Jump to content

Locomotives of the Midland Railway

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Light Engine)

The Locomotives of the Midland Railway (which it always referred to as engines), followed its small engine policy. The policy was later adopted by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and contrasted with the London and North Western Railway's policy. The small engine policy was partly the consequence of a difference in the background of senior managers. In most railway companies, the elite position was the design, construction and maintenance of locomotives. Bigger engines brought more prestige and allowed longer trains. In the Midland, the marketing department was paramount. They recognised that people wanted more frequent, shorter trains rather than an infrequent service. It concentrated on very light, very fast and frequent trains.

Midland Railway Coat of Arms

Overview

[edit]

The small engine policy was, perhaps, carried on too long, giving rise to the derisive poem:

M is for Midland with engines galore
Two on each train and asking for more

Prior to around 1900, the Midland's locomotives were not noticeably different in size or power to those of other British railway companies; what was more notable was the company's commitment to standardisation of a small number of related locomotive designs. This policy began in the 1850s with Matthew Kirtley as Chief Mechanical Engineer. Kirtley provided two basic engine types - 0-6-0 locomotives for freight and 2-4-0 types for passenger work. Over 800 Kirtley 0-6-0s and 150 2-4-0s were built up to 1873. Samuel W. Johnson and Richard Deeley continued the policy but with a gradual progression in the locomotive designs. By 1914 the entire Midland network was being operated by six basic engine designs: a Class 1 0-6-0 tank engine for light freight and shunting, Class 1 0-4-4T tank engine for light passenger work, Class 2 4-4-0 engine for general passenger work, Class 3 0-6-0 engines in tank and tender variants for mixed traffic and freight, and Class 4 4-4-0 for express passenger work. This degree of standardisation was exceptional amongst the pre-grouping British railway companies. All the Midland designs were built to the same basic design principles and a 'kit' of parts meaning that many parts such as boilers, cylinders, wheels, cabs and bearings were interchangeable across some or all of the six types.

During the 1890s, a new phase in British locomotive development began with the arrival of 'large engine' designs to cope with rising average train weights for both passenger and freight traffic and demand for faster journey times. This new generation of engines featured much larger, more efficient boilers and were physically larger, heavier and more powerful than the locomotives commonly built in the preceding 40 years. During the 1900s, many British railways began introducing new locomotive designs, with the 4-6-0 becoming predominant for express passenger work, the 0-8-0 for heavy freight trains and the 2-6-0 for fast freight and mixed traffic. Unusually amongst the large British railways, the Midland chose not to develop its own 'large engines' - when such designs were proposed by both Johnson and Deeley, they were rejected by the railway's management. Instead the Midland chose to continue production of its existing locomotive designs largely unchanged and thus adopted the 'small engine policy' for the 20th century.

Origins of the Small Engine Policy

[edit]

The Midland was fortunate in that George Stephenson had built its main lines with very shallow gradients, while its main rival the LNWR had to cope with the hilly country north of Lancaster. The Midland favoured building large numbers of relatively small, low-powered engines to standardised designs. Each engine was cheaper to build and run than a larger equivalent and while more locomotives were required, the Midland's Derby Works was able to achieve economies of scale. The Midland found that a single small engine was sufficient on the majority of its well-graded lines, and that it was more efficient to add either more trains of a shorter length to handle greater demand or to employ multiple small engines (two or three) when heavier trains were needed. This was deemed preferable to building a small number of large engines for the routes and duties that required them which did not fit into Derby's standardised production and risked being underutilised and incurring expensive running costs unnecessarily.

Indeed, the Midland's operations were often based around keeping even its small engines lightly loaded at a time when other railways were not only building larger, more powerful locomotives but working them to their maximum capacity with the heaviest trains possible. The Midland's philosophy was to keep individual train weights as low as was practically possible and run more trains, providing short-term economies in fuel consumption and wear-and-tear on the locomotive, which in the long term meant that Midland locomotives generally enjoyed longer service lives than hard-worked contemporaries on other railways. This was one reason why the relatively undersized standard Midland axle bearing was successfully retained for so long into the 20th century - under Midland operating practices the loads imposed on the bearing by a low-powered locomotive working well within its capabilities were minimised.

