The LMS's pre-grouping express 4-6-0s - a question

BR was using the service intervals mandated by the diesel engine manufacturers.

When you are designing an engine that could be a stationary gen set or in a boat or a locomotive then you use hours not miles.

 

Average over what period?
Worth noting that the LMS had a policy of bringing locos in for planned major shopping at certain mileages (70k miles for express locos), as Stanier comments in the discussion on the paper you are quoting from. The weren't just run until they needed repairs they had a "major service" at a certain mileage.
Interestingly on tourist the newest design comes top (A1) and then the oldest two (Castle and LN) despite being four cylinder types.

 

Did the 135 degree crank spacing on the LN class have any positive impact on shopping intervals? Can't remember ever seeing any discussion of that point?

Tom

 

I don't have it, but the shopping data for 865 compared to the rest of the class would probably be of interest. As far as I know it was never converted back to 135 degree crank angles, although equally the experiment wasn't extended.

 

Data would be for early 1950's.

Bond states, "Time or mileage run since the previous repair would, at first sight, appear to be obvious standards on which to base the selection
of locomotives for repair. But neither by itself is satisfactory." The chart in the attached paper shows the LM region were not bringing locos in at a std 70K miles. It would have been interesting to see the equivalent variation in mileage for other regions.

K J Cook's response that was as long as detail design and quality of manufacture/repair are good (eg clearances tightly controlled) then mileage is the way of deciding if it was time for next repair. Swindon had been using 80K miles since the 1930's.

 

To be clear, I didn't say the LM Region did so, I said the LMS had a policy of doing so - or rather Sir William Stanier said it, and I remarked on it.
Essery and Jenkinson has some discussion on this (LMS practice in terms of operating and repair, I mean), but I don't have it in easy reach.

 

if the LMS had adopted the Rivers they could have had a black 5 ,10 years earlier

 

the midland compound would have been even better if the original design had not been mucked about with . the first 2 locos were superb performers ...and b....y fast

 

I think it is probably true to say this was noticeable at the lineside . the MR principle of "any engine , any job " did seem to apply on the Midland Region . you would never see a loco working out the mileage to a general repair . they all did the job they were designed for until they were called in . an engine with a "knock" was a very very rare thing.
i never saw a pacific on a freight until the last days , when i saw 46210 on a fitted . that was a sad day

 

That a small class of six locos from the Highland Rly tradition survived the first onslaught of W.A.S's standardisation speaks volumes. Had they been a contender for becoming a 'group standard', I'd suggest Hughes or Fowler* would have needed to 'breath' on the front end and raise the running plate a wee bit first. That (IMO) would've turned a satisfactory design into an outstanding design.

*Were it to have happened, I'd have preferred Hughes had done the job ... I'd put money on Derby having been unable to resist playing with the design and bu**ering it up in the process, as so nearly happened to the "Crabs".

 

only 2 , I think .nicknamed Scharnhorst and Gniesenau . may be some dodgy spelling there!

 

I think Beyer Peacock's withdrawal from any connection with the LMS Garratts after the LMS insisted on using Derby components confirms the wisdom of that choice !

 

Deffo six 'Rivers', though only the first 2, delivered Sep 1915, ever carried HR numbers (70-71). The four delivered between Nov 1915 and Jan 1916 were allocated Nos. 72-75 but seem never to have carried Highland livery before all six were flogged to the Caley, allegedly at a profit of £480 per loco to the HR! CR numbers were 938-943, LMS Nos 14756-14761 (all numbers carried were in works no. sequence RHW 3095-3100).

The two which survived courtesy of the Austrian Corporal's activities picked up those nicknames (you're quite correct, it was most definitely unofficial!) at Ayr, where 14758 was "Gneisenau" (still in service but fettled up at St.Rollox May 1940) and 14760 "Scharnhorst" (wdn Apr 1939 but retubed at St.Rollox and returned to stock Aug 1940). This last pair put up some notable performances double heading 500ton troop trains on gradients of up to 1:54.

 

River Class No. 14759 at Perth North Shed in 1936.

