WW2 locomotive building.

I'll hazard a guess that G is the Southern. D is obviously former LNER, but would appreciate enlightenment of the rest, please.

 

G is Western Region - the # of locos matches the GWR at 1947 and in some tables it refers to diesel railcars in region G.

The others I've not been able to work out - for instance the 2-6-2 in region D must be a V2 - but is region D Eastern, N Eastern or Scottish region?

 

Regions A to G were British Railways' first attempt at encryption.

 

I am glad I don't have a "favourite team" amongst the pre-nationalisation companies. Few people alive are in a position to have any real idea about these matters.

As to statistics, Disraeli was about right when he referred to "lies. damned lies and statistics"

PH

 

It's certainly true that the Midland small engine policy took a long time to die on the LMS.

 

Given on another thread:

That rather suggests to me that Region F is the Southern Region - if so, interestingly the availability of the Region F pacific is rather better than that from Region B!

(Caveat: SR as at 31/12/1947 = 1,845 and on your table, total stock for Region F = 1,882. That is a slight discrepancy that can't be entirely explained by new West Countries / Merchant Navies constructed in 1948, especially as a lot of pre-grouping locos were being scrapped at the same time. However, it is the closest match in numbers - BR(S) can't be Region D, which matches the numbers closer, as there was no 2-6-2 tender engine; and if you are right about Region G being Western, there is also a mismatch in numbers there, so presumably the two methods of counting weren't quite the same).

Tom

 

Might the extra SR locos be accounted for by WD 2-8-0s allocated to Bricklayers Arms?

 

Yes, conceivably - I guess there is a difference between locos allocated to the region (in the table) and locos bequeathed by the pre-grouping company (in Casserley's figures) enough to suggest a minor variation in numbers. Given that, I suspect Region F is probably BR(S).

Tom

 

Not sure that it ever did in steam days. I recall photographing something like five double-headed passenger trains on the Midland main line at St. Albans on the same day in the late 1950s.

 

I have seen a Jubilee piloted by a 2P. I wondered why they bothered.

 

Sometimes done to avoid light engine movements.

Paul H

 

The 2P was very often there only for the start and for working up gradients, when speed would not be too high. The overnights out of Euston would have a Pacific piloted by a 2P, and the latter was not a popular move with the Pacific's crew. It was to help on the climb to Tring, which it did, but from there to Rugby found the Pacific pulling all of the train and pushing the 2P. Most crews would have preferred a solo start from Euston.

 

In the mid-1950s the Thames-Clyde Express used to stop at Trent. Often it had a Jubilee as the train engine and a Compound as pilot. I did see a 2P on the front and can only conclude that Kentish Town had nothing else to hand.

 

I'm just wondering what would have happened if the 2P was a banker, uncoupled at the rear of the train. Obviously it would have been subject to less wind resistance, but would it have been able to keep up as far as Tring?

 

I'm not sure that the rule book would allow an uncoupled banking engine to travel between sections, so I'd say a no-no. In any case, the normal procedure in banking is that if for any reason you lose contact with the train in front, you drop back rather than try to regain contact; in that instance, I doubt the 2P would make it much beyond the top of Camden Bank, let alone Tring.

Tom

 

Banking in rear was authorised only through certain sections, and generally these would be no more that a few miles in length, e.g. Shap at less than five miles. The signalling system had to take account that, once the banker dropped off, there were effectively two trains in the section, so this was USUALLY done within sight of the signal box. If the train was to be assisted over any distance then the second engine had to be coupled to the front of the train engine, or behind it on the GWR. Assistance was available from Oxenholme to Shap Summit, and the loco assumed the role of pilot engine and the train stopped to detach it at the summit.

 

This implies that the maximum speed of the 2P as a light engine would have been slower than the train. Is that really true?

 

That's exactly what I was thinking in post #194. The implication that a pilot is required on the gradients also suggests that we are talking about a heavy train.

 

Yes. The layout of the 2P's steam circuit was very poor with very constricted steam passages, which in turn restricted the steam flow. In short, a speed was reached where the steam could not get into and, more important, out of the cylinders fast enough, and that represented the upper limit of the loco's speed. It was below that of the Pacific behind it, so the latter was forced to nudge it along.

 

Just out of interest, given that the leading engine nominally controls the train, would a crew from one of the express passenger links have been expected to take the 2P (not particularly popular, I'd think), or would the crew of the Pacific have been gently simmering at the indignity of having to push around this buffer beam ornament while a junior crew relaxed in front?