Midland Railway Company

[lezz01]

Hi guys. Does anyone have a drawing of the Kirtley 800 class 2-4-0 with a plan view. I have the one in Vol 2 of Midland Locomotives but it doesn't include a plan and I need to see the relationship between the cab side, splashers and the running plate. I'm planning to kit bash one from an old Ratio 2-4-0 kit which I think is a 1600 class.

Regards Lez.  

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Hi guys. Does anyone have a drawing of the Kirtley 800 class 2-4-0 with a plan view. I have the one in Vol 2 of Midland Locomotives but it doesn't include a plan and I need to see the relationship between the cab side, splashers and the running plate. I'm planning to kit bash one from an old Ratio 2-4-0 kit which I think is a 1600 class.

Regards Lez.  

 

David Hunt, The Kirtley Era 2–4–0s, Part 3, Midland Record No. 34 (Wild Swan Publications, 2011) pp. 55-96, reproduces a GA for the Neilson batch of the 800 Class, ans also a good number of photographs at intimate angles from which you should be able to judge whether the width over splashers and over cab side-sheets changed on rebuilding - my impression is that it did not.

[lezz01]

Thanks Stephen.

Regards Lez.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

As the "Find my Past" access to newspapers is free this weekend, I have been looking to see what they have on Chaddesden Sidings. Most of the reports are about deaths and injuries there; marshalling yards were very dangerous places back then. Also a lot of reports about thefts from wagons.  
Also found some quite detailed pieces about how additional sidings were constructed in 1930 and the trouble they had constructing them.

All good stuff.

[DenysW]

@Dave Hunt Apologies and blood-pressure alert.

 

I've been looking for contemporary (i.e. written before 1923) references to a Midland 'small-engine' policy. I followed a couple of references (I think from David Maidment) to the Railway Magazine for 1906 in the 'British Locomotive Practice and Performance' sections, but drew a blank. The earliest I've found so far is C.J. Allan's 1930 Railway Magazine contribution (Vol LXVI, pp 373-4) where he talks about the Midland Compounds (p 373) in LMS duty, then progresses to (p 374): "But it cannot be disputed that the "big engine" policy pursued steadily during the past decade by the other three groups has given them a greater average tractive power per locomotive, and a greater margin per locomotive against the enhanced demands of the future than exists at present on the London Midland and Scottish".

 

Can anyone cite something older? This feels like Allen just progressed from saying three of the post-Grouping companies went "big engine" specifically in passenger duty to asserting the LMS stayed "small engine", blaming the Midland Compounds.

[Dave Hunt]

I can't cite anything earlier Denys but I have learned not to take everything that C. J. Allen says as necessarily accurate. It would appear that in 1930 he was casually disregarding the advent of the Royal Scots and concentrating on a single aspect that, whilst it what was, in fact, true inasmuch as the Compounds were not big enough for the principal WCML trains, was only part of the story.

 

And in 1906 the Compounds were not 'small engines'.

 

Dave 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

And in 1906 the Compounds were not 'small engines'.

 

Charles Rous-Marten was clear on this point. 

[DenysW]

3 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

It would appear that in 1930 he was casually disregarding the advent of the Royal Scots

I think it's more that he wasn't letting the advent of the Royal Scots change an entrenched opinion. Thus (same volume, p97) he asserts "It would appear that on the London Midland and Scottish system the locomotives have been singled out for standardisation before the permanent way, and that the standard of power has had to be lowered all over the system in order to suit one portion. The consequence is that large numbers of what would, on the other grouped lines, and, indeed throughout the rest of the world, be considered as obsolete types, are being multiplied." On p97:"My criticism of the London Midland and Scottish locomotive policy is, therefore, that any locomotives types light enough or small enough to work over those portions of the line where weight restrictions obtain are the types chosen chiefly for multiplication, and that, if one locomotive per train is not sufficient to handle the traffic, two are used."

 

He could not have been aware of the cost of standardising the permanent way first (at, say 20 tons/axle and 3.5 tons/ft) and I doubt would have cared. I haven't read much of the Railway Magazine, but what is have convinced me that he and his predecessors (including Charles Rous-Martin, judged by his final articles) cared only about long-distance passenger expresses going fast. Plus a mild interest in local passenger or goods, but only mild.

 

No data on the frequency of double-heading to support that particular assertion.

 

I think that a longer (historical) distance view of the early LMS is that it had lots of immediate problems including correcting for lack of investment (capital and maintenance) in WW1, probably lots of factionalism and communications problems between its pre-Grouping components, and got the only decision that C.J. Allen cared about wrong. Ahead of a pretty rapid correction with the Royal Scots, and later the Duchesses. That decision being that a new ground-up 6P design was not so strongly needed in 1923 as to make the top-three designs that got done.

 

All of which is LMS and none of it Midland except for some of  the heritage designs and the desire to be economical.

