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

[Sheffield]

But the question was about the Midland, where as we seem to be discussing the effect on the LMS of Midland type policy. Before the Great War, when every thing changed, the Midland policy suited the Midland and its circumstances. Clearly the Midland policy did not suit the different circumstances of the LMS, nor would it have been suitable for a parallel universe where grouping did not happen. In terms of capital the Midland had about 160 million, compared with the LNWR at 120, and in 1913 the MR carried around 20% of the total goods carried by rail. Not a company sinking under the weight of poor policy making. It is rather like saying Jessops were wrong to successfully run for 70 years a network of film and camera shops because it went wrong in the last 5 years. 

There also seems to be an argument that because MR locos are thought to have design deficiencies the "small engine" policy was wrong in principle, which is nonsence. 

The fault of Midland policy was that it was appropriate and successful, but was continued after it ceased to be so.

Whether or not the MR locos were as bad as they are now considered to be is another point that is debatable. The LNWR were pretty dire, and if the LMS suffered by following MR loco designs, what would have happened if they had followed LNW standards and methods?

[The Stationmaster]

But the question was about the Midland, where as we seem to be discussing the effect on the LMS of Midland type policy. Before the Great War, when every thing changed, the Midland policy suited the Midland and its circumstances. Clearly the Midland policy did not suit the different circumstances of the LMS, nor would it have been suitable for a parallel universe where grouping did not happen. In terms of capital the Midland had about 160 million, compared with the LNWR at 120, and in 1913 the MR carried around 20% of the total goods carried by rail. Not a company sinking under the weight of poor policy making. It is rather like saying Jessops were wrong to successfully run for 70 years a network of film and camera shops because it went wrong in the last 5 years. 

There also seems to be an argument that because MR locos are thought to have design deficiencies the "small engine" policy was wrong in principle, which is nonsence. 

If the small engine policy was such an efficient way of running a railway why did just about every other major Railway in the country go for progressively larger designs, especially for freight, in the late Victorian/Edwardian period?  Did they perhaps realise that for relatively small additional costs they could get substantially increased trainloads thus making heavily loaded trains cheaper per ton mile?

 

I realise that we are to a large extent batting without figures but I would have thought the direct comparison I have drawn above between two Derby built locos would have been indicative of the fact that larger locos could reduce costs.  And having realised that it would only be a question of producing a decent design capable of exploiting that advantage reliably.

[billbedford]

If the small engine policy was such an efficient way of running a railway why did just about every other major Railway in the country go for progressively larger designs, especially for freight, in the late Victorian/Edwardian period?  Did they perhaps realise that for relatively small additional costs they could get substantially increased trainloads thus making heavily loaded trains cheaper per ton mile?

 

Because the Midland refused to be persuaded by the then fashionable, but inappropriate ideas that had come in from the US in the early years of the 20th century.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Whether or not the MR locos were as bad as they are now considered to be is another point that is debatable. The LNWR were pretty dire, and if the LMS suffered by following MR loco designs, what would have happened if they had followed LNW standards and methods?

 

You have championed the cause of the Midland and sought to justify the relevance of their small engine policy under their operating policy, so it would be proper for you to qualify your condemnation of the LNWR locos.

[coachmann]

You have championed the cause of the Midland and sought to justify the relevance of their small engine policy under their operating policy, so it would be proper for you to qualify your condemnation of the LNWR locos.

I agree. It's like trying to get a football supporter to recognise brilliance in other teams. It is well documented how the LNWR successfully operated its business with lightly built locos. It was the LNWR that provided a partial answer to LMS problems, and not the MR, in providing the basis for a good 5XP loco (Rebuilt Claughton), which in turn led to the Patriot's and Jubilee's. 

Edited February 15, 2013 by coachmann

[62613]

If the small engine policy was such an efficient way of running a railway why did just about every other major Railway in the country go for progressively larger designs, especially for freight, in the late Victorian/Edwardian period?  Did they perhaps realise that for relatively small additional costs they could get substantially increased trainloads thus making heavily loaded trains cheaper per ton mile?

 

I realise that we are to a large extent batting without figures but I would have thought the direct comparison I have drawn above between two Derby built locos would have been indicative of the fact that larger locos could reduce costs.  And having realised that it would only be a question of producing a decent design capable of exploiting that advantage reliably.

