Part 27 – Ivatt Class D1 4-4-0 Nos. 1386-95

The construction of this batch of 4-4-0 seems to be shrouded in mystery. Why were they constructed to an ERO (which did not cover their frames), and not to an EO? How are the frames explained, where were the engines built, why the delay in delivery? I sought to answer these problems in vain in 1961 whilst researching at Doncaster, and when Part 3C of THE LOCOMOTIVES OF THE LNER series was published (January 1981) I simply wrote: “Completion was delayed …”. It was only as recently as June 2011 that I thought the delay in completion was probably the availability of suitable second-hand tenders, as apparently no Tender Order had been issued for these engines. In fact it is almost certain that a Tender Order really had been issued, TO14 (26/10/1899), but following delays with the completion of TO13 for Nos. 1366-85, it was decided to make use of second-hand tenders instead.

A Stores Order, SO 1007 (date of issue not recorded), covered the construction of these 10 engines, using material including coupled axles, tyres, piston rods, cabs, splashers etc., but not the frames. The inference here being that the frames were either ready waiting or were on order. One explanation for frames being already available was if the previous Engine Order for this class (EO221) had made provision for an additional 10 sets in anticipation of a further order, but this seems unlikely. Perhaps an SO issued was because it was intended to construct these engines at a leisurely pace in the Crimpsall Repair Shop, as only engines built to EOs should be built in the New Erecting Shop (NES, new that is in 1890, but known thus for evermore).

The Boiler Order (BO541, dated 8th October 1901) was executed reasonably promptly, though apparently split into two batches. The first batch was dealt with after BO539 (for 0-8-0s, dated 17th June 1901) and before BO540 (also for 0-8-0s, dated 8th October 1901), and the second batch followed the latter order. This would also be a reasonable arrangement if the boilers were destined for both Crimpsall (building 4-4-0s) and NES (building 0-8-0s). There was one complication. After construction of the boilers had started, it was decided that only the first boiler should have 141 x 2¼in. diam. iron tubes, and the remainder would have 170 x 2in. diam. copper tubes. By then tube-plates of three boilers had already been drilled to take the larger tubes, so two of them (said to be for the 2nd and 3rd engines, i.e. Nos. 1387/88) had to be given new tube-plates. Thus two engines of the first batch received their boilers after the second batch was completed.

However, after completion the engines then had to wait quite some time before second-hand tenders (from withdrawn passenger engines) became available (and also for the first large-boilered Atlantic No. 251). Between October 1902 and February 1903 several passenger engines were broken up at Doncaster, in the following approximate order.

In the same period Class A2 No. 48 was broken up at Peterborough (11/1902), with its tender presumably retained there as a spare.

[Its withdrawal date was shown in error as 11/1908 in “GREAT NORTHERN LOCOMOTIVE HISTORY”, Volume 2, (N. Groves for RCTS, 1987)]

Presumably some of the tenders rendered spare were attached to No. 251 and five of the new 4-4-0s. The remaining tender was presumably unsuitable. This left five new 4-4-0s still to be dealt with, and it seems five further engines were ordered to be sent to Doncaster for withdrawal, presumably with the stipulation that their tenders must be suitable for the new engines. These engines were withdrawn as follows:

Their tenders were presumably intended for attaching to the remaining five 4-4-0s. These ten engines were thus dealt with in the following sequence (this being the order in which they were entered in the Repairs Volume), though No. 1390 (see table below *) had a further two months or so delay for some unspecified reason, though this may partly explain why two further Class A2 4-2-2 were withdrawn in May 1903, viz. Nos. 777 (Circ. 614) and 772 (Circ. 621), if two of the tenders released in the March had proved to be unsuitable. It is believed that the ten second-hand tenders provided for Nos. 1386-95 also took the numbers 1386-95 (though this has not been confirmed).

It is likely that 10 Stirling 4-2-2s were to have been withdrawn (regardless of their condition) and their tenders re-used for 10 Ivatt Class A5 4-2-2 “renewals”, ordered in August 1900. However the Ivatt engines were found alternative newer tenders, and also probably took longer to “bed in” than anticipated, so the planned withdrawal of the Stirling engines was delayed. They were eventually withdrawn between October 1902 and May 1903. (An eleventh 4-2-2 was also withdrawn in the same period, No. 48 in November 1902, but this was presumably for some other reason as it was scrapped at Peterborough shed.) The ten engines were withdrawn at Doncaster Works, so that their tenders could be reconditioned for further use, which in their case meant to make up for the shortage for the “replacement” Class D1 4-4-0s, Nos. 1386-95. Notes left by the late William Yeadon, the renowned tender expert, suggest he had come across tenders carrying these numbers, which he assumed to be second-hand. The Locomotive Drawing Office never kept records of tender exchanges, which has presented great problems unravelling many mysteries.