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

[PhilJ W]

In the switch to bigger locomotives, many pre-grouping railway companies fell flat on their face with a 4-6-0, the GCR being a big case in point. Gresley too never designed a decent 4-6-0, unless folk rate the 4P B17.

GWR?

[kevinlms]

As I understand the Midland's small engine policy was forced on the operators by the civil engineers department and their refusal to raise the axle loading, having under-specified the original works for cheapness (see the S&C ref in a previous post).  Brunel's flat arch bridge takes multiple times it's original loading for example as a contrast.

I was under the impression that the CME came up with new loco drawings & the civil engineers knocked them back, without nominating the details of the problem. Certainly it seems that way, reading of the list of Deeley & Fowler designs of 4-6-0 & 4-6-2 & Hughes 2-8-2 that failed. Wonder why they didn't get their heads together & worked out what changes actually needed to be made to have bigger & better locos.

 

Also the Midland used two key criteria to base the 'efficiency' of their locos, the coal consumption & the cost of repairs. With these two considerations, the best Midland design was the 2P version of the 4-4-0!

 

So logically, the Euston - Glasgow Central ought to have been an hourly service of 5 coach trains, with a 2P at the front. All nonsense of course, because the assumed costs were based on the fact that small locos lightly loaded obviously SEEMED to be cheaper to provide.

[Red Bull]

Similarly, in the USA the policy of simply adding more motive power units to accommodate heavier freight loadings follows the Midland's policy of small goods engines whereby an extra one is added when the train gets heavier. It certainly helped to keep people in work!

 

It may have kept people in work when the MR used multiple engines it but I doubt that many modern railways would adopt a multiple locomotive policy for heavy trains if each extra unit brought with it an extra two man crew.

 

If that were the case I think there would be some v-e-r-y big locos in use, making the Union Pacific Centennials look small.

[Guest Belgian]

It may have kept people in work when the MR used multiple engines it but I doubt that many modern railways would adopt a multiple locomotive policy for heavy trains if each extra unit brought with it an extra two man crew.

 

If that were the case I think there would be some v-e-r-y big locos in use, making the Union Pacific Centennials look small.

It was said tongue in cheek. But, as you say, when wage costs were comparatively low, as was the case right up until the last decade of the Midland's existence, it was perfectly relevant.

 

JE

Edited January 19, 2013 by Belgian

[Guest Belgian]

GWR?

Coachman did say many pre-grouping railways fell flat on their faces with 4-6-0s, so that doesn't mean he thought the GWR did. His point is quite true.

 

JE

[Dick Turpin]

I read somewhere that Gresley had plans for a larger 4-6-0 as a contingency against the new V2 not measuring up. I bet it was never more than a basic outline but would love to know more.

[Clive Mortimore]

Everyone seems to be concentrating on the locomotive design. But it was not locomotive design but operating cost and profit that decided the MR small loco policy. All the time they were making a profit better than their rivals then the way they ran there railway made sense.

 

Very true the LMS found the MR 2P to be the most cost effective locomotive class in its fleet. So may be the MR got two things right with its operating policy which used frequent light trains with smaller locomotives and made a profit combined with an economic design of locomotive.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[Earlswood Nob]

^{Good morning all...if a trifle nippy}

^{Gresley's 4-6-0 that never happened had a 6ft boiler tapering to 5'9. It had 6'8 driving wheels and looked like a K3 with a higher pitched boiler. It would have been a vast improvement on the B17. As it had 6'8 wheels it was probably intended for passenger traffic. This would make it less versatile than the V2s.}

^{Earlswood Nob}

[coachmann]

Everyone seems to be concentrating on the locomotive design. But it was not locomotive design but operating cost and profit that decided the MR small loco policy. All the time they were making a profit better than their rivals then the way they ran there railway made sense..

Can you provide your source as evidence that the Midland was making a better profit than its rivals?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see how two sets of footplate crews and their wages plus two locomotives instead of one and increased coal consumption can make for more efficient and therefore more profitable working.

[Poor Old Bruce]

If bridge loadings on the London Line was a problem how did they manage to test the S&D 2-8-0s on the Toton-London coal trains?