 

I really like these locos, one of which is currently at No.4 on my "if I win a embarrasingly large jackpot" list between a GNRI SG2 and an LBSCR D1 (or D3 ... haven't quite decided!). Only minor mods needed (for loading gauge purposes) between their HR and CR incarnations and they looked jolly good in LMS red too.

 

What didn't?

 

They’re handsome beasts; for me, when I was a nipper I remember having a jigsaw of one in LMS red, the sight of which left a lasting impression.

 

I believe the Rivers influenced the design of the Horwich Crabs and the Fowler 4P 2-6-4T, which were the best of the early LMS designs.
The whole thing about chaos in early LMS locomotive matters is rather overdone, generally, and tends to neglect the real challenges of powering newly and uniquely heavy trains on a busy WCML in the mid-1920s. Also, there were good reasons for all the solutions proposed by Horwich and Derby, and good reasons why they didn't happen.
Rather than paint "Derby" as a bogeyman, it's worth pointing out that their failings were specific: (1) not learning fast enough the lessons on valves and steam passages (or only applying it erratically). (2) half-applying Midland operating patterns to other Divisions (although the Midland was ultimately right, just ahead of its time) and (3) insisting on the use of standard parts (good in itself), resulting in bearings in particular being used beyond their capacity. The latter two suggest they hadn't heard Ralph Waldo Emerson's crack about a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. But Derby was a fine institution which produced some excellent work as well.
As to Better Peacock disowning the Garratts, they were happy enough to build another batch, and to use them in publicity material. And they did a satisfactory job for decades.
Nevertheless, there is a lesson to learn about mergers from this period. The LNER and SR were lucky to have, in Gresley and Maunsell, men who were confident, able and humble enough to strike out firmly in their own direction while learning from others and incorporating their ideas (even building their designs).

 

I was considering this very point last night. Aside from the issue of bearing surfaces, which whatever the rationale, was undeniably a case of hidebound thinking, the situation seems to have merely reflected the old Midland ethos of small locos hauling frequent light services.

Regarding charges of muddled thinking, isn't it the case that no department head or design team anywhere, however dyed-in-the-wool, would go against a clear directive handed down from the boadroom? One didn't keep one's job then any more than now by blatantly defying company policy. This suggests to me that no clear directive existed, therefore any fault lay with the board, for failing to hand down any instruction concerning just what duties LMS locos were expected to perform. Is it vaguely conceivable that such directives would have been ignored, had they been issued?

I keep hearing the name Anderson being bandied about as though that gentleman was the LMS's answer to Shakespeare's Duke of Buckingham. Rather than the pantomime villain as which he's usually portrayed, I'd suggest his own department was as lacking in clear policy instructions as the Derby design office, with both left floundering regarding what the hell was actually expected of them. However you slice it, things always come back to a lack of direction from on high. After nearly a century, the only difference any of this makes in any case is one of accuracy.

How can I possibly justify such supposition? Well, I'd point to the appointment in 1926 of Josiah Stamp to the position of Chairman of the Board. Looking at his previous appointments to rarified positions (Goverment committees on this and that), I wonder whose idea it was to parachute in such a high-flyer so soon after the formation of the LMS? Perhaps one of our number has a handle on edicts (or lack thereof) from government to boardroom and from boadroom to Operating and CME departments?

 

I think Maunsell was undoubtedly far and away the best candidate for the job of Southern CME, and then proceeded to play his hand well.

However, I don't think you can underestimate the role of the Board, and Herbert Walker in particular, in the relatively painless transition that formed the SR at grouping, and the support he gave to his chief officers. Clearly the LMS was a far larger entity, with many times the number of men, machines and works to integrate, each with their separate pride and traditions. Clearly as well, works programmes don't stop overnight. Even so, it always strikes me that the LMS seemed to take an inordinately long period to start to deliver a consistent "LMS" tradition in motive power, and I'd be looking at Board level direction to wonder quite why it seemed such a protracted process. Did they have other greater concerns such that motive power was lower down their priority list?

(On that latter point - the biggest Board-level issue for the SR was around electrification. In that atmosphere, it might have been understandable had motive power affairs simply continued at a low key with separate Eastleigh, Brighton and Ashford schools of design, while serious management effort went into electrification - that that didn't happen is a tribute to both Maunsell and Walker).

Tom