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

[t-b-g]

The Midland was a small railway with its own peculiar points of view. For instance, it built single wheelers because of the introduction of steam-sanding. These engines suited the Midlands small engine policy when other railways had moved on from single wheelers to 4-4-0's. The Midland rebuilt and developed the 4-4-0 into the Compound when other railways were building 4-6-0's. We know why this was done.. ...Bigger and longer engines owuld have entailed much expenditure on infrastructure like longer turntables. The top men in the company only knew thinking small so when politics or whatever put them in charge of the huge LMS, they treated the huge conglomerate as a Greater Midland outfit. Therefore it is easy to see why the small engine policy and Midland ideas continued right through the 1920s and into the early 1930s until Stanier put put in charge to sort out the LMS's huge problems.

 

As an enthusiast I put midland carriages and Fowler engines above all else. As a rational thinking man, I question the rationality of building Class 4P Compounds, whose superheated design dated from 1914, for use on West Coast expresses as well as across the system at a time when the GWR and SR were building large 4-6-0s and the LNER Pacifics. I question why axlebox bearing that were okay on a 4F so long as it stuck to aroung 35mph were specified on Class 10F Beyer-Garratts and 7F 0-8-0s. I question why long lap long travel valves etc were only put on a very few classes and yet reversion was made to old fashioned valvegear on the Class 3 2-6-2T's built in 1930! The latter also had a 2F boiler to provide 3P power!! These engines were not only lilly-livered but were expensive on springs for some reason. Stanier does not come out of this shining seeing as he merely stipulated an upgrade with taper boiler.

 

But modernisation went beyond motive power. Carriages with flush sides, welded underframes, modernisation of loco depots, cutting coal consumption, standardisation of components and so-on also came in during the 1930s.

 

 

So in my opinion, the Midland's small engine policy ended when Fowler, Anderson and the rest were put out to pasture and William Stanier brought in to form a new team, sort out the in-politics and equip the LMS with modern motive power suited to the types of trains the company had the potential to operate.

 

After our earlier differences I was happy to see such a well presented precis of the LMS loco situation.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

On most railways, designers had their good points and their bad and they also sometimes had to deal with poor administrators making the main policies.

 

Although my main enthusiasm is for the GCR, I also have a bit of an interest in LMS matters and I am currently helping a friend build a full set of blue LMS Streamlines to go behind a Streamlined pacific. The "small engine" policy was certainly dead and buried by then.

 

So, to ask a new question, was the end of the small engine policy a gradual process, on the way out with the Patriots and 7F 0-8-0s being a sort of intermediate phase, or did it end with a bang when Stanier took charge? Did Fowler plan to build pacifics (as Robinson thought about on the GCR)? I don't have so many LMS books and I wonder if proposals for such things were ever made?

[coachmann]

t-b-g said :-

So, to ask a new question, was the end of the small engine policy a gradual process, on the way out with the Patriots and 7F 0-8-0s being a sort of intermediate phase, or did it end with a bang when Stanier took charge? Did Fowler plan to build pacifics (as Robinson thought about on the GCR)? I don't have so many LMS books and I wonder if proposals for such things were ever made?

 

 

 

Fowler had proposed a 4-6-0 development of Deeley's Compound in 1924. Then in 1926 he proposed a Compound Pacific design. Instead the operating department persuaded the GWR to lend them a new 'Castle' 4-6-0 to show the directors and management exactly what kind of engine they really required!

 

The 7F heavy freight loco and Patriot 5XP were amongst the final flowering of Fowler-ism. The 7F was intended as a new modern standard heavy freight loco with Walschaerts valvegear, long lap long travel valves and multi ring picton heads. It should have been a sure fire winner but the combination of high piston thrust and high axle loadings delivered by the modern 'engine' portion simply overwhelmed the grossly inadequate '4F' axleboxes. As a result these strong engines became badly run down very quickly after passing through works for overhaul and 70% of the class had gone for scrap by 1951. The LMS saw this very quickly and started to modernise the LNWR Super D 0-8-0!

