Ex ROD 2-8-0's

[johnofwessex]

After WW1 as far as I can see a number of Railway Companies bought ex ROD 2-8-0's 

 

Clearly they just merged into the 04 fleet on the Great Central/LNER but the only other Company to keep them for any length of time was the GWR 

 

So why could the GWR use them despite having its own 28XX class when other companies did not?

[Stoke West]

7 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

After WW1 as far as I can see a number of Railway Companies bought ex ROD 2-8-0's 

 

Clearly they just merged into the 04 fleet on the Great Central/LNER but the only other Company to keep them for any length of time was the GWR 

 

So why could the GWR use them despite having its own 28XX class when other companies did not?

Because they already had 2-8-0's so knew their worth . Logically they would have been suitable on the  Midland 

[Dave John]

Quite a few were leased rather than purchased by other railway companies, such as the Caledonian. 

 

An interesting read;

 

https://www.crassoc.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=62&p=403&hilit=robinson#p403

 

Given that the grouping was only a couple of years away ( and clearly going to happen) I suspect that accountancy played a part and that purchase had financial implications which leasing didn't. 

 

 

 

[LMS2968]

7 hours ago, Stoke West said:

Because they already had 2-8-0's so knew their worth . Logically they would have been suitable on the  Midland 

'Suitable' comes in many forms. The Midland had severe weight restrictions over its infrastructure, especially bridges, and a heavy engine such as the R.O.D. would not have passed the Chief Civil Engineer's restrictions, however low the individual axle weights might be. The Midland already had its own design of 2-8-0 used on the S&DJR but wouldn't use that on its own lines; there was a list of parts needed to be removed whenever one had to make the journey to Derby Works. We're talking about a railway which referred to the 4F as the 'Big Goods'.

[papagolfjuliet]

8 hours ago, Dave John said:

Quite a few were leased rather than purchased by other railway companies, such as the Caledonian. 

 

Two of the three RODs preserved in Australia were loaned to British companies prior to export: 1984 (pictured as such in Dave John's link) to the LYR and then the LNWR and 2003 to the GCR. The third Aussie survivor is either 1615 or 2004; if the latter then it was a Caledonian engine for a brief period.

Edited November 22, 2023 by papagolfjuliet

[LMS2968]

Ted Talbot in 'The LNWR Eight-Coupled Goods Engines'  Edward Talbot (2002) Published by the author ISBN 0-9542787-0-4 has a bit to say on those engines taken into LNWR service, sometimes purchased but sometimes loaned and returned later. He suggests they were more popular with enginemen than is commonly suggested; despite the left hand drive and however comfortable or otherwise their footplates might have been, they would be palaces in comparison to a Super D! They had steel fireboxes, cheap to build but needing high maintenance and repair work in a time without adequate water treatment. Many did or soon would need inner firebox replacement, and then it was a case of do you replace a steel firebox with another expensive steel firebox or with a much more expensive copper one? The railways probably ran them until repairs were needed and then either withdrew or returned them. Being non-standard to the owning / borrowing railway hardly helped.

 

In 1927, the LMS purchased 75 still unsold engines. Of these, twenty were put into traffic, but the remainder had been bought for their tenders alone, of which there was then a shortage. Repairs to the tenders cost £400 each - less than the LMS paid for the engine and tender together! The rest were dismantled to provide spares, including boilers, for the twenty purchased and the thirty already on the books but it was unlikely that this happened due to early withdrawal.

 

Incidentally, they were known as 'Military Marys' on the LNWR from their more official designation of MM for Ministry of Munitions.

[2251]

10 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

After WW1 as far as I can see a number of Railway Companies bought ex ROD 2-8-0's 

 

Clearly they just merged into the 04 fleet on the Great Central/LNER but the only other Company to keep them for any length of time was the GWR 

 

So why could the GWR use them despite having its own 28XX class when other companies did not?

 

The GWR bought ROD 2-8-0s in two batches: 20 practically new in 1919 (renumbered 3000–19) and a further 80 in 1925. 

 

The reason the GWR bought them was simple: money. In the case of the 1925 batch, they were offered for sale at £1,500 each at a time when a 28XX cost about £7,000.

Whether the second batch was is a good buy is a different question. They turned out to be in generally poor condition and were taken into the works for investigation. Thirty were good enough to be worth overhauling properly (with copper fireboxes and various "Swindonisations") but the remaining 50 were given minimal attention and used until worn out (the last went in 1931). 

 

It was the original 20 (subsequently "Swindonised") plus the immediately-overhauled 30 of the 1925 batch that lasted: there were still 46 on the books at Nationalisation.