 

And herein I think can be seen part of the problem of a blinkered management, bit like the SNCF approach in some respects!  A cost per loco mile is a very isolated figure bearing only a vague connection with train and traffic working.  Far more relevant to establish a cost per ton mile although that requires more inputs (and work) to assess.  For instance the GWR very carefully monitored freight train mileage and mileage against loadings (some other Railways did the same).    A cost per loco mile only becomes truly relevant when assessed against the work it achieved over those miles.  Fair enough if the 0-8-0s were moving the same size trains as the 4Fs, not so clever if they were moving larger loads.  For example using the quoted figures above on one stretch of the S&DJtR a 4F was allowed 35 wagons of mineral traffic and a 7F was allowed 45, so for an extra loco cost of 1.63d per mile the train load was c.28% greater but on pure loco costs alone the 4F was cheaper - a potentially very misleading comparison.

 I suppose another advantage of more powerful locos is that the longer trains that you could run would mean that you need less trains for the same loads (I'm talking goods here; after all, it's what gave the railways their profits at the time we are talking about). Ergo, you need fewer locos anyway, and track occupancy is reduced as well.

 

This is what went on during the grouping period, IMHO. Didn't the LNER start with around 7,900 locos and finish with 6,900, despite acquiring 1500 during its existence?

[The Stationmaster]

Because the Midland refused to be persuaded by the then fashionable, but inappropriate ideas that had come in from the US in the early years of the 20th century.

Do you think they were put off by the quality of their US built engines?  But they did last until c.1915

[coachmann]

Maybe Bill is referring to the ideas adopted by Churchward, which of course put the GWR light years ahead of every other British railway.

 

I don't think the American built injuns put the Midland off, afterall the company was firmly wedded to  'American' 4-4-0 wheel arrangement!

Edited February 15, 2013 by coachmann

[Old Gringo]

In post 203, Sheffield says, "But the question was about the Midland" - by revenue, the third largest of the pre-Grouping companies.

 

I'm intrigued where the capital figures quoted come from; "Midland £160 million, LNWR £120 million".

 

The figures quoted in The Railway Year Book for 1911 of the the top three companys' Capital and loans stock are, GWR £98 million, LNWR £124 m and Midland £193 m.

Their respective 'Expenditure to date' is given as; GWR £109 m, LNWR £119 m and Midland £121 m.

 

Also in post 203, "Perhaps not a company sinking under the weight of poor policy making"?  Perhaps not, (and I'm no economist) but I suspect woefully over-capitalised compared to track mileage and passenger statistics.  Let's look a little more closely at some more figures:

 

The more interesting figures are Capital expenditure for the year (1910); GWR £966,341, LNWR £352,428 and Midland £201,904 - against route mileages of GWR, 2,960 miles, LNWR 1,965 miles and Midland 1,527 miles.  Basically the Midland wasn't spending on infrastructure and renewals at the same rate as its closest competitors.  Maybe the costs of the small engine policy were already beginning to bite and to keep profits up, investment suffered.  The same old story effects most companies, until something snaps.

 

Total Receipts for the 'big three' were; GWR £14,132,808, LNWR £15,922,696 and Midland £12,653,141

and Net Receipts after expenditure; GWR £5,293,051, LNWR, 5,986,056 and Midland £4,936,476 - pretty much as you would expect.

The proportion % of total expenditure to total receipts for 1909 was GWR 63, LNWR 64 and Midland 64 (evens again and about the same for all the major lines)

 

However, Sheffield says, "the fault of the Midland policy was that it was appropriate and successful" - mmm? Perhaps in the economic conditions applying in 1900, but let's compare the total passengers carried by 1910; GWR 104 million, LNWR 84 million and Midland 46 million (10th in the passenger stakes of the main companies). So those small trains hauled by the highly polished red engines were lightly loaded too, so as Sheffield rightly says, "the policy was continued after it ceased to be so".

 

The other first rank pre-group railways (GWR, LNWR, NER) had all realised that they needed a big engine and one crew to move their heaviest mineral and freight trains and after the strikes of 1911 and 1919, it should have been obvious, even to the Midland's management that labour costs would continue to rise.  The practice of using two engines and two crews was indefensible and should have been pointed out to the shareholders.

 

The greater fault was that both the policy and the associated mindset was carried on after the Great War and allowed to be foisted upon the newly formed LMSR.

By then the principle of the eight hour day had been conceded and came into operation on February 1st. 1919.