 

The Patriot came about as a result of the LMS's 1920s troubles. The company could offer a range of services which, while not requiring the biggest engines, outfaced the mostly new 4P Compound 4-4-0's. In terms of new locomotives there was virtually nothing between Class 4 and the Class 6P 'Royal Scots' and yet this mid range traffic needed far more locomotives than the heavy end of the operating spectrum. There were over a hundred LNW 'Claughtons', most of which were quite new, so following experiments with Caprotti valvegear and a new larger boiler, twenty of these engines were rebuilt to become power Class 5XP. The 'Claughton' chassis was still a weak point however and so the next logical step was to marry the large boiler with a 'Royal Scot' type chassis. The success of the first two engines rebuilt using Claughton parts led to the building of a brandnew class of loco dubbed 'Baby Scots' by enginemen. They had the typical Derby type built up smokebox that gave some trouble though not as much as on the larger 'Scots'. Their styling was essentially Midland inspired (with a Crewe design boiler) and some would say were what the Midland Railway 4-6-0 would have looked like had such a type ever been built.

 

Enter Stanier, some teething troubles and the beginning of a new era.

Edited January 26, 2013 by coachmann

[jamie92208]

 

Enter Stanier, some teething troubles and the beginning of a new era.

Yet as far as I am aware Stanier turned to Coleman the head draughtsman at Derby to solve his boiler problems and thus was born the incomperable Duchess of which the magnificent boiler was the heart.

 

Jamie

[bluebottle]

The Coach's two preceding posts, as we'd expect, give us a lot of information in a compact style. As Tony Gee asked particularly about Fowler's compound pacific, perhaps I could add a little on that?

It's one of the engines covered in Robin Barnes's “Locomotives That Never Were”, with Barnes's painting showing a machine combining elements of Derby and Horwich styles. This would have had two low pressure cylinders between the frames and two high pressure outside. Parts of a prototype were assembled, including cylinder castings, before the order was given to stop work in favour of what would become the “Royal Scot” class. Fowler's engine could have been ready for trials by the beginning of 1927.

Barnes acknowledges E.S. Cox as his primary source of information for the above.

 

Gordon

Edited January 26, 2013 by bluebottle

[DerekEm8]

Larry,

 

You forgot the ONE sucessfull design of the early LMS period, the Hughes Crab 2-6-0 designed at Horwich but spoiled by the standard Fowler Midland tender. I often wonder if Hughes really did resign voluntarily or was forced out by the in house battling.

 

It is also interesting to note the following proposals during Hughes' time in office

(References Lancshire & Yorkshire Locomotives -Barry Lane)

 

Horwich had in 1923 proposed for the LMS a 2-6-6-2 Garratt almost identical in appearance to the later Garratts and an 0-6-6-0 Mallet freight loco.

 

In 1924 Horwich proposed a Passenger 4 cylinder 4-6-2 and an alternative freight 2-8-2 both looking very similar in outine

The drawings were both later reworked to 3 cylinder machines, both were proposed with 8 wheel tenders.

 

The pacific and 2-8-2 had more than a passing resemblance to the later Stanier 'Princess Royals' (IMHO)

The above Hughes (Horwich) proposals were presumably proposed without the Midland shortcomings of subsequent designs

Edited January 26, 2013 by DerekEm8

[Guest Belgian]

Here's  one possible scenario:

 

On the evening of 31st December 1922 the Midland Railway had no problems with their locomotive fleet. It did everything required of it. At that hour the LNWR/L&Y combine did have problems with its locomotive fleet. Their latest express passenger engines on the West Coast Main Line (the Claughtons) weren't up to expectations, whilst they had just perfected the large 4-6-0 'Dreadnoughts', originating from 1908, for their cross-country lines in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

 

