Current and Proposed New-Builds

The built up smokebox design was a bit of a problem and suffered from leaks which affected steaming but the boilers were good by all accounts

 

If they weren't I somehow doubt the LMS would have spent so much doing so! AIUI, criticism was made that the front end wasn't all it could be and cylinder wear certainly seems to have been a factor. Fitting the tapered boiler seems to have centred more on simply bringing things up to date.

From my limited perspective, I'd classify it as a programme which took a reasonable design and turned it into an outstanding one.

 

How about a 2P....? Anyone....??

I would love to see the project progress to being something really good, and following the ideas of the PRCLT, A1 trust, etc. Build a shed that's capable of being able to do the engineering, also house a museum about railways and what they have done for the war effort in ww1/2 etc. Maybe look at creating a mainline rake of coaches. But I am yet to win the lottery so doesn't look like that's going to happen haha.

Then it could be the Fowler society and do a deal with the MRC and restore the Jinty that is currently a source of spares (well it's basically a new build isn't it?) A Johnson 0-4-4 tank with push pull and some LMS push pull coaches to match would be great also. Does anyone know any multi millionaires that like midland and early lms engines?

 

Both good candidates IMO, though some will doubtless be concerned neither will take 11 up Shap!

The point about appropriate stock is very valid. A lovingly restored MKI is a thing of beauty to many - not all - of us, but scarcely suitable for a period MR push-pull train (incorrect non-Southern term!).

The same applies to most pre-grouping designs and recreated carriages from that era ain't about to be let loose on the big railway, so by definition we're talking pure non-mainline heritage use.

 

I'd be up for a 2P! Different variations to choose from too, as the Midland ones had 7'0" drivers, the LMS standard ones having 6'9" drivers... Used on the S&C, Somerset & Dorset, and most places in between, so a good National coverage... One of my favourites was 40700.

Richard.

 

I too wouldn't mind seeing a new-build 2P, having vague memories of the one that survived failry late as station pilot at Watford Junction. However a small 4-coupled large-wheeled loco would have limited utility on preserved lines and none (unless as a pilot) on the main line, and it would lack the historical interest that justifies maintaining/restoring the LSWR ones.

Thinking about it now, I wonder why after the Grouping the LMS saw fit not only to continue building such small express passenger locos but even to modify the design, at least to the LNWR wheel size and possibly in other respects.

 

Why not something like Samson from the Leicester and Swannington Railway? Number 5 in terms of railways built and (so the mythos goes) the line in which the "Steam Trumpet" (whistle) was invented.

The LMS had a few lines that were highly suited to lighter, smaller express locomotives. Mostly their smaller lines and dense stations around London justified small, quick and flightiy engines than honking big express locomotives.

You also have to bare in mind that, despite outsourcing the majority of locomotive building to Crewe, the MR "Small Engine Policy" still hung around with it effectively being a method of "Just chuck another one on" attitude whenever trains got heavier. This was, until Stanier firmly took control and brought it to an end.

This meant that things like the 2P 0-4-4T were already basically designed and ready to be signed off. While Stanier's name is on the docket for the design, he made only small modifications to what was, in essence, a Fowler design that had been completed before retirement.

I always found it somewhat amusing that, despite being the smaller of the two big companies in the merger, the Midland Railway's ethic won out for the first decade or more of the LMS's existence, with the Crewe/Deeley method of locomotive building not coming about until 1931!

 

In a way I’d like a 2P too, but they were poor steamers with a poor front end design and lacked power. The LMS went through a phase of Midland locos being best in the 1920s which is, presumably, why they continued building them. They would have been better building a few more LNWR George’s! The LNER probably would have done.

 

You can probably fix a couple of those matters. Manufacturing and tolerance techniques have moved on rather a way since they were originally built.

 

The number of top positions, or more correctly KEY positions taken by Midland men is to blame there that plus Hughes inability to bring the different design teams together ...

 

Nope. The front end was poor because the piston valves were mounted below the cylinders so the steam, both going in and out, had to squeeze between very constricted passages between cylinders and frame. That would not be easy to fix. And it isn't true that they were poor steamers. This is because, due to the aforesaid restricted passages' restricting the amount of steam going to the cylinders, they could never outrun the boiler.

They were godawful things; I just do not understand any desire to recreate one.

 

That applies to much from the steam age. I still reckon the Highland / Caley 'Rivers', breathed on up front, might prove to be be at the very top end of class 4 performance.

Doing something with the very aesthetically pleasing, but less than outstanding Caley 'Cardens', Robinson's (externally) well proportioned 'Sir Sam Fays' or Bowen-Cooke's great looking near miss, the 'Claughtons', might prove rather more of a challenge.

 

Given that there is currently the frames of a Jinty, the 4F at Bitton & (possibly) the Binbrook Cran what about restoring these original machines - all the right size for preserved lines before we start building new?

There is also the proposal to restore some Stanier coaches to form a LMS push pull set on the KWVR which could run with either a Jinty or Ivatt 2-6-2 tank, to make an all original train not a replica

 

Whilst not necessarily disagreeing with the sentiment John, I would draw your attention to the thread title!

 

How about a batch build of GWR 2251s? Surely ideal for heritage use?

 

Is that the updated D*** G***s?

(That ought to set the cat among the pigeons! )

 

Should the Forum title not take precedence?

 

If you wanted a 1920s 4-4-0, a Maunsell L1 class would be much better than an LMS 2P. They looked similar, but the Southern loco was a much better performer. Always liked these, the fact that I have the Triang model might help! That’s a great runner too

 

Has anyone considered replicating a pre-grouping carriage design, but with a steel frame/bodywork rather than wood? Apart from the "its not authentic" issue, what would be the problems? No less authentic than City of Truro on Mk1's, or Bittern (with Valences) on Mk1's or Mk2's

 

Blimey ..... I can hear scythes being sharpened!

Hardly mainline stock this, but the reconstructed Corris carriages have a welded steel body frame atop a steel chassis and IIRC, there's a restored NSR 4 wheeler with a steel reinforced underframe which gives the appearance of all-timber construction.

This image (taken March 2018) from www.corris.co.uk is by David Coleman (caption identifies carriages 21 & 23):