MR Train on GWR metals?

[Il Grifone]

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

An underpowered Atlantic would be a cert to fail on the South Devon banks (not sure the French 3, or the Saint or Star Atlantics, were allowed down there without assistance,).  Can't think of a 1 in 36 anywhere on the GC main line, even over Woodhead; Worsborough was not part of the passenger route,

 

They allowed 4-4-0s, so the Atlantics should not have been a problem. It was the practice to hitch on a Bulldog, even with 4-6-0s.

[The Johnster]

10 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The GWR Gloucester to Bristol services worked over the Midland line, both (express) passenger and (through) freight  and I believe the Cheltenham to Gloucester line, (double line pre 1940) was GW/MR joint.    I can't think of any other GW / MR joint main lines.

Gloucester-Westerleigh MR was subject to GW running powers, but I am not certain of the situation prior to the opening of the GW's Badminton cut-off.  The Charfield accident in 1926 involved a collison between a Midland express and a GW freight backing in to a refuge siding.  The GW paralleled the Midland on the same formation between Gloucester and Standish Jc, and Gloucester and Cheltenham.

 

Temple Meads can be regarded as a GW/MR joint line, run by a joint committee from both companies after it's rebuilding to include the curve accessing the B&E which had it's own terminus at right angles to the GW's Brunel train shed.  The B&E had been absorbed into the GW by the time the station was rebuilt.  

 

I can't think of any other GW/MR joint operations, as opposed to running powers, either.  If there are any, they are likely to be short stretches in the Swansea area; perhaps Fat Controller can illuminate us, he seems to be the go-to Jack on the forum.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

 

They allowed 4-4-0s, so the Atlantics should not have been a problem. It was the practice to hitch on a Bulldog, even with 4-6-0s.

An Atlantic lacks the tractive effort of a 4-4-0 of similar boiler/steam raising capacity, because some of it's tractive weight is distributed off the drivers on to the trailing axle; it therefore has a greater propensity to slip.  The advantage of the arrangement is that a much wider firebox can be used than the narrow bottomed types used on 4-4-0s that have to fit between the rear driving wheels and between the driving axles, so you can have a larger boiler which can raise steam quickly and develop more power.  Thus a number of railways used Atlantics around the turn of the 20th century for express work on less hilly routes than the South Devon, with great success.  But 4-4-0s were still preferred on hilly routes as they were more' sure-footed'.  Of the big companies, the Midland, LNW, and LSW never used the 4-4-2 arrangement and the GW only played with it.

 

The story was repeated as loco sizes continued to increase in response to heavier trains (except on the Midland, where they just built more small engines and double headed everything), with 4-6-0s and Pacifics.  Again the Pacific enabled wide fireboxes and big boilers, at the expense of traction on starting.  The GW only dabbled in Pacifics and their locomotive policy was very much governed by the need to pull hard over the South Devon banks, which paid off on routes such as the Cornwall, South Wales west of Cardiff, and the North to West route.  

 

Big pacifics eventually put in very good performances on the WCML over Shap and Beattock, but the majority of the LMS's express locos were 4-6-0s.  The LNER went in for pacifics in a bigger way, but had a less hilly route and was generally faster, at least as far as Darlington.  By the 1940s and 50s, attention had turned to 'light pacifics', and both Bulleid and Riddles had some success with them, but the large firebox had become more important by then because of availability issues with good quality coal.

 

In general, the bigger a loco the bigger, and consequently more powerful, the boiler, but this is a generalisation and factors such as adhesive weight and distribution of load over driving axles play a very significant part in the suitability of a loco for a specific route, not to mention it's appetite for coal which has to be paid for and which a human fireman has a finite ability to shovel.  An Atlantic looks more impressive than a 4-4-0, especially a C4 with those big driving wheels, but the actual suitability on any given route is much more complex.

 

Very steep banks like the South Devons, or long ones like Shap or Beattock, or Severn Tunnel Bottom-Badminton, always had assistant locos available for heavy trains.  This is not a reflection of the inability of express locos on such routes.  

[John-Miles]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Gloucester-Westerleigh MR was subject to GW running powers, but I am not certain of the situation prior to the opening of the GW's Badminton cut-off.  The Charfield accident in 1926 involved a collison between a Midland express and a GW freight backing in to a refuge siding.  The GW paralleled the Midland on the same formation between Gloucester and Standish Jc, and Gloucester and Cheltenham.