These three railways had been rivals for passenger traffic to the industrial heart of the Midlands and North West England since early Victorian times and had built their railways to cater for that traffic. However, the LNWR was there first and served the greatest industrial cities to the west of the Pennines, as well as having considerable commuter traffic and lines in the London area. It had built its traffic up on the basis of separate trains serving these cities, all running on the same main line, on which there wasn't room for large numbers of trains, so it had a few heavy ones. The Midland, a bit of a 'johnny-come-lately' with regard to the London traffic (its initial main line ran across the LNWR at Birmingham to serve Bristol and its London trains ran on LNWR metals south from Rugby until it opened its London Extension in 1870) had to create a 'usp' for its express services. Since it didn't have to serve different cities with different trains it could afford to run more trains, but lighter ones, and developed some of the finest rolling stock of the Victorian Age to carry the passengers. Similarly, it was able to run freight train after freight train down its London Extension without interfering with the passenger trains since it had little London commuter traffic and the line was of comparatively recent construction and design rather than built up piecemeal as had been the LNWR line. The L&Y just competed with both the Midland and the LNWR in the counties whose name it bore but had reached a working agreement with the LNWR which led to their amalgamation a year earlier.

 

The Midland was an advocate of standardisation of locomotive parts, standard boilers were used on passenger and goods locomotives interchangeably. The LNWR had had some standardisation but the Hughes 'Dreadnoughts' were the first of a kind and, of course, completely different to the LNWR locomotives.

 

On the morning of 1st January 1923 the London Midland and Scottish Railway had a problem. Their principal main line, running from London Euston to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston and Glasgow was being worked by the Claughton 4-6-0s, not a terribly satisfactory design. The Chief Mechanical Engineer of this new conglomerate was George Hughes, formerly CME of the L&Y and he put in train further large orders for the 'Dreadnoughts', primarily to be used on LNWR lines.

 

Thus the new LMS started by building some successful, if expensive to operate (since their fuel consumption was high), large 4-6-0s, but George Hughes resigned in 1925.

 

Next in seniority was Henry Fowler, late of the Midland, who had been allowed to continue an independent policy regarding locomotive development for the peculiar requirements of that line. He saw that the LNWR lines had a few non-standard express locomotives and was steeped in the Midland tradition of standardisation. He retained his offices at Derby, the Midland's locomotive works and, somewhat unsurprisingly, kept on his design staff there, all of whom were also steeped in Midland tradition. They could see that their old rivals on the LNWR and L&Y were in trouble on the locomotive front and believed that their perfectly satisfactory motive power policy could be transferred there so that the LMS would have standard locomotive types across its system and the problems would go away. They were wrong. The requirements on the ex-LNWR lines were for big engines for the heavy trains and not for small Midland ones, which were still perfect for Midland conditions, and could have been continually developed for those conditions if that had been all they were required to do.

 

However, at the top of the LMS management were Directors drawn mainly from the LNWR and they also tried to standardise working on the LMS. Their way changed Midland operating conditions so the old Midland engineering team was designing for a railway that was changing beneath their wheels. Standardisation was their strength, but taken to absurd levels it resulted in the Austin 7s and the Beyer-Garretts and even the 4Fs suffering from inadequate bearings. But at least they were standard bearings!

 

I really can't believe that the problems were the result of petty-minded rivalry between the various officers of the constituent companies as is always trotted out in enthusiast books (well, maybe there was some of it) but these engineers were senior employees and would hardly have got into such positions if they were so small minded. (I also can't really believe the hoary old tales of Edward Thompson rebuilding Gresley designed locomotives out of a sense of injustice).

 

And that is why the LMS had a motive power crisis which was only sorted by the appointment of another disciple of standardisation, except the principles of that standardisation had been born on the Great Western Railway, which had also been in the 'big engine' camp from the turn of the century.

 

Anyway, that's my take on it!

 

JE

[Clive Mortimore]

I have had another thought about this topic. What would have happened had the MR board listened to Deeley instead of frustrating him so much he went off and carried on with his interests in lubrication and meteorology? Did he not propose a 4-6-0 compound long before Henry Fowler?