The overall interlinked light-use design/operate philosophy was formalised in 1907, when under chairman George Ernest Paget and Traffic Inspector John Follows, the Midland introduced a new traffic management system whereby every locomotive type was assigned a single standardised workload (in contrast to the system used by other railways, including the Midland's main competitor the London and North Western Railway, whereby new or freshly-overhauled locomotives were given higher workloads, with locomotives progressively being assigned less arduous tasks as their condition deteriorated towards the next overhaul). This required that the standard workload had to be, to an extent, a 'worst case' scenario of a worn-out locomotive immediately due for overhaul, with the result that train loads were kept low and engines in good condition were not worked to their maximum. This system also ensured the continuation of the Midland's practice of continuing to run shorter, lighter but more frequent trains (against the industry trend for longer, heavier but fewer services) since the Midland's service timings were calculated based on relatively low power being available.

Advantages and Disadvantages

[edit]

The advantages were in the lower maintenance and fuel costs in ensuring that most engines were not worked to their limit, the permitting of standardised maintenance and inspection intervals (since individual locomotives did not have to be regularly assessed to ascertain their suitability for the work assigned to them) and the simplicity of rostering engines for work, as Midland shed managers could be confident that every engine they had available would be capable of the duty assigned. This allowed the Midland to greatly improve its punctuality and timekeeping - which had been poor in the late 19th century and a source of bad publicity - since the timetables and train loads could be drawn to also assume the standard 'worst case' locomotive power available, while most of the engines actually in service were in better condition than that.

One upshot of the new management system was that the Midland followed the practice common on American railways of putting the role of Motive Power Superintendent (responsible for managing and allocating the railway's locomotive stock in service) under the authority of the Operating Department (with overall responsibility for managing the railway's services and timetables in response to demand) rather than the role being subordinate to the Chief Mechanical Engineer (responsible for providing and maintaining locomotives) as was usual in British railway companies. This had the effect of Midland locomotive policy from approximately 1910, further formalising the concept of more frequent, lighter trains hauled by relatively small locomotives - a situation which favoured the goal of the Operating Department (greater frequency, flexibility and overall volume of services) at the expense of the Motive Power Superintendent's natural preference for a smaller number of more powerful locomotives (a smaller number of more easily-managed, less labour-intensive assets performing the same work) or the ability of the Derby works (under the CME) to design such locomotives.

Smaller, less powerful engines also allowed savings in civil engineering upgrades as they permitted lighter-laid track and cheaper bridges to be retained for longer into the 20th century - thus there is an interaction with Route Availability - primarily based on axle loadings - although this concept was not formalised into classifications in Midland or LMS days (contrast to the Great Western Railway, q.v.). In turn this acted against the widespread adoption of larger, heavier engines as this would require a simultaneous large-scale civil engineering programme to improve the Midland's permanent way and associated structures. Similarly, the Midland was unusual among British railways by continuing to favour roundhouses to stable and service its locomotives instead of the more common longitudinal shed. While a shed could be relatively easy expanded and lengthened to accommodate larger locomotives, the roundhouses could not, further adding a secondary cost to adopting large engines. Another such factor was that decades of running light, short trains meant that the Midland's network featured shorter-than-average sidings and passing loops - if more powerful locomotives were to be procured and used to the full, these would have to be rebuilt to work with longer trains.

The small engine policy served the Midland well when its network was confined to the English Midlands, which is largely free of steep gradients. As the company expanded into other parts of Britain the policy's downsides began to cause problems. The company's own main line to Scotland (the Settle-Carlisle Line) and the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (where the Midland was responsible for providing locomotives) were renowned for their steep gradients and the company's locomotive stock proved badly suited to the task. Nonetheless the small engine policy remained and double-heading or banking was used to make up for the shortfall in power. The policy also greatly reduced capacity on the Midland's network as not only were there more (but smaller) trains than there would have been on another railway but further capacity was taken up by the need to accommodate light engines that had been used for piloting or banking duties that were returning to their depots. The small engine policy was a contributing factor to two fatal accidents on the Settle-Carlisle Line, at Hawes Junction and Ais Gill. In the former case it was due to excessive light-engine movements and in the latter due to a train stalling on the main line due to a lack of power.