I understood that, like LNER the loop lengths were the major problem which were subsequently extended by the LMS to accommodate the Beyer Garratts with their longer trains.

I have also read that the civil engineer refused to countenance the S&DJR 2-8-0 on a 'regular' basis. I'm guesseing here but it could have been that the trail trains were subject to speed restrictions over some bridges.

 

Regading loop lengths, it has been said that the Midland had four tracks all the way from London to Leeds (not necessarliy side-by-side for the whole distance) so that may not have been a consideration.

  

In the switch to bigger locomotives, many pre-grouping railway companies fell flat on their face with a 4-6-0, the GCR being a big case in point. Gresley too never designed a decent 4-6-0, unless folk rate the 4P B17.

Some writers suggest that the problem with the GCR 4-6-0s was inadequate draughting for the fire, something which the GWR had sorted out. There never was a magic formula for steam loco design, even in BR days there was still a 'suck it and see' element.

[scots region]

I was under the impression that the CME came up with new loco drawings & the civil engineers knocked them back, without nominating the details of the problem. Certainly it seems that way, reading of the list of Deeley & Fowler designs of 4-6-0 & 4-6-2 & Hughes 2-8-2 that failed. Wonder why they didn't get their heads together & worked out what changes actually needed to be made to have bigger & better locos.

 

Also the Midland used two key criteria to base the 'efficiency' of their locos, the coal consumption & the cost of repairs. With these two considerations, the best Midland design was the 2P version of the 4-4-0!

 

So logically, the Euston - Glasgow Central ought to have been an hourly service of 5 coach trains, with a 2P at the front. All nonsense of course, because the assumed costs were based on the fact that small locos lightly loaded obviously SEEMED to be cheaper to provide.

 

According to E.S Cox, who worked in the Derby drawing offices from 1925-7 the Midland had, "Adopted the American plan of separating the Motive power department in part from that of the CME., and making it responsible to the Operating department" This suggest that the two departments were more likely to make motive decisions before consultation with the CME, which might in part explain the top heavy civil engineers faction.  

 

I read somewhere that Gresley had plans for a larger 4-6-0 as a contingency against the new V2 not measuring up. I bet it was never more than a basic outline but would love to know more.

 

Dick I would seek out "The Gresley influence" by Geoffrey Hughes.     

[coachmann]

Some writers suggest that the problem with the GCR 4-6-0s was inadequate draughting for the fire, something which the GWR had sorted out. There never was a magic formula for steam loco design, even in BR days there was still a 'suck it and see' element.

Robinson of the GCR simply didnt latch onto the idea of designing the boiler so that the ashpan was between the driving axles of 4-6-0 engines. His locos ended up with all sorts of compromises like going over the axle and shallow ashpans. This of course lead to poor drafting and steam-shy boilers. He was perfectly at home with 4-4-0's.

 

The GWR had shown the way in so many areas such as long lap long travel valves, deep ashpans, good streaming boilers, superheating, cylindrical smokeboxes and cylinder design, so it wasn't really a case of suck it and see....More a case of none so blind as won't see. The LSWR had sorted out its 4-6-0s as had the NER and both railways bequeathed excellent locos to their respective 'Big Four' companies and the SR developed the LSWR designs further. As good as the LNWR 'Princes' were at hauling 400 ton expresses, the LMS really had nothing to compare with the other 'Big Four; companies until the Royal Scot was designed North British Works in 1927 and only really started to catch up in the 1930s.

Edited January 19, 2013 by coachmann

[Sheffield]

Given the labour rates at the time using two small locos was cheaper and more reliable than the considerable capital cost of providing larger locos and the infrastructure necessary to run them. In the days when this policy of the Midland was established the railways were able to attract the managerial talent that today would go into banking. They were not supid. However, as we are now seeing on the High Street, a business and operating model that works and is profitable will not stay that way when external circumstances change. In the Midland's time the small engine policy made sense, but when, for instance, the weight per passenger of carriages increased circumstances changed..