 

Temple Meads can be regarded as a GW/MR joint line, run by a joint committee from both companies after it's rebuilding to include the curve accessing the B&E which had it's own terminus at right angles to the GW's Brunel train shed.  The B&E had been absorbed into the GW by the time the station was rebuilt.  

 

I can't think of any other GW/MR joint operations, as opposed to running powers, either.  If there are any, they are likely to be short stretches in the Swansea area; perhaps Fat Controller can illuminate us, he seems to be the go-to Jack on the forum.

Other Joint Midland GWR were Worcester Shrub Hill, the Longbridge Halesowen line, the line through Clifton to Bristol Docls and the Severn and Wye (Berkeley Road to Lydney and places north of there). Before the Badminton line the GWR could use their running powers which went all the way along the Midland to Temple Meads.

[DCB]

On 03/04/2020 at 19:31, The Johnster said:

An underpowered Atlantic would be a cert to fail on the South Devon banks (not sure the French 3, or the Saint or Star Atlantics, were allowed down there without assistance,).  Can't think of a 1 in 36 anywhere on the GC main line, even over Woodhead; Worsborough was not part of the passenger route,

GC Atlantic 267 worked through to Plymouth in  October 1904, it worked through from Manchester 374 miles with a single crew. 265 and 287 visited Plymouth in 1905 but thereafter Bristol was the furthest point reached. [Robinson Locos, Alex Swain and Peter Rowledge.]

I don't know about under powered, The GWR was using 4-4-0s on its best trains.  267 must have caused quite a stir.  It was only fractionally smaller than a Saint, 26 vs 27 sq ft grate.  At that time the GWR had one (1) 4-4-2 French Compound and 3 passenger 4-6-0s while 267 was from the first production batch of GC Atlantics which followed the initial batch of 2 X 4-4-2 and 2X 4-6-0 locos.  The GC decided on Atlantics following the comparison and built  31 Atlantics and 10 4-6-0s with 3" smaller driving wheels.   I wonder if G J Churchward was influenced by 267s performance that day to change 171 to an Atlantic that same year.  The Frenchman was a different beast altogether the TE was about 42 000 lbs working simple, it must have been an absolute swine for slipping

[kevinlms]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

An Atlantic lacks the tractive effort of a 4-4-0 of similar boiler/steam raising capacity, because some of it's tractive weight is distributed off the drivers on to the trailing axle; it therefore has a greater propensity to slip.  The advantage of the arrangement is that a much wider firebox can be used than the narrow bottomed types used on 4-4-0s that have to fit between the rear driving wheels and between the driving axles, so you can have a larger boiler which can raise steam quickly and develop more power.  Thus a number of railways used Atlantics around the turn of the 20th century for express work on less hilly routes than the South Devon, with great success.  But 4-4-0s were still preferred on hilly routes as they were more' sure-footed'.  Of the big companies, the Midland, LNW, and LSW never used the 4-4-2 arrangement and the GW only played with it.

 

The story was repeated as loco sizes continued to increase in response to heavier trains (except on the Midland, where they just built more small engines and double headed everything), with 4-6-0s and Pacifics.  Again the Pacific enabled wide fireboxes and big boilers, at the expense of traction on starting.  The GW only dabbled in Pacifics and their locomotive policy was very much governed by the need to pull hard over the South Devon banks, which paid off on routes such as the Cornwall, South Wales west of Cardiff, and the North to West route.  

 

Big pacifics eventually put in very good performances on the WCML over Shap and Beattock, but the majority of the LMS's express locos were 4-6-0s.  The LNER went in for pacifics in a bigger way, but had a less hilly route and was generally faster, at least as far as Darlington.  By the 1940s and 50s, attention had turned to 'light pacifics', and both Bulleid and Riddles had some success with them, but the large firebox had become more important by then because of availability issues with good quality coal.

 

In general, the bigger a loco the bigger, and consequently more powerful, the boiler, but this is a generalisation and factors such as adhesive weight and distribution of load over driving axles play a very significant part in the suitability of a loco for a specific route, not to mention it's appetite for coal which has to be paid for and which a human fireman has a finite ability to shovel.  An Atlantic looks more impressive than a 4-4-0, especially a C4 with those big driving wheels, but the actual suitability on any given route is much more complex.

