Locomotives of the Midland Railway

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

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 0-4-4 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.

The Midland was blessed, 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 on the majority of its well-graded lines a single small engine was sufficient, 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 this 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 was minimised.

This arrangement 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 a extent, a 'worst case' scenario of a worn-out locomotive immediately due an overhaul, with the result that train loads were kept low and engines in good condition were not worked to their maximum. 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 traffic 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 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. 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, faster but fewer services) since the Midland's service timings were calculated on the basis of relatively low power being available.

Smaller, less powerful engines also allowed savings in civil engineering as they permitted lighter-laid track and cheaper bridges. 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 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. 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 designed the Royal Scot class locomotives in 1927, which effectively ended the Midland small engine tradition and he was replaced 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

Before 1907 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 three the most. Stock were 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

Midland 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. See

Engines built by the Midland

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)
made
Quantity Year(s)
withdrawn
Comments
Matthew Kirtley (1844–1873)
130 class2-2-21–39, 94, 97–100, 120–1491852–1866751876–1905Most survivors rebuilt by Johnson after 1875.[1] Divided into four classes: the 130 of 1852 (6), the 136 of 1856-1861 (38), the 1 class of 1859-1862 (29) and the 30 class of 1865-1866 (10)[2]
690 class0-4-4T690-6951200-1205Beyer-Peacock186961926-1934
780 class0-4-4T780-7991206-1225Dübs & Co.1870201921-1935Very similar to 690 class.
50 class2-4-050-591862-186410..likely replaced by Johnson's class 50 and 55.
70 class2-4-070–79, 86-891862-186314..three were given newer Kirtley boilers and cabs.
80 class2-4-080-851862-186361890sbuilt for 1862 exhibition specials.
101 class2-4-0101,118-119,162Derby Works18664..
137 class2-4-0137-14018464..
156 class2-4-0101–119, 153–1641–22Derby Works1866–1874291890s-1947One survivor, 158A, the oldest surviving Midland Railway locomotive. [3]
800 class2-4-0800–829,
(various)
35–62,
63–67
Neilson & Co. (30)
Derby Works (18)
1870–1871481905–1936
170 class2-4-0170-199Beyer, Peacock & Co.186730around 1900
179 class0-6-0179-189184511..
270 class0-6-0270–2792309–2312Kitson & Co.1852–1853101863–1924[4]
280 class0-6-0280–2892307–2308Robert Stephenson & Co.1853101898–1921[4]
240 class0-6-0240–269, 290-4792300–2306, 2313-2397, 2712, 2868-2899Derby Works1850-1863230..
480 class0-6-0480–569
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)
1863–18692371902–1945[5]
700 class0-6-0700–779
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)
1869–18743161903–1951[6] 50 to Italy in 1906
890 class2-4-0890–909
(+ various)
68–87
88–126
Neilson & Co. (20),
Derby Works (42)
1871–187562..
204 class4-4-0T204-2091198-1199Beyer, Peacock & Co.18686?-after 1907Built for services into the City of London.
230 class2-4-0T230-239Beyer, Peacock & Co.186810..built for same service as 204 class.
222 class0-6-0WT222, 320
223, 221
1604Derby Works1860–186341894–1928[7] Lickey bankers
30 class0-6-0ST1093,1096-1101Vulcan Foundry (2) Sharp, Stewart & Co. (5)1862-18727..acquired from Swansea Vale Railway
221 class0-6-0ST221Sharp, Stewart & Co.186311882[8] ex Staveley Iron Works, acquired 1866; renumbered 2027 in 1872
1063 class0-6-0WT1063–1065Manning Wardle (2)
? (1)
1860–186431891–1900[8] ex Sheepbridge Iron Works, acquired 1870
880 class0-6-0T880–8891610–1619Beyer, Peacock & Co.1871101924–1927[8]
2066 class0-6-0WT2066–2068Manning Wardle187331890–1898[8]
Samuel Waite Johnson (1873–1903)
1070 class2-4-01070–1089
1, 9, 10, 13
70–71, 74
96, 146
127–146,
147–156
Sharp, Stewart & Co. (20),
Derby Works (10)
1874–1876301912–1950[9]
50 class2-4-050–54187–191Derby Works187651926–1936[10]
55 class2-4-055–59192–196Derby Works187651924–1939[10]
