties. They seem to have spent at least some time operating out of Manchester on Buxton locals. I suspect their weight - 100 tons give or take - limited their use to main lines with sturdy underbridges, the 2-6-4s being rather lighter on the track. I know the LTSR Baltics spent some time operating out of St. Pancras on outer suburban services to bedford and I rather think that the Hughes baltics did a similar thing around Manchester, going to Buxton, Southport and similar places. I believe at least one of them was sent to London for comparison with the LTSR engines on the Bedford services. The GSWR Baltics performed similar services around Glasgow and it seems to have been the fate of all the LMS Baltics to dwindle away on local and semi-fast services from various cities. Only the Brighton baltics got to perform "proper" express services for any length of time! The Hughes baltics were the last standard gauge Baltics in the UK. The Brighton engines lasted longer, but only as conversions to tender engines, with the last Hughes Baltic going in 1941 or 42.

 

 

In my "one day i'll get around to it" box I've got a Millholme baltic kit and enough ratio MR suburbans to build an 8-set, which some pictures show them hauling. I've got a mad scheme to build a 4mm - foot example of all of the baltic classes; the Hughes and LBSCR engines are easy enough as they're available (sort of) as kits (Millhome and Langley), but the others are scratchbuild only - I'd probably start with the FR Rutherfords as they're handsome and interesting locos.

 

All in all, the British Baltic is an interesting beast and it's a shame that they didn't survive longer, because the pictures certainly show them to be very "beasty"!

 

Stewart

Well no wonder they fell victim to the scrap & standardise policy of the LMS, if:-

 

"They were, in any case, far too big and heavy and just not as useful as the various classes of 2-6-4 which superseded them."

 

What other conclusion, could the LMS have possibly have come too?

 

I'm all for a variety of types, but if one lot are vastly inferior to another, then withdrawal is the best option, when they came due for major expense.

[s_ellinson]

Well no wonder they fell victim to the scrap & standardise policy of the LMS, if:-

 

"They were, in any case, far too big and heavy and just not as useful as the various classes of 2-6-4 which superseded them."

 

What other conclusion, could the LMS have possibly have come too?

 

I'm all for a variety of types, but if one lot are vastly inferior to another, then withdrawal is the best option, when they came due for major expense.

On the Southern, they'd probably have survived longer and been rebuilt into 4-6-0s, as happened with the LBSCR Baltics. I think the southern's steam policy was much more "make do and mend" as their ultimate aim for much of the system was electrification and even in  the thirties, steam was seen as an intermediate step. The LMSR and others saw steam as the future and therefore it was a case of modernise the steam fleet - getting rid of small classes like the baltics en route. The LNER seem to have been more open to small classes for particular jobs under Gresley (witness the P2 class), but Thompson and peppercorn were much more standardisation focussed and businesslike.

 

ah for the patch it and hope southern!!

 

Stewart

[asmay2002]

Interestingly, the LMS inherited all bar one of the standard gauge baltic tank classes built in the UK (LTSR, FR, GSWR, LYR), the other being of course the LBSCR tanks.

Not forgetting of course the Belfast and County Down 4-6-4T and the half share the LMS had in the County Donegal Baltic tanks...

[s_ellinson]

Not forgetting of course the Belfast and County Down 4-6-4T and the half share the LMS had in the County Donegal Baltic tanks...

 

The B&CDR baltics were, by all accounts, horrid. They even look wrong and i struggle to see how they survived so long. The Donegal baltics, on the other hand, were things of beauty.

[ian@stenochs]

The G&SWR, the Scottish one not the Irish GSWR!, Baltics were a public relations triumph but a mechanical disaster. Just before the grouping they came out in a blaze of publicity and were very well recieved by the travelling public used to small locos. They had their boilers clad in planished steel , a bit like a metalic paint finish, with green tanks and red valances all lined out. The elaborate livery helped the image but at considerable cost, £16000+ was a lot to pay for an engine in 1922, the Duchesses cost a lot less 10 years later.

 

Their very limited availability, due to unstability on curves, meant they were banned south of Girvan.They did not carry enough coal to run to Carlisle on the main line. There was a plan to extend the bunker and fit a 6 wheeled bogie making them 4-6-6T also another to convert them to tender locos. As non standard locos with unique boilers the LMS only kept them going until the boilers needed replacement. Much of their work on the G&SWR was taken over by Compounds and even 2Ps.

 

However we modellers dont need to consider the economics of railway operation and can model what we like. Baltic tanks make impressive subjects despite the difficulties of coaxing them round curves. Any one know how to reproduce the planished steel boiler cladding?

 

Ian