[Dave Hunt]

I think that Allen et al overlooked the fact that the men who ran the railways were concerned with running a business and trying to make a profit rather than satisfying the ideas of those enthusiasts who merely looked at one aspect of the whole. When Stamp arrived he wanted further to standardise the motive power, stating that his preferred option was to reduce the number of locomotive types to just ten. Admittedly he also criticised the amount of double heading that went on but that was chiefly aimed at the WCML expresses, which the Scots were designed to reduce, and the Midland Division coal trains, for which the still ongoing bridge and other PW factors were largely to blame.

 

Dave

[jamie92208]

IIRC Allen worked in the steel Industry and was involved in rail making.  He must have been very aware of the costs of upgrading permanent way. 

 

Jamie

[melmoth]

25 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

IIRC Allen worked in the steel Industry and was involved in rail making.  He must have been very aware of the costs of upgrading permanent way. 

 

Jamie

 

He worked for the GER and the LNER as a inspector of materials, predominantly steel/rail. He also wrote several books about the permanent way/railway infrastructure.

[Aire Head]

16 hours ago, DenysW said:

cared only about long-distance passenger expresses going fast.

 

A general problem of railway histories is a ln obsession with Anglo-Scotch Expresses particularly if they go from London. When studying the 1955 WTTs for the Aire Valley Section of the Midland Mainline I was struck by how typically there was 10 Anglo-Scotch express trains (5 in each direction) out of a total of around 150 trains a day that travelled over that section of line, or 6.67% of total traffic. I'm aware the 1955 WTTs aren't necessarily perfect for establishing information related to further back but it's what I have 🤷

 

16 hours ago, DenysW said:

I think that a longer (historical) distance view of the early LMS is that it had lots of immediate problems including correcting for lack of investment (capital and maintenance) in WW1, probably lots of factionalism and communications problems between its pre-Grouping components, and got the only decision that C.J. Allen cared about wrong.

 

Also factor in the sheer diversity of stock and motive power inherited by the LMS. A push towards standardisation in order to reduce maintenance costs makes a lot of sense. The Claughtons on the west coast were relatively new whereas I'd wager there was a very significant amount of old worn down 4-4-0 locos across the network in much more desperate need of replacement.

 

Much the same in the 0-6-0 department with the Midland 4Fs being the most powerful type available at grouping hence the wide scale building program.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Aire Head

[DenysW]

13 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

Also factor in the sheer diversity of stock and motive power inherited by the LMS. A push towards standardisation in order to reduce maintenance costs makes a lot of sense. The Claughtons on the west coast were relatively new whereas I'd wager there was a very significant amount of old worn down 4-4-0 locos across the network in much more desperate need of replacement.

 

Much the same in the 0-6-0 department with the Midland 4Fs being the most powerful type available at grouping hence the wide scale building program.

I think this is the kind version of the truth. Thus:

 

-   Yes, lots of variety on formation of LMS, LNER, and Southern. But we're still speaking about an era when craftsmen built individual locomotives to the drawings then fitted it all together carefully - this is really before true interchangeability of spare parts. And given the expected (approximately) 40-year design life of locomotives, you'd expect standardisation to take 15-20 years really to bite. So repair/rebuild shops keeping the old jumble-of-types going wasn't as silly as it would be nowadays

-   The Claughtons were 5F compared to the Compounds 4F, but expensive to run and came from a company that would rather thrash locomotives than double head. The LMS went much more Midland, thus the other way round, but with double-heading kept in check with Train Control. So the LMS scrapped some of the poorer designs when they came up for boiler replacement (often at ca. 25 years old), but didn't go around recklessly replacing old(ish) with new. The L&YR tried some ex-WD 2-8-0s, but couldn't fit them to its profile

- The LNWR and L&YR had started to supercede their 3F 0-6-0s with 5F 0-8-0s and 2-8-0s (as had the GCR) and beyond to 6F for its biggest freights, but these exceeded the Midland-routes tons/ft criterion. And the Bridge Stress Committee identified the L&YR 0-8-0 as 'Locomotive K', the most bridge-destructive of the ones they tested - albeit run at 50 mph rather then its usual 17 mph. So the Midland's 4F 0-6-0 was the best of that wheel configuration, but was a representative of a worthwhile but obsolete type for the heaviest duties.

[jamie92208]

The LMS did get rid of several small classes.  One was the 990 class of which there were only 10 but I believe that many parts were used on other locos.  I think that the LNWR got some ROD 's as well but I don't know if they were ever put into service.   Certainly some of their tenders were paired with the Claughtons that were altered to run on the S & C.

 

Jamie

[Peter Kazmierczak]

If Stamp hadn't been killed during an air raid over his home in Bromley, I wonder if he would've led the newly nationalised BR, and what direction it might've taken? As an economist, steam might've finished a lot sooner, or confined to a few selected areas to sweat the remaining assets. Doubt if BR standard locos would have appeared at all.
So would his ten "standard" classes look something like this:

4-6-2 Princess Coronation
4-6-0 rebuilt Royal Scot/Jubilee/Patriot

4-6-0 Black Five

2-6-0 Cl 5 Crab

2-8-0 8F

2-6-0 Cl 4 as later built by Ivatt

2-6-4T Cl 4  as later built by Fairburn

2-6-2T Cl 2 as later built by Ivatt

0-6-0 diesel-shunter

plus one other,...

