Midland Railway Company

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Buhar said:

What! A Midland loco separated from it's tender! How will they know it's identity?

 

49 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

Err it's on the smokebox door if the numbers on the tender.......and if it's in full Johnson livery it's on the cab sides and not the tender.... just saying....

 

Yes indeed - brass numbers on the cab side sheet, rear splasher, or, in the case of some Kirtley engines, on the side of the boiler. At the date of this photo, smokebox numberplates were a decade or so away. 

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Buhar said:

What! A Midland loco separated from it's tender! How will they know it's identity?

 

Alan 

Not only that, each tender loco should have it's very own tender!

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Not only that, each tender loco should have it's very own tender!

 

There was a good deal more swapping around of tenders than the Crewe enthusiasts are willing to give credit for! There were even at times lists of spare tenders.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Who says so? The LNWR recognised that tenders didn't always need an overhaul when the loco did, so they could be swapped from one loco to another. LNWR tenders had their own numbers, rather than seeing the need to paint the loco number in large letters on the side of the tender. Was that for the benefit of drivers trying to find their loco in a dark engine shed.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There was a good deal more swapping around of tenders than the Crewe enthusiasts are willing to give credit for! There were even at times lists of spare tenders.

Of course there were spare tenders. On occasion when locos were scrapped, tenders were kept and even paired with new locos, that were built without new tenders. Why build new tenders when perfectly serviceable tenders were waiting to be used?

[meil]

On 25/08/2024 at 14:03, Compound2632 said:

 

But from the 1922 report posted a couple of posts back, the average first class passenger is earning the company over four times what the average third class passenger earned it - which indicates that the average first class journey was rather longer than the average third class journey.  That report also gives, somewhere, the number of first class and third class seats,

 

 

The 1922 report shows a bit over five times as many third class seasons as first class seasons; i.e. proportionately many more first class seasons compared to the proportion of first class individual journeys. So that does suggest that being able to afford a lump sum was a factor.

 

 

Take your pick:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail scan of MRSC 02999; c. 1906]

An interesting table.

 

Out of interest I note that the Harpenden - London annual season ticket was £18. According to the Bank of England that's £1,800 today.

 

Just looked up the present Harpenden - London annual fare and its £4,800.

 

So in real terms 3 times as much.

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Of course there were spare tenders. On occasion when locos were scrapped, tenders were kept and even paired with new locos, that were built without new tenders. Why build new tenders when perfectly serviceable tenders were waiting to be used?

 

The Kirtley 800 class 2-4-0 in the Leeds photo above is a case in point. Its original Kirtley tender had long since given way to the Johnson 3,250 gal type seen there, which was the standard tender for top link passenger engines up to the Belpaires.

[DenysW]

7 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

the need to paint the loco number in large letters on the side of the tender. Was that for the benefit of drivers trying to find their loco in a dark engine shed.

Part of Train Control, starting in 1906. More to help signalmen identify slow goods engines (train control not extended to passenger services until 1916). Partly to have numbers (somewhat) carefully reflect the power capability of the locomotive.

 

It's also a (possible) blunder by the LMS that they did not follow the logic of the 1906 MR renumbering by renumbering all of their new combined fleet with low-power given low-numbers. Alternatively they may have found the big-font numbers did not help enough of the time. But I do think it ticked-off the non-MR companies that they had to re-number, but the MR did not.

Edited September 5 by DenysW

[melmoth]

On 04/09/2024 at 13:04, Compound2632 said:

So, that last photo is the sort of thing that must lead Great Western enthusiasts to despair - how can they possibly compete against such a charm offensive? We should give them some comfort...

Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 92769. Caption: "Leeds Wellington station, around 1910. A semi-broadside view of Johnson-rebuilt Kirtley 800 class 2-4-0 No. 35 awaiting departure from platform 3 with an express. The leading carriage, only partly in view, was a non-MR vehicle in two-tone livery."

 

It is, I believe, a rather charming Great Western passenger brake van, a 29 ft six-wheeler to diagram V8, of which 18 were built as broad gauge vehicles in 1877-9 and converted to standard gauge in 1891/2, at which time they were renumbered 801-818: 

https://gwrcoaches.org.uk/Vdiags.shtml#V8.

Presumably the head of a through portion to Plymouth via Bristol?

 

Most good Western folk would have been delighted to depart from Leeds, regardless of the motive power.

[kevinlms]

19 hours ago, DenysW said:

 

It's also a (possible) blunder by the LMS that they did not follow the logic of the 1906 MR renumbering by renumbering all of their new combined fleet with low-power given low-numbers. Alternatively they may have found the big-font numbers did not help enough of the time. But I do think it ticked-off the non-MR companies that they had to re-number, but the MR did not.

There is always a problem of when you leave gaps in a numbering system, those gaps are never enough when you build new locomotives. It happened many times with the LMS and in many ways the LNER was just as bad, when all they did was add hundreds to an existing number, i.e 1472 became 4472 by adding 3000 to it's original number. If there were gaps and jumps in the previous system, then they remained so!

 

British railways never really addressed the issue of locomotive numbers, until BR came up with the TOPS numbering system, where each class was given a number, followed by a number within a class.

Of course by then, there were far fewer classes.