 

As for the comparisons of Midland locomotives to their LNWR and GWR couterparts, I'll leave that to the loco. specialists.  Suffice to say that U.S. practice was ahead of that in the U.K. at the turn of the Century, until Churchward took the lead and introduced modern steam locomotive ideas over here.

 

The only company to successfully run the sort of trains that the Midland pioneered was the Southern Railway, where Herbert Walker (an ex-LNWR employee) set out the principles of a progressive forward-looking railway company operating an electrically-powered modern railway.  It's a pity that the other companies couldn't see the future so clearly. 

[billbedford]

However, Sheffield says, "the fault of the Midland policy was that it was appropriate and successful" - mmm? Perhaps in the economic conditions applying in 1900, but let's compare the total passengers carried by 1910; GWR 104 million, LNWR 84 million and Midland 46 million (10th in the passenger stakes of the main companies). So those small trains hauled by the highly polished red engines were lightly loaded too, so as Sheffield rightly says, "the policy was continued after it ceased to be so".

 

But the Midland had neither dense suburban services nor popular* seaside resorts on their network. I wonder how much these figures change after they took over the Tilbury in 1912.

 

 

* I don't think Morecambe will count here.

[billbedford]

Do you think they were put off by the quality of their US built engines?  But they did last until c.1915

No. The Midland bought into US coaches in the form of Pullmans in the 1870s, but found they could do just as well with carriages built to their own designs.

[Old Gringo]

The Tilbury's figures (for 1910) would boost the passenger journeys total by another 32 million (all but 310,000 were Third class). 

 

However, the LTSR would add only £255,321 to the Net receipts (i.e. profit) and another £5.1 million to the capital costs for 87 additional route miles.

[jamie92208]

The only company to successfully run the sort of trains that the Midland pioneered was the Southern Railway, where Herbert Walker (an ex-LNWR employee) set out the principles of a progressive forward-looking railway company operating an electrically-powered modern railway.  It's a pity that the other companies couldn't see the future so clearly. 

The Midland in 1907 was looking seriously at Main Line electrification and the Morecambe scheme was just a trial. They intended to use electric locos between Derby and Manchester for freight to increase loads and reduce operating expenses. They also ran trials on the Morecambe line of a 5 car EMU with 2 motors and 3 trailers to simulate using them on the Aire valley routes to Skipton and Ilkley as well as commuter service out of St Pancras. It was Deeley who chanpioned this and gave his young engineers their head. But WW1 intervened and put paid to the schemes as well as the second contract for the remainder of the West Riding Lines that would have been let in September 1914.

 

Jamie

[Old Gringo]

The Midland in 1907 was looking seriously at Main Line electrification and the Morecambe scheme was just a trial. They intended to use electric locos between Derby and Manchester for freight to increase loads and reduce operating expenses. They also ran trials on the Morecambe line of a 5 car EMU with 2 motors and 3 trailers to simulate using them on the Aire valley routes to Skipton and Ilkley as well as commuter service out of St Pancras. It was Deeley who chanpioned this and gave his young engineers their head. But WW1 intervened and put paid to the schemes as well as the second contract for the remainder of the West Riding Lines that would have been let in September 1914.

 

Jamie

Agreed Jamie, as did the LNWR and the L & Y around the same time (and later the NER), but post war, only the Southern actively carried through a programme of electrified services and not just over what can be termed suburban distances.

[billbedford]

Maybe Bill is referring to the ideas adopted by Churchward, which of course put the GWR light years ahead of every other British railway.

 

I don't think the American built injuns put the Midland off, afterall the company was firmly wedded to  'American' 4-4-0 wheel arrangement!

 

Any railway that relied on unfitted goods wagons was not light years ahead of anyone.

 

Most UK railways sent parties of officials on jollies to the US in the early years of the twentieth century. While they were impressed with the hardware, big locos and big wagons, and tried to emulate them in this country, none them seemed to understand that the patterns of goods in North America were totally different to those in the UK. For instance, domestic coal in the UK was delivered by a myriad of small independent merchants who bought it in 8 or 10 ton wagons and distributed around their local areas using horses and carts and later small lorries. In contrast most US cities had district heating systems from the 1880s. These allowed large hopper wagons to be used to bring the coal into a few depots around the city. 

[DerekEm8]

Any railway that relied on unfitted goods wagons was not light years ahead of anyone.

