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

Maybe, but I'd be happier if I saw senior execs paying more attention on running the business better and less on deals, mergers, demergers leveraged buyouts and so on that might make them millions in bonuses...

 

It's not the senior execs involved in those deals that drive the on the ground progress - possibly their direct reports.

 

And whilst it may be interesting to debate things 60 years after the event, such niceties would have been irrelevant to shedmasters and crews of the time. They just got the job done with whatever locos they had.

 

Possibly - yet their instincts and the collated data did feed their way back up to the CMEs and drawing offices.

 

In the later years of steam? Apart from fitting the A3 and A4 fleet with Kylchap front ends, very few changes were made to the former LNER fleet.

 

By then, I agree - though even that example demonstrates the interplay that went on. Earlier, in the period @S.A.C. Martin is exploring - absolutely it did, as has been discussed.

 

That isn't true. Shedmasters and operating departments repeatedly used the data they gathered to make arguments for/against old or new locomotives or rebuilding. That's why we have the "use of engine power" document in the first place.

(One a side note, this document was one of the first things that Gresley implemented, with the help of the Stratford Office, in the early days of the L.N.E.R. and it was collected on a five yearly basis in various forms. Unfortunately, unless further copies emerge, we only have partial data for 1923-34 and 1946-48 with just 1942-46 in full, which has formed the major research part of my last two books on Thompson and Gresley, by way of digitising the records).

Case in point: the use of data collected and distributed by the operating departments is partly why the P2s were rebuilt and why we need to be mindful that some of the secondary evidence, where the LNER are concerned, has been so damaging to reporting on history.

The accepted history of the Gresley P2s has a number of sources declaring that all Scotland seemed to be up in arms about the removal of the P2s, and against their rebuilding. However we have as a matter of record, direct to the board, several reports from the operating department on how poorly they were performing and requesting either new locomotives or for changes to the existing fleet to be made to make them satisfactory. Among this are quotations of the mileages and days they were available for work.

Once the rebuilt Thane of Fife was in service, and had been in service for a year, Arthur Peppercorn did a tour of Scotland and gathered feedback and more data on the locomotives, culminating on his report to the board outlining how well the rebuilt locomotive was performing. It was on the strength of the message from the operating department that the board was satisfied the rest of the class should be similarly rebuilt.

I have this discussion with members of the Gresley Society of late and I think we need to be really firm on how far the secondary evidence is allowed to take precedence over clear, documented primary evidence. As far as I am concerned, the L.N.E.R. does not strike me as a company that didn't listen to their operating departments. Gresley throughout his time in the CME role listened to his assistants, received reports from the operating departments and several pre-grouping classes were continued to be built (e.g. B12, D11, N7) to supplement the various new group standards envisaged.

It's all very "boys own stories" to claim that the shedmasters and operating departments didn't think about the data and "just got on with the job". The implication is that the L.N.E.R. didn't think about the motive power issue, when the primary evidence shows us that the railway company from the fitter in the shed to the CME and everything inbetween, and the board, was always thinking about how to achieve the required goal: running a railway. Collecting and analysing the data was part of that.

Now, it absolutely was more primitive than we can see now with whole computer systems dedicated to the analysis of data that is collected from a much wider range of sources (look at the interaction between the railway and computer systems in terms of digital railway/intelligent infrastructure in Network Rail's business case for an indication of this) but the basic principle was the same. Otherwise, the railway wouldn't have kept records of mileages/availability/failure rate/etc because the argument becomes if the data doesn't matter, then you proceed on a run to failure model instead of investigating the causes of failure and preventing them in the first place.

 

When steam was definitely on its way out, that's when the changes were curtailed, but the fitting of the kylchaps and smoke deflectors on the A3s was done very late in the day.

By then, most of the significant changes to other classes had either been completed or were deemed uneconomic.

Fundamentally though the L.N.E.R.'s and later BR Eastern Region's drawing office and engineering facilities did make significant changes to steam locomotive classes within its fleet, across the board.

I know this because I am finishing up writing on - just - the Gresley designs, and every single class I have covered has had either a few significant or minor changes to things like:

• Cab layouts - right to left hand drive
• bufferbeams/chimneys/cab roofs - bringing into a unified gauging
• Long lap travel valves
• divided axleboxes
• pony trucks
• bogies with side spring control
• new stay guides
• replacement of belpaire for round topped boilers
• piston valve/lentz gear/reidinger gear/etc
• cut-offs 75% from 65% or vice versa
• superheater types
• wheel arrangements

The list goes on. The development of the steam locomotive on the L.N.E.R. and BR (E) didn't stop in 1948. It was continuous from 1923 to 1bout 1960. That was why the drawing offices existed, primarily. To help support the maintenance and running of the locomotives through design development.

 

But even earlier they just got on with what they’d got. Some older friends of mine did not like the L1s they had to crew but the job had to be done. No idea what filtered up to higher management but any “improvement” had to wait until the diesels arrived. We can debate all day about divided drive v unified drive but the fact remains that both types saw out the end of steam and shed masters/crews just got on with the job with whatever locos they had at their disposal.

 

Is that really true? No major design changes of the sort that enthusiasts get excited about, but what about detailed engineering for reliability? Cook, the CME through much of the 50s was a detail man. We know about revised big ends for the Pacifics which made a significant improvement in their reliability, but what else was there? Presumably the drawing office weren't just working on BR standards. The GWR maintained a register of drawings produced, which I've found instructive even where the drawings themselves don't survive. Presumably there would be equivalents for the ex LNER drawing offices. What were they actually working on? I've heard that the WDs were reassembled to a much greater degree of precision than they were originally built to as they came through the shops for heavy generals. Did this affect their reliability? Were they better locomotives in 1955 than 1945?

