J11s

[Pyewipe Junction]

To address a couple of other points: I find it condescending to imply that I was unaware of the K1s and L1s. I would hardly classify them as 'light medium' (ie BR power classification 2 to 3) locomotives.

The only LNER 0-6-0s in this category were the J6s and J11s. The other 0-6-0s (apart from the J39s, which of course were in a higher power category) were dedicated goods engines with small driving wheels, whereas the J6s and J11s could also be described as 'utility' locomotives. You would have expected Thompson to have preferred the J6s, as they were a more modern design with piston valves, and I have read a reason for his choosing the J11s, but can't remember where. Perhaps someone knows?

I still think Thompson should have looked at a small 2-6-0 (with or without a tank equivalent).

[S.A.C. Martin]

I looked through your book again last night and could find only two brief references to the J11s. Hardly 'covering' a major projected rebuilding programme, I would have thought. Don't forget also that over 30 J11/1s were in fact converted to J11/3s, right up to the mid 1950s.

30 engines isn't a major rebuilding scheme when the class total is 174 locomotives. But for the revised book I will consider a larger section on the J11/3s.

To address a couple of other points: I find it condescending to imply that I was unaware of the K1s and L1s. I would hardly classify them as 'light medium' (ie BR power classification 2 to 3) locomotives.

But the LNER considered them as "medium sized", if you like, because the mixed traffic category was pretty broad (though actually the L1 would be considered as a secondary passenger, but that's a whole other debate). Just because you don't see them as such doesn't mean that they weren't.

The only LNER 0-6-0s in this category were the J6s and J11s. The other 0-6-0s (apart from the J39s, which of course were in a higher power category) were dedicated goods engines with small driving wheels, whereas the J6s and J11s could also be described as 'utility' locomotives.

J39 was specifically built as mixed traffic and has the same size diameter driving wheels as the class J6. Every primary source describes the J39 as mixed traffic. The J6s and J11s were obviously mixed traffic locomotives when built.

You would have expected Thompson to have preferred the J6s, as they were a more modern design with piston valves, and I have read a reason for his choosing the J11s, but can't remember where. Perhaps someone knows?

I will requote myself:

The intention was to standardise on boilers, piston valves and other items wherever possible. The J11 was one of the largest 0-6-0 classes the LNER had, and also one of the best performing locomotives of that size. By effectively merging classes J11 and J39 and uniting them with boiler and valve gear types, that would have represented a significant portion of the LNER's mixed traffic fleet with interchangeable parts.

The J11/3 was intended to have the round topped boiler of the J39s, but in the event this didn't happen. The use of long travel and piston valves meant the existing boiler had to be raised up higher, necessitating some modification to the chimney, cabs and other fittings.

The size of the classes dictated the approach, standardising on parts between the largest 0-6-0 classes makes a lot of sense, but it didn't happen in the manner originally intended for a variety of reasons.

I still think Thompson should have looked at a small 2-6-0 (with or without a tank equivalent).

Noted. The British Railways standard classes included 2MTs, none of which was, I think I am right in saying, utilised on ex-LNER metals particularly. 410 Thompson B1s were built which pretty much covered most of the ex-LNER system. One could cogently argue that the B1 sufficed for all manner of work.

[Pyewipe Junction]

Noted. The British Railways standard classes included 2MTs, none of which was, I think I am right in saying, utilised on ex-LNER metals particularly. 410 Thompson B1s were built which pretty much covered most of the ex-LNER system. One could cogently argue that the B1 sufficed for all manner of work.

Ex-LNER sheds received quantities of Ivatt 2MTs and 4MTs, and Riddles 3MTs and 2MTs.

Quite a few Ivatt 4MTS were put to work on the ex-MGNR system from new, ousting K2s, B12s and D16s, until its closure in February 1959.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Noted. The British Railways standard classes included 2MTs, none of which was, I think I am right in saying, utilised on ex-LNER metals particularly. 410 Thompson B1s were built which pretty much covered most of the ex-LNER system. One could cogently argue that the B1 sufficed for all manner of work.

Ex-LNER sheds received quantities of Ivatt 2MTs and 4MTs, and Riddles 3MTs and 2MTs.

Which sheds were those?

Quite a few Ivatt 4MTS were put to work on the ex-MGNR system from new, ousting K2s, B12s and D16s, until its closure in February 1959.

Right, but you were talking about 2MTs and I assumed you were sticking to that traffic size.

[Pyewipe Junction]

[/quote]

Ex-LNER sheds received quantities of Ivatt 2MTs and 4MTs, and Riddles 3MTs and 2MTs.[/quote]

Which sheds were those?