 

Most UK railways sent parties of officials on jollies to the US in the early years of the twentieth century. While they were impressed with the hardware, big locos and big wagons, and tried to emulate them in this country, none them seemed to understand that the patterns of goods in North America were totally different to those in the UK. For instance, domestic coal in the UK was delivered by a myriad of small independent merchants who bought it in 8 or 10 ton wagons and distributed around their local areas using horses and carts and later small lorries. In contrast most US cities had district heating systems from the 1880s. These allowed large hopper wagons to be used to bring the coal into a few depots around the city. 

Bill,

Whilst what you say  is true it would have taken monumental investment by all parties (collieries, railways, merchants etc) to change that, but what use would have been a 50 ton wagon to a small local coal merchant when they often stockpiled some of their 10 ton wagon load or even kept the wagon for weeks on end. Domestic heating in the UK was coal at that time bought and sold by the hundredweight sack from the local coal merchant  delivered to the door.

It only took about another 30-40 years to get away from the reliance on coal for domestic use. MGR and 100 tonners came much later for specific markets.

And also the Midland, Great Central etc were obviosly really impressed with the American locos they imported at the turn of the century.

[kevinlms]

No. The Midland bought into US coaches in the form of Pullmans in the 1870s, but found they could do just as well with carriages built to their own designs.

As indeed did the LMS in 1923 & found no need to use the services of the Pullman Car Co., but they allowed existing contracts to continue.

 

Interestingly, the coaching policies of both the Midland & LNWR by 1922 were very similar and in LMS days the coaching stock continued to evolve. Indeed this practice continued right up to privatisation, when many items of coaching stock were now imported from various sources. I've never travelled on any of these, but I get the impression that nothing since the Mk3 coach has proved to be as popular, with passengers.

 

I think its true to say that the coaching policy of the new LMS, was correct, totally unlike the locomotive policy.

[Ohmisterporter]

But the Midland had neither dense suburban services nor popular* seaside resorts on their network. I wonder how much these figures change after they took over the Tilbury in 1912.

 

 

* I don't think Morecambe will count here.

Disagree with this statement. Morecambe was indeed popular and busy, with both the Midland and LNWR having stations there. After 1904 the Midland also had the ferry port at Heysham with the ships and facilities to keep it busy. Quite an investment that they would not have made if they thought it unpopular. Don't make the mistake of thinking the relatively quiet Morecambe of today has always been so. 

[coachmann]

I think its true to say that the coaching policy of the new LMS, was correct, totally unlike the locomotive policy.

Correct. Reid of the Midland had addressed the whole business of more ecomnomic carriage building at Derby and smartly put his production line techniques into operation at Wolverton (ex-LNWR) and Newton Heath (ex-LYR) after the formation of the LMS. Unlike locomotive matter, the changes did not seem to encounter any real hostility. Livery and external appearance of new coaches looked to be a continuance of Midland policy but there was a lot of LNWR input into the new designs. The first Sleeping and Dining Car designs were in effect updated LNW designs. However by 1930 the LMS began to move away from the pre-group mould and by 1933 was adopting GWR construction ideas on flush sided coaches.

[kevinlms]

The Tilbury's figures (for 1910) would boost the passenger journeys total by another 32 million (all but 310,000 were Third class). 

 

However, the LTSR would add only £255,321 to the Net receipts (i.e. profit) and another £5.1 million to the capital costs for 87 additional route miles.

I wonder why the Midland seemed not to want to make the LT&SR like the parent system? Why no Compounds for the line, or at least consideration of a tank version!

 

Instead they continued running the LT&SR as effectively a self-contained system and built more locos based on the tradition of the 4-4-2T's.

[Sheffield]