1282 class2-4-01282–1311157–186Dübs & Co.1876301922–1948[11]
1347 class2-4-01347–1356197–206Derby Works1877101919–1941[12] Renumbered 101–110 in 1879
1400 class2-4-01400–1490
1472–1491
1502–1531
207–216
222–271
Derby Works (30)
Neilson & Co. (30)
1879–1881601925–1949[13]
111 class2-4-0111–115217–221Derby Works188051928–1943[14]
1492 class2-4-01492–1501272–281Derby Works1881101924–1933[15]
1312 class4-4-01312–1321300–309Kitson & Co.1876101911–1930[16] Class 2
1327 class4-4-01327–1346310–327Dübs & Co.1876201904–1934[16] Class 2
1562 class4-4-01562–1666328–357Derby Works1882–1884301923–1937[17] Class 2
1667 class4-4-01667–1676Derby Works1876101896–1901[16] Class 2
1738 class4-4-01738–1757358–377Derby Works1885201922–1940[18] Class 2; No. 1757 named Beatrice
1808 class4-4-01808–1822
80–87, 11, 14
378–402Derby Works1888–1891251922–1952[19] Class 2
2183 class4-4-02183–2202403–427Sharp, Stewart & Co. (20)
Derby Works (5)
1892–1896251914–1922[20] Class 2
2203 class4-4-02203–2217
184–199
161–164
230–239
428–472Sharp, Stewart & Co. (15)
Derby Works (30)
1893–1895451914–1931[21] Class 2
2581 class4-4-02581–2590473–482Beyer, Peacock & Co.1900101914–1927[22] Class 2
156 class4-4-0156–160
150, 153–155
204–209
1667–1676
483–522Derby Works1896–1901201912–1918[22] Class 2
2421 class4-4-02421–2440502–522Sharp, Stewart & Co.1899201912–1913[23] Class 2
60 class4-4-060–69, 93
138–139
151–152
165–169
805–809
2636–2640
2591–2600
523–562Derby Works (30)
Neilson & Co. (10)
1898–1899401913–15[24] Class 2
25 class4-2-225–32, 37
1854–1862
600–607
610–619
Derby Works1887–1890181919–1928[25]
1853 class4-2-21853, 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 Works1893, 1896421920–1927[26]
179 class4-2-2179–183, 75–77, 79, 88660–669Derby Works1893, 1896101925–1927[27]
115 class4-2-2115–121, 123–128, 130–131670–684Derby Works1896–1899151921–1928One survivor, No. 673.[28]
2601 class4-2-22601–2608
22–23
685–694Derby Works1899–1900101919–1922[29] 2606–2608 renumbered 19–21 in 1900
Class 3 Belpaire4-4-02606–2610
800–804
2781–2790
810–869
700–779Derby Works1900–1905801925–1953[30]
1000 class4-4-02631–26351000–1004Derby Works1902–190351948–1952[25] 3-cylinder compound. One survivor, No. 1000.
1322 class0-4-0ST1322–1326, 202
1428–1430, 1697
1500–1507Derby Works1883, 1889–1890101907–1949[29] Nicknamed "Jinties"
1116A class0-4-0ST1116A–1120A,
2359–2360,
1131A–1133A
1508–1517Derby Works1893, 1897101921–1955[31]
1134A class0-4-0ST1134A–1143A1518–1527Derby Works1897, 1903101922–1958[32]
6 class0-4-4T6, 15, 18, 137, 140–144, 1471226–1235Derby Works1875101925–1930[32]
1252 class0-4-4T1262–1281
1252–1261
1236–1265Neilson & Co.1875–1876301920–1954[33] BR 58031–58038
1532 class0-4-4T1532–151
1632–1656
1718–1737
1266–1330Derby Works1881–1886651920–1956[34] BR 58039–58051
1823 class 1833 class0-4-4T1823–1832
1322–1326, 202
1428–1430, 1697
1833–1842
2013–2022
2218–2227
1331–1380Derby Works (20)
Dübs & Co. (30)
1889–1893501925–1959[35] BR 58052–58072
1102 class0-6-0T1102–1141
1620–1559Neilson & Co. (25),
Vulcan Foundry (15)
1874–1876401920–1931[36]
1377 class0-6-0T(various)1660–1844Derby Works (165),
Vulcan Foundry (20)
1878–18911851928–1965[37] "Half-cab". One survivor, No. 41708.
1121 class0-6-0T1121–1130
2248–2252
2361–2390
2571–2580
1845–1899Derby Works (10)
Sharp, Stewart & Co. (5)
Robert Stephenson & Co. (40)
1895–1900551930–1963[38]
2228 class0-4-4T2228–2247
690–695, 780–783
2611–2630
1381–1430Dübs & Co. (40)
Derby Works (10)
1895–1900501931–1957[39] BR 58073–58091
2441 class0-6-0T2441–2460
2741–2780
1900–1959Vulcan Foundry1899–1902601954–1967[40] LMS 7200–7259 from 1934
Class 2 & 3 goods0-6-0.............
2501 class2-6-02501–2510
2521–2540
2200–2229Baldwin Locomotive Works1899301908–1914[41]
2511 class2-6-02511–25202230–2239Schenectady Locomotive Works1899101912–1915[42]
Richard Deeley (1903–1909)
1000 class4-4-01000–10291005–1044Derby Works1905–1909401948–1953[43] 3-cylinder Compound
990 class4-4-0990–999Derby Works1908–1909101925–1928[44] LMS 801–809 from 1926
1528 class0-4-0T1528–1532Derby Works190751957–1966[45]
2000 class0-6-4T2000–2039Derby Works1907401935–1938[44]
Paget locomotive2-6-22299Derby Works190811912[45]
Henry Fowler (1909–1922)
3835 class0-6-03835–4026Derby Works (142)
Armstrong Whitworth (50)
1911–19221971954–1965[46] plus S&DJR 67–71. One survivor, No. 43924.
483 class4-4-0..Derby Works1912–19241651948–1963[47] Renewals of Johnson Class 2
Battery locomotiveBo1550Derby Works191311964[48] Renumbered BEL 1 by British Railways
Lickey Banker0-10-02290Derby Works191911956[49]
1528 class0-4-0T1533–1537Derby Works1921–192251957–1966[48]