[PhilJ W]

What effect was there of another Midland rival on the policy? That rival being the GCR which was in a similar position without any really big industrial heartland to serve and a similar situation with regard to commuter traffic. The fact that the GCR was now in the rival LNER camp must have had some influence.

[t-b-g]

Having worked for over 20 years at a place of work that went through several mergers, I have seen how infighting between former "opposition" people could be a bit more than petty squabbling. Former fierce competitors being asked to form an immediate and effective team and each company having a full admin set up at Head Office but the combined company only having room for one HR manager, one Product Development manager, one IT manager etc. At lower level, branch closures and the constant worry of "Will our office or their office go?"

 

The back stabbing and political wargames were always an experience for anybody who enjoys a bit of office drama and "people watching". Many very senior people ended up out of a job, so you can understand why they fought tooth and nail.

 

Imagine if a merger was imposed between Liverpool and Everton, or between Man. Utd and Man. City (or heaven forbid Sheffields United and Wednesday!). "Some players and staff have to go and one manager and ground to remain but we want you to all be professional and not squabble over who goes and who stays." Sparks would fly!

 

There were only so many people who would be willing to stand aside and say "Go on, my good man, you take the job", as Robinson did.

 

The GWR benefitted from a pretty much "no change" in 1923 but it certainly took the LMS a long time to sort itself out. The LNER seemed to do reasonably well, perhaps by allowing the Scottish, Great Eastern and North Eastern Areas some autonomy and the way Robinson and Gresley sorted out the main job was fairly harmonious. I know nowt about the Southern but the way people talk, it seems that not much happened until Bullied. He is the only one mentioned so far!

[t-b-g]

What effect was there of another Midland rival on the policy? That rival being the GCR which was in a similar position without any really big industrial heartland to serve and a similar situation with regard to commuter traffic. The fact that the GCR was now in the rival LNER camp must have had some influence.

 

What about Manchester, Sheffield, Immingham and Grimsby Docks, Liverpool via the CLC plus the Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire coalfields? Some folk think of the GCR as that little branch down to London but it went right through the industrial heartland and shifted many millions of tons of coal and steel.

 

The main GCR suburban services were around Manchester and they were extensive. Dozens of 2-4-2 and 4-4-2 tanks on very busy routes.

Edited January 27, 2013 by t-b-g

[bluebottle]

... The GWR benefitted from a pretty much "no change" in 1923 but it certainly took the LMS a long time to sort itself out ...

 

Indeed. In his “Locomotive Engineers of the LMS”, Denis Griffiths says:

“Although the LMS had become less Midland-dominated, there were still some who hankered for the old days. Stanier had no experience in dealing with such people, the Great Western having been very much a settled society. His lack of political acumen was noticed by Riddles and the latter tried to help his chief to deal with the intrigues which still afflicted the railway. Riddles had, after all, been weaned on infighting and admits that he developed something of a suspicious mind.”

 

Gordon

 

(Edit for typo)

Edited January 27, 2013 by bluebottle

[Dick Turpin]

Given that World War 2 was going on was anyone (apart from enthusiasts) really worried about one piece of machinery being rebuilt instead of another?

 

A bit like when the outbreak of hostilities ended the plan to preserve NBR Atlantic 9875 Midlothian for example. It so nearly made it too, being put back into traffic after withdrawal in preparation. Such a shame.

[coachmann]

Indeed. In his “Locomotive Engineers of the LMS”, Denis Griffiths says:

“Although the LMS had become less Midland-dominated, there were still some who hankered for the old days. Stanier had no experience in dealing with such people, the Great Western having been very much a settled society. His lack of political acumen was noticed by Riddles and the latter tried to help his chief to deal with the intrigues which still afflicted the railway. Riddles had, after all, been weaned on infighting and admits that he developed something of a suspicious mind.”

