Scrapping of pre Grouping locos.

Well referenced Ray. I remember seeing two of these at Newton Heath awaiting the gas-axe in 1967/8, I think that they had been stationary boilers at Red Bank sidings. It is indeed a pity that most of us were dirt-poor in those days, as I'm sure a lot more would have been saved. Of course, it is unfortunate that these particular locos had their driving axle and wheels removed, which in those days was an absolute impossible, never to be considered repair job, otherwise, there might have been an effort to save one of them. A great pity really, as they were a remarkable survival.

Cheers,

Alan

 

Interesting, found these images of 636 at Accrington in 1961.







Image Source: http: //www.abrail.co.uk/Images/636%20Accrington.jpg and http://www.abrail.co.uk/Images/636 at Accrington 1960.jpg.jpg

 

As Alan says it was a pity that one of these incredible survivors couldn't have been saved but in 1969 even the need for a set of tubes could mean 'curtains' for a loco - how things have changed! It must be remembered that the 0-4-4T's weren't the only stationary boilers - there was an ex L&Y 0-6-2T at Cheetham Hill until 1962, an LNW 'DX' boiler on an LNWR tender frame at Edge Hill also until 1969 and the Jinty boiler and frame (now at MRC) until the early 70's.
Bylines or BRILL did a full article on this subject a few years ago - must go and have a rummage!
Cheers,
Ray.

 

Extracted from "BR Steam Liveries" thread:

The L&Y was a major user of 0-8-0 heavy goods engines, with large numbers built under Aspinall, Hoy & Hughes.

https://railway-photography.smugmug...inall-Tender-engines/Aspinall-Class-30-0-8-0/

The LMS inherited 290 of these engines from the L&Y but only 29 survived to reach BR, the class becoming extinct in 1951. They appear to have received little attention from railway writers and enthusiasts. I was wondering why they survived less well than the LNW 0-8-0s. Did they have specific deficiencies that led to their earlier withdrawal? Or were they simply victims of the LMS standardization drive?

 

Mostly the latter: LMS policy was to reduce the number of CLASSES and thereby reduce the spares and logistics situation. The Super Ds needed a slight modification (cut down the cab roof gutters), but the L&YR Coal Engines were 13 ft 5 1/2 in high so wouldn't fit over the Midland lines. An engine unable to work over such a major constituent had little future in LMS management eyes and the first two went in 1926.

As to the abilities, shedmaster Eric Mason wrote, “Altogether the engines were simply designed and easy to work, and in a long experience I never knew of any serious or persistent complaints against them. Their ability to handle any loads which could be accommodated in the loops and refuge sidings was unquestionable from the first.”

 

Thanks for that explanation. Analogy perhaps with another largely forgotten class, namely the Great Northern "Long Tom" 0-8-0s. These were withdrawn between 1926 and 1937, partly because of the availability of the large stud of ROD 2-8-0s that the LNER had purchased at bargain prices. But there were only 55 "Long Toms" compared with the 290 L&Y 0-8-0s.

https://www.lner.info/locos/Q/q1q2q3.php

Returning to the LMS, it was of course noted for withdrawing the majority of the larger non-Midland types that it inherited at Grouping. It is also of note that some of the post-Grouping LMS builds were themselves withdrawn after short lives, either before or shortly after nationalization. The LMS-built Hughes 4-6-0s and 4-6-4Ts and Beames 0-8-4Ts were in this group. Most of the Fowler "Austin 7" 0-8-0s, built 1929-32, were withdrawn in 1949-51, and the LMS-built Compounds began to be withdrawn steadily from 1952 onward, well before the onset of the BR 1955 Modernization Plan. Does not look like a good return on investment.

 

The LMS didn't do this on a whim but carried out what we would call a cost / benefit analysis in reducing the number of classes and eliminating old, inefficient types, even if they still had a theoretical long life expectancy, and concentrate on a 'standard' types. Whether or not they were right to make ex-Midland designs the 'standard' is a different matter.

As a quick example, a shed has an allocation made up of fifteen different classes from several different constituents. To keep all these in traffic, it needs to carry spares for all fifteen types, say fifteen different types of live steam injector. Eliminate all these classes and have all Stanier engines. You now need to stock one live steam injector in the stores.