A recent book by Adrain Tester, A Defence of the 4F, has provided some evidence that in the haulage of slow heavy coal trains the short travel valves of the 4F may not have been a disadvantage, compared to long travel valves, that Mr Cox and others would have us believe. And their frame breakage seems no worse than more modern designs. 

[Dick Turpin]

I would seek out "The Gresley influence" by Geoffrey Hughes.     

 

Cheers for that. I remember reading that one about 30 years ago, though it's not a title I still have. I recall references to the 4-6-0 from a few other authors too.

[PatB]

There is a wonderful quote in Geoffrey Freeman Allen's "Illustrated History of Railways in Britain", attributed to an anonymous LMS employee in the 1920s, which always makes me chuckle.  It sums up the motive power approaches of the main English constituents of the LMS and goes thus:

 

"At Derby the nice little engines were made pets of.  They were housed in nice clean sheds and were very lightly loaded.  At Horwich they had gone all scientific and talked in 'thous' although apparently some of their work was to the nearest half-inch.  At Crewe they didn't care so long as their engines could rattle and roar along with a good paying load, which they usually did."

[The Stationmaster]

Can you provide your source as evidence that the Midland was making a better profit than its rivals?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see how two sets of footplate crews and their wages plus two locomotives instead of one and increased coal consumption can make for more efficient and therefore more profitable working.

I think 'Scots Region' identified part of the problem in his post about the way things were organised with loco design separated organisationally from operation.  I'm absolutely sure that, even though wages were low in the overall scheme of things, the Midland policy was more expensive than that of there Railways using larger locos.  Costing this sort of thing is a real jungle and difference in accountancy methods and even the way things were recorded makes it very difficult to comp[are pre-Group Railways, even when the figures area available.  However the NER, in particular, paid very close attention to costings and efficiency in the period before the Great War and it very firmly settled on a policy which reflected the conclusion that 'bigger' engines (and wagons) produced greater operational economy.  Similarly both Dean and then Churchward produced ever more powerful freight locos both to not only accommodate increasing train weights but also eliminate the double-heading which had been a striking feature of GWR long distance freight and mineral trains in the latter part of the 19th century.

 

The fact that most Companies were producing large freight locos by the end of the first decade of the 20th century surely indicates more than a desire for the newest and biggest locos, they were businesses and they counted their costs very carefully - where they were aware of them.  This reminds me of the way SNCF were managing things a few years ago with a continuing claim that traincrew lodging produced the most efficient use of Drivers in particular, so hooked were they on this that you would - in the late 1990s - find examples of men being lodged less than 1 hour's travel from their home depot.  However once you began to delve into the detail an interesting fact came to light, the cost of traincrew lodging was (and probably still is) borne by a completely different department and was therefore nothing to do with traincrew utilisation costs. 

[Guest Belgian]

If bridge loadings on the London Line was a problem how did they manage to test the S&D 2-8-0s on the Toton-London coal trains?

 

I suspect that the significant word here is 'test'. Running an overweight locomotive across a bridge around about 10 times over a one-week series of tests is unlikely to have much detrimental effect on said bridge, but having 20 to 30 trains a day for 20 years or so mifght, possibly, be a different matter. There are plenty of examples of test runs being made where normal restrictions have been lifted, for example, for a train running down from Stoke Summit to Peterborough on the East Coast Main Line on 3rd July 1938.

 

JE

Edited January 19, 2013 by Belgian

[skipepsi]

Can you provide your source as evidence that the Midland was making a better profit than its rivals?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see how two sets of footplate crews and their wages plus two locomotives instead of one and increased coal consumption can make for more efficient and therefore more profitable working.

 

I think Mike has covered this pretty well in his example of the SNCF and its different departments the MR was probably spending out of capital and operating costs with whoever wanted to support the small engine case ie the civil engineers choosing which costs to allocate where. Cost of two crews and the depreciation of two engines with their joint lack of efficiency= the operating department's problem. Reduced cost of track and infrastructure wear from smaller hammer blows from small engines a major bonus for the civil engineers........ 

[PatB]

I think Mike has covered this pretty well in his example of the SNCF and its different departments the MR was probably spending out of capital and operating costs with whoever wanted to support the small engine case ie the civil engineers choosing which costs to allocate where. Cost of two crews and the depreciation of two engines with their joint lack of efficiency= the operating department's problem. Reduced cost of track and infrastructure wear from smaller hammer blows from small engines a major bonus for the civil engineers........ 

