G&SWR 540 Class

Last updated • 2 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Glasgow & South Western Railway 540 Class
Type and origin
Power typeSteam
Designer Robert Whitelegg
Builder North British Locomotive Company, Hyde Park Works, Glasgow
Serial number22886–22891
Build date1922
Total produced6
Specifications
Configuration:
   Whyte 4-6-4T
Gauge 4 ft 8+12 in (1,435 mm)
Leading dia. 3 ft 6 in (1.07 m)
Driver dia.6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) [1]
Trailing dia. 3 ft 6 in (1.07 m)
Wheelbase 39 ft 0 in (11.89 m)
  Leading7 ft 0 in (2.13 m)
  Drivers6 ft 7 in (2.01 m) +
6 ft 7 in (2.01 m)
   Trailing 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m)
Loco weight99 tons [1]
Boiler:
  Diameter5 ft 6+316 in (1.681 m)
  Tube plates14 ft 11 in (4.55 m)
Boiler pressure180 psi [1]
Heating surface1,730 sq ft (161 m2)
Superheater:
  TypeRobinson, 21-element
  Heating area255 sq ft (23.7 m2)
Cylinders Two, outside
Cylinder size 22 in × 26 in (559 mm × 660 mm) [1]
Valve gear Walschaerts [2]
Valve typePiston valves
Performance figures
Tractive effort 26,741 lbf (118.95 kN) [1]
Career
Operators G&SWR   LMS
Class G&SWR: 540
Power classLMS: 5P
Numbers
  • G&SWR 540–545
  • LMS: 15400–15405
Withdrawn1935–1936
DispositionAll scrapped

The Glasgow and South Western Railway 540 Class were 4-6-4T steam tank locomotives designed by Robert Whitelegg and built in 1922, shortly before the G&SWR was absorbed into the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS). They were referred to in official G&SWR publicity as the Baltic Class, although they were also known more prosaically to enginemen as the 'Big Pugs'. [3]

Contents

Overview

The G&SWR had historically favoured small tender locomotives for almost all duties other than light shunting, and prior to the delivery of the Baltics its only passenger tank engines were 14 small 0-4-4Ts built for suburban services. However, Robert Whitelegg had previously served as Locomotive Superintendent of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway which made almost exclusive use of tank engines on its heavy commuter traffic, and he brought this experience with him when he joined the G&SWR as Chief Mechanical Engineer in 1919. During his time at the LT&SR Whitelegg had designed the first 4-6-4T locomotives to operate in Great Britain; the LT&SR 2100 Class. Some of the G&SWR's passenger traffic resembled the LT&SR express services, so Whitelegg again opted for a 4-6-4T. [3]

The new Baltics were built to a very high specification and were intended to represent the very best practice of their time, so they were very expensive to build. They were also easily the most powerful locomotives ever operated by the G&SWR, and the company made the most of their delivery for publicity purposes. In service the locomotives performed very well on express passenger trains between Glasgow St Enoch and the Ayrshire coast towns or Kilmarnock, however they were expensive to maintain. [4]

LMS ownership

Within a few months of delivery the locomotives passed into the ownership of the newly formed London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and their green G&SWR livery was replaced by LMS crimson lake. By the end of the 1920s they were being repainted into lined black.

The LMS drive for standardisation saw large numbers of new Fowler 2P and 4P Compound 4-4-0s delivered to the former G&SWR section, and in time these displaced the Baltic tanks from the top passenger services. There was little other work suitable for such large tank engines, and in any event as a non-standard class of only 6 engines they were doomed to be withdrawn once their boilers became due for renewal. The whole class was therefore withdrawn and scrapped between 1935 and 1937. [5]

Numbering and locomotive histories

Table of locomotives [5] [6]
G&SWR no.LMS no.Builder's no.DeliveredWithdrawn
54015400NBL 22886Mar 1922Jan 1935
54115401NBL 22887Mar 1922Apr 1935
54215402NBL 22888Mar 1922Apr 1935
54315403NBL 22889Apr 1922Dec 1935
54415404NBL 22890Apr 1922Sep 1936
54515405NBL 22891Apr 1922Aug 1936

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Casserley & Johnston 1966, p. 161.
  2. Smith 1976, p. 140.
  3. 1 2 Smith 1976, p. 179.
  4. Essery & Jenkinson 1986, p. 137.
  5. 1 2 Smith 1976, p. 180.
  6. Baxter 1984, p. 169–170.