LMS Fowler 3F (Jinty)

[John Palmer]

To anyone connected with the Somerset & Dorset the LMS standard shunting tank will forever be known as a 'Bagnall' rather than a 'Jinty', since W.G.Bagnall's built the seven members of this class purchased by the Joint Committee.

All seven were fitted with screw reverse and carriage warming equipment as they were expected to be general purpose engines. Two (7155/6 - 1st LMS nos) briefly went to Plaistow shortly after delivery to the S&D and were apparently well thought of, as 7310-7315 (2nd LMS nos) went to Devons Road around 1931, leaving only 7316 of the S&D engines in the West Country. Later, all served as bankers on the Lickey.

My guess is that there proved to be little call for the Bagnalls as passenger engines on the S&D and this prompted their departure to Devons Road where the screw reversers and steam heating capability could be put to better use on Broad Street sub. services. Their place was taken on the Dorset by lever reverse engines from the same class, which their crews probably found a lot handier for shunting.

[drmditch]

I'm sure I've seen a picture of an ex-LMS 3F shunting at Scarborough in BR days. Will try and look it up later.

[1H was 2E]

Although only of tangential interest to the LNER (because of the passenger work over the GN from Broad Street) I am intrigued about the fitting up for passenger work of Devons Road's Jinties.

47499 left Devons Road in late '57, and soon moved on to 2E. Looking back at some old spotting notes, I did record that it had screw reverse and destination board brackets. This loco was not on the original Devons Road allocation on my list; this suggests that possibly ALL Jinties at Devons Road were fitted up with screw reverse and passenger warming. What I wonder is what proportion of the allocation was involved with passenger work, and whether the preponderance of goods work was trips (with shunting en route) as against shunting at static location.

The allocation of Jinties to ex LNER sheds on the North Eastern region ionly came after the ex LMS sheds were fully integrated into the NER. The LMS shed at York (adjacent to York South ex LNER) was subsumed into the adjacent one shortly after nationalisation, but did not appear on the LMS 123/47 allocation list.


Jinties on the NE Region have been mentioned in the thread "J73 and other tanks at Hull".

And, for modellers, don't forget that early LMS Jinties were RH drive...

[markindurham]

I'm sure I've seen a picture of an ex-LMS 3F shunting at Scarborough in BR days. Will try and look it up later.

Yes, there's one photographed in Gallows Close yard - I think it's in one of Robin Lidster's "Scarborough & Whitby" books. However, as you say, it was in BR days, well after 1948.

[kudu]

It is of interest to note that Devons Road had by far the largest allocation of Jinties (count the number in 1H's 1927 list) until they were displaced by various Type 1 diesels (which were less powerful than the steam locos they replaced) in the late 1950s.

I'm interested in the rationale that states that a Type 1 diesel of 800 - 1000hp is less powerful than a class 3 steam loco. Not being entirely au fait with steam power calculations, would you care to expand on that?

I'm not the best person to answer this at a technical level, but it is my understanding that maximum permitted loads on the NLR were lower for the diesels than the Jinties eg 28 cf 36 13-ton mineral wagons. [Source: The District Controller's View No 13, Xpress Publishing, ISBN 9781-901056-389]

Kudu

[kudu]

Although only of tangential interest to the LNER (because of the passenger work over the GN from Broad Street) I am intrigued about the fitting up for passenger work of Devons Road's Jinties.

47499 left Devons Road in late '57, and soon moved on to 2E. Looking back at some old spotting notes, I did record that it had screw reverse and destination board brackets. This loco was not on the original Devons Road allocation on my list; this suggests that possibly ALL Jinties at Devons Road were fitted up with screw reverse and passenger warming. What I wonder is what proportion of the allocation was involved with passenger work, and whether the preponderance of goods work was trips (with shunting en route) as against shunting at static location....

