Sir Nigel Gresley - The L.N.E.R.’s First C.M.E.

I don't see this as being an issue for Gresley or Chapelon's history though. The W1 is very much a development of his thoughts and work, Chapelon went his own way. I see it more as Chapelon learned from the mistakes of the W1, given the timelines.

 

But what is influence can be a complicated subject...
Would we agree that all subsequent engineers were influenced by Webb not to try divided drive with uncoupled driving wheels? I submit that a good engineer looks for influences in as many places as possible, sometimes for things to try, and sometimes for things not to try...

 

Absolutely Jim, but the primary evidence left in the W1 file at the NRM suggests strongly that Gresley and his team were looking to the aero industry (and the national physics laboratory, NPL) for the streamlining, previous work on compounds on the LNER specifically, and the work of ALCO in high pressure locomotives together with Yarrow's work on water tube boilers.

These are all well documented and part of the core development between 1924 until the loco's emergence in 1929. Chapelon first met Gresley in 1925 and though they may have built up a professional relationship from there, Gresley's work on the W1 in the file is pretty clear cut.

 

As an engineer your last paragraph sums it up...how many times I've asked "have you looked in the instruction book"....as a starter.

 

Work started on 10000 in 1924. Chapelon only started working for PO in 1925. Gresley was looking for a way of generating steam which used less coal than his A1 Pacifics. If he'd just waited a year, the GWR would have saved him the trouble!

 

Not sure about that. In 1933, condensation in the LP cylinders was a problem when the locomotive was standing and Chapelon's advice was sought. Chapelon recommended re-superheat for the HP exhaust and more superheat for the HP steam. Pretty basic stuff.

 

Can we have a source for this please? Because I went through the W1 file and didn't find anything from Chapelon. William Brown had the advantage of additional sources when he wrote his book on the W1 and he in fact stated on page 77 of his book that he could find no evidence of correspondence between the two men regarding the W1.

As an aside, I found no evidence of correspondence between them in my research for the Gresley book either. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that it's not out there, but we need citations and evidence to be apparent.

 

Point of info - by the end of its development, the W1 achieved exactly that. With some modifications to the auxiliaries and the fitting of a double kylchap it was the equal of an A3 and consuming less coal and water on similar work. I found the statistics in one of the reports and it made me reevaluate the W1 substantially.

This loco has suffered by way of not enough people reading William Browns book or the existing file of primary evidence at the NRM, IMO.

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/W/w1.php

 

Secondary source with no citations I am afraid. Always check who's saying what. The LNER Encyclopaedia is good for a starting interest but you need to be careful with the details.

 

Perhaps if you demanded such standards for all info here, there wouldn't be much left?

Anyway here's another source: https://www.sirnigelgresley.org.uk/chime-archive/mob-abofb-11.shtml

 

You don't know me very well!

As on the other thread, I've not found evidence to support that and neither did William Brown in his book on the W1 (which in my opinion is the best book on the W1 and unlikely to be bettered).

 

Quote from "Chapelon" thread:

A question that arises is whether Gresley, when he was developing his 3-cylinder conjugated gear approach around 1918-20, was aware that Germany was already building such engines. I suspect not, since WW1 had likely interrupted normal information flows. The Prussian State Railways had started building 3-cylinder locos in bulk in 1914 (with the S10.2 class of 4-6-0). The G12 2-10-0 (more than 1400 built) was their largest application of 3 cylinders with conjugated gear.

But just as Gresley was becoming fully committed to this approach, it was falling from favour in Germany. From 1920, the newly formed Reichsbahn Design Office, under Richard Wagner, preferred the 2-cylinder simple approach, adopted for the new Class 01 Pacific in 1925. In later years, the Germans returned to using 3-cylinders on the most powerful locos, but this time with 3 separate valve gears. Essentially the same policy that Thompson & Peppercorn would adopt on the LNER.

The German Henschel system of conjugation was never used in Britain. It employed vertically aligned conjugation levers (actuated by a pair of cross-shafts), which needed adequate space between axles and boiler. Given the limited height of the British loading gauge and its impact on boiler height, the German gear might simply not have fitted into the space available on LNER locos.

 

When did William Brown find all that time to write a book about the W1 after all his escapades with Jumble, Ginger, Henry, Douglas and Violet Elizabeth Bott?
I’ll get my coat…

 

Just a heads up - the book has now arrived in the warehouse. Looking forward to getting my own copy shortly so I can graffiti it with edits for the next edition!

https://strathwood.co.uk/products/s...n-e-r-s-first-c-m-e-launched-15-november-2023

 

@S.A.C. Martin - the website says it’s ‘out now’ - 5 days early. Congratulations!

 

There are at least three different sources for the account of Gresley and Bulleid seeking the advice of Chapelon over problems with the W1. As opposed to what? The absence of evidence elsewhere is proof of precisely nothing! As quoted by Carl Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

Yes but academics will look at those sources and judge them on their merit. Secondary sources making claims are not reliable evidence, whereas primary evidence such as:

• Board minutes
• Locomotive committee minutes
• Actual letters from Gresley and Bulleid

…are indicative of what was actually going on.

The W1 is a case in point - we have a huge amount of primary evidence for its development and what was happening behind the scenes between 1924 and 1929 when it emerged. The W1 file at the NRM directly contradicts a number of claims made by secondary sources.

The Thompson thread showcases the issues of railway history writing over the last seventy years really well. Secondary sources have created their own echo chamber, with little primary evidence noted or quoted.

We have a duty to exercise caution on statements which provide no physical evidence. That’s part and parcel of an academic approach to railway history.

 

None of that's wrong, but the big challenge is that absence of evidence as you know, is not... I find minutes so frustrating, because, at least IME, they provide decisions without reasons. We know that the board of such and such a company adopted a given policy, but we don't know whether it was thoroughly based in logic, or because a particularly persuasive CME convinced an unusually compliant board that his ducklings were swans. Doesn't stop them being a vital source of course.
I have a lot of time for institute proceedings where available. The discussions in particular I think can give a good insight into how engineers were thinking at the time. I did a quick search with Google on Steamindex' summary of ILocE minutes with the search string
"chapelon site:https://steamindex.com/jile/". The results suggest that Chapelon was not regularly mentioned until the mid 30s, and most often post war. By contrast Wagner of the Reichsbahn was, perhaps unsurprisingly, not mentioned post war at all but much mentioned pre war.