The End of the Policy

[edit]

The small engine policy remained in place into the 1920s and remained an influence during the early years of the Midland's successor the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, its Chief Mechanical Engineer for most of the 1920s being Henry Fowler, a long-standing Midland engineer and former CME of that company. James Anderson was made Chief Motive Power Superintendent of the new LMS. Anderson was also from the Midland, was a trained locomotive engineer, had been draughtsman and works manager at Derby Works and had been appointed temporary CME of the Midland when Fowler was seconded to the British government to manage wartime production of munitions and aircraft. The corporate management structure of the Midland, with the Operating Department overseeing the role of the Motive Power Superintendent, continued in a somewhat de facto fashion in the early years of the LMS.

Midland-era standard designs were continued or lightly updated and constructed for use across the new LMS network. Many of these types proved ill-suited or inadequate for routes and operating practices away from ex-Midland territory - while ex-Midland locomotives were imposed on the new LMS, the operational practices that went with them were not, on top of still-rising demands with regard to train speeds and weights. This left Midland-designed 'small engines' being worked to the full on heavy trains by crews used to working their engines as hard as possible. Under these conditions many of the designs proved inadequate in terms of both performance and reliability (such as the frequent axle bearing failures afflicting many ex-Midland LMS engines in the 1920s) and this left the LMS with a shortage of modern motive power by the late 1920s. Fowler oversaw the introduction of the Royal Scot class locomotives in 1927, which effectively ended the Midland small engine tradition - they were in fact built by the North British Locomotive Company which also had a large part in the design process, further assisted by plans of the Southern Railway's Lord Nelson class being provided to the LMS. Fowler was superseded by William Stanier in 1932 who brought in a new generation of modern 'large engine' designs, greatly influenced by his previous employer, the Great Western Railway.

Numbering and classification

[edit]

Before 1907, locomotive numbering was somewhat erratic. New locomotives might take the numbers of old engines, which were placed on the duplicate list and had an A suffix added to their numbers. In 1907, the whole stock were renumbered in a systematic way, each class in a consecutive sequence, classes being ordered by type (passenger/tank/goods), power and age. After the grouping this system was adapted for the whole LMS.

The Midland classified their stock into three classes numbered 1 to 3 with 1 the least powerful and 3 the most. Stock was also split into passenger and freight engines. When the two largest 4-4-0 classes (the 3-cylinder compounds and the "999s") were introduced, these were put into Class 4. This system formed the basis for the subsequent LMS and BR classification systems.

Engines inherited from constituent companies

[edit]

The Midland Railway formed in 1844 from the Midland Counties Railway, the North Midland Railway and the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway, and took over a number of others including the Leicester and Swannington Railway and the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway.

For further reading, see:

Engines built by the Midland

[edit]

Initially, the Midland concentrated on maintaining and improving the somewhat varied fleet that it had inherited, with the assistance of The Railway Foundry in Leeds. In addition, it bought in twenty-four of their Jenny Lind locomotives and, in 1848, two unique Crampton locomotives.