When Jinties worked the GN services there were around 40 trains in each direction (that was the number in 1929) which suggests a good few locos were needed - presumably all Jinties since only one 4-4-0T survived the 1920s. In the 1950s the preponderance of Devons Road freight work was very much on trips rather than shunting (this despite the numerous workings over the line by many other depots) and I can only presume this also applied in the 1930s. Jinties were in any case barred from dock shunting, hence the survival of NLR 0-6-0Ts. Incidentally, Devons Road Jinties did not work beyond Acton Yard on the GW ie not to Feltham etc, presumably because of water capacity considerations. (You can't stop on the NLR - there'll be a passenger train on your tail!) This perhaps suggests most if not all Jinties at Devons Road might have had screw reverse but I'm not so sure about steam heating.

Kudu

[1H was 2E]

It's perhaps significant that Devons Rd never had 350HP 0-6-0 shunters, even though the LMS was an enthusiastic user elsewhere; and ,when diesel shunters did arrive, they were 0-4-0s with the uniquely high power of 330HP (D2900+). This suggests that they were ordered to replace the NLR 0-6-0Ts in the docks where a short wheelbase was required, rather than at other locations, where a 350HP 0-6-0 could have been used.

Regarding lever reverse; I recently came across a picture of the cab interior of, allegedly, 47681 en route for scrap (in a book about Worcestershire's railways) and this showed lever reverse. Now 47681 was not only a Devons Rd engine, but was also later fitted for VCR push-pull so one would have expected it to have been screw reverse; once again proving that applying logic may not always supply the right answers.

[kudu]

I don't have my own records of observing diesel locos, but cannot recall seeing the D2900 class at large on the North London, so shunting in the Poplar docks area may well have been their sole function. Certainly it was their main job, where they did indeed displace the last NLR locos at Devons Road. The shed did have one 350hp shunter for a few months - no 12069. Maybe this was an unsuccessful trial on some Jinty duties.

Although there a number of yards on the NLR any shunting seems to have been undertaken as part of a freight working. Only Maiden Lane/St Pancras sidings, on opposite sides of the line, with connections to the Midland and GN (the latter little-used) may have needed a dedicated shunter. Other yards close to NLR were shunted by nearer sheds eg a Willesden 350hp diesel shunted Old Oak (in the 50s/60s). Little need for 350hp shunters, as 1H concludes. I do wonder about Broad Street Goods Station, though - maybe such places don't need much shunting.

Kudu

[D2100]

It is of interest to note that Devons Road had by far the largest allocation of Jinties (count the number in 1H's 1927 list) until they were displaced by various Type 1 diesels (which were less powerful than the steam locos they replaced) in the late 1950s.

I'm interested in the rationale that states that a Type 1 diesel of 800 - 1000hp is less powerful than a class 3 steam loco. Not being entirely au fait with steam power calculations, would you care to expand on that?

I'm not the best person to answer this at a technical level, but it is my understanding that maximum permitted loads on the NLR were lower for the diesels than the Jinties eg 28 cf 36 13-ton mineral wagons. [Source: The District Controller's View No 13, Xpress Publishing, ISBN 9781-901056-389]

Thanks, but I can't believe that it's solely due to power output; dependent on gradients, a cl.20 could certainly start and pull more than 28 loaded wagons. Indeed, there's a photo somewhere on Flickr that shows a solo cl. 20, c1970 on a *very* long train of coal empties in the North Midlands. I was going to suggest braking ability might be a factor (as it often was when diesel replaced steam, due to the loss of the braking effect of the tender), but then we are talking about a tank loco here, so maybe not so much. Odd.

[kudu]

Train lengths were limited on the NLR because of short block sections. This of course does nothing to explain why the diesels had a lower maximum load than the Jinties. I can only presume the need to maintain relatively fast timings to avoid delay to the suburban electrics was the main consideration.

Kudu

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all

There is a pic of Jinty 7517 arriving at Highgate in 1937, in the book; Finsbury Park to Alexander Palace by Middleton Press. (Picture No 52).

Earlswood nob