Ex ROD 2-8-0's on the GWR

A number of companies bought ex ROD 2-8-0's after WW1.

Obviously the LNER kept theirs, as did the GWR, despite having its own 2-8-0 however the LMS disposed of theirs fairly rapidly.

So why did they succeed on the GWR but not the LMS?

 

They were faced with extensive route restrictions, I think they were barred from most of the Midland and Central divisions. As far as I know that was the reasoning. 2968 will know more than me.

 

A bit out of my specialist area, really, but I'll try. Both the LNWR and L&YR first hired and later purchased some ROD 2-8-0s, but they never found much favour. There were problems with parts availability for an engine unfamiliar to sheds and workshops, there were also gauging issues based around the width over the cylinders, and of course they were right hand drive, so wrong for those railways. I believe that the fireboxes of the ROD batches were stainless steel, and many were due for renewal, so they had a short life in LMS days.

But the LMS did buy many more on its own account. By this time, the prices were very, very low, and they were mostly purchased simply for their tenders, the cost of the 2-8-0 engine and tender being cheaper than that of building a new tender. The tenders were overhauled and attached mostly to ex-LNWR engines transferred to the Midland division; water troughs were spaced further apart on the Midland and the LNWR tenders did not hold sufficient water. Some of the 2-8-0s were then sold on (to China?) while most were simply broken up.

The width issue did not apply on the GWR, of course, and the driver was on the right side for that railway.

 

Surely the boxes in ROD's were just steel not stainless. Part of the reason for the LMS needing the tenders was the improvement brought by Beames to overhaul at Crewe; the LNWR had fewer tenders than locomotives as they did not take so long to overhaul and so could go back in to service with a locomotive that had arrived for overhaul some weeks earlier. Beames reduced the time to overhaul the locomotive by something like two weeks, but not possible to do the same for tenders and so there was a shortfall of two weeks or so worth of tenders. And a query: ROD tenders had no water scoops - presumably the LMS (and GWR) fitted them.

 

As I said, not my specialist area. The fireboxes might well have been mild steel, I won't argue the point. But most of the ROD tenders finished up behind LNWR engines on the Midland, certainly all the Claughtons sent there got them. I've never heard of any issues with having tenders waiting for overhauled engines at Crewe. I don't know if the GCR tenders had scoops or not, but fitting them retrospectively would certainly be a challenge.

 

GCR tenders had scoops but ROD ones didn't, not necessary in France.

 

I've decided to dig a bit deeper into two books. Ted Talbot in his work on the LNWR eight coupled engines says:

In 1927 a further 75 'MMs' were obtained very cheaply by the LMS, as by that time the Government Disposals Board was keen to sell them. The price was £25,000 or just under £340 per engine, and they were delivered to Crewe. The reason for the purchase was to obtain the tenders, as there was 'a considerable shortage of tenders on Divison A' (ex-LNWR) at the time. Crewe Works was then being reorganised and it seems that the overhaul of tenders was particularly disrupted. It was decided to repair 20 of the engines and put them into service, and to do the same with the tenders of the remaining 55, the repairs and alterations to the tenders costing £400 each, more than the price of the engine and tender together. The 55 engines were dismantled and used to provide spares for the other 20 and the original 30. It was intended that 20 boilers from the 55 engines to be dismantled would be repaired by an outside contractor and be fitted with copper fireboxes in place of their steel boxes. These boilers were to be used as replacements when those on the 20 engines in service were worn out. Whether this plan was actually carried out, however, is not certain, but it seems unlikely in view of the short life of the class as a whole. The tenders were used mainly on ex-LNWR passenger engines, 'Claughtons', 'Princes', 'Georges' and 'Precursors', but they also appeared on 0-8-0s. In the event, only 49 tenders were used, and very soon afterwards, certainly within a couple of years, the tender shortage seems to have given way to a surplus, as tenders were being withdrawn.

There is no mention of the need for additional water or scoops on the Midland, but goods engines, the book's subject, had plenty of opportunities to put the bag in anyway, so probably not needed.

Willie Yeadon in his book on LNWR Locomotives, Passenger Engines, states simply:

These altered engines usually had tender changed to R.O.D. type as they carried 7 tons and 4000 gallons, against 6 tons and 3000 gallons in the 1916 LNW tender. That extra capacity was of help to engines working the Leeds-Glasgow trains via the Settle and Carlisle line.

Again, no mention of a scoop, but the implication is that they could run the length of the S&C, which would certainly require the tender to be refilled at some point. The plot thickens!

 

Its a cause of some confusion that the ROD tenders were different to the GC ones. I believe coal capacity was different as well as water and the scoops, and more than one authority has quoted GC coal capacity for ROD tenders! My impression is the ROD tenders held 7 tons of coal and GC ones 6 tons, which is partially backed up by the above. I can't find any mention of water scoops fitted on the GWR RODS, and the spare ones were used on smallish engines like Aberdares and 2251s which maybe confirms that. It doesn't help that at least one volume has used a drawing of a GC tender when discussing the RODs.

As for the locos themselves, the GWR had a pretty thorough weeding out exercise. They bought 100 in total, and to simplify a more complicated tale upgraded the best 50 with copper fireboxes, top feed, GWR safety valves etc, and ran the rest until they dropped. Footplate crew reminiscences suggest that even the upgraded ones were not popular with the GWR crews.