 

I recommend “steam was my calling” by ES Beavor, because the anti-Thompson sentiment for the L1s gets comprehensively debunked by someone who not only worked on them but also worked in the drawing office and understood how the railway worked.

I spent a lot of time debating how I’d write on the L1s in my book and I regret not being more positive, more out of a fear of reprisal online, but the fact remains that they were the most modern tank engine at most of the eastern region sheds allocated, they were easy to oil around, had good range by way of fuel, had excellent vision from the drivers seat (and all controls had been designed to be in easy reach), all had electric lighting, components were standard with other classes including cylinders, valve gear, and more.

The prototype was excellent, the production variants suffered from the issues of post war manufacturing but once leaking tanks from welding issues had been fixed, did the jobs required and had good mileages/availability.

I do think the one thing we’ve proved conclusively on this forum is that the anti-Thompson sentiment ran straight through many LNER writers books and most, if not all, of it was based on very subjective opinions of his work as CME.

You are ignoring that shedmasters could and would actively move locomotives off their patch or have them shopped if they felt strongly about the quality of the locomotive they'd been provided. What you're saying might have been applicable at the end of steam, but most definitely was not the case on the L.N.E.R. - who cascaded types from different parts of the railway as new designs came into service.

 

Are you claiming that there was really nothing at all wrong with the L1s once the leaks had been fixed? Or was it rather than (like most designs) they did have some flaws, which writers emphasized or exaggerated because of anti-Thompson sentiment?

 

There’s no doubting that the L1 design has suffered from a huge amount of anti-Thompson prejudice over the last sixty/seventy years and yes, I think much of the issues are greatly exaggerated.

It would be wrong to say they didn’t suffer some issues but (like most of the Thompson rhetoric) their flaws or shortcomings have been massively over emphasised in order to toe a specific line.

Who it really benefits to do that - you’d have to ask the secondary sources who wrote it at the time.

There’s also no doubt - because we have footage and sound recordings - that they did “clank” but no more so than a Peppercorn K1 which shared an identical valve gear setup. There’s one YouTube video where the narrator goes into a lot of detail on how the L1s were “cement mixers” and the next set of footage goes straight into footage of Top Shed and the Met Shed and all you hear is loud clanking from the Gresley N2s (without comment!) - so yes, I think if LNER writers were more objective, the L1s reputation would be much better.

There’s been a few specific secondary sources that have hurt the L1s reputation and one specific book which, when I went and checked dates of entry into service for the production locomotives, didn’t match up at all with the primary record.

This has been the main issue and bone of contention for me for about ten years now though. You go and read secondary sources, see what they’re saying, then check the primary records and cross reference and most of it doesn’t match up at all.

One of the saddest things which happened for me when I was writing and researching the Thompson book was interviewing a driver who’d worked at Neasden shed. He’d been at my lecture at the MRC in London and gave me some notes via letter. He would not go on record for the book, and I did try to change his mind, and part of his reason for not doing so was that he felt over the years intimidated by the aggressive line of anti-Thompson rhetoric regarding the locomotives he’d worked on, including the L1s.

And I think that is something which the enthusiast community has got to get a grip on. The one I mention above has sadly passed away but there are still a few out there who could give their views and experience, but don’t feel confident they’d be “allowed” in the great scheme of things.

Certainly the man I mention above felt his membership of some societies would be in jeopardy as a result of his contradicting views to the official accepted records. (And at this point I’d like to firmly say that I am NOT referring to the Gresley Society here. They, more than any, have helped to reframe the whole Thompson debate and have been supportive of my work throughout).

 

The RCTS Green book reports that some L1s were fitted with manganese steel axlebox liners to overcome the Concrete Mixer effect, which was reported successful but too late in the days of steam to do the whole class. The Green book also reports that all LNER locomotives became mechanically run down quite quickly, perhaps something of an over-generalisation and oddly enough in the section on Thompson's O1s that had Great Central frames.

 

I would suggest a note of caution here: that of dubbing. We don't know how much film was actually silent and subsequently dubbed with a sound track that bears no relation to the subject.

 

I did think of that and at the time I got in touch with the channel's owner, who confirmed that the footage and the audio were linked.

You are right to be cautious, of course.

 

Very commendable

 

I was just looking up something on Steamindex, and was distracted by noticing the web master's precise (on https://www.steamindex.com/jile/jile33.htm) of the Institute of Locomotive Engineers paper by "Robson, T. (Paper No. 441) 'The counter pressure method of testing locomotives.' The paper, published in 1943, evidently contains work done on testing on the LNER immediately prior to the war. It seems evident that there's some discussion of various design elements of LNER locomotives, including two and three cylinders.

 

Yes, looks intriguing. I will go and get a copy!

...!

 

The paper is essentially about counter pressure brake testing of a B17 using an old NER 4-6-0, partly dealing with the details and benefits of that testing procedure and partly some comments about the B17's performance and leading on to some generic comments about the need for larger valves and the possible advantage of two cylinders (v. three) (perhaps he had the B2 with two cylinders and 10" valves in mind?), and one or two acerbic observations. Robson obviously upset the president, Bulleid, who made the rather gnomic comment "Another of the author's great merits was that he had no hesitation in saying exactly what he thought." Tester incidentally uses some of Robson's findings in his book on large lap valves and provides some useful commentary on what they reveal e.g. the difficulty of getting steam into the cylinders at short cut-offs.