 

Thus illustrating that departmental duck shoving is neither new nor confined to the civil service.

[griffgriff]

hmmm how's this for a comparison?

 

Boeing Dreamliner V Super Jumbo 

 

...it may now be an even better comparison after recent events???

[Clive Mortimore]

The Midland Railway was the first railway to operate under a central control system, which was later copied by other railways. This successful system coupled with the light and frequent trains showed there was no need for huge locomotives.

 

Locomotive size does not always indicate a successful railway, both the G&SWR and the LT&SR had massive 4-6-4T locomotives that done no more work than a small suburban tank locomotive and the Southern Region was lumbered with too many Pacific locos which could end up working a 3 coach train down a branch line.

[t-b-g]

Did the I see the usual nonsense is being trotted out again? The GCR 4-6-0s were all failures, as were the B17s.

 

Gresley wasn't keen on 4-6-0s because they made the fitting of his favoured wide firebox tricky. Most of the design work on the B17s was outsourced to North British and they are hardly a typical Gresley design. They were also hampered by weight and length restrictions on the GER section. However, they were hardly total disasters and put in some excellent work over many years.

 

As for the GCR locos, try reading some of Richard Hardy's accounts of the work done by some of them, especially the B7s, over what is probably the hardest main line route in the country, over Woodhead. They were not perfect and with a bit of hindsight some aspects of them could have been improved but again, classes like the Imminghams were in service for over 40 years.

 

My favourite story relates to a wartime passenger train, seen at Retford. In one of Richard Hardy's accounts, he mentions how all the staff at the station came out onto the platform to see a B7 on a 32 (I think - from memory - I read it a few years ago) carriage train. So, they weren't perfect but neither were they total failures either.

 

Most of them remained in front line service until the advent of the B1s, so for a group of small classes of non standard locos, they lasted pretty well. If they had been that bad, I am not sure that they would have stayed in use for approx 25-40 years.

 

Robinson got it absolutely right later, with his D10s and 11s for passenger trains and with his O4s and J11s for freight work the GCR had an excellent collection of locos. Good enough that when the grouping came along, the LNER wanted him to be their CME.

[PhilJ W]

The Midland Railway was the first railway to operate under a central control system, which was later copied by other railways. This successful system coupled with the light and frequent trains showed there was no need for huge locomotives.

 

Locomotive size does not always indicate a successful railway, both the G&SWR and the LT&SR had massive 4-6-4T locomotives that done no more work than a small suburban tank locomotive and the Southern Region was lumbered with too many Pacific locos which could end up working a 3 coach train down a branch line.

The LT&SR tank was banned from Fenchurch Street by the GER and the LT&SR was taken over before the locomotive was ready for service, by the Midland. It was designed for a specific task, moving heavy seasonal passenger trains on a fairly short line for which it would be ideal (on paper at least). Inter company rivalry had a lot to do with it, the GER being miffed by the Midland take over of the LT&SR in 'their' territory. 

[kevinlms]

Given the labour rates at the time using two small locos was cheaper and more reliable than the considerable capital cost of providing larger locos and the infrastructure necessary to run them. In the days when this policy of the Midland was established the railways were able to attract the managerial talent that today would go into banking. They were not stupid.

Hmm, so the other railways WERE stupid for building bigger locomotives? Doesn't really make sense.

[kevinlms]

Everyone seems to be concentrating on the locomotive design. But it was not locomotive design but operating cost and profit that decided the MR small loco policy. All the time they were making a profit better than their rivals then the way they ran there railway made sense.

 

Some other railways (notably the L&YR) had started constructing much larger wagons, often of 20 Tons capacity. They had worked out that it was cheaper for them to haul a smaller number of higher capacity wagons, than the opposite. So the question is why did other railways not follow the same practice & indeed the LMS went back to making smaller RCH based designs of 12 Tons.

 

In fact it wasn't until BR days when they built a modest number of 21 & 24 ton wagons.