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

IIRC the LNER used government grants for infrastructure rather than motive power. Such things as the semi Whitemoor hump shuntingyard.

 

I've always wondered if there wasn't a bit of politics in that (as well as the D11/1 being obviously up to the job and a quick option to build as D11/2).

Given Gresley was the second choice for CME at the grouping, and then recommended for the job by the man they asked first (Robinson), it can't have hurt the chances of the D11 when Gresley was casting about for a solution to the Scottish need in almost his first months (possibly hyperbole but this is from memory) in the job. Bit of an intentional(?) tip of the hat to JGR...?

 

I would suggest that Gresley's choice of the D11 order was more about his willingness to adopt designs that met the need rather than being a "tip of the hat to JGR" given that in his re-engineering guise he used the designs of other CMEs where the basic design met the needs but needed an upgrade that met the heavier traffic conditions (e.g. increased train lengths; increased traffic - both freight and passenger)

 

My specific point was that he did not achieve it by luck (!)

 

I would be careful with that line of thought; changes in standards and technologies mean that re-engineering is not necessarily a cheap or effective route. The recent announcement that DfT are terminating the lease on the GWR class 769s, and the collapse of VivaRail, both strongly suggest that re-engineering is not a simple or cheap option; the scale of metalwork repairs on Mk3 designs to give 10 year life extensions is likewise far from cheap.

It's also worth note that everything in that picture from Ely was at least 30 years old, and most of it nearer 40. By any measure, that suggests replacement was probably due for a great deal of the existing fleets.

 

As for Vivarail, their selling point was that their units were cheaper; apart from the aluminium D78 body shells, almost everything was new. Maybe customers prefer new. The small size of the company probably didn't help.

 

Possibly, possibly not - my observation here is solely that the evidence of recent projects including Vivarail's is that re-engineering is not necessarily a cheap or straightforward option.

 

I guess we are disagreeing then, or it may be I do not understand your comment. The availability of government support could be considered to be good fortune, although one of course does not know what would have happened if there had been no war. You say that "finance was always there in some way". I suggest that we can be a bit more analytic than that as by the time Thompson was in harness as CME, the LNER was sucking on the government teat and in rather more robust financial health, as evidenced by their return to paying dividends on the prefs.

 

I would also be careful of comparing 1930s steam days with the 21st century diesel / electric traction. I would suggest a better comparison be that of East Germany under Russian control (i.e. between 1946 - 1986) where steam traction was denuded of funds for new locomotives hence rebuilding such as the 01.0s to 01.5s were the order of the day; a situation forced by shortage of funds irrespective of source. In terms of the Ely stored examples I would contend that much of these could be re-engineered for a price much less than that paid for new rolling stock.

 

The 442 reworking wasnt a great success though, partly down to the way the originals had been built which wasnt realised when they started

 

I agree with you on steam vs 21st century diesel/electric traction, which is why I can't see the DDR's rebuilding as relevant to today - though arguably it is a relevant comparison to the LNER in terms of making best use of scarce resources. Meanwhile, on the stock at Ely, the evidence of just about every major recent rolling stock re-engineering project says different. Class 460 -> class 458 conversions; Class 442 rebuilds; Mk3 sliding doors; VivaRail; class 769, SWR class 455 retractioning; Central Line 1992 stock modifications - all over budget and over time.

 

I'd much rather travel (and work on) new stock than rebuilt 40 year old class 317 rot boxes. No air con, no WiFi, no plug sockets. Seats that can't be changed easily due to the way they're bolted to channels welded to the frame. Windows can't be replaced easily. All the door gear would need to be replaced to make it acceptable for use today. I don't miss climbing up on top of boiling hot traction motors to change the brushes on them either! The daft thing is one of the easier parts to replace - the traction control equipment - was pretty bomb proof. A mixture of electronic and electrical components, it never really went wrong.

They're rusty and falling apart and you'd have to spend an absolute fortune on them to get them to match modern stock, and for what, another 10 years in service? Really not worth it.

 

Sounds like Heaven to me... windows don't fail (too many Mk. 4 journeys in my time) and no-one scrabbling over you to plug in their mobile office and generally be annoying gits because they can't/won't disconnect.

They didn't ride as nicely as 365s IMO but if you're not organised enough to charge your devices before you embark on a journey...

However - what's this got to do with HNG?

 

Reengineer vs new build.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The RCTS green book reports that the LNER used the government support scheme of 1935/1936 to obtain ten K3s from Armstrong Whitworth and to build 17 A4s and five other locomotives (that I haven't bothered to search out). I believe both the Shenfield and Woodhead electrifications came within later scheme(s).

 

Thanks. Every day’s a school day.

 

Very few large-wheeled express engines seem to have been built anywhere in Continental Europe after 1940. Lots of heavy freight 2-10-0s were built during WW2, with large numbers of large and medium mixed-traffic types following in some countries after WW2. Post-war steam building in both West & East Germany was limited, with the most numerous new types being the Class 23 2-6-2s (105 of Class 23.0 in West Germany and 113 of Class 23.10 in East Germany). These were roughly equivalent to Thompson B1s and LMS/BR 5MTs in Britain, but the German ones were intended to replace older German mixed-traffic 4-6-0s, notably Prussian P8s.

I hope I am not generalizing too much, but for the inter-war period, the steam locomotive construction policies of the Continental railways largely look like a mixture of Gresley's LNER practice and Maunsell's Southern practice. On some railways, extensive electrification was reducing the need for new steam engines as on the SR, while new building seemed to focus on large, powerful types, with secondary duties covered by cascading older engines. There was the difference, however, that the Continental Railways were generally single state-owned or large regional companies, so did not have the huge variety of classes absorbed by the LNER and LMS.

 

When I've looked at Loco Builders order books, you could almost graph recessions when orders go from hundreds down to 10s ie only absolutely necessary builds

 

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who has taken part in the discussion this year.

It has been a really interesting and at times robust debate, that I hope has given everyone food for thought and helped to maybe understand Gresley a bit more.

I am getting closer to submitting my manuscript and I am having it proof read by a range of people - if you’d like to contribute to this (and get your name into the thank you section at the back of the book, as per last time) please drop me a line.

I have some new leads and sources to share in the new year for discussion too, to drop after I’ve finished the annual accounts for the MNLPS and other such matters arising!

So on that note, Merry Christmas one and all.

 

Some pleasing news to end the year on: I have been booked to give a lecture on Sir Nigel Gresley on 9 February 2023.

This lecture will showcase the research I have been undertaking to give a more informed view on Sir Nigel's locomotive designs during the Second World War, and promises to give a few samples of work for the book I am also working on for Strathwood Publishing: Sir Nigel Gresley, The L.N.E.R.'s First C.M.E.

Entry is free, with a suggested donation to the Model Ian MacCabe, Mark Allatt, Graeme Bunker and countless others in the Gresley Society circle for their support and encouragement of my work to date. Ian's excellent art is a stand out feature in my last book and will also feature in the upcoming one.

Thanks also to family, friends and my ever suffering railway widow, my wife Nada Mufti for their encouragement and support.
I am also grateful to the members of the Clan Line - The Golden Arrow Engine (MNLPS) both on committee and the wider society who support me in my research and work.

Please feel free to come along and listen, ask questions or indeed heckle!