MR class Wheel
arrangement 		Pre-1907 fleet
number(s) 		Post-1907 fleet
number(s) 		Manufacturer
Serial number(s) 		Year(s)
built 		Quantity Year(s)
withdrawn 		Comments
Matthew Kirtley (1844–1873)
130 class 2-2-2 130–135
120–129		 — Robert Stephenson & Co. (6)
Sharp, Stewart & Co. (10)		 1852–1854 16 1872–1892 Most survivors rebuilt by Johnson after 1875.[1]
136 class 2-2-2 136–149 — Derby Works 1856–1858 14 1871–1897
1 class 2-2-2 1…156 — Derby Works 1859–1862 25 1871–1894
30 class 2-2-2 25–39
94, 97–100		 — Derby Works 1863–1866 20 1887–1904
137 class 2-4-0 137-140 1846 4 ..
50 class 2-4-0 50–59 — Derby Works 1862–1864 10 1876–1895 Likely replaced by Johnson's class 50 and 55.
70 class 2-4-0 70–79
86–89		 — Derby Works 1862–1863 14 1874–1905 Three were given newer Kirtley boilers and cabs.
80 class 2-4-0 80–85 — Derby Works 1862–1863 6 1876–1895 Built for 1862 exhibition specials.
156 class 2-4-0 101–119
153–164		 1–22 Derby Works 1866–1874 29 1890s–1947 One survivor, 158A, the oldest surviving Midland Railway locomotive. [2]
170 class 2-4-0 170–199 — Beyer, Peacock & Co. 1867 30 around 1900
800 class 2-4-0 800–829
(+ various)		 23–67 Neilson & Co. (30)
Derby Works (18)		 1870–1871 48 1905–1936
890 class 2-4-0 890–909
(+ various)		 68–126 Neilson & Co. (20)
Derby Works (42)		 1871–1875 62 ..
204 class 4-4-0T 204–209 1198–1199 Beyer, Peacock & Co. 1868 6 ?-after 1907 Built for services into the City of London.
230 class 2-4-0T 230–239 — Beyer, Peacock & Co. 1868 10 .. Built for same service as 204 class.
690 class 0-4-4T 690–695 1200–1205 Beyer-Peacock 1869 6 1926–1934
780 class 0-4-4T 780–799 1206–1225 Dübs & Co. 1870 20 1921–1935 Very similar to 690 class.
222 class 0-6-0WT 222, 320
223, 221		 1604 Derby Works 1860–1863 4 1894–1928 [3] Lickey bankers
30 class 0-6-0ST 1093
1096–1101		 Vulcan Foundry (2)
Sharp, Stewart & Co. (5)		 1862-1872 7 .. Acquired from Swansea Vale Railway
221 class 0-6-0ST 221 — Sharp, Stewart & Co. 1863 1 1882 [4] ex Staveley Iron Works, acquired 1866; renumbered 2027 in 1872
1063 class 0-6-0WT 1063–1065 — Manning Wardle (2)
? (1)		 1860–1864 3 1891–1900 [4] ex Sheepbridge Iron Works, acquired 1870
880 class 0-6-0T 880–889 1610–1619 Beyer, Peacock & Co. 1871 10 1924–1927 [4]
2066 class 0-6-0WT 2066–2068 — Manning Wardle 1873 3 1890–1898 [4]
179 class 0-6-0 179–189 — 1845 11 ..
240 class 0-6-0 240–269
290–479		 2300–2306, 2313-2397, 2712, 2868-2899 Derby Works 1850-1863 230 ..
280 class 0-6-0 280–289 2307–2308 Robert Stephenson & Co. 1853 10 1898–1921 [5]
270 class 0-6-0 270–279 2309–2312 Kitson & Co. 1852–1853 10 1863–1924 [5]
480 class 0-6-0 480–569
690–699
(+ various)		 2398–2591
2672–2686		 Derby Works (97)
Dübs & Co. (20)
Kitson & Co. (45)
Robert Stephenson & Co. (75)
Sharp Stewart (20)
Yorkshire Engine Co. (10)		 1863–1869 237 1902–1945 [6]
