LMS 2P 4-4-0

"Absolutely nothing!"

I'm sorry I can't remember whose catchphrase that was, otherwise we could start off at yet another tangent.

 

Correct, the McIntosh one is what I'm referring to. Certainly more suited to preserved lines than an asthmatic seven-footer 4-4-0.

 

Why would they? I think would be my answer.

 

What LMS 2P? I wasn’t aware there was a project for one.

Tom

 

It keeps being suggested.

God knows why.

 

I guess would be appropriate for an Hercule Poirot themed trip.

 

It does have a long history, if you go back to the accountant’s rebuilds of the old Johnson 4-4-0s and many people associate them with the S&D. If it was me I’d show the world a small 4-4-0 that can punch above its weight and build a Southern D1 or E1

 

According to the RCTS history, the LNWR took 152 ROD 2-8-0s on loan in 1919-21, far more than any other railway, and was among the first to purchase a batch (of 30). That suggests that LNWR management had a fairly positive view of the engines, in spite of the limited route availability arising from cylinder width exceeding the LNWR loading gauge. Doubtless, they would have been unpopular with the engine-men due to their right-hand drive and other foreign features.

But move forward to the mid-1920s, and these relatively large locos would have been anathema to the Midland "small engine" advocates who were then at the peak of their influence on the LMS. The bulk of the LMS 4F 0-6-0s were built in 1924-28, a reversal of the policy from the LNWR who had stopped building 0-6-0s in 1902. The 4Fs survived well until the final years of steam, so were clearly reliable and adequate for many duties. The same might be said of earlier Midland 2F/3F and contemporary L&Y and Caledonian 0-6-0s, some of which also survived into the early 1960s. All these engines must have been well constructed and were dependable into old age on secondary tasks.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the Midland/LMS 2P was also associated with the "small engine policy", but evidently useful and reliable. The last members survived along with Caledonian Pickersgill 4-4-0s until 1962, which appears to be the last year that 4-4-0s operated in normal service in Great Britain. Both the Fowler and Pickersgill machines might be characterized as "reliable plodders". If any had survived into preservation, they could have been useful on many heritage railways. But I am doubtful that either type could generate enough support for a new-build. Although LMS 4-4-0s are woefully under-represented in preservation, it is probably wise to focus on taking forward the George V project rather than starting more projects.

 

I can go with most of that except "If any had survived into preservation, they could have been useful on many heritage railways." Locos with 6' 9" (Midland engines 7' 0") coupled wheels are not entirely suited to preserved lines with a 25mph speed limit. I know the theory that they had to pass through the 0 to 25mph range to reach higher operating speeds, but that was transient; they weren't intended to maintain those speeds. Ask any driver on the SVR about the fun he has on the West Country trying to keep it happy plodding along at that speed!

As for the George the Fifth project, I suggested at the time that a Prince of Wales would be a better engine on preserved railways, but the lure of the express passenger type on country branch lines won the day.

 

Indeed! Especially when any kind of gradient is involved. MHR crews had quite a few "interesting" trips with T9 (30)120 when she was based on the Watercress Line, despite being limited to 4 carriages.

 

I feel compelled to remind everyone that there is something very like a 2P (although different in almost every detail) in the Cultra museum. In proper LMS red, too.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe the Midland was right with its policy of frequent short trains?

Look at today's railway operations with frequent services consisting of four car Sprinters and Voyagers, loadings well within the capability of a 2P

 

Yes, and it was right for the Midland Railway, but it works only if there is sufficient track capacity available. In LMS and earlier BR days, that wasn't the case as the amount of goods traffic effectively used up the capacity, unlike on Network Rail today. Even the Midland struggled in some areas, Toton - Brent being the obvious example.

 

The Ffestiniog used to run frequent shorter trains, back when services only ran as far as Dduallt and since the WHR(C) repopening those very same arguments persist on the F&WHR thread (among other places) to this very day.

 

With the overcrowding problems that are often experienced, I'm not sure one can call the modern policy entirely successful.

 

I don't think the current use of frequent short trains is a good advert for anything. The number of trains eats up track capacity, while the shortness of the trains means that capacity is well below demand. And both demand significantly more staff per passenger than longer trains.

The thought of major stations like Derby or New St having to accommodate modern frequencies and locomotive changes would definitely drive a move away from MR style "little and often" operation.

And that's without thinking about the levels of acceleration that are increasingly necessary to meet modern timetables.

 

If I've remembered this correctly, I think I read on another thread that the 2Ps were used to assist heavy trains (presumably slowly) up Camden Bank. Once they reached higher speed they became a liability and had to be pushed along by a train engine.

If I was going for a new build, I'd like to see a Midland/LMS compound 4-4-0, with modern tweaks to the valvegear, draughting etc., to see what efficiency could be achieved by this approach. It's not going to happen though!

 

About right, but they were to give assistance as far as Tring Summit, which they did. It was after that the train engine had the job of pulling the entire train AND pushing the 2P! Fortunately, the train had a booked stop at Rugby where the 'assistant engine' would be taken off.

Trains climbing Camden bank were usually assisted in rear, the bank engine dropping off at the summit, just be the shed.

 

I think the 2P assistance was more common on the Midland line. If you want to see what a 2P with a properly designed front end could do, read up on the Southern D1&E1 4–4-0s

 

Yes correct ,I cant ever remember a 2 P, piloting on the line out of Euston, double headers of any sort were most unusual. A good many trains were non stop thru' Rugby. What shed provided the 2P s on the bottom end of the WCML.? Camden and Rugby didn't have any .