Midland 2-6-0 Locomotives in Great_Britain


Class Details by Steve Llanso of Sweat House Media

Class 2501 (Locobase 8973)

Data from C J Bowen Cooke, British Locomotives: Their History, Construction, and Modern Developments (3rd rev and enlarged ed), (London: Whittaker and Co, 1900). See also DeGolyer, Volume 22, pp. 70-71; and "American Locomotives for England", Record of Recent Construction No. 16 (Philadelphia: Burnham, Williams and Company, 1901), pp 151-152. For a severe criticism of Baldwin's style, see Percy John Cowan, "American Locomotive Practice", Paper No. 3398, Institution of Civil Engineers, Session 1902-1903-Part IV (24 March 1903) , pp.38-71 , esp pp. 69-70.

This set of Moguls were designed by Samuel Johnson of the Midland. They were ordered, somewhat in desperation, by the company during an industry-wide strike in Great Britain. All were built in the United States in 1899 as Baldwin works # (16622-16631 (April), 16844-16853 (June), and 16960-16964 and 16983-16987 in August). Ten more from Schenectady (road numbers 2511-2520) are shown in Locobase 9510.

The grate certainly is a good deal smaller than North American standard-gauge Moguls were using at the time and Baldwin rarely built fireboxes out of copper by this time. In fact, the firebox was originally specified to be of steel, but the RoRC states that it was copper. The builder's adhesion weight estimate came in too high at 88,000 lb (39,916 kg), but its engine estimate of 101,00 lb was essentially on the mark.

Overall they were not regarded as great successes, although clearly most of the criticism was inspired by cultural differences almost as much as real shortcomings: A perhaps extreme example of such perspectives appeared in Cowan's assessment of American locomotive practice. Comparing Baldwin products not just to British locomotives but to those of other American builders, Cowan flayed the Philadelphia builder on all aesthetic counts

"Compared with the extremely neatly-finished British locomotives," Cowan declared, "the American engines are not elegant machines. Considering them as a distinct class, however, decidedly good-looking engines may be found among them."

Good to know, but then Cowan homes in on Baldwin:

":The Baldwin Works seems to pay but little heed to this point, and does not seek for graceful lines in any respect. Almost everything gives way to cheapness of production; everything possible is made square, or rather rectangular; curves seem to be avoided; and the work is of the simplest possible form and description. No trouble is taken in obtaining parallel lines, or in harmonizing curves; and from a purely aesthetic point of view the general Baldwin locomotive is very crude."

He held up the Midland class as demonstrating these differences:

"The Baldwin engines were typically inelegant; while the Schenectady engines, though doubtless of slightly higher price, were all that could be desired in outward appearance, and conformed closely to most of the leading features of the home-built Midland engine; the tender, it is understood, was of standard Midland pattern, or nearly so."

[] (accessed 22 December 2007) provided the following summary of comments drawn from Radford (Radford, J.B. Derby Works and Midland locomotives: the story of the works, its men, and the locomotives they built. 1971.):

"A driver of that day, James Gibbs Hardy, observed "very rough workmanship" when the crates of material arrived, but modified his criticism when the first commenced running on 21 June commented in his diary 'splendid weather cab, upholstered seats and the engine looks considerably better now it is in working order'. He had one of these engines No 2503, booked to him to do 1,000 miles (1,610 km) and found them hard to reverse and rather poor steamers. He took the first one to Normanton where everyone stared at it, and on 24 July took the first one up the Peak to Manchester, recording that she went up the bank with 80-901b (5.5-6.2 bar) of steam. By August 8, he had completed his 1,000 miles and was 'very glad to get rid of her ....The Schenectadys were rather nearer to looking like Midland engines, although they also had bar frames ....

"As can be gathered from Hardy's comments," Steamindex continues, "these engines were not popular and some criticisms reached America causing bad feeling. Johnson gave some comparable figures quoting that, work for work, they consumed 20-25% more coal, and 50% more oil than his standard goods engines, while repairs cost 60% more."

But Steamindex/Radford tempers their adverse verdict with an acknowledgement of a frequently overlooked virtue of such transactions: "To their credit he [Johnson] observed that the engines cost 400 pounds less than their British counterparts, and were at least supplied within a few months of the contract being placed, while he had to wait about three years for locomotives ordered from British firms, due in the main to the engineering strike which had forced the Midland Company to buy 'Yankee' in the first place."

The class was the only set of 2-6-0s to run on the Midland.


