Should the LMS have built more Moguls and fewer Class 5s

The boilers on the 2Ps and 4Fs were the same but the 4Fs had 20" cylinders compared to the 19" of the class 2Ps. I believe this lead to steam consumption exceeding the steaming rate of the boilers, especially on passenger work. I think the 4F boiler was the same size as those on the 3Fs. I suspect Fowler was trying to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot with the 4Fs.

 

Deleted

 

Except for the superheater, they were: Classes G7 for the 3F and G7S for the 4F/2P. But the superheater made a difference to the steam raising ability, since some heat was diverted from evaporation to superheating steam already generated. And the 3F would produce steam, from a low pressure, far faster than the superheated types which required the superheater to be warmed up, hence their preferred use as bank engines: after standing around waiting they were ready to go far quicker than pressure could be raised on a 4F.

The 4F/2P's different cylinder size probably wasn't a major fact so much as the layout of the valve chest. On the 4Fs it was above the cylinders giving a fairly easy route to the steam in and out. On the 2Ps they were below, so steam travelling in both directions had to squeeze through the narrow passage between the cylinder walls and frames. It is more likely that this passage of steam was even slower than the boiler could produce it, so the 2P boiler always had capacity for steam raising higher than the cylinders ability to use it.

 

They did keep around some Johnson 2fs at coalville until 1965 or so due to them fitting glenfield tunnel. This was replaced with a pair of speacially converted 2mt Mickey mouses, so some consideration obviously was given to what was of use...

 

Allow me to disagree completely.
I have survived 50 years of managers and still wonder what they were payed for.
In difficult situations their only thougth was their own survival and the daily buissnes ran better the less they interfered.
The time they really acted was selecting new company letterhead ,logo and colour(locomotive and wagons?) ,buying and selling for other peoples money and other really important decisions.
Scrapping of UK steam was somehow decided 1954 and this was a dream situation for managers.No risks and open field for planning.
It was a 10 year long retreat and I do not believe it was done with dices.
Scrapping planing is really something that will unite management.
If You look at scrapping LNER B16 versus B17 it is very clear what locomotive was most valuable.
4Fs were better than 4MTs.

 

Arn't you forgetting that diesels moved into the B17 area quite a while before they did in Yorkshire.

 

Rail gauges were the same I asume.

 

And holding those opinions (which I won't contest) you still think it likely that the withdrawal of locomotives at the death of steam was carefully planned so that the best was left until last? I fear I'm more cynical than that! I suspect King Log would have ruled. Certainly with respect to the WR, looking at withdrawal dates for the Castle class (data handy) there is no sense that the single chimney ones were withdrawn in preference to the increased superheat double chimney engines.

 

According to Gerry Fiennes the only plan behind the WE withdrawals was to achieve the 1st steam free region . many of the Castles were virtually new engines . any proper plan would have seen them in use till the last

 

what a cynical point of view . those who can do. those who can't , preach...……... however ….

4MT - are you talking about the LMS(just) 43xxx class ?

 

I saw Bletchleys' sole 2P maybe 20 or so times . always running light .never with anything on the hook . I wonder why ?

 

The Southern at least had two approaches to withdrawal. One was to reduce the steam fleet and increase standardisation by removing entire classes at the stroke of a pen within a very short space of time; most of the Maunsell express engines fell victim to this around 1962, there being enough Bulleids and BR standards to cover the remaining work. I believe a similar fate befell the Duchesses around 1964 on the ex-LMS lines, that notably terrible class (sarcasm alert!).

The second approach was to downgrade the maximum permitted cost of overhauls and repairs; around 1964 General Overhauls (this being the classification covering the most major work) were stopped on the Merchant Navies and presumably everything else. After that date, Merchants coming due for a General (having not had one since rebuilding in several cases) were promptly withdrawn, others which had recently had one, or enough work to tide them through, soldiered on till 1967 on more minor repairs. 35007 somehow went from rebuilding in 1958 to withdrawal in July 1967 without a single General Overhaul; I can only assume it either had some remarkably comprehensive Casual and Intermediate Overhauls or it was absolutely knackered by the end.

This approach explains double chimney high superheat Castles being outlasted by single chimney low superheat examples, and why some 4Fs outlasted some 4MTs. If the 4F had received a General shortly before Generals were stopped, it would certainly outlast a 4MT that might not have had one since the late '50s, since the 4MT required repairs would exceed the allowable limits. It says nothing regarding the perceived quality of either class.

 

Watford (1C) also had one. As far as I'm aware the only useful work it did was to tow the District Engineer's Inspection Saloon about locally.

 

What number was that?

 

Patricroft also had a 2P, invariably used only on station pilot duties at Manchester Exchange and occasional inspection saloon work. Jim Carter's comments about it, even on these duties, were caustic.

 

I wonder how they worked Midland expresses in Midland rly days ,locals in BR days with-out fault ,to time etc. Kettering's last passenger loco was 40550(EG 2P/3P/4P) ,worked Leicester /Nottingham locals, I never heard a bad word about it ,like the 4FS and 5X S lovely engine. It was transverse away when a enough Ivatt 2s 2-6 0s came to work the Cambridge branch ,Leicester locals in one loco three day diagrams ,2Ps were to heavy for the Cambridge line.

 

I wonder how they worked Midland expresses in Midland rly days ,locals in BR days with-out fault ,to time etc. Kettering's last passenger loco was 40550(EG 2P/3P/4P) ,worked Leicester /Nottingham locals, I never heard a bad word about it ,like the 4FS and 5X S lovely engine. It was transverse away when a enough Ivatt 2s 2-6 0s came to work the Cambridge branch ,Leicester locals in one loco three day diagrams ,2Ps were to heavy for the Cambridge line.

 

They didn't work expressed in MR days. At least, the original Class 2 did in Johnson's day, but the "rebuilt" 2Ps were essentially new engines, as were all of the LMS built ones.
The MR used Class 3 Belpaires on expresses, a much better engine. And the few MR compounds of course. But of course the MR ran relatively light frequent trains.
Later, the 2Ps were put on fairly light and slow secondary duties.
Only in Scotland did they seem to perform well, and that was partly a comparison with the poor state of GSWR affairs immediately pre-grouping, and partly not very demanding duties.

 

40672------------- actually it may have been Watfords'

 

most of the time the 2P were used as pilots or in Johnsons day ,paired with a 2-4-0.
I believe a few went to the M&GNR joint where they were well liked.
they were also used on the S&DJR , again as pilots , and could also be seen on the S&C , again as pilots to MR Belpaires ,and later , class 5s and 5XP .

so far as the LMS is concerned , the Fowler locos appear to have been the cheapest solution to a demand for pilots. if a driver needed a pilot he got a 2P. = demand satisfied.

pics of a 2P with a train to itself are not very common