 

Very steep banks like the South Devons, or long ones like Shap or Beattock, or Severn Tunnel Bottom-Badminton, always had assistant locos available for heavy trains.  This is not a reflection of the inability of express locos on such routes.  

The LNWR had some 4-4-2T engines.

 

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

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

The LNWR had some 4-4-2T engines.

 

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

Which I'd forgotten; so did the GW!  I tend to think of 2-4-2Ts in connection with the LNWR.

[Steamport Southport]

I don't think they needed to try them. Most of the experiments happened earlier under Webb with the 2-2-2-0s and 2-2-2-2s (etc)

 

They didn't really need 4-4-2s as they went straight from large 4-4-0s to large 4-6-0s for the express passenger needs.

 

 

However if you are being pedantic then they had the Highflyers as the absorbed the L&YR in 1922...

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

50 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

However if you are being pedantic then they had the Highflyers as the absorbed the L&YR in 1922...

 

Pedantic? Me?  Well, yes, I suppose, if you want to be exact...

 

Pedantry makes for good, accurate modelling; wish I was more pedantic.

[Il Grifone]

The Saints were tried in Atlantic form to directly compare with the French engine: simple v. compound. Slipping can't have been excessive, as they bought two more and they lasted until the great clearance of 4-4-0s at the end of the twenties and they were a standard type in their home country.

 

The 4-4-2Ts were mainly used on London suburban traffic. Here again, the trailing wheels couldn't have been a problem, as they worked with and were replaced by 2-6-2Ts with basically the same rear end.

[The Johnster]

Trailing wheels serve a slightly different purpose on a tank loco; they are there to carry the weight of the bunker.  The idea of a wide firebox on a tank loco, even a big one, is a ship that's already sailed, and as the locos are usually the tank equivalent of 4-4-0 or mogul tender types you have already got the format of narrow firebox between the driving and rear axles, which dates back to Jenny Lind and beyond.  When the GW Atlantic tanks were built, the 31xx prairie was already in existence and a derivate of this proved to be what replaced them.

[TheQ]

I don't know about the west country but the MSWJR,  had military  trains ( in civilian, normally ancient carriages)  from just about anywhere sometimes with their originating loco sometimes with a local pilot engine some times an MSWJR engine and sometimes a GWR engine.  From the north a midland train would have crossed GWR metals twice to reach Salisbury plain. 

 

More to the west, the military have been using Dartmoor since around 1800, in 1871 Okehampton became a railway disembarkation point for military exercises I suspect they too will will have received trains from anywhere in the country.. 

[DCB]

16 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

The Saints were tried in Atlantic form to directly compare with the French engine: simple v. compound. Slipping can't have been excessive, as they bought two more and they lasted until the great clearance of 4-4-0s at the end of the twenties and they were a standard type in their home country.

 

The 4-4-2Ts were mainly used on London suburban traffic. Here again, the trailing wheels couldn't have been a problem, as they worked with and were replaced by 2-6-2Ts with basically the same rear end.

The French locos ended up on Paddington to Oxford turns much the same territory as the County Tanks (4-4-2T) and were culled to make way for Castles at much the same time as some more recent Saints.  The Compounds failed to make as much impact on the GW as elsewhere because the GW used very sophisticated valve rings which didn't leak anything like as badly as most other early 1900s piston valves.  With a compound any leaks past the HP rings leak into the LP system.  The NER and GC had very successful 4-4-2 compounds but again failed to multiply them.   The French had a speed limit around  75MPH so their compounds were designed around this and were habitually thrashed uphill and run downhill at around the same speed, they also had very complicated controls with separate adjustment for high pressure and low pressure cylinders. The Saint was a more sure footed cheaper equally powerful and simpler to drive.  The LMS Compounds were quite successful but were too small for their duties and their thermal  efficiency was poor, however the Crabs, built inn the same period, were extremely good thermodynamically, better than Black 5s etc, so its a great shame they didn't make a large wheeled 4-4-0 version....  

[Il Grifone]

The weight will still shift onto the rear axle whether it supports a firebox/cab or a bunker, The GWR built 2-8-0 tanks for heavy freight. These were apparently also immune from slipping (Russell IIRC).