 

Gordon

 

(Edit for typo)

 

 

Privatisation of the Railways effectively killed traditions going back to the very birth of railways. Prior to that people had very long memories. When certain individuals 'broke' the picket lines during the General Strike in the early 1920s and assisted in driving trains and what not for the LNWR, one would think these events would be forgotten during LMS days, but no! The people who climbed the ladder of success were effectively protected so long as the company continued to exist, but Nationalisation of the Big Four railway companies in 1948 enabled smouldering resentments to be settled. The long knives came to haunt certain individuals in the 1950s thirty years after the General Strike.

Edited January 27, 2013 by coachmann

[Poor Old Bruce]

A very erudite contribution from 'Belgian' but you forgot that the Midland ran from Leicester via Bedford and Hitchin to run over the Great Northern into Kings Cross before the opening of the London Extension from Bedford to St. Pancras.

[bluebottle]

Privatisation of the Railways effectively killed traditions going back to the very birth of railways. Prior to that people had very long memories. When certain individuals 'broke' the picket lines during the General Strike in the early 1920s and assisted in driving trains and what not for the LNWR, one would think these events would be forgotten during LMS days, but no! The people who climbed the ladder of success were effectively protected so long as the company continued to exist, but Nationalisation of the Big Four railway companies in 1948 enabled smouldering resentments to be settled. The long knives came to haunt certain individuals in the 1950s thirty years after the General Strike.

 

One certain individual in particular, Coach? As the son of a Scottish/Yorkshire coal miner, the Mods might prefer me to stay clear of such matters ...

 

Gordon

 

(Edit for clarification)

Edited January 27, 2013 by bluebottle

[Guest Belgian]

A very erudite contribution from 'Belgian' but you forgot that the Midland ran from Leicester via Bedford and Hitchin to run over the Great Northern into Kings Cross before the opening of the London Extension from Bedford to St. Pancras.

 

Thank you Poor Old Bruce, I had seen that when researching but forgot to include it!

 

JE

[kevinlms]

Indeed. In his “Locomotive Engineers of the LMS”, Denis Griffiths says:

“Although the LMS had become less Midland-dominated, there were still some who hankered for the old days. Stanier had no experience in dealing with such people, the Great Western having been very much a settled society. His lack of political acumen was noticed by Riddles and the latter tried to help his chief to deal with the intrigues which still afflicted the railway. Riddles had, after all, been weaned on infighting and admits that he developed something of a suspicious mind.”

 

Gordon

 

(Edit for typo)

Nothing wrong with a suspicious mind when dealing with senior management!

 

In the case of Stanier, it wouldn't have been too hard to persuade him to leave the GWR as he was only a few years younger than Collett, who didn't retire for another 9 years after Stanier left. Sometimes a bit of rivalry can be a good thing.

[kevinlms]

Yet as far as I am aware Stanier turned to Coleman the head draughtsman at Derby to solve his boiler problems and thus was born the incomperable Duchess of which the magnificent boiler was the heart.

 

Jamie

But there is a problem with that statement. Coleman may well have been at Derby at that time, but at grouping, he was Chief Draftsman for the NSR, where he'd actually been working at various posts since 1905! It wasn't until 1935 he transferred to Derby & was responsible for fixing various issues for Stanier. So Tom Coleman, wasn't a Midland man at all!

 

http://www.steamindex.com/people/coleman.htm

 

First few sections.

[Michael Edge]

 

Larry,

 

You forgot the ONE sucessfull design of the early LMS period, the Hughes Crab 2-6-0 designed at Horwich but spoiled by the standard Fowler Midland tender. I often wonder if Hughes really did resign voluntarily or was forced out by the in house battling.

 

It is also interesting to note the following proposals during Hughes' time in office

(References Lancshire & Yorkshire Locomotives -Barry Lane)

 

Horwich had in 1923 proposed for the LMS a 2-6-6-2 Garratt almost identical in appearance to the later Garratts and an 0-6-6-0 Mallet freight loco.