Quote "It's like trying to get a football supporter to recognise brilliance in other teams" Indeed. One of the problems is that despite the large volume of information published in recent years, many enthusiasts see history in a rigid shortsighted way.
Quote "It would be proper for you to qualify your condemnation of the LNWR locos." Much has been published about the crudity of design, poor valve ring design, poor ashpan design, poor brake design, poor axle box design. EG In one year 246 Prince of Wales locos suffered 161 hot boxes. And who designed the arrangement for lubricating the trailing axle box of the Claughtons, which in the end was one of the features that did for them? Or read J M dunn's writings on LNW Coal Tanks. Also broken connecting rods on Joy valve gear fitted locos. But all pregrouping designs had their weakness.
At the time of grouping G Hughes instigated comparisons  of the inherited loco designs. Taking class 4 general purpose locos for example what was available to use in the wider LMS? From Scotland there was the HR Jones Goods, by then an elderly design, and a few 0-6-0s and 0-8-0s viewed favourable only by the coal industry. The L&Y had nothing suitable, and the LNW no 0-6-0s that were not of small elderly design. The 0-8-0 would have been even less acceptable than the MR 4F, and was suitable only for low speeds. There was the Whale 4-6-0 19in goods, but perhaps I may quote H C Burgess "4-40pm fish from Swansea to Crewe...rostered to be worked by a 19in Goods. Unfortunatley so voracious was the appetite of these engines, they rarely had enough coal to go beyond Shrewsbury... Or E Talbot "with the advent of Whales 'Mankillers' the drivers began to crib at having youngsters with them, as not many experienced firemena were capable of firing a 19 Goods....A run down 'Precursor ' could chew up coal faster than a normal man could shovel it in to the fire box. Or K Stokes recalls "firing a 19 in Goods from Grimesthorpe to Liverpool hauling 35 wagons of steam coal and having to tranfer a couple of tons from the leading wagon in to the tender to complete the journey"  W A tuplin records some coal consumptions figures of various locos in lbs  drawbar horsepower, listing 5.1 for the Price of Wales, and 4.1 for the MR Compound. Even E S Cox, no fan of the MR, admitted the MR designs were best of the bunch.

The LNW Claughton can perhaps be viewed a a tragic near miss. In many ways a capable design it was let down by poor detail design, and by the Civil Engineers. The LMS spent much time trying to resolve the problems, but in the end gave up and they were replaced. The original design had envisaged a larger boiler, and in LMS days this larger boiler was developed and fitted to some. It was this boiler that went on the Scot chassis to produce the Patriots.

The smaller boiler was fitted because of the Civil Engineer's restriction on axle weight. In a curious echo of the HR Rivers, no allowance seems to have been made for the lack of hammer blow in the Claughton design, resulting in a smaller boiler than may have been necessary.  In pregrouping days Civil Engineers gave no real details of why they would reject a loco design, and I do wonder to what extent the MR's restriction on loco axle load and spacing was actually justified. It does seem that the question of the effect of a loco on the track was not fully understood at the time.

Comment has been made that with larger locos the Midland could have run longer coal trains. Surely the restriction was with the wagons, as has been mentioned, and the MR ran as long a trains as it could with such wagons. It just chose to use two locos, and in Victorian times the extra labour cost was probably less than the cost of capitial to otherwise. The main MR passenger route was London into the East Midlands and Yorkshire. Its direct competitor on most of this route, the GCR, also used 4-4-0s hauling light trains.

[Buhar]

The Midland clearly had some peculiarities, superb (and heavy) carriages but until the Belpairs in 1902 and then the Compounds, nothing to pull them above a Class 2 rating.  There was also the obsession with variations in wheel size that went against standardisation too.  It seems they were parsimonious in their relationship with the Superheater Company, going the way of fitting to rebuilds where the royalties were cheaper.  Yet they also went through the H Boiler "rebuilds" (as much a rebuild as the Patriot was of a Claughton) of their little 4-4-0s most of which were rebuilt with saturated belpairs long before the H boiler was life-expired.  This clearly wasn't an exercise overseen by accountants, neither was the ornate livery constrained by costs.  Johnson and Deeley both had plans for bigger engines before the 3P Belpairs appeared, unfortunately we don't know what the objections were.

 

It seems to me the small engine policy was management driven, most writers seem to blame Anderson, and in those days deference to seniority made getting round the objections and beliefs of senior people very difficult, even with evidence to back you up.  I recall reading about the ready addition of pilot engines if the train became "overloaded", which indicates that the operations department were perhaps quite rigid in their thinking.  A light Class 2 was a useful engine size for much of the network, both Midland and LMS, but not to go above a Class 4 passenger was not going to be sustainable to manage traffic even if the Midland had stayed independent. 

Edited February 16, 2013 by Tren

[Poggy1165]

There is a (newish) book out with a title something like 'In Defence of the Midland 4Fs'. It should make interesting reading.

[coachmann]

There is a (newish) book out with a title something like 'In Defence of the Midland 4Fs'. It should make interesting reading.

By some folk in the LMS Society by any chance?

[Poggy1165]

By some folk in the LMS Society by any chance?

Not sure. Only seen it once - it looked like a 'small press' or self-published job. I was intrigued, but resisted the temptation.

 

(Edit) Found it!

 

Whether it's speaks with authority I cannot say - the author rings no bells with me, but then I rarely tread in Midland pastures.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Poggy1165