Class 2511 (Locobase 9510)

Data from "Schenectady Midland Engines" Railway and Locomotive Engineering, Volume 12, No 7 (July 1899), page 301-302; and "The Schenectady Engines for the Midland", Railway Engineer, Volume 20, No 8 (August 1899), p 236. See also Percy John Cowan, "American Locomotive Practice", Paper No. 3398, Institution of Civil Engineers, Session 1902-1903-Part IV (24 March 1903) , pp.38-71, esp pp. 69-70. (Thanks to Alexander Blessing for his 2 April 2023 email reporting the valve gear, total wheelbase, tender weight.) Works numbers were 5037-5046 in June 1899.

See the detailed discussion of the American Moguls in Locobase 8973, where you'll also find specifications for the thirty Baldwins. In this entry, Locobase shows the slightly smaller Schenectady batch, which had a smaller boiler and grate, but a longer wheelbase. For some reason, the boiler pressure was set 20 psi lower as well.

RE's report added an ambiguously toned observation;"These are more like home-built [i.e. British] engines than are those obtained by the Midland R [sic] from the Baldwin works. We suppose more time was allowed to fulfill the order.." RE had to concede, however, "it cannot be denied that they are very handsome engines."

Percy John Cowan agreed that when considering locomotives turned out by the two American builders to the Midland, "the Schenectady engines, though doubtless of slightly higher price, were all that could be desired in outward appearance, and conformed closely to most of the leading features of the home-built Midland engine; the tender, it is understood, was of standard Midland pattern, or nearly so."

He added that "...In engines for home use, the Schenectady Works does not lead in this matter; the foremost position is unquestionably held by the Brooks Works, whence engines of very neat appearance are continually being turned out." But he couldn't resist adding: " It is difficult to make an American locomotive really graceful, and it is doubtful whether it is ever attempted"

Overall, neither the Baldwins nor the Schenectadies were considered successes by their English owners.

Principal Dimensions by Steve Llanso of Sweat House Media

Class25012511
Locobase ID8973 9510
RailroadMidlandMidland
CountryGreat BritainGreat Britain
Whyte2-6-02-6-0
Number in Class3010
Road Numbers2501-2510, 2521-21402511-2520
GaugeStdStd
Number Built3010
BuilderBurnham, Williams & CoSchenectady
Year18991899
Valve GearStephensonStephenson
Locomotive Length and Weight
Driver Wheelbase (ft / m)14.75 / 4.5015.50 / 4.72
Engine Wheelbase (ft / m)22.17 / 6.7623 / 7.01
Ratio of driving wheelbase to overall engine wheelbase 0.67 0.67
Overall Wheelbase (engine & tender) (ft / m)43 / 13.11
Axle Loading (Maximum Weight per Axle) (lbs / kg)
Weight on Drivers (lbs / kg)83,100 / 37,69489,000 / 40,370
Engine Weight (lbs / kg)100,250 / 45,473107,000 / 48,534
Tender Loaded Weight (lbs / kg)79,300 / 35,97089,805 / 40,735
Total Engine and Tender Weight (lbs / kg)179,550 / 81,443196,805 / 89,269
Tender Water Capacity (gals / ML)3900 / 14.773900 / 14.77
Tender Fuel Capacity (oil/coal) (gals/tons / Liters/MT) 6.60 / 6
Minimum weight of rail (calculated) (lb/yd / kg/m)46 / 2349 / 24.50
Geometry Relating to Tractive Effort
Driver Diameter (in / mm)60 / 152460 / 1524
Boiler Pressure (psi / kPa)180 / 12.40160 / 11
High Pressure Cylinders (dia x stroke) (in / mm)18" x 24" / 457x61018" x 24" / 457x610
Tractive Effort (lbs / kg)19,829 / 8994.2917,626 / 7995.03
Factor of Adhesion (Weight on Drivers/Tractive Effort) 4.19 5.05
Heating Ability
Tubes (number - dia) (in / mm)263 - 1.75" / 44244 - 1.625" / 41
Flues (number - dia) (in / mm)
Flue/Tube length (ft / m)10.42 / 3.1811 / 3.35
Firebox Area (sq ft / m2)125.30 / 11.64126.46 / 11.75
Grate Area (sq ft / m2)16.60 / 1.5415.87 / 1.47
Evaporative Heating Surface (sq ft / m2)1372 / 127.461255 / 116.59
Superheating Surface (sq ft / m2)
Combined Heating Surface (sq ft / m2)1372 / 127.461255 / 116.59
Evaporative Heating Surface/Cylinder Volume194.10177.55
Computations Relating to Power Output (More Information)
Robert LeMassena's Power Computation29882539
Same as above plus superheater percentage29882539
Same as above but substitute firebox area for grate area22,55420,234
Power L150894272
Power MT405.03317.47

All material Copyright © SteamLocomotive.com
Wes Barris