 

In 1924 Horwich proposed a Passenger 4 cylinder 4-6-2 and an alternative freight 2-8-2 both looking very similar in outine

The drawings were both later reworked to 3 cylinder machines, both were proposed with 8 wheel tenders.

 

The pacific and 2-8-2 had more than a passing resemblance to the later Stanier 'Princess Royals' (IMHO)

The above Hughes (Horwich) proposals were presumably proposed without the Midland shortcomings of subsequent designs

This is what the Horwich 0-6-6-0 might have looked like (the tender isn't the one shown in the drawing but I had a spare one of these from a Princess). It usually creates some interest and a lot of questions when it appears at Brunswick - and problems for the shed operator who has the job of turning it on the 60ft turntable (the wheelbase does just fit)

 

[kevinlms]

This is what the Horwich 0-6-6-0 might have looked like (the tender isn't the one shown in the drawing but I had a spare one of these from a Princess). It usually creates some interest and a lot of questions when it appears at Brunswick - and problems for the shed operator who has the job of turning it on the 60ft turntable (the wheelbase does just fit)

 

49801.JPG

Good for knocking the platform edging into shape?

[Barry O]

Good for scraping the wall at Brunswick!

[Michael Edge]

Good for knocking the platform edging into shape?

What platforms? Actually the throwover is a lot less than other locos, don't forget it's articulated - the boiler goes a long way off centre on a 28" radius curve though and I didn't make any attempt at fitting steam pipes to the leading cylinders.

[coachmann]

 

DerekEm8, on 26 Jan 2013 - 21:47, said:

 

Larry,

 

You forgot the ONE sucessfull design of the early LMS period, the Hughes Crab 2-6-0 designed at Horwich but spoiled by the standard Fowler Midland tender. I often wonder if Hughes really did resign voluntarily or was forced out by the in house battling.

 

 

Hi Derek, I didnt forget the Hughes 'Crab'. But with 5' 6" drivers it just didn't fit into the second-eleven fast passenger category that I referred to like the 6' 9" Compound and Patriot.

 

 

Mike,

With time on your hands building this magnificent 0-6-6-0 machine, I think I'll order a Fowler 2-6-2T... ha ha.

Edited January 29, 2013 by coachmann

[scots region]

Micheal theres a PM for you.

[coachmann]

Although admittedly slightly off-topic, it is often inferred in writings that steam loco enginemen were a funny lot when it came to driving other companies engines. I can empathise with an enginemans lot. The backhead of a loco is the machine that the driver and fireman work with, so if all locos are from one company then much of the backhead detail works in the same way. The men at the shed where I worked used to moan about Midland backhead fittings, as they did not take to the exhaust injector and found it temperamental. That could make a shift a bit of a pain if one had a 4F or whatever.

 

Reversors came in various forms, some screw with variying pitches, some lever and some steam. Firehole doors differed with pull-back rachet type, swinging type, chain pull type and two-door type etc. Then their height from the floor differed with some back breakers that made it difficult to propell coal the length of the firebox. The amusing locos were undoubtely the ex LNW Super D's where everything was inside out so-to-speak. You didnt throw coal all over the box in fact firing was minimal.....You kept water in the bottom of the gauge glass because the locos easily primed. Once water was in the steam pipes you had a hydraulic loco that was hard to stop! Brakes were't too hot either.

 

The actual firing differed according to design so if a loco was fired as one had always fired, it wouldnt steam. Drivers too had their 'lot' when some locos demanded wide-open regulator and partial cut off whereas other locos demanded driving on the regulator. The regulator handles stuck up, or were down or pull towards one or push away or were just downright stiff. Blower valves were all over the shop as were injector water valves. On a Super D one had to listen for the injector picking up whereas it was usual on many locos to stick ones head over the side to watch the overflow to ses if it picked-up or knocked-off. To cap it all then, reasons could be many and varied as to why 'Midlandisation' of the whole LMS system did not work everywhere, afterall, one works to live, not lives to work.

 

Food for thought.

Edited January 29, 2013 by coachmann