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

The LMS did get rid of several small classes.

I'll just present the (overall) numbers that I summarised above. In the 1920s the LMS retired The elderly (often Kirtley) locomotives, the singles and 2-4-0s. In the 1930s they started on LNWR's less successful 4-6-0s. BR's retirement of pre-Grouping locos probably favoured the Midland for lengevity as more of their designs were made Standard (or near offer). By contrast the LNER seems just to have retired based on age/miles run, with North British probably just reflecting their status as poorly profitable. Apologies, I haven't yet finished the Caledonian ans G&SWR data entries.

 

 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

Also factor in the sheer diversity of stock and motive power inherited by the LMS. A push towards standardisation in order to reduce maintenance costs makes a lot of sense. The Claughtons on the west coast were relatively new whereas I'd wager there was a very significant amount of old worn down 4-4-0 locos across the network in much more desperate need of replacement.

 

 

Exactly. That's what the Standard Compounds and 2Ps were for.

[DenysW]

12 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

As an economist, steam might've finished a lot sooner, or confined to a few selected areas to sweat the remaining assets. Doubt if BR standard locos would have appeared at all.

I hate dealing with rational people because they are so ... rational.

 

It is my understanding that the post-war Labour Government chose steam at the political level (not the technical level of minions like Stamp)  because it didn't require foreign currency (desperately bad balance-of-trade, even worse for the Sterling Zone) and kept miners in employment (lots of demobilised troops in need of work). The same then drove the choice of diesel technology (efficiency over ruggedness) to use less of the dollar-priced fuel for the Conservatives in the mid-1950s. So the UK diesel experience was less clearcut than the US experience.

[johnofwessex]

13 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I'll just present the (overall) numbers that I summarised above. In the 1920s the LMS retired The elderly (often Kirtley) locomotives, the singles and 2-4-0s. In the 1930s they started on LNWR's less successful 4-6-0s. BR's retirement of pre-Grouping locos probably favoured the Midland for lengevity as more of their designs were made Standard (or near offer). By contrast the LNER seems just to have retired based on age/miles run, with North British probably just reflecting their status as poorly profitable. Apologies, I haven't yet finished the Caledonian ans G&SWR data entries.

 

 

 

Interesting to compare the LMS v LNER withdrawal rates

[Buhar]

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I think that the LNWR got some ROD 's as well but I don't know if they were ever put into service.

The LNW RODs (Military Marys) worked into LMS days and some "enjoyed" a repaint into LMS livery.  I believe some were purchased purely for their tenders as the price was worth it.  I don't know if the locomotives themselves were assessed as not worth doing up.

 

The Caley and LYR also acquired some RODs but shifted them on fairly sharpish.

 

Alan

[johnofwessex]

7 minutes ago, Buhar said:

The LNW RODs (Military Marys) worked into LMS days and some "enjoyed" a repaint into LMS livery.  I believe some were purchased purely for their tenders as the price was worth it.  I don't know if the locomotives themselves were assessed as not worth doing up.

 

The Caley and LYR also acquired some RODs but shifted them on fairly sharpish.

 

Alan

 

Interesting that the GWR who had very good 2-8-0's but I believe never enough thought them worth keeping unlike everyone else apart from the LNER

[Buhar]

Of course, the ROD tenders ended up behind those Claughtons which had been adjusted to work on the Midland Division.

 

Alan

[Compound2632]

Edited November 21, 2023 by Compound2632
corrected version of flyer

[kevinlms]

On 20/11/2023 at 09:07, DenysW said:

 That decision being that a new ground-up 6P design was not so strongly needed in 1923 as to make the top-three designs that got done.

 

All of which is LMS and none of it Midland except for some of  the heritage designs and the desire to be economical.

I suspect the LMS in the first couple of years of grouping, THOUGHT that out of the various 4-6-0s they had available, the Claughtons, the L&YR & Caledonian 4-6-0 classes, that at least one of them, would with some straight forward modifications,  be up to the task of sorting out the WCML expresses.

As things fairly quickly proved, NONE of them were sufficiently reliable or robust enough to do so on a regular basis. And so a new design was sought and the Royal Scots were the result, in a convoluted manner.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

I suspect the LMS in the first couple of years of grouping, THOUGHT that out of the various 4-6-0s they had available, the Claughtons, the L&YR & Caledonian 4-6-0 classes, that at least one of them, would with some straight forward modifications,  be up to the task of sorting out the WCML expresses.

As things fairly quickly proved, NONE of them were sufficiently reliable or robust enough to do so on a regular basis. And so a new design was sought and the Royal Scots were the result, in a convoluted manner.

 

Further, the 130 Claughtons had been built within the previous decade and the 70 Dreadnoughts were still being built - that's 200 4-cylinder new and nearly-new express passenger engines, to which should be added the 245 superheated 4-6-0s of the Prince of Wales Class, many of which had been built within the previous five years or so. There was no magical change in the motive power requirements of the WCML on 1 January 1923; the new company had to make the best use it could of these assets to deal with an ongoing inherited problem.