700 class 0-6-0 700–779
830–879
910–1067
(+ various)		 2592–2671
2687–2867		 Derby Works (26)
Dübs & Co. (150)
John Fowler & Co. (10)
Kitson & Co. (10)
Neilson & Co. (40)
Vulcan Foundry (80)		 1869–1874 316 1903–1951 [7] 50 to Italy in 1906
Samuel Waite Johnson (1873–1903)
1070 class 2-4-0 1070–1089
1, 9, 10, 13
70–71, 74
96, 146		 127–146,
147–156		 Sharp, Stewart & Co. (20),
Derby Works (10)		 1874–1876 30 1912–1950 [8]
50 class 2-4-0 50–54 187–191 Derby Works 1876 5 1926–1936 [9]
55 class 2-4-0 55–59 192–196 Derby Works 1876 5 1924–1939 [9]
1282 class 2-4-0 1282–1311 157–186 Dübs & Co. 1876 30 1922–1948 [10]
1347 class 2-4-0 1347–1356 197–206 Derby Works 1877 10 1919–1941 [11] Renumbered 101–110 in 1879
1400 class 2-4-0 1400–1490
1472–1491
1502–1531		 207–216
222–271		 Derby Works (30)
Neilson & Co. (30)		 1879–1881 60 1925–1949 [12]
111 class 2-4-0 111–115 217–221 Derby Works 1880 5 1928–1943 [13]
1492 class 2-4-0 1492–1501 272–281 Derby Works 1881 10 1924–1933 [14]
1312 class 4-4-0 1312–1321 300–309 Kitson & Co. 1876 10 1911–1930 [15] Class 2
1327 class 4-4-0 1327–1346 310–327 Dübs & Co. 1876 20 1904–1934 [15] Class 2
1562 class 4-4-0 1562–1666 328–357 Derby Works 1882–1884 30 1923–1937 [16] Class 2
1667 class 4-4-0 1667–1676 — Derby Works 1876 10 1896–1901 [15] Class 2
1738 class 4-4-0 1738–1757 358–377 Derby Works 1885 20 1922–1940 [17] Class 2; No. 1757 named Beatrice
1808 class 4-4-0 1808–1822
80–87, 11, 14		 378–402 Derby Works 1888–1891 25 1922–1952 [18] Class 2
2183 class 4-4-0 2183–2202 403–427 Sharp, Stewart & Co. (20)
Derby Works (5)		 1892–1896 25 1914–1922 [19] Class 2
2203 class 4-4-0 2203–2217
184–199
161–164
230–239		 428–472 Sharp, Stewart & Co. (15)
Derby Works (30)		 1893–1895 45 1914–1931 [20] Class 2
2581 class 4-4-0 2581–2590 473–482 Beyer, Peacock & Co. 1900 10 1914–1927 [21] Class 2
156 class 4-4-0 156–160
150, 153–155
204–209
1667–1676		 483–522 Derby Works 1896–1901 20 1912–1918 [21] Class 2
2421 class 4-4-0 2421–2440 502–522 Sharp, Stewart & Co. 1899 20 1912–1913 [22] Class 2
60 class 4-4-0 60–69, 93
138–139
151–152
165–169
805–809
2636–2640
2591–2600		 523–562 Derby Works (30)
Neilson & Co. (10)
 1898–1899 40 1913–15 [23] Class 2
25 class 4-2-2 25–32, 37
1854–1862		 600–607
610–619		 Derby Works 1887–1890 18 1919–1928 [24]
1853 class 4-2-2 1853, 34
1863–1872
8, 122, 20
145, 24, 33
35–36, 38–39
4, 16–17, 94
97–100, 129, 133
149, 170–178		 608–609
620–659		 Derby Works 1893, 1896 42 1920–1927 [25]
179 class 4-2-2 179–183, 75–77, 79, 88 660–669 Derby Works 1893, 1896 10 1925–1927 [26]
115 class 4-2-2 115–121, 123–128, 130–131 670–684 Derby Works 1896–1899 15 1921–1928 One survivor, No. 673.[27]
2601 class 4-2-2 2601–2608
22–23		 685–694 Derby Works 1899–1900 10 1919–1922 [28] 2606–2608 renumbered 19–21 in 1900
Class 3 Belpaire 4-4-0 2606–2610
