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

To be pedantic, the LNER was not in the hopeless financial position in 1923 as it later found itself in. However, the railway companies pre-nationalisation were always very close-measuring when it came to spending money. The absorption scheme for the Mid-Suffolk was actually dated 3 April 1924, albeit as with the other absorption schemes, the "vesting date" was 1 January 1923 (or 1 July 1923 in the case of the LMS for absorptions after the date when the Caley and Knotty joined). (as an aside, the Leek and Manifold scheme was dated 24 June 1924, although there may have been later ones). The GCR was a "constituent" of the LNER so subject to an "amalgamation scheme" and it would certainly have thrown a spanner in the works if the NER had publically objected to the inclusion of the GCR or sought to impugn its credit while the bill was being debated (the GNR and GER could not really argue that as the "Three Greats" had tried to merge in 1909). The Mid-Suffolk was actually in receivership so you can understand the lack of enthusiasm for taking on its liabilities. The obligation to take on liabilities was under Section 5(a) of the Railways Act 1921 albeit in other cases, much argument / sophistry turned on the distinction between a liability and a security (Section 5(c)). The absorption scheme for the Mid-Suffolk is silent as to what if anything was paid to the creditors consequent on the absorption.

 

The railway companies were commercial organisations and the reluctance to absorb basket case local railways goes back further than 1923. The NB wouldn’t work the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway on the basis that the revenue wouldn’t cover the cost of the working agreement, for three years it was worked by the Highland Railway in isolation from the rest of its system. The NB then took over but only on condition that its main promoter, Lord Burton, agreed to make up any shortfall in revenue. I believe his Lordship had to write a rather large cheque each year until his death. Col Stephen’s seemed to have a hobby of acquiring or building such lines that seemed to totter on the brink of bankruptcy for most of their existence.

 

From what I have read I believe that a Britannia is the largest 2 cylinder loco you can fit in the British loading gauge

How many jobs were there that a Britannia could not do?

 

"The Great Western is often criticised for not developing its designs since Churchward’s time which may be true but unlike the LNER it always paid a dividend to its shareholders."

The GWR reached a state of perfection that has never been surpassed....Nothing could be bettered.

 

Its a good point as weight aside - not many, some of which could be done by another 2 cylinder design (9F)
However the Britannias were gradually racking themselves to bits and would have needed new frames with updated stretchers within a few more years of active service.

 

I definitely wouldn’t call it perfect, but Churchward’s designs were roughly 20 years ahead of their time. They were so far ahead that Stanier basically took the basic Churchward layout, put some window dressing on it, and made it the LMS standard.

I always wonder at what Collet exactly was supposed to do to “update” the GWR’s roster when they were arguably still ahead of everything else in the country. Sure, outside valve gear and higher superheat most definitely should have been implemented, and maybe the compound castle (or better yet, a compound with the no. 7 boiler) was a real opportunity that never went anywhere, but there was no reason to abandon the Churchward layout for the sake of it.

Perhaps it’s not worth discussing though, as I certainly upset the Gresley purists with my last post.

 

And the 9Fs?

 

The problem is that Britain simply didn’t have the weight allowances or loading gauge to construct a truly high-power two-cylinder passenger locomotive because the piston thrusts completely wracked the frames.

Even the Germans had to learn this the hard way and switch to three-cylinders for the 01.10 and 03.10 designs. The Americans and South Africans were able to do it because their engines were built like tanks.

 

I think perfection is too much of an objective narrative to describe something like whether locomotives from one designer / company are better than another. Certainly of all the Class 8 locos compared in the 1948 Exchange Trials the Kings weren't at the top of the table. You could argue about them using Hard Yorkshire Coal, not Welsh, but then, if a loco needs a specific type of coal to perform at its best, can you really describe it as perfect?

As a fireman who has experience on a range of locomotives from a range of companies, I think the fairest way to describe GW locos (or at least the ones I have experience with - namely 3717, 5526, 6989, 7822, 5786, 6880 and 1369, and in the context of no more than 6 coaches on gently graded heritage lines at no more than 25mph) is that they are good quality products in a packaging which could have been more user friendly. They steam and pull well, they make a great noise and look the part. However, when comparing them to later locomotive designs I also have experience with like 8Fs or BR 2MTs, the need to oil up inside the frames makes preparation a bit more of a pain, the tender loco cabs are rather exposed to the elements, and the side tank cabs are a bit cramped as the water tanks intrude into the footplate space, and you don't really have the ability to sit down on them if you have a break in your shovelling (although these issues are by no means unique to GW designs). My point is, it's not as if it's impossible to find fault with GW locos, and it varies from one engineman to another as to how big of a problem those faults are!

To date my experience on LNER locos and Gresley designs is sadly limited, but my hope is that in time I will be given more to have a play with!

 

Lyme Regis branch, Wenford Bridge branch, anything on the Isle of Wight, Hayling Island, Canterbury and Whitstable …

Tom

 

In my opinion, the reason the Kings suffered is because they were likely over-cylindered in order to reach the 40,000 lbf required by the board. Their efficiency and performance likely would have been higher if their cylinders were slightly smaller and in the 35,000-37,000 lbf range.

There was only so far you could push a design from 1906 until it reached its limit. The King was definitely just at, or a little past that limit.

 

Sorry, it just find it humorous that I’m getting these snide comments about how the conversation was over and I’m retreading old ground. If that was actually true, wouldn't my post have gotten no replies and the topic locked there and then? Why do you feel the need to contribute to a conversation that is clearly long over?

 

Cauld kail het again as the Scots are rumoured to say.

 

Ok, that made me laugh. Sorry if I’m being a bit uptight.

 

Most definitely? Locomotive preparation on the GWR was a piecework task, with just two rates, for large and small locomotives so there was no financial saving to be made by having outside valve gear. Indeed possibly the opposite, since there was no need to take down the valve gear in order to do maintenance work on pistons, bearings and crossheads. And higher superheat brought an increase in efficiency, but at the price of increased oil consumption and increased maintenance in removing carbon deposits. Oil consumption was a significant enough overhead to be reported to the board. Stanier introduced high superheat on the LMS not through choice, but because his design team failed to get the boilers to steam adequately with moderate superheat. This was not a problem on the GWR. Its actually a nuanced business decision, with pros and cons, not an obvious choice.

 

Actually, you’re dead right (well, somewhat). I was reading a book on this yesterday and what you said was covered there in more detail. I don’t think it can be disputed though that high superheat helped in the postwar years when coal supplies were poorer. I think both the Kings and Castles were boosted with four-row superheaters.

 

a 9f is not as ' big' as a Britannia in any sense apart from some having larger tenders...

 

The best att

The Hawksworth County was probably the best attempt.
Soon as bar frames were rejected the Brits were always going to have problems, deciding that the Bulleids lightweight narrow frame arrangement ( For 3 cylinder pacifics) was suitable a mistake, the lightweight unsupported slidebar another, the axle/wheel interface another, all surprising given that the Horwich Crabs were pretty sound.

i like to imagine Sir Nigels Ghost having a proper chuckle when the results of the B2 vs B17 trials came in...

 

Honestly the original B17 could and would have worked fine as a two-cylinder locomotive. The required 25,000 lbf by the board with 80” wheels and two cylinders isn’t a formidable feat at all, in fact the Saints were nearly there 25 years before. The Brittania was on a completely different scale than what the B17 was meant to be.