 

"They bought 100 in total, and to simplify a more complicated tale upgraded the best 50 with copper fireboxes, top feed, GWR safety valves etc,"
this is why the GW kept them, but didn't take on the 0-6-0s - no room to put a copper cap on it...
The loco reminiscences I have read agree with the crew unpopularity.
I am always astonished as to how they got so worn-out in 4 years use. What did they actually do? Assuming no actual weapon damage, how does pulling a train of munitions differ from pulling a train of coal (interestingly, a train of coal probably contains more energy, just not as capable of fast release).

 

M

Maintenance, especially boiler maintenance I imagine.

 

But scrap-worthy in 2-4 years? Even if the boilers needed work, boilers left outside for 20 years have been recovered and repaired... Has anyone seen a report on their condition?

 

My impression is the starting point was "we are going to keep 50" rather than "how many are worth keeping". So I suggest that the rest were run until each required a repair that would cost money, not necessarily anything of great consequence. I think it can be assumed that they were so cheap that it wasn't a big deal to scrap them. The first 20 the GWR bought cost £10,000 each. The remaining 80, which had run mileage out on hire, were £1,500 each. The government was desperate to get rid of them! I would think that by the time the values of spares, scrap and the tender were added together the railway was showing a profit, so getting some free mileage out of them was a bonus. Before they became available on hire in 1919 the GWR were considering buying 10 more for £105,000. In the end they bought 80 for £120,000, so you could say they got the 30 they kept for £4,000 each - about the book value of a 2-4-0 and two thirds of the nominal cost of a new Hall, and the rest were free!

To illustrate the problem the Government had, here are RODs "in store" at Tattenham Corner station. I imagine the SECR was charging rent...

Image from https://eehe.org.uk/?p=29066

 

I wonder if treating steel fireboxes in the same way as copper at washout contributed to their rapid demise. Plus, of course, they were from 'furrin parts'.
Pat

 

Well the ROD locos were probably built cheaply with the expectation that many of them would be destroyed while in active service on the continent. Weren't the S160s designed for an active service life of 60 days? Certainly I doubt the RODs were expected to run for 30 odd years post armistice. I would imagine they were built using the cheapest materials possible, which naturally degraded faster.
Reading Harold Gasson's books and the descriptions of how terribly they steamed, I would imagine they were probably given the bare minimum maintenance. Compared to, say, a 28xx, washouts may well have been done less frequently, tube cleaning less regular, less attention paid to steam leaks, valve timings and the like. The impression I get from his stories is that they were viewed as basic tools to have every inch of their life worked out of them, so it may not have been considered as worth while to pay as much attention to ensuring they were as well maintained.
There probably was also an element of prejudice towards that which wasn't built at Swindon

 

The RODs were constructed with steel fireboxes due to a wartime shortage of copper. But I think that was the only aspect of "cheaply built". Otherwise, apart from minor details, they followed the Robinson GCR design, which was very robust with 1¼-inch thick frames.

The majority of course ended up on the LNER and most served until near the end of steam on BR. Those acquired by the LNER were given heavy overhauls and new copper inner fireboxes, either before entering service or within a few months.

 

Thanks all. Fantastic link. (Interesting that the port if richborough pic has two loads of lorries in the ferry).

 

I doing this from memory no books consulted. There was a big pile up at I think Didcot ,the HM inspectorate recommended that Britannia's had their hand rails on the smoke deflectors replaced with hand holes, because they were left hand drive You may say what's that to do with R O D S ,but weren't they left hand drive ,and were the G W R ones not fitted with the G W R type of AWS. The GWR WD 2-8-0s I'm certain weren't fitted with GWR AWS ,and of course left hand drive.There was a big clear out of the two classes about 1956/7 on the Western region ,RODS scrapped, a lot of WD 2-8-0s transferred to the Midland .(Western region received BR 73XXX in exchange ).Several went to 18BWesthouses ,that shed worked the 3.05 pm Storefield to West Hartlepool ,and came on Kettering shed, I 've footplate many. They had a top feed cover and were banned from all ex L N ER lines except the GCR because of height.

 

The RODs the GWR kept were certainly fitted with ATC. A special version had to be designed for them because they didn't have vacuum brakes. The RODs were, I'm confident, right hand drive. The right hand side reach rod is evident in the above photo.

As for WDs, certainly L/H drive, but to my irritation I can't find my copy of the book, Swindon Apprentice by A E Durrant, but I believe I recall an anecdote related in it where he mocked up a design for an ATC unit, and, struck by its resemblance to a clock (round bell above square casing), added hands and a cuckoo before taking it out to a shed to see if it fitted in the required locomotive. I don't recall definitively, but by date and circumstance it must surely have been a WD fitment, so it seems it was at least considered.
The WR WDs and their Swindon modifications are a curious omission from the RCTS series. Whilst pedantically they were never GWR locomotives, the same is true of the 15xx and 16xx pannier tanks.

 

It would be interesting to know how a steam brake loco only worked its GWR ATC, as per RODs. Was there just a bell /hooter in the cab and no brake application. Yes I should have known RODs were right hand drive , I've seen 63601 many times at Loughborough.Assuming the original 04 s were much the same dimensional as the GWR RODs ,the LNER ones certainly weren't banned from the Midland lines. I saw 63601 on Kettering shed in the mid fifties ,it had worked a Scunthorpe to Cottesmore (Rutland ) empties and then ran light to Kettering. Normally locos would be changed at Toton and a 8F took charge.
Other GWR loco's that were steam brake only and no AWS were the 67xx version of the 57xx,most if not all were in S/Wales. Please find attached my photo of one on 86B Newport Pill on 10/08/1955.

 

Yes, only a warning according to RCTS. AIUI the 67s weren't really used for trip working, so perhaps less critical.