Probably a bit extreme, but you get the point. Generally, the newer engines used less coal on the same trains and ran longer miles between repairs. This allowed the reduction in the number of engines in service, as well as classes, reducing the capital investment. That was the theory anyway; remember that the LMS was under Josiah Stamp, an economist and accountant.

 

Can but agree with LMS2968. Bear in mind moving on a few years and over to the East Coast, that when the 22 production Deltics were introduced they displaced 55 equivalent steam locomotive. That's more than double their number........

 

Just to be fair, the Deltics weren't covering ALL the diagrams worked by the Pacifics, although that was a minor detail not always mentioned.

 

Once more I can but agree. But hadn't known that either LMS2968

 

Wasn't the real advantage of diesels that you reduced preparation and disposal time? So you could contemplate, say, a daily duty of 1000+ miles if required because you weren't spending hours in every day on shed. that in turn meant you could diagram a given daily mileage requirement with fewer locos.

Tom

 

That was the theory, but if the diesels were working alongside steam on the same diagrams, then those diagrams had to be built around the layover time of the steam engine, so the diesel would also spend a long time sitting around on shed waiting for its next booked turn. Of course, if the diagram was entirely dieselised, that need disappeared, but in those early diesel days their reliability didn't really allow this as there was always the possibility that a replacement engine - probably a steam one - would have to take over and complete the diagram.

The handover from steam to diesel was very complex, and not at all well managed.

 

I seem to recall an article about few years back that there are a few Pendolinos where the down time between it finishing its work for one day and starting for the next is 90 minutes. I can't remember but there was some kind of comparison about the amount of time steam, diesel and electric locos spend out of service and not earning revenue. Clearly the more often a loco is running the more money it is earning. I think there was some stuff in the Thompson thread about how much time LNER locos weren't running.

 

Yes - the L.N.E.R. Availability statistics. I have complied the statistics from an original document, so far complete for 1942-1946.

The discussion in the Thompson thread related to how we could show usage by way of a percentage figure, which led to the development of an agreed formula which used the statistics collated. Basically, we could show how much a locomotive was "available for work" against "how much work was done" by way of mileages.

It's part of the Thompson book I have written and the appendices for those statistics are nearly three times the length of the book, as it covers all 169-172 classes that ran on the L.N.E.R. between 1942 and 1946.

If anyone would like to discuss that specific to the L.N.E.R. in further detail, please drop me a line on the Thompson thread and I will happily provide the specific data required.

 

I don't think the claim that the Deltics replaced 55 Pacifics was erroneous or misleading. There were some 120 pacifics of 8P classification (plus 84 rated at 7P) on the ex LNER system so it would have needed a good few more locos to cover all the diagrams. That wouldn't have been necessary, though, as not all diagrams required 3,300 hp so many diagrams could be covered by lesser powered diesels.

 

It's this sort of thinking that Thompson and his department were very much involved with during WW2 on the L.N.E.R.: with the bottom line being that they wanted to reduce the at one time 172 different steam locomotive classes down to just 19 types. The obvious advantages of a small pool of spares and boiler types is clear (easier to maintain stores, less specific knowledge in engineering required among the different types, drivers can be multi-skilled on a much smaller range of locomotives and controls can be largely standardised to match).

 

My recollection is of someone (Fiennes) commenting on the enormous efficiencies gained by not needing to go to depot after each turn in the way steam did, leaving all other factors aside.

 

Another consideration is that some (many?) longer-distance trains changed locos half way. So that would be two steam locos spending time in depots while a single diesel worked the whole distance.

 

Did the Deltics replace the A4s on the Kings Cross to Niddrie goods?

 

But that was true of Class 8P steam too. Many diagrams used bigger than strictly necessary steam engines either to move them to the start point of their next job, or save them standing around on a shed waiting for the job's departure time.
You also need to consider that some of the diagrams had simply disappeared as retrenchment began, with line closures and reduced / withdrawn services, so no need for the diesels - or remaining steam - to cover them. BR at the time were very adept at making these sorts of comparisons, but without giving all the criteria, and modern enthusiasts tend to see diesel operation as it is now, or at least in the 1980s/90s, and assume that it was the same in the 1960s. It wasn't, by a long way.