 

The most efficient steam locomotives were in fact compounds  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Chapelon

 

However efficiency isn't the sole, or even the main criterion in a locomotive.

 

Well pass over compounds with the HP cylinder on one side and LP on the other....

[The Johnster]

11 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

11 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

, however the Crabs, built inn the same period, were extremely good thermodynamically, better than Black 5s etc, so its a great shame they didn't make a large wheeled 4-4-0 version....

 

Maybe Hughes, and Fowler to whatever extent he was directly involved, were wary of Churchward's experience with 4-4-0s and large outside cylinders on the Counties, though a short coupled wheelbase imposed by the LNWR for use on the North to West Joint route made the situation worse.  A Crab based 4-4-0 would have been I suppose comparable to the D49s or Schools; it would likely have been a 3 cylinder engine to keep the size of the outside cylinders within bounds, and possibly a compound inspired by Deeley's layout.  

 

Not sure it would have had much advantage over the Crab, though, which could run fast enough for the odd excursion and secondary main line work.  When you say 'extremely good thermodynamically', I assume you are referring to what I would call thermal efficiency, the amount of calories produced as heat by the firebox as a percentage of unused heat to atmosphere from the chimney.  It was a figure much used by diesel manufacturer salesmen in the 40s and 50s to illustrate the superiority of their product over steam to justify that their product cost 3 times as much to build and maintain, but in practice good modern steam design (of which there was nowhere near enough) reduced the gap considerably.  It doesn't matter how much heat you 'waste' up the chimney, as long as the fuel bill is in proportion to the money the loco is generating for you and as long as the loco can pull the train to the timings and loads satisfactorily, within the fireman's capability.  Nowhere near enough work was done in the UK in the late 40s/early 50s to improve steam loco design, efficiency, or, more to the point, educate drivers and fireman to exploit the best available efficiency with the designs they had.  You can improve the design as much as you like; poor driving practice will undo your efforts.  The French got this right, and we didn't.

[John-Miles]

12 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

TThe LMS Compounds were quite successful but were too small for their duties and their thermal  efficiency was poor, however the Crabs, built inn the same period, were extremely good thermodynamically, better than Black 5s etc, so its a great shame they didn't make a large wheeled 4-4-0 version....  

 

I don't understand why you think the Midland Compounds were thermodynamically poor. What is your source of information please.

[kevinlms]

23 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

, so its a great shame they didn't make a large wheeled 4-4-0 version....  

The thing is by the mid 1920s, the LMS had plenty of 4-4-0s, in fact an excess. The Birmingham '2 hour expresses' had proven to be beyond the reliable time keeping limits of a Compound. So the last thing they needed was more 4-4-0s, even of a better design. Why would you bother, if you had lots of existing, almost brand new ones - 190 Compounds built 1924-27 (5 more built 1932 for inexplicable reasons) and 138 2Ps ?

 

The LMS at this time, also wanted to increase the average speeds of a lot of expresses to 'a mile a minute' and new timetables reflected that, with many just over the 60MPH timings. To do that, they needed, bigger more powerful locomotives. Hence the 'Royal Scots' and as a result rebuilding ex-LNWR Claughtons into the 'Patriot' class. Next came the 'Jubilee's' and Black 5s. All of which performed much better than any Compound, once initial drafting/boiler problems were solved.

[DCB]

11 hours ago, John-Miles said:

 

I don't understand why you think the Midland Compounds were thermodynamically poor. What is your source of information please.

There are numerous sources, E.S.Cox relates in Locomotive Panorama how the LMS got very good test results from the Compounds because he rollers on the Horwich dynanometer car had seized.  Gresley twigged something was very wrong and arranged for North Eastern and L&Y Horwich  cars to be coupled together and tested, Horwich showed a much greater power output  after overhaul the two dynanometer cars recordings were essentially identical.

Gresley previously smelled a rat over the GWs claims for Caerphilly Castle when new.  The LNERs own 4 cyl ex GC 4-6-0s were not in the same league. He borrowed a Castle to disprove the claims but found they were actually pretty accurate and had the Castle valve gear measured to see why it was so good, Next he rapidly altered an A1 to match, getting a 20% decrease in coal consumption from 50lbs mile to 40lbs mile.

