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.

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 were minimised.

The overall interlinked light-use design/operate philosophy 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 upgrades as they permitted lighter-laid track and cheaper bridges to be retained for longer into the 20th Century - thus there is an interaction with Route Availability - primarily based on axle loadings - although this concept was not formalised into classifications in Midland or LMS days (contract to the Great Western Railway, q.v.). 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

• Midland Counties Railway Locomotives
• North Midland Railway Locomotives
• Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway Locomotives

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 class	2-2-2	1–39, 94, 97–100, 120–149			1852–1866	75	1876–1905	Most survivors rebuilt by Johnson after 1875.[1] Divided into four classes: the 130 of 1852 (6), the of 1856-1861 (38), the of 1859-1862 (29) and the of 1865-1866 (10)[2]
690 class	0-4-4T	690-695	1200-1205	Beyer-Peacock	1869	6	1926-1934
780 class	0-4-4T	780-799	1206-1225	Dübs & Co.	1870	20	1921-1935	Very similar to 690 class.
	2-4-0	50-59			1862-1864	10	..	likely replaced by Johnson's class 50 and 55.
	2-4-0	70–79, 86-89			1862-1863	14	..	three were given newer Kirtley boilers and cabs.
	2-4-0	80-85			1862-1863	6	1890s	built for 1862 exhibition specials.
	2-4-0	101,118-119,162		Derby Works	1866	4	..
	2-4-0	137-140			1846	4	..
156 class	2-4-0	101–119, 153–164	1–22	Derby Works	1866–1874	29	1890s-1947	One survivor, 158A, the oldest surviving Midland Railway locomotive. [3]
	2-4-0	800–829, (various)	35–62, 63–67	Neilson & Co. (30) Derby Works (18)	1870–1871	48	1905–1936
	2-4-0	170-199		Beyer, Peacock & Co.	1867	30	around 1900
	0-6-0	179-189			1845	11	..
	0-6-0	270–279	2309–2312	Kitson & Co.	1852–1853	10	1863–1924	[4]
	0-6-0	280–289	2307–2308	Robert Stephenson & Co.	1853	10	1898–1921	[4]
	0-6-0	240–269, 290-479	2300–2306, 2313-2397, 2712, 2868-2899	Derby Works	1850-1863	230	..
480 class	0-6-0	480–569 690–699 (+ 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)	1863–1869	237	1902–1945	[5]
700 class	0-6-0	700–779 830–879 910–1067 (+ various)	2592–2671 2687–2867	Derby Works (26) Dübs & Co. (150) John Fowler & Co. (10) Kitson & Co. (10) Neilson & Co. (40) Vulcan Foundry (80)	1869–1874	316	1903–1951	[6] 50 to Italy in 1906
	2-4-0	890–909 (+ various)	68–87 88–126	Neilson & Co. (20), Derby Works (42)	1871–1875	62	..
	4-4-0T	204-209	1198-1199	Beyer, Peacock & Co.	1868	6	?-after 1907	Built for services into the City of London.
	2-4-0T	230-239		Beyer, Peacock & Co.	1868	10	..	built for same service as 204 class.
	0-6-0WT	222, 320 223, 221	1604	Derby Works	1860–1863	4	1894–1928	[7] Lickey bankers
	0-6-0ST	1093,1096-1101		Vulcan Foundry (2) Sharp, Stewart & Co. (5)	1862-1872	7	..	acquired from Swansea Vale Railway
	0-6-0ST	221	—	Sharp, Stewart & Co.	1863	1	1882	[8] ex Staveley Iron Works, acquired 1866; renumbered 2027 in 1872
	0-6-0WT	1063–1065	—	Manning Wardle (2) ? (1)	1860–1864	3	1891–1900	[8] ex Sheepbridge Iron Works, acquired 1870
	0-6-0T	880–889	1610–1619	Beyer, Peacock & Co.	1871	10	1924–1927	[8]
	0-6-0WT	2066–2068	—	Manning Wardle	1873	3	1890–1898	[8]
Samuel Waite Johnson (1873–1903)
	2-4-0	1070–1089 1, 9, 10, 13 70–71, 74 96, 146	127–146, 147–156	Sharp, Stewart & Co. (20), Derby Works (10)	1874–1876	30	1912–1950	[9]
	2-4-0	50–54	187–191	Derby Works	1876	5	1926–1936	[10]
	2-4-0	55–59	192–196	Derby Works	1876	5	1924–1939	[10]
	2-4-0	1282–1311	157–186	Dübs & Co.	1876	30	1922–1948	[11]
	2-4-0	1347–1356	197–206	Derby Works	1877	10	1919–1941	[12] Renumbered 101–110 in 1879
	2-4-0	1400–1490 1472–1491 1502–1531	207–216 222–271	Derby Works (30) Neilson & Co. (30)	1879–1881	60	1925–1949	[13]
	2-4-0	111–115	217–221	Derby Works	1880	5	1928–1943	[14]
	2-4-0	1492–1501	272–281	Derby Works	1881	10	1924–1933	[15]
	4-4-0	1312–1321	300–309	Kitson & Co.	1876	10	1911–1930	[16] Class 2
	4-4-0	1327–1346	310–327	Dübs & Co.	1876	20	1904–1934	[16] Class 2
	4-4-0	1562–1666	328–357	Derby Works	1882–1884	30	1923–1937	[17] Class 2
	4-4-0	1667–1676	—	Derby Works	1876	10	1896–1901	[16] Class 2
