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

another way of looking at that though is how far locomotive design stabilised into that general paradigm (certainly on the GW) because he made that call....

 

"Dear Mr Hughes,

In view of the unfortunate death of the other candidate (Mr Churchward), the directors of the Great Western Railway would like to offer you the post of chief engineer"

 

........ and I have long thought that when the Duke of Edinburgh said that the Schools class on the Royal Train looked dated the prompt response should have been: to say it was the equivalent of a really good Arab Horse!

{But you could claim, in plant breeding terms, that it was an F1 cross - Lord Nelson X Schools - and the gold dust on the Schools was the hybrid vigour. Three Nelson cylinders and shortened by half a yard an Arthur boiler.}

 

I'd have kept an G class single back, with the threat to use it in the event they needed reminding they est, sleep and s**t, same as the rest of us. With any luck, it'd have survived long enough to make it safely to Sheffield Park!

 

So does that mean the DofE was a Bulleid fan then? Another honour to his list...

 

I have a very pleasing update for those of you pre-disposed to considering the availability statistics. I have finally completed the dashboard and stats for 1942-1946 for every single class.



I have a drop down which allows me to create the tables and graphs automatically for each class. I intend to populate the Gresley book accordingly and then do a compendium edition on every single class the LNER used during the second world war.

This is the first phase of the digitization process complete. The next stage involves the engine record cards that we have at the NRM and in other archives.

 

I have begun the arduous process of editing my chapters down and starting to populate it with photographs. For interest's sake, and to collate some feedback, please find attached a sample chapter:

All critiques welcome.

 

First paragraph "40mph was the intended sped for the Gresley was keen ..". Words missing?

 

Thank you - good spot. A whole sentence missing actually!

 

Interesting draft on Gresley's early 2-cylinder 2-6-0s for the GNR. I did wonder whether Simon's coming book would cover Gresley's GNR period or start with LNER formation in 1923 - question now answered.

Ivatt had built some 0-6-0s with 5ft 8in wheels for fast goods traffic (LNER J1/2) but Gresley moved to the 2-6-0. Maybe he was influenced by Churchward's introduction of the GWR 43XX 2-6-0 the previous year? Gresley's 2-cylinder 2-6-0s were simple and unassuming types, but look to have been a very successful type in most respects. I wonder whether the LNER would have benefited if more had been built in the 1920s. They had lower axle-loading and higher route availability than the K3, D49 & J39 that were actually built during the 1920s as the LNER's standard types for secondary work. The axle-load issue would have been one of the factors that led to many K2s being transferred to the GE and Scottish areas, where main routes could not always take the heavier Gresley types.
I think statistics have shown that availability was higher in 1942 for the K2s than for most of the more modern Gresley 3-cylinder types. The declining availability around 1945 perhaps reflects that the engines were by then around 30 years old, probably with major components wearing out and requiring renewal.
It is unfortunate that no K2 survived into preservation. But I think the chance of a new-build project is zero!

 

The difference between Ivatt's 5' 8" 0-6-0s (LNER J1 and J2) is that the J2 had 18 element Schmidt superheaters, so it is probably more realistic to consider Gresley's boiler as a lengthened J2. Incidentally, although an Ivatt design, I think the J2 was not actually introduced until after Gresley was appointed.

 

A statistic that might be of interest. In 'next station' a 1947 GWR publication about plans for the future, it states that in 1938 GWR passenger trains suffered a failure every 126,000 miles, and in 1946 every 40,000. And it states that figure is much lower than 1945. Might be a useful comparison to the LNER data.

 

That's a very interesting statistic Jim. The issue perhaps is context. Is it trains, or locomotives? The data I have is locomotive centric. If we assume they are one and the same (e.g. the locomotive fails the train, as opposed the rolling stock fails the train) then they're ultimately comparable.

 

It's locomotive failures on passenger trains. The qualitative comparison is probably useful, but to do a quantitative comparison you need figures measured the same way, which might be tricky. Also to do a full comparison you'd need to repeat your data analysis for all the lines, which is a hell of a a piece of work.

It's something I've run up against: if I wanted, say, to do a valid comparison between GWR and LNER locomotive policy I would need to be equally informed about both, and study both in equal detail, but as an amateur student I wouldn't find spending all that time on the LNER very congenial.

Ideally I suppose one would team up with people with an equal interest in other lines, but hard to find. For example while I applaud the data gathering you've done, I don't think I could find the enthusiasm to put the work in on something that to me is a bit esoteric.

 

Esoteric? Perhaps. It is frustrating to see it described as such. Perhaps I am not doing a good enough job of explaining the dataset to the masses! Particularly when it reveals so much about what the L.N.E.R. were going through during the Second World War, in terms of how run down the railway actually was. The performance of their locomotives is a good key indicator of how the railway was coping.

 

It's a symptom of what interest different people.

 

A moderately noticeable difference in 8 years. I wonder where the dividing line between causal deferred maintenence in the locomotive and PW departments lay?

 

I think we may be using different shades of meaning. I agree your work is vital if one seeks to understand various policy decisions and the finance/maintenance environment on the LNER at the time. Infinitely better than the usual vague and minimally sourced assertions.
On the other hand my personal interest on the equivalent data for the GWR is not so great that I am going to consider starting a similar exercise over other study areas I find more congenial.

 

Ah we are talking at cross purposes! My apologies Jim.

 

I haven't yet gone through the thread.
Gresley was revered and could do no wrong, hence the scandal when 4470 was rebuilt, it was to be the preserved prototype.
The LNER was always broke, and little money, and a lot of great locos already inherited from Holden Robinson, Worsdell and NBR which he tinkered with a bit, and ordered some, perhaps worthy of detail, and the B16 rebuild is really among his finest designs, as is the electric EM1 and his interest in diesels.
His big end was fine with maintained service and normal maintenance, using heat proof materials remedied this as labour became crisis level in the war due to conscription.