[jamie92208]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

There is always a problem of when you leave gaps in a numbering system, those gaps are never enough when you build new locomotives. It happened many times with the LMS and in many ways the LNER was just as bad, when all they did was add hundreds to an existing number, i.e 1472 became 4472 by adding 3000 to it's original number. If there were gaps and jumps in the previous system, then they remained so!

 

British railways never really addressed the issue of locomotive numbers, until BR came up with the TOPS numbering system, where each class was given a number, followed by a number within a class.

Of course by then, there were far fewer classes.

Just be grateful that the LMS didn't have the problem that Union Pacific had after a series of mergers in the 80's and 90's.  They ended up renumbering  most Locos into batches of the same model arranged by build date.  However they ran out of space as the National equipment database wouldn't accept more than 4 numerals plus a prefix of 2 to 4 letters.  They ended up putting their lower powered Locos, mainly used for shunting type work into a separate UPY series.  The designers of the UMLER  system in the 60's never imagined a company with over 10,000 Locos.  It would be interesting to see the instructions sent out from HQ to somewhere like Crewe or Inverness for the renumbering. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

It would be interesting to see the instructions sent out from HQ to somewhere like Crewe or Inverness for the renumbering. 

 

The evidence seems to be that Inverness acted on such instructions with alacrity - plus requisitioning more red paint than they were strictly entitled to - whereas at Crewe they disappeared into the bottom of a pile of papers on Beames' desk. 

[Aire Head]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The evidence seems to be that Inverness acted on such instructions with alacrity - plus requisitioning more red paint than they were strictly entitled to - whereas at Crewe they disappeared into the bottom of a pile of papers on Beames' desk. 

Along with the specs for smokebox door number plates 

Edited September 6 by Aire Head

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Aire Head said:

Along with the specs

 

Are you saying Beames was short-sighted?

[Compound2632]

The Midland Railway Society stand is at Guildex this weekend - good to meet a number of members modelling in the Senior Scale. We have had donation for the Study Centre collection - a large padlock (without key). A quick search of the online catalogue turns up five similar one, each subtly different and none quite like this. It is stamped M R Co. I suppose it might be off a lock-up store of some sort? The donor's father was a railwayman, not footplate grades, so unlikely to be off a locomotive toolbox, I think.

 

[kevinlms]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The evidence seems to be that Inverness acted on such instructions with alacrity - plus requisitioning more red paint than they were strictly entitled to - whereas at Crewe they disappeared into the bottom of a pile of papers on Beames' desk. 

Except of course Crewe was undergoing a large re-organisation, including closing the paint shop, I believe, starting in 1924. So it was lucky anything got painted properly at all.

The very earliest of LMS days had a number of express locos painted in the new colour scheme, so it's nonsense to suggest that anyone ignored the new instructions.

 

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Except of course Crewe was undergoing a large re-organisation, including closing the paint shop, I believe, starting in 1924. So it was lucky anything got painted properly at all.

The very earliest of LMS days had a number of express locos painted in the new colour scheme, so it's nonsense to suggest that anyone ignored the new instructions.

 

 

 

Yes indeed, I was just having my little joke.

[Compound2632]

The Chair and Emeritus Chair of the Midland Railway Society inspect the Society's stand at Guildex:

 

 

Publications officer Andrew Cholerton on the right.

[Aire Head]

On 07/09/2024 at 08:24, Compound2632 said:

 

Are you saying Beames was short-sighted?

 

I feel that to answer honestly may perhaps be compromising any attempt at neutrality I maintain for the purposes of society harmony!

[DenysW]

On 07/09/2024 at 08:24, Compound2632 said:

Are you saying Beames was short-sighted?

He does not seem to have been generously treated during the formation of the new regime, and perhaps this hit his motivation to implement its changes?

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, DenysW said:

He does not seem to have been generously treated during the formation of the new regime, and perhaps this hit his motivation to implement its changes?

 

I understood that positions were doled out simply on seniority.

Edited September 9 by Compound2632
sp.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I understood that positions were doled out simply on seniority.

That happened in all the grouped Railways.  IIRC Robinson was going to be the LNER CME but retired and Gresley got the job.  The Swindon mob may not have used the same rules. 

 

Jamie

Edited September 9 by jamie92208

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I understood that positions were doled out simply on seniority.

According to O.S. Nock, Beames went from CME at the biggest bit of the LMS to a divisional officer at reduced salary, being passed over twice in the name of time-served, first to Hughes, then to Fowler. That cannot have been motivating. Then the rules were changed and he got an alien from another planet (Swindon). A man who wore pale hats!!!

 

 

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

That happened in althe grouped Railways. 

 

Yes, it was explained to me on Saturday that Herbert Walker, despite his brilliant track record on the South Western and with the Railway Executive Committee, was not first choice for the position of General Manager on the Southern - though as I understand it, this was at least in part because the Brighton people were holding out for divisional general managers, i.e. preservation of the status quo ante.

Edited September 9 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, DenysW said:

According to O.S. Nock, Beames went from CME at the biggest bit of the LMS to a divisional officer at reduced salary, being passed over twice in the name of time-served, first to Hughes, then to Fowler. That cannot have been motivating. Then the rules were changed and he got an alien from another planet (Swindon). A man who wore pale hats!!!

 

But it should be pointed out that he had already been passed over in 1922, when Hughes was appointed CME of the amalgamated LNWR and LYR. So, he was already out of the running for the LMS job.

 

Hughes was born in 1865, Fowler in 1870, and Beames in 1875.