Midland 0-4-4 Locomotives in Great_Britain

Class 1200 (Locobase 3517)

Data from "New Midland Engines", English Mechanic and World of Science, Volume 24, No 611 (8 December 1876), p. 317. See also H C Casserly, "The Locomotives of the Midland Railway (Part 6). The 0-4-4Ts", Locomotive News and Railway Notes, Volume V [5], No 26 (25 March 1920), pp 46-47.

SW Johnson designed these back tanks and the railroad added to the roster for 25 years, clearly a mark of success. Casserly's meticulous accounting of subtypes noted that the principal differences were tank capacity.

Builder Year(s) Number Capacity later road #s

Derby 1875 10 950 ImpGall 1226-1235

(1,140 US gal/4,319 litres)

Neilson 1875-1876 30 1,000 ImpGall 1262-1281,

works 2038-2067 (1,200 US/4,543 l) 1252-1261

Derby 1881-1892 84 1,150 ImpGall 1266-1350

(1,380 US/5,223 l)

Dubs 1892 20 ditto 1351-1370

works 2847-2866

Neilson 1893 10 ditto 1371-1380

works 4607-4616

They were trim-looking locomotives, even in their later years, when they gained some weight, saw their drivers reduced to 63" and cylinders enlarged to 18" x 24".

See Ahrons (1927)

Class 690 (Locobase 3208)

See also at [], last accessed 8 August 2017. See also See also H C Casserly, "The Locomotives of the Midland Railway (Part 6). The 0-4-4Ts", Locomotive News and Railway Notes, Volume V [5], No 26 (25 March 1920), pp 46-47. Beyer, Peacock & Co works numbers were 869-874 in 1869 and Dubs & Co followed with works numbers 357-376 in 1870.

Produced in the same year as his very successful 0-6-0 freight engines, these Matthew Kirtley well tanks had very similar dimensions.

Outside frames held the drivers while the trailing axles had inside frames. Glover (1967) describes them as "quite substantial engines for their time, but of an unusual character." The drivers' springs perched on the little swells in the running board that allowed the connecting rod crank to clear. Big rivets dotted the frame and added to the mid-Victorian look.

Johnson replaced the original boilers with new ones in later years.

"Chasewater" said that they were "splendid little working engines ...right to the last, and would have been good many more years." Their withdrawal, he added, was solely attributed to their "somewhat ancient appearance."