 

22 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The thing is by the mid 1920s, the LMS had plenty of 4-4-0s, in fact an excess. The Birmingham '2 hour expresses' had proven to be beyond the reliable time keeping limits of a Compound. So the last thing they needed was more 4-4-0s, even of a better design. Why would you bother, if you had lots of existing, almost brand new ones - 190 Compounds built 1924-27 (5 more built 1932 for inexplicable reasons) and 138 2Ps ?

 

The LMS at this time, also wanted to increase the average speeds of a lot of expresses to 'a mile a minute' and new timetables reflected that, with many just over the 60MPH timings. To do that, they needed, bigger more powerful locomotives. Hence the 'Royal Scots' and as a result rebuilding ex-LNWR Claughtons into the 'Patriot' class. Next came the 'Jubilee's' and Black 5s. All of which performed much better than any Compound, once initial drafting/boiler problems were solved.

The LMS was building large numbers of 4-4-0s at the same time as building the Crabs. A compound with Crab cylinders or Crab 4-4-0 with 6ft 9" wheels had to be a better bet  than the Compounds. David L Smith relates that The Crabs on the GSWR would run up to 80 but at the expense of heavy maintenance, Much like the 9Fs. 

The performance of the GWR Castle on the West Coast in about 1926 shocked the LMS since their figures suggested the Compounds were almost as powerful and equally economical, so they tried to buy 50 from the GW.

The rest is history, except the LMS abandoned the Swindon straight throatplate firebox in favour of  sloping faceplates and combustion chambers with a shorter barrel.  Lo and behold the best performances from a Jubilee was Rooke with the older boiler, and when the GW copied them neither the County or Manor boilers steamed freely until re drafted, and in the case of the County, new tube plates and tubes, in the mid 1950s

Edited April 13, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[wagonman]

On 04/04/2020 at 22:25, DavidCBroad said:

  The Frenchman was a different beast altogether the TE was about 42 000 lbs working simple, it must have been an absolute swine for slipping

 

Are you sure about that figure – it seems incredibly high given that the TE figure for a King was 'only' 40,000 lbs?

[DCB]

3 hours ago, wagonman said:

 

Are you sure about that figure – it seems incredibly high given that the TE figure for a King was 'only' 40,000 lbs?

No, I read it somewhere but can't remember where, 102  had some seriously big cylinders at 22" inside and 13" outside with 227lbs pressure, the other two had 23" and 14" at a time GWR 4-6-0s had 2 X 18" cylinders and 225lbs pressure.

[John-Miles]

On 13/04/2020 at 04:12, DavidCBroad said:

There are numerous sources, E.S.Cox relates in Locomotive Panorama how the LMS got very good test results from the Compounds because he rollers on the Horwich dynanometer car had seized.  Gresley twigged something was very wrong and arranged for North Eastern and L&Y Horwich  cars to be coupled together and tested, Horwich showed a much greater power output  after overhaul the two dynanometer cars recordings were essentially identical.

G

 

The LMS was building large numbers of 4-4-0s at the same time as building the Crabs. A compound with Crab cylinders or Crab 4-4-0 with 6ft 9" wheels had to be a better bet  than the Compounds. David L Smith relates that The Crabs on the GSWR would run up to 80 but at the expense of heavy maintenance, Much like the 9Fs. 

 

 

 

The LMS tested a compound, a Claughton and an L&Y 4-6-0 on the S&C in IIRC 1924. Whether the dynamometer car was working or not, the coal consumed and work done could be accurately measured. The compound was easily the winner despite being the smallest loco so they couldn't have been that inefficient. Cox is an unreliable source. There are rumours he falsified results from the Rugby testing station to suit his own opinions and he is notoriously pro-L&Y - for obvious reasons.

 

The fact that the compounds were expensive on maintenance was well known to the Midland long before the LMS came along. It was not due to how hard they were worked but to their greater complexity.

