LMS 2P 4-4-0

Is it necessary that I personally have first-hand experience rather than referring to the bulk of evidence from the type's service life? That way lies the madness of top trumps, how many turns have you done, how many years of experience etc... the fact remains that they were poor performers by any reasonable standard and frankly three of them should have been left for Dai Woodham to send in bits to Briton Ferry. That they were rescued but 3817, 4156, 76080 and 92085 weren't shows how skewed priorities were then...

 

We have plenty of 9Fs and large Prairies. Are you saying that a part of railway history should be ignored because some footplatemen didn’t like some designs of locos? If you listen to ex GW men we shouldn’t have any Britannias preserved

 

Cardiff Canton men liked the Brits, as did the crews on the other three regions (70004/70014 being regarded as the equal in all but smoothness of ride to the Battle of Britains). 4Fs were never loved by anybody. 9Fs and Large Prairies are not merely useful but paragons of excellence, and we could do with rather more of both in service.

 

A bit off-topic but so what? Many men preferred the 3F to the 4F because of its ability to raise steam quickly which the 4F wouldn't, a lot of heat going from evaporation to the superheater, which took time to warm up but did its job once it did.

The order for the first forty Stanier Crabs came about because the operators wanted a further fifty Horwich Crabs. Stanier's plan was to (i) provide ten of these but with some modifications, and (ii) provide the other forty with taper boilers, which became the Stanier Crabs. Really, he wanted the class to be 4-6-0s following his experiences with the GWR Halls, but these proved troublesome to get the weights right. I can't say whether or not his 2-6-0 would have happened had the Black Fives' design matured in time.

 

The Stanier Mogul was certainly a damn sight prettier than the Crab... might be a decent loco but by heck it's fugly! Anyone know if 42859 still exists other than as a few spare parts?

 

And the nearest runing equivelant of 4.4.0.s Is30925,30926 and T9 30120 (3 cylinderthough) D49 morayshire soon, although im only 37 years old and seen and been told what the 2p locos were like only 2 cylinder if only one had been saved unlike the midland compound.

 

Again, you need to do some reading. Generally, the BR Standards were not well thought of by the ex-LMS men WITH WHOM I WORKED AND TALKED TO (I was guard). Apart from ease of disposal, they offered nothing that an LMS engine could not do, and the men expected improvements and didn't get them. Contrary to popular opinion, the 9Fs were far from adored and most men preferred an 8F (or regional equivalent) on most jobs. The 9Fs were too big for comfort, were not at home in yards with poor track and tight curves, used more coal on the bigger grate and that very stiff reverser was very tiring if any shunting was needed (firemen liked them because the older drivers' arms would start to ache so they would be told to do the driving, and usually the firing as well!). The Britannias were far less smooth than a Scot, not an engine itself renowned for good riding.

I can't help thinking you're fighting a lone and losing battle here.

 

I have just retired after 49 years on the footplate, latterly as an inspector. All you are doing is regurgitating hearsay evidence. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't mean that any experienced footplatemen have to accept it. They will base their judgement on facts, not supposition.

 

120 definitely only has two cylinders and is a far better loco than the 2P! 928 will be back imminently - how many cases have there been of all surviving members of a loco class being operational at once (where multiple examples survive)?

 

I must say, whilst the stirring up is not terribly interesting, the replies in defence most certainly are, so thanks!

 

Something tells me there is some trolling going on here (and not only in this thread currently). Some people's comments are best ignored IMO.

 

Agreed, I have just loooked at the poster's profile and now realise that I am wasting my time engaging in any coherent discussion.

 

Farnley, Holbeck, Patricroft.

 

Where else am I alleged (wholly falsely) to have engaged in trolling?

We are facing a crisis in this business: in volunteers, in cash, in resources. Throwing good money after bad locos is catastrophically irresponsible.

 

Why an Oban bogie 4-6-0? As far as I know the Caley 4-6-0s were poor tools, apart from the Rivers, who h they bought from the Highland. A bit like the GC and Drummond on the South Western, 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s were good, but when they tried to design bigger locos, they went badly wrong

 

Oban Bogies were decent enough, it was the Cardeans, Greybacks and 3-cylinders that were poor. The Oban Bogie was just an outsize 812 with a shorter coupled wheelbase and bigger boiler. Small diameter wheels so the low axle height didn't impinge too badly on the ashpan unlike with the Cardeans and the GCR Sam Fays.

 

That is as may be... but when that cash is in such short supply overall, it doesn't change the reality that it's irresponsible. Some folk may hold inferior locomotives in some degree of affection, but when that money would be much better employed on some more 2MTs, for example.

I am increasingly of the opinion that @paulhitch is right.

 

A purely factual reply. All four 2MT 2-6-2-T which survive are operable currently.