	4-4-0	1738–1757	358–377	Derby Works	1885	20	1922–1940	[18] Class 2; No. 1757 named Beatrice
	4-4-0	1808–1822 80–87, 11, 14	378–402	Derby Works	1888–1891	25	1922–1952	[19] Class 2
	4-4-0	2183–2202	403–427	Sharp, Stewart & Co. (20) Derby Works (5)	1892–1896	25	1914–1922	[20] Class 2
	4-4-0	2203–2217 184–199 161–164 230–239	428–472	Sharp, Stewart & Co. (15) Derby Works (30)	1893–1895	45	1914–1931	[21] Class 2
	4-4-0	2581–2590	473–482	Beyer, Peacock & Co.	1900	10	1914–1927	[22] Class 2
	4-4-0	156–160 150, 153–155 204–209 1667–1676	483–522	Derby Works	1896–1901	20	1912–1918	[22] Class 2
	4-4-0	2421–2440	502–522	Sharp, Stewart & Co.	1899	20	1912–1913	[23] Class 2
	4-4-0	60–69, 93 138–139 151–152 165–169 805–809 2636–2640 2591–2600	523–562	Derby Works (30) Neilson & Co. (10)	1898–1899	40	1913–15	[24] Class 2
	4-2-2	25–32, 37 1854–1862	600–607 610–619	Derby Works	1887–1890	18	1919–1928	[25]
	4-2-2	1853, 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 Works	1893, 1896	42	1920–1927	[26]
	4-2-2	179–183, 75–77, 79, 88	660–669	Derby Works	1893, 1896	10	1925–1927	[27]
115 class	4-2-2	115–121, 123–128, 130–131	670–684	Derby Works	1896–1899	15	1921–1928	One survivor, No. 673.[28]
	4-2-2	2601–2608 22–23	685–694	Derby Works	1899–1900	10	1919–1922	[29] 2606–2608 renumbered 19–21 in 1900
Class 3 Belpaire	4-4-0	2606–2610 800–804 2781–2790 810–869	700–779	Derby Works	1900–1905	80	1925–1953	[30]
1000 class	4-4-0	2631–2635	1000–1004	Derby Works	1902–1903	5	1948–1952	[25] 3-cylinder compound. One survivor, No. 1000.
1322 class	0-4-0ST	1322–1326, 202 1428–1430, 1697	1500–1507	Derby Works	1883, 1889–1890	10	1907–1949	[29] Nicknamed "Jinties"
1116A class	0-4-0ST	1116A–1120A, 2359–2360, 1131A–1133A	1508–1517	Derby Works	1893, 1897	10	1921–1955	[31]
1134A class	0-4-0ST	1134A–1143A	1518–1527	Derby Works	1897, 1903	10	1922–1958	[32]
6 class	0-4-4T	6, 15, 18, 137, 140–144, 147	1226–1235	Derby Works	1875	10	1925–1930	[32]
1252 class	0-4-4T	1262–1281 1252–1261	1236–1265	Neilson & Co.	1875–1876	30	1920–1954	[33] BR 58031–58038
1532 class	0-4-4T	1532–151 1632–1656 1718–1737	1266–1330	Derby Works	1881–1886	65	1920–1956	[34] BR 58039–58051
1823 class 1833 class	0-4-4T	1823–1832 1322–1326, 202 1428–1430, 1697 1833–1842 2013–2022 2218–2227	1331–1380	Derby Works (20) Dübs & Co. (30)	1889–1893	50	1925–1959	[35] BR 58052–58072
1102 class	0-6-0T	1102–1141	1620–1559	Neilson & Co. (25), Vulcan Foundry (15)	1874–1876	40	1920–1931	[36]
1377 class	0-6-0T	(various)	1660–1844	Derby Works (165), Vulcan Foundry (20)	1878–1891	185	1928–1965	[37] "Half-cab". One survivor, No. 41708.
1121 class	0-6-0T	1121–1130 2248–2252 2361–2390 2571–2580	1845–1899	Derby Works (10) Sharp, Stewart & Co. (5) Robert Stephenson & Co. (40)	1895–1900	55	1930–1963	[38]
2228 class	0-4-4T	2228–2247 690–695, 780–783 2611–2630	1381–1430	Dübs & Co. (40) Derby Works (10)	1895–1900	50	1931–1957	[39] BR 58073–58091
2441 class	0-6-0T	2441–2460 2741–2780	1900–1959	Vulcan Foundry	1899–1902	60	1954–1967	[40] LMS 7200–7259 from 1934
Class 2 & 3 goods	0-6-0	..	..	...	..	..	..
2501 class	2-6-0	2501–2510 2521–2540	2200–2229	Baldwin Locomotive Works	1899	30	1908–1914	[41]
2511 class	2-6-0	2511–2520	2230–2239	Schenectady Locomotive Works	1899	10	1912–1915	[42]
Richard Deeley (1903–1909)
1000 class	4-4-0	1000–1029	1005–1044	Derby Works	1905–1909	40	1948–1953	[43] 3-cylinder Compound
990 class	4-4-0	—	990–999	Derby Works	1908–1909	10	1925–1928	[44] LMS 801–809 from 1926
1528 class	0-4-0T	—	1528–1532	Derby Works	1907	5	1957–1966	[45]
2000 class	0-6-4T	—	2000–2039	Derby Works	1907	40	1935–1938	[44]
Paget locomotive	2-6-2	—	2299	Derby Works	1908	1	1912	[45]
Henry Fowler (1909–1922)
3835 class	0-6-0	—	3835–4026	Derby Works (142) Armstrong Whitworth (50)	1911–1922	197	1954–1965	[46] plus S&DJR 67–71. One survivor, No. 43924.
483 class	4-4-0	—	..	Derby Works	1912–1924	165	1948–1963	[47] Renewals of Johnson Class 2
Battery locomotive	Bo	—	1550	Derby Works	1913	1	1964	[48] Renumbered BEL 1 by British Railways
Lickey Banker	0-10-0	—	2290	Derby Works	1919	1	1956	[49]
1528 class	0-4-0T	—	1533–1537	Derby Works	1921–1922	5	1957–1966	[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[]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Midland Railway crimson lake livery.