[Wickham Green too]

Various other railways ( GER, NER, SECR, LSWR, HR not yet mentioned ) took a few locos to tide them over while their own fleet were being overhauled after the ravages of war .... they were, of course, non standard, often larger than available turntables or - in the case of the Highland - rejected by the Civil Engineers !

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Ted Talbot in 'The LNWR Eight-Coupled Goods Engines'  Edward Talbot (2002) Published by the author ISBN 0-9542787-0-4 has a bit to say on those engines taken into LNWR service, sometimes purchased but sometimes loaned and returned later. He suggests they were more popular with enginemen than is commonly suggested; despite the left hand drive and however comfortable or otherwise their footplates might have been, they would be palaces in comparison to a Super D! They had steel fireboxes, cheap to build but needing high maintenance and repair work in a time without adequate water treatment. Many did or soon would need inner firebox replacement, and then it was a case of do you replace a steel firebox with another expensive steel firebox or with a much more expensive copper one? The railways probably ran them until repairs were needed and then either withdrew or returned them. Being non-standard to the owning / borrowing railway hardly helped.

 

In 1927, the LMS purchased 75 still unsold engines. Of these, twenty were put into traffic, but the remainder had been bought for their tenders alone, of which there was then a shortage. Repairs to the tenders cost £400 each - less than the LMS paid for the engine and tender together! The rest were dismantled to provide spares, including boilers, for the twenty purchased and the thirty already on the books but it was unlikely that this happened due to early withdrawal.

 

Incidentally, they were known as 'Military Marys' on the LNWR from their more official designation of MM for Ministry of Munitions.

Quite a different state of affairs, for the LMS 8F post WWII, where many were brought back, repaired, put back into service and ran for years. Even the W.D. 2-8-0s and 2-10-0s had many examples returned to traffic.

[Stoke West]

9 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

'Suitable' comes in many forms. The Midland had severe weight restrictions over its infrastructure, especially bridges, and a heavy engine such as the R.O.D. would not have passed the Chief Civil Engineer's restrictions, however low the individual axle weights might be. The Midland already had its own design of 2-8-0 used on the S&DJR but wouldn't use that on its own lines; there was a list of parts needed to be removed whenever one had to make the journey to Derby Works. We're talking about a railway which referred to the 4F as the 'Big Goods'.

 I was thinking of trunk hauls such as Toton to Brent on which garretts later worked . The S&D 7F worked to and from Derby on there own later on as restrictions became less i think Stonehouse viaduct rebuild was the final one 

 

[LMS2968]

That was all after the Grouping and under the management of a different - and more lenient - CCE. It could not have happened in Midland Railway days.

 

Of course, there were several RODs on the LMS in the mid-1920s but I don't think they were used over the Midland Division. The trials for the basis for the new goods engine, which became the G3 a.k.a. Austin Seven, was between a Super D and an S&DJR 2-8-0; they did not involve an ROD, which must tell us something.

[pH]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

The trials for the basis for the new goods engine, which became the G3 a.k.a. Austin Seven, was between a Super D and an S&DJR 2-8-0; they did not involve an ROD, which must tell us something.

Not invented here?

[LMS2968]

Possibly, but you also need to bear in mind that the L&YR Coal Engines weren't tried either, although one of those would probably have scoured the roof of most Midland tunnels. 

 

The S&D 2-8-0, the G2 and the Austin Seven all weighed in about the 60 to 65 ton mark, the ROD was between 72 and 74 tons., which seems a more likely explanation.

[PortlandStone]

If you can lay your hands on a copy of the August 1957 issue of Trains Illustrated, you may be interested in the article by R.S.McNaught, The  Robinson "ROD" 2-8-0s, pp432-8. which deals with the post-WW1 disposal of the government RODs, not only to a variety of British railways, but also to more exotic destinations, such as Shanghai Hanking Ningpo Railway.

[pH]

2 hours ago, PortlandStone said:

If you can lay your hands on a copy of the August 1957 issue of Trains Illustrated, you may be interested in the article by R.S.McNaught, The  Robinson "ROD" 2-8-0s, pp432-8. which deals with the post-WW1 disposal of the government RODs, not only to a variety of British railways, but also to more exotic destinations, such as Shanghai Hanking Ningpo Railway.

There’s also an article in “Locospotters’ Annual” for 1964 on the “Robinson 2-8-0s of the GCR”. It’s mainly concerned with the dispersal of the ROD engines after 1918. It states “Almost every major system in the country, with the exception of the Midland and London Brighton & South Coast Railways, took some.”

[Steamport Southport]

All covered in vastly more detail in recent years. Don't forget they were still working in to the 1970s in Australia.

 

ISTR there was an entire issue of Locomotives Illustrated on them. Does cover the RODs in detail.

 

https://rail-books.co.uk/collections/magazines/products/locomotives-illustrated-issue-112-9770307180057

 

 

Jason