The LMS's pre-grouping express 4-6-0s - a question

Indeed, according to my copy of "Churchward Locomotives" by Haresnape & Swain, the Churchward 38xx 4-4-0s were designed partly to overcome LNWR objections at that time to the use of 4-6-0s over the Shrewsbury & Hereford Line. There was little prototypical testing and a further 10 locos quickly followed the 1st built (then numbered 3473).The last was withdrawn in 1933 and many of the Churchward/Dean 4-4-0s outlived these Counties. I understand that the GWS at Didcot plans to recreate a 4-4-0 County partly by using the boiler from a 52xx 2-8-0 currently on site "ex-Barry 10". I'm generally a fan of these new-builds but, as the GWS doesn't have another 42/52xx in its collection (7202 is a 2-8-2T version so I'm not counting that) I'd be far more in favour of keeping the 52xx!

In an attempt to get back to the thread topic, in the case of a new-build, a Caley Cardean would be awesome. I am aware from this thread that they weren't actually good locos but they still look amongst the most elegant of steam locos to me!

 

Pick and mix world. Parts of 5227 have already been used on other projects.

 

Yes, the 52xx currently sits on wooden axleboxes!

 

Only 5'8 driving wheel ones - Duke/Bull/Dogs - though.

Cook mentions the Midland line in his book. I expect it was both.

As the LNWR considerably expanded their 4-6-0 fleet in the 1910s, do we think it likely that the LNWR restriction went rather earlier than the Midland one?

 

A 4-6-0 was undesirable on any part of the Midland during Pre-Grouping days, partly due the weight and length restrictions imposed by the Chief Civil Engineer, and partly because its traffic patterns of short but frequent trains didn't call for one.

 

Odd that overseas railways seemed to get them right at the same time as some of the Scottish and South Western duds were being built. Some of the French 4-6-0s of this period lasted until the 1960s.

The GC was another railway which struggled with them too, they had some very good 4-4-0s but then built several classes of 4-6-0s, all fairly small classes and none particularly good. As has been said, the only pre group 4-6-0s that were any good were the GWR Churchward ones, Urie's on the LSWR and the GER 1500 (later B12) classes

 

Or Prussian P 8s. Built from 1908-26, still in use in Germany until the 1970s, and until this century in Poland.

 

It has always struck me as add that Dugald Drummond never asked his brother Peter for advice about 4-6-0s. The Highland's "Castle" 4-6-0s appear to have been very well regarded!

 

I'm normally a defender of Drummonds (they designed some great locos, as well as the howlers), but with the Castles they are basically a passenger version of the Jones Goods, with only Drummond accessories, as it were. But fine locos indeed.
David Jones seems to have been at least partly inspired by the L Class 4-6-0s built for Indian state railways, especially the North Western. These dated from 1880 and were very successful, and with the basic outside cylinder inside frame design of most successful 4-6-0s.
Indeed India had another great class of 4-6-0, the BESA designed Mail Engines. These date from 1906 (about contemporary with the first classic Churchward locos, and with many of the same design features) and remained in top link service, until well after WW2 (indeed new ones were built into the 1950s). Later examples were of course superheated, etc.

 

I also want to put up a case for some of the Scottish 4-6-0s including the Castles. I happen to be reading a book by C P Atkins at the moment titled the "Scottish 4-6-0s". While sometimes non committal on overall locomotive success or failure, the author describes the two superheated Manson 4-6-0s as "Brilliant Performers" and references the Highland superheated goods as having the haulage capacity of a Black 5. But one of the stories that most struck was the reference to the Highland Castles being worked to death hauling those long troop trains up to Scapa Flow and doing their bit for the war effort, so maybe not just the products of the LSWR and GWR as good 4-6-0s?

Irrespective of performance, one of the aspects of the Scottish locomotive scene of that period which makes it interesting is locomotive design elegance. While those two superheated Manson 4-6-0s get performance excellence and elegance together, I have a soft spot for the Caledonian 191 class. A very elegant locomotive despite its hammerblows causing problems on the Oban line P-way.

 

Yes the Midland's Chief Civil Engineers were always worried about total locomotive weight rather than axle weight. If another company's 4-6-0 was banned over Midland lines where there were running powers it would have been because of the total weight, not the wheel arrangement.

 

One strange historical truth is that NBL built more Castles" for France than the Highland Railway ever had.

PH

 

After the grouping they were mysteriously allowed to work on the Highland's Southern Main Line. perhaps the LMS' Overall Civil Engineer had a different outlook.

 

Are you thinking of the Clans? The Castles were always allowed to run on the Highland main before the grouping.

One other successful class not previously mentioned is the HR Jones Goods. These lasted for over forty years, and were well regarded.

Andy

 

The thread title was actually "Express locos", but then, thread drift has taken us all over the place, as usual! I've always been under the impression that the Jones Goods were pretty good engines and presumably the selection of No. 103 for preservation bears this out - after all, why preserve a member of a dud class? Interestingly enough, I would say that of the LSWR Urie 4-6-0s, the S15s (with 5'7" wheels) were probably the best of his three designs and were. I think, the last pre-grouping 4-6-0s in service with BR (Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). I read somewhere that some drivers preferred them to the Maunsell variants when it came to slogging away with a heavy freight for Southampton Docks, whereas for express work the improved front end of Maunsell N15s raised their performance well above the Urie locos.

It is interesting therefore that although most pre-grouping 4-6-0s were designed for express work, two of the most successful 4-6-0 classes built before 1923 (apart from Churchward's Saints and Stars, the GER B12s and a very small number of Scottish engines), were not in fact built for express work at all.

 

That d

Does that tend to confirm that it was boilers and front end design where the designers largely went wrong?

 

I was going to mention this. A quick look here: http://www.lner.info/locos/B/b.php shows that Robinson designed no less than 9 different classes of 4-6-0, and reading the notes on each type (LNER class B1 - B9) the impression is given that none of the larger ones were particularly good. The B4 & B5 classes seem to have been pretty successful (and possibly the nicest looking too!) but they were not designed for express passenger work, but for fast goods and fish traffic, which bears out the following quote too:

A B5 would be top of my shopping list if I ever won the Euromillions...

 

Think I'd be commissioning a Claughton

 

If my memory serves me right, one of the last steam locos running in France in 1974/5 was an NBL one...