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:

Image	MR No.	1907 No.	MR Class	Type	Manufacturer	Serial No.	Built	Withdrawn	Notes
	158A	2	156	2-4-0	Derby Works	—	1866	1947	[50] Rebuilt 1881, 1897; Deeley Class 1
	118	673	115	4-2-2	Derby Works	—	1897	1928	[27] Rebuilt 1909; Deeley Class 1
	2631	1000	1000	4-4-0	Derby Works	—	1902	1959	[25] Rebuilt 1914; Deeley Class 4 Compound
	1418	1708	1377	0-6-0T	Derby Works	—	1880	1965	[51] Rebuilt 1896, 1926; Deeley Class 1
	—	3924	3835	0-6-0	Derby Works	—	1920	1965	[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:

• S&DJR 7F 2-8-0 Nos 88 and 89 (later 9678/9, 13808/9, 53808/9).

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

• LT&SR 79 Class No. 80 Thundersley

Two post-grouping NCC locomotives also survive.

• NCC Class U2 74 Dunluce Castle
• NCC Class WT No. 4

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

References[]

Sources[]

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

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:

• Bob Essery and David Jenkinson LMS Locomotives Vol. 4 Absorbed pre-group Classes Midland Division

External links[]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Midland Railway steam locomotives.

• Some photographs of Midland engines from the Midland Railway Society