Ex- LT&SR (1912-1922)

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

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

Influence on LMS locomotive policy

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

Five original Midland locomotives have survived, these being:

ImageMR No.1907 No.MR ClassTypeManufacturerSerial No.BuiltWithdrawnNotes
158A21562-4-0Derby Works18661947[50] Rebuilt 1881, 1897; Deeley Class 1
1186731154-2-2Derby Works18971928[27] Rebuilt 1909; Deeley Class 1
2631100010004-4-0Derby Works19021959[25] Rebuilt 1914; Deeley Class 4 Compound
1418170813770-6-0TDerby Works18801965[51] Rebuilt 1896, 1926; Deeley Class 1
392438350-6-0Derby Works19201965[52] Class 4 Goods. First locomotive to leave Woodham Brothers scrapyard in September 1968.

In addition, there are 13 engines of two classes built by the LMS to essentially Midland designs:

  • 4F 0-6-0 Nos (4)4027 (4)4123 and (4)4422
  • 3F 0-6-0T Nos 16576/(4)7493, (4)7279 (4)7324, (4)7327, (4)7357, (4)7383 (4)7406 (4)7445 (4)7564 and (4)7298

And two engines built by the Midland for the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway:

Also, one ex-LT&SR engine which passed through Midland ownership:

Two post-grouping NCC locomotives also survive.

Further, there are several more engines to later non-Midland designs built at Derby which have survived.

References

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

Sources

  • Baxter, Bertram (1982). Baxter, David (ed.). British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923. Volume 3A: Midland Railway and its constituent companies. Ashbourne, Derbyshire: Moorland Publishing Company. ISBN 9780903485524.
  • Casserley, H.C. (1960). Historic locomotive pocket book. London: Batsford.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

Further reading

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)
    • Vol. 1 – A general survey ISBN 0-906867-27-4
    • Vol. 2 – Passenger tender classes (1988) ISBN 0-906867-59-2
    • Vol. 3 – Tank engines ISBN 0-906867-66-5
    • Vol. 4 – Goods tender classes (1989) ISBN 0-906867-74-6
  • 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:

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.