800–804
2781–2790
810–869		 700–779 Derby Works 1900–1905 80 1925–1953 [29]
1000 class 4-4-0 2631–2635 1000–1004 Derby Works 1902–1903 5 1948–1952 [24] 3-cylinder compound. One survivor, No. 1000.
6 class 0-4-4T 6, 15, 18, 137, 140–144, 147 1226–1235 Derby Works 1875 10 1925–1930 [30]
1252 class 0-4-4T 1262–1281
1252–1261		 1236–1265 Neilson & Co. 1875–1876 30 1920–1954 [31] BR 58031–58038
1532 class 0-4-4T 1532–151
1632–1656
1718–1737		 1266–1330 Derby Works 1881–1886 65 1920–1956 [32] BR 58039–58051
1823 class 1833 class 0-4-4T 1823–1832
1322–1326, 202
1428–1430, 1697
1833–1842
2013–2022
2218–2227		 1331–1380 Derby Works (20)
Dübs & Co. (30)		 1889–1893 50 1925–1959 [33] BR 58052–58072
1322 class 0-4-0ST 1322–1326, 202
1428–1430, 1697		 1500–1507 Derby Works 1883, 1889–1890 10 1907–1949 [28] Nicknamed "Jinties"
1116A class 0-4-0ST 1116A–1120A,
2359–2360,
1131A–1133A		 1508–1517 Derby Works 1893, 1897 10 1921–1955 [34]
1134A class 0-4-0ST 1134A–1143A 1518–1527 Derby Works 1897, 1903 10 1922–1958 [30]
1102 class 0-6-0T 1102–1141
 1620–1559 Neilson & Co. (25),
Vulcan Foundry (15)		 1874–1876 40 1920–1931 [35]
1377 class 0-6-0T (various) 1660–1844 Derby Works (165),
Vulcan Foundry (20)		 1878–1891 185 1928–1965 [36] "Half-cab". One survivor, No. 41708.
1121 class 0-6-0T 1121–1130
2248–2252
2361–2390
2571–2580		 1845–1899 Derby Works (10)
Sharp, Stewart & Co. (5)
Robert Stephenson & Co. (40)		 1895–1900 55 1930–1963 [37]
2228 class 0-4-4T 2228–2247
690–695, 780–783
2611–2630		 1381–1430 Dübs & Co. (40)
Derby Works (10)		 1895–1900 50 1931–1957 [38] BR 58073–58091
2441 class 0-6-0T 2441–2460
2741–2780		 1900–1959 Vulcan Foundry 1899–1902 60 1954–1967 [39] LMS 7200–7259 from 1934
2501 class 2-6-0 2501–2510
2521–2540		 2200–2229 Baldwin Locomotive Works 1899 30 1908–1914 [40]
2511 class 2-6-0 2511–2520 2230–2239 Schenectady Locomotive Works 1899 10 1912–1915 [41]
Class 2 & 3 goods 0-6-0 .. .. ... .. .. ..
Richard Deeley (1903–1909)
990 class 4-4-0 — 990–999 Derby Works 1908–1909 10 1925–1928 [42] LMS 801–809 from 1926
1000 class 4-4-0 1000–1029 1005–1044 Derby Works 1905–1909 40 1948–1953 [43] 3-cylinder Compound
1528 class 0-4-0T — 1528–1532 Derby Works 1907 5 1957–1966 [44]
2000 class 0-6-4T — 2000–2039 Derby Works 1907 40 1935–1938 [42]
Paget locomotive 2-6-2 — 2299 Derby Works 1908 1 1912 [44]
Henry Fowler (1909–1922)
483 class 4-4-0 — .. Derby Works 1912–1924 165 1948–1963 [45] Renewals of Johnson Class 2
Battery locomotive Bo — 1550 Derby Works 1913 1 1964 [46] Renumbered BEL 1 by British Railways
1528 class 0-4-0T — 1533–1537 Derby Works 1921–1922 5 1957–1966 [46]
Lickey Banker 0-10-0 — 2290 Derby Works 1919 1 1956 [47]
3835 class 0-6-0 — 3835–4026 Derby Works (142)
Armstrong Whitworth (50)		 1911–1922 197 1954–1965 [48] plus S&DJR 67–71. One survivor, No. 43924.