Edited April 14, 2020 by John-Miles
Amended text

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, John-Miles said:

There are rumours he falsified results from the Rugby testing station to suit his own opinions

Now that's interesting.  I have been suspicious of the Rugby results for a long time, as I have never understood why the hp figures quoted for 8P steam locos could not be equalled in practice by the 2,000hp diesels specified to replace them.  Sir Brian Roberston reckoned the cab ride he had from Norwich to Liverpool Street on a brand new D200 showed that the loco could not match the performance of a 7MT Britannia.  Ivatt seems to have got his sums right with the twins; 1,600hp to do the work of a Black 5 and 3,200 double headed to do the work of a Duchess.  English Electric got it right with their own DP1 demonstrator, which BR never asked for, at 3,300, a coach better than the twins in multiple because of the weight saved, but the influence of the Rugby figures was still being felt in the early 60s with 2nd generation diesels like the 37s, 45/6s, 47s, and 50s, and arguably with the 52s.  The 25kv electrics went for Ivatt/DP1 power ratings, and some of the emus were pretty powerful as well, with the Clactons around 3.000hp for a 12 car train and the Bournmouth 4-REPs not far off the mark.

 

If Cox's manipulation of the figures and general mendacity (alleged of course, not a stated fact, and not by me; I'd want to see some evidence) were responsible for the glut of underpowered useless 1955 plan diesels, then he has much to answer for, and I would include the failure of the 1955 plan's locomotive policy and the extent to which it influenced Beeching in that.  A fleet of diesels powerful enough to reliably replace 8P steam and improve timings without being thrashed beyond endurance might have influenced traffic sufficiently to confirm the value of loss making branch feeder services to Beeching, and even reduced the number of motorways built. 

 

 

[kevinlms]

11 hours ago, John-Miles said:

 

 

The LMS tested a compound, a Claughton and an L&Y 4-6-0 on the S&C in IIRC 1924. Whether the dynamometer car was working or not, the coal consumed and work done could be accurately measured. The compound was easily the winner despite being the smallest loco so they couldn't have been that inefficient. Cox is an unreliable source. There are rumours he falsified results from the Rugby testing station to suit his own opinions and he is notoriously pro-L&Y - for obvious reasons.

 

The fact that the compounds were expensive on maintenance was well known to the Midland long before the LMS came along. It was not due to how hard they were worked but to their greater complexity.

As I stated earlier, the Midland Compounds could not reliably keep time on the Birmingham 2 hour expresses. Something a George the Fifth could do relatively consistently, albeit at higher coal cost.

 

Efficiency as in less coal and water, isn't the only criteria. The service needs to be on time! Perhaps an element of the LNWR not using the Compounds correctly, but surely that is a training issue, as loco crews would expect to drive a new loco in a similar manner, unless told otherwise.

 

Don't know about 'falsified records', surely the day to day running of steam, had far more variation than any sort of controlled test?

[DCB]

The 1924 trials were Preston - Carlisle and were LNWR  Prince of Wales and Claughton against L&Y 4-6-0 and Midland Compound.   The Prince and Compound ran 300 ton trains.all four ran 350 ton trains and the Claughton and L&Y ran the 400 ton trains.  Lowest coal consumption on the 350 was the Claughton, but the Compound beat it on coal per DBHP hour principally by having run up the Banks harder.  The Compound was not tried on the 400 ton.   They ran trials on the S&C which involved a Pickersgill 3p 4-4-0 and Compounds.   Specially selected ones...

[John-Miles]

11 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The 1924 trials were Preston - Carlisle and were LNWR  Prince of Wales and Claughton against L&Y 4-6-0 and Midland Compound.   The Prince and Compound ran 300 ton trains.all four ran 350 ton trains and the Claughton and L&Y ran the 400 ton trains.  Lowest coal consumption on the 350 was the Claughton, but the Compound beat it on coal per DBHP hour principally by having run up the Banks harder.  The Compound was not tried on the 400 ton.   They ran trials on the S&C which involved a Pickersgill 3p 4-4-0 and Compounds.   Specially selected ones...

I have so far looked in just one book, this is "The Midland Railway North of Leeds" by Peter Baughan. I think more complete results are in Nock's book on the Compounds. I don't have a copy of this although I have read it.

 

He says that following the trials between Preston and Carlisle, in the Autumn of 1924 there were comparative trials on the S&C were held between a Claughton, Compound and a Caledonian 4-4-0. There were further tests in 1925. The results vary from engine to engine but the Compounds did well and are not the duds that has been implied. The results with the Birmingham 2 hour trains are interesting. It has been said in many sources that the struggled to keep time. It is not clear if this is due to ex-LNWR driving techniques. The compounds did well on the Midland on much harder routes (steeper gradients) and at good speeds.