Quite a few Ivatt 4MTS were put to work on the ex-MGNR system from new, ousting K2s, B12s and D16s, until its closure in February 1959.

Right, but you were talking about 2MTs and I assumed you were sticking to that traffic size.
[/quote]

According to BR Database, initial allocations of LMS and BR Class 2s and BR Class 3s to LNER/CLC/MGNR sheds were as follows:

LMS Class 2: Kirkby Stephen, St Margarets, Cambridge, Colchester, West Auckland, Darlington.

BR Class 2: West Auckland, Kirkby Stephen, Kittybrewster, Hawick, St Margarets, Chester Northgate.

BR Class 3: Darlington.

If we include LMS Class 4s: Melton Constable, Yarmouth Beach, Middlesborough, Neville Hill, Darlington, New England, Hull Dairycoates, South Lynn, Selby, Fort William, Eastfield, Carlisle Canal, Polmont, Colchester, Stratford.

Naturally, these allocations changed over time (eg: BR Class 3s).

I have no argument with the success or usefulness of the B1s. They were excellent locos that never got the credit they deserved. However, useful though they were, there were still a number of routes on which they couldn't be used on a regular basis, and this is why I am left scratching my head as to why Thompson didn't envisage a smaller, 2-6-0, for this purpose.

[burnie]

Ex-LNER sheds received quantities of Ivatt 2MTs and 4MTs, and Riddles 3MTs and 2MTs.[/quote]

Which sheds were those?

Quite a few Ivatt 4MTS were put to work on the ex-MGNR system from new, ousting K2s, B12s and D16s, until its closure in February 1959.

Right, but you were talking about 2MTs and I assumed you were sticking to that traffic size.
[/quote]

According to BR Database, initial allocations of LMS and BR Class 2s and BR Class 3s to LNER/CLC/MGNR sheds were as follows:

LMS Class 2: Kirkby Stephen, St Margarets, Cambridge, Colchester, West Auckland, Darlington.

BR Class 2: West Auckland, Kirkby Stephen, Kittybrewster, Hawick, St Margarets, Chester Northgate.

BR Class 3: Darlington.

If we include LMS Class 4s: Melton Constable, Yarmouth Beach, Middlesborough, Neville Hill, Darlington, New England, Hull Dairycoates, South Lynn, Selby, Fort William, Eastfield, Carlisle Canal, Polmont, Colchester, Stratford.

Naturally, these allocations changed over time (eg: BR Class 3s).

I have no argument with the success or usefulness of the B1s. They were excellent locos that never got the credit they deserved. However, useful though they were, there were still a number of routes on which they couldn't be used on a regular basis, and this is why I am left scratching my head as to why Thompson didn't envisage a smaller, 2-6-0, for this purpose.
[/quote]
Errr the K1 was exactly that was it not?

[Pyewipe Junction]

[/quote]
Errr the K1 was exactly that was it not?
[/quote]

OK, I give in. I'm obviously flogging a dead horse here.

Here am I, thinking that a loco with a power rating of 5P6F and a TE of 32,000 lb ft would be a rather an overkill for lines such as the Colne Valley branch and the Darlington to Kirkby Stephen line, but I am obviously wrong.

That Ivatt guy on the LMS must have had rocks in his head!

[S.A.C. Martin]

I think the point is being made that the K1 was sufficient for the needs of the railway. I’ve not really been convinced that the small numbers of the standard types allocated to a few of the sheds (10 of the 2MTs at a shed which had 40 of another type, for example) makes much sense really.

[Hatfield Shed]

...That Ivatt guy on the LMS must have had rocks in his head!

More to the point, was that he was working for the LMS which had a different problem set from the LNER, and naturally he and his precursors evolved practises to deal with it (and we may as well add that Riddles from the same operation continued on the same lines for BR) and generally adequate finance to support their practise. Faced with a huge variety of poor loco designs in service, a scrap and build programme was required, initially to deliver competent higher power designs. Once the higher power needs were met, this programme could be and was extended to the smaller power output requirement.

The LNER team over the same period designed and constructed no all new tender loco smaller than BR's power class 4. The LNER was fortunate in having generally competent designs inherited from its constituents, and with the well known financial difficulties it faced from shortly after grouping, necessarily continued to maintain these designs in service; what 'scrap and build' there was focussed on BR's power class 5 and above, as pre-group four coupled express designs and Robinson's 4-6-0 gallimaufrey were scrapped. The small power output tender loco fleet kept going: mostly found among the 0-6-0s - which wheel arrangement was the most common on the former LNER system into the 1960s, a distinct difference from the former LMS and the rest of BR.