Ex- LT&SR (1912-1922)

[edit]
Main article: Locomotives of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway

In 1912 the Midland bought the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, but this continued to be operated more or less separately. The Midland, and the LMS subsequently built some LT&SR designs.

Liveries

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Midland Railway crimson lake livery.

Prior to 1883 painted green. After 1883 the Midland adopted its distinctive crimson lake livery for passenger engines.

Influence on LMS locomotive policy

[edit]
Main article: Locomotives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway

The London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) continued the Midland's small engine policy until William Stanier arrived in 1933. The last new Midland design was Stanier 0-4-4T of 1932/3 but some Fowler 4Fs were constructed as late as 1941.

Preservation

[edit]

Five original Midland locomotives have survived, these being:

Image MR No. 1907 No. MR Class Type Manufacturer Serial No. Built Withdrawn Notes
158A 2 156 2-4-0 Derby Works — 1866 1947 [49] Rebuilt 1881, 1897; Deeley Class 1
1418 1708 1377 0-6-0T Derby Works — 1880 1965 [50] Rebuilt 1896, 1926; Deeley Class 1
118 673 115 4-2-2 Derby Works — 1897 1928 [26] Rebuilt 1909; Deeley Class 1
2631 1000 1000 4-4-0 Derby Works — 1902 1959 [24] Rebuilt 1914; Deeley Class 4 Compound
— 3924 3835 0-6-0 Derby Works — 1920 1965 [51] Class 4 Goods. First locomotive to leave Woodham Brothers scrapyard in September 1968.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Casserley 1960, pp. 14–15.
  2. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 62–66.
  3. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 115.
  4. ^ a b c d Baxter 1982, p. 116.
  5. ^ a b Baxter 1982, pp. 95–96.
  6. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 97–105.
  7. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 105–115.
  8. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 72–73, 120.
  9. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 120.
  10. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 121.
  11. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 122.
  12. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 122–123.
  13. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 123.
  14. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 123–124.
  15. ^ a b c Baxter 1982, p. 124.
  16. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 125.
  17. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 126.
  18. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 127–128.
  19. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 126–127.
  20. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 128.
  21. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 129.
  22. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 130.
  23. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 130–131.
  24. ^ a b c Baxter 1982, p. 133.
  25. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 133–134.
  26. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 134.
  27. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 134–135.
  28. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 135.
  29. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 131–132.
  30. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 136.
  31. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 136–137.
  32. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 137–138.
  33. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 138–139.
  34. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 135–135.
  35. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 140–141.
  36. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 141–146.
  37. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 146–147.
  38. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 139–140.
  39. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 147–148.
  40. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 172–173.
  41. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 172.
  42. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 176.
  43. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 175–176.
  44. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 177.
  45. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 177–180.
  46. ^ a b Baxter 1982, p. 180.
  47. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 183.
  48. ^ Baxter 1982, pp. 180–183.
  49. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 62.
  50. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 142.
  51. ^ Baxter 1982, p. 182.

Sources

[edit]
  • Baxter, Bertram (1982). Baxter, David (ed.). British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923. Vol. 3A: Midland Railway and its constituent companies. Ashbourne, Derbyshire: Moorland Publishing Company. ISBN 9780903485524.
  • Casserley, H.C. (1960). Historic locomotive pocket book. London: Batsford.

Further reading

[edit]

The main works on Midland engines are given by two four volume histories, as follows:

  • Bob Essery and David Jenkinson An Illustrated Review of Midland Locomotives from 1883 (Didcot, Oxon: Wild Swan Publications)
  • Stephen Summerson Midland Railway Locomotives – Irwell Press
    • Vol. 1 – A comprehensive primary account, general survey 1844–1922, growth and development, boilers, tenders, fittings and details. ISBN 1-903266-10-6
    • Vol. 2 – The Kirtley classes. ISBN 1-903266-85-8
    • Vol. 3 – Johnson classes part 1 : the slim boiler passenger tender engines, passenger and goods tank engines. ISBN 1-903266-26-2
    • Vol. 4 – Johnson classes part 2 : the goods and later passenger tender engines, Deeley, Fowler and LTSR classes. ISBN 1-903266-55-6

Also useful is:

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Midland Railway steam locomotives.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Locomotives_of_the_Midland_Railway&oldid=1246356167"