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

I thought this was a robust and durable locomotive class ,very useful for mixed traffic ,so it is interesting to read these statements from the crews. They should definitely knew it!

But in a aesthetic view they are to me very handsome engines

Knut

 

On the premise that the LMS did get it wrong; once things had settled down post war and the new ( admittedly ex lms) management got into its stride, how many new class 4 (and 3) Moguls ( and I suppose you could count the class4 4-6-0 as an equivalent) did it allocate to the Midland Region versus new class 5's ?

 

I agree, I thought there was some very good technical information in the book, but it gave a strong air of him having decided his conclusions in advance (namely 1: The 4F was excellent, 2: E.S. Cox was wrong about everything) and interpreted the data accordingly. If he'd throttled back on attacking a dead man for criticising the 4F I'd have been slightly more convinced that it was a dispassionate technical treatise and not a rant.

I think @LMS2968 has actually explained the lack of big LMS Moguls very well. The Crabs were actually built in quite reasonable numbers, as by far the best available engines in their power bracket on the early LMS, while the Stanier Moguls were bracketed by the 8F for heavy work and the Black 5 for everything else (both of about the same boiler power), which overlapped sufficiently to eliminate the need for more big Moguls. Why build lots of three classes when you can build lots of two to cover all the same work?

 

Peter Smith had a poor opinion of the 4Fs which he fired and drove on the Somerset and Dorset. I believe they were built because they were a lot cheaper than the moguls. I come to this conclusion simply on a weight basis - the 4Fs were 20 tons lighter than the Stanier moguls.

 

According to Wiki it was GWRs intention to rebuil all 2-6-0 to 4-6-0s but for WW2.

 

Mr Tester refers to the scrapping rate of 4Fs versus 4Mts.
Scrapping of MT4s started in 1963 and there was roughly half the 4Fs alive.
If 4fs were bad it would have been logic to finish them and then start scrapping 4MTs

 

In rest of europe it was tried to operate moguls faster.
Verdict was that this was safe if front wheels and driver set was united in a Krauss Helmholtz or Zara arrangement.
In UK this is not an option and GWR decided to rebuild the mogul lot to Granges and Manors.Can maybe explain why Black 5 and B1s grew and Moguls waned?

 

"Railways Remembered" a double LP that was released in 1975. Side 2, band 4; an interview with Sir W S recorded in 1961.
He states "I introduced the 2-6-0s to get the drawing office and works used to my practices".

If the top man felt that way, then more 4-6-0s were definitely going to happen.

 

the problem with the MR 0-6-0s was they were started off by Kirtley in the 1850s - and a fine engine they were for their time . Johnson , Deeley , Fowler all made incremental changes to the basic engine , some better than others , but the were still , under the skin , an 1850 locomotive. bigger boilers , stronger frames , more TE but we still had around 900 examples of a 100 year old loco , totally unsuited to the demands of the traffic . and the really daft thing is that Kirtleys engines were probably the best of the bunch.

how mad is that?

 

Sounds maddingly interesting.
Can LPs be MP3ed and sent undercover?

 

They were undoubtedly cheaper than the moguls. If I recall correctly the 4f class were referred to as "Armstrongs" and if they could make steam - hence the "throat cut" - they could deliver some satisfactory work. If they were the victims of sub standard oil and low quality bearing material as a penny pinching exercise from the company that decided that "engine cleaning is a luxury that we can no longer afford" then it is little wonder that they had such an indifferent reputation. There were a substantial number of locomotive classes that had unfortunate exhaust systems and the 4f was not alone here. There were other classes that suffered from broad valve rings too.

If you view carrying wheels as a waste of potential adhesive weight, if you understand the view that a locomotive should be as light as possible with respect to the work expected of it then the 4f makes some sense. Commercially you want the cheapest engine that is capable of carrying out the work expected of it. For modest loads and modest speeds an 0-6-0 makes sense and most companies had them and none of them were perfect though some were undoubtedly better than others.

 

You have to be careful of explanations made almost thirty years after the event - memories can slip.

The order for the locos came from the Traffic people and was for forty Horwich Crabs, committee meeting 27 July 1932 approved, but with Stanier modifications including the taper boilers, reduced cylinder height, etc. This meeting also approved three Pacifics (6200-03); 25 'Rebuilt Claughtons (5XP Jubilees); and 45 2-6-4 tanks. Twenty 'Improved Prince of Wales' were authorised on 28th June 1933, but these were turned out as Black Fives. I'm not sure if these were 5000-19 but I can't find an authorisation for these locos.

From the start, WAS had five new designs on the go: 4-6-2s, 5XPs and 2-6-4Ts at Derby; 2-6-0s and Black Fives at Horwich, all being progressed at the same time. So it wasn't a case of letting the draughtsmen get used to his ideas on the 2-6-0s and then follow these with the others. In practice 6200 entered traffic four months ahead of 13245, and 5552 only three months after 13284.

 

You have to remember the small engine policy took some time to "drive out" of the lms as well but there were a few lines which it was better for smaller or lighter engines most on the places where bridges were cheap or corners tight.

Cost was likely the biggest factor though as you say. Everything was already in place to simply order more to the design in a scale and cost and while not "ideal" could eliminate a lot of older smaller designs which is what the LMS needed in its standardization policy. You had a LOT of constituent companies that had a huge variety of designs that had to be eliminated for the accountant and cme's sanity.

 

Perhaps there we have it. a company awash with o-6-0's and 4-4-0's it would take some time for these to fallout of traffic and be replaced 2-6-0's whereas the need for more of the Larger Loco's 4-6-0/2-8-0 / 4-6-2 was immediate.

 

An old S&D fireman who I talked to had very definite views about the locomotives he'd worked on. He liked the 4-4-0's and 8f's, thought very highly of the 9f's. I seem to recall he reckoned the std5's were "good motors" and the 4f's were a crock of shot and no use to man nor beast.If they weren't steaming well they'd try to kill you climbing up through Devonshire and Combe Down tunnels, and even on a good day couldn't keep time over the Mendips.

Edit:I think I mean 7f's....

 

It is interesting to note that when the merits or otherwise of the 4F were being discussed by the footplatemen that regularly worked on them, the only thing on which everyone agreed was that the Deeley 3F was a much better locomotive.

 

Hmm maybe because only 2 survived and there are a few more 78xx and 28/38xx knocking around? I do believe 7325 could be making it's way out the Engine House and down to Bridgnorth soon

 

Lovely engines ,OK for 24hour shunting jobs to Class A excursion trains .I remember Kettering's tender cab 44465 going to Darlington works to be fitted with eastern region tablet exchange for working a Saturdays only summer timetabled train to one of the east coast resorts, it came back repainted shinny black with large Darlington numbers. It came bowling into Kettering on a Saturday evening from the east coast ,tender first from Manton ,hence a tender cab loco 'was needed. I also remember Burton beer trains to Sommers town/St Pancras ,along with crabs, dropping down the bank from Desboro, far faster than they should of done with wagons dancing about behind them. Number 4s as they were known by loco 'men ,excellent machines.

 

Someone with something good to say about the 2Ps!

I remember them being slated elsewhere on this forum.

 

I'm not sure its safe to draw many conclusions from scrapping rates. I doubt they were spending a lot of time considering what would be the optimum remaining steam fleet at the end of each month. They were all going anyway, so why would they worry which was the better class. All I think they'd have been concerned about was having enough power to work the services without spending much money on fixing stuff.