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

Indeed. Stanier inherited a highly dysfunctional and divided organisation and welded it together into a CME's department which while in no way exceptional was capable of delivering an entirely adequate fleet for the LMS and then BR. And that. I submit, is evidence he was a very successful CME.

 

Yes that was my thinking. Legacy minus inheritance equals value added. Of course Stanier had a unique opportunity in 20th century terms and we will never know whether Collett or Maunsell would have achieved the same in that job. If the criterion is brilliant innovative design, then no. If it is more broadly making a difference then yes,

 

Which sort of brings me back round to my interpretation. Gresley was innovative, he was creative, he did produce over 2000 locomotives for the G.N.R. and L.N.E.R. regimes that were fully capable of doing the work involved. In his thirty ish years as the C.M.E. he produced 25 locomotive designs, some of which were developments of others work, some were developments of his own.

He also modified, or had modified for him, several more locomotive classes that also gave excellent service (e.g. Raven Atlantics, the 4-4-4Ts into 4-6-2Ts, Thompson's work at Stratford on B12/3 and D16/3).

He was also the first C.M.E. to take streamlining seriously, possibly the first C.M.E. in the world to do so at a very high level of scientific development and testing, and he remains the only one of the British C.M.E.s to have designed and built a fully streamlined high speed train, including articulation, of which his work in this field can still be seen today in modern electric iterations that echo the work done by Frederick Johannsen at the N.P.L on Gresley's request.

He anticipated traffic needs wherever he could, and - perhaps the thing I find most extraordinary - he produced so many individuals of merit from his own office. What other C.M.E. can say that they produced three more C.M.E.s for Great Britain, directly? Together with all of the engineers who went on to do great things in their own right?

Gresley wasn't just a locomotive engineer, he was truly a visionary. Yes, we can absolutely criticise the lack of a standardised locomotive programme for the L.N.E.R. and yes, we can say ultimately Thompson was right in his time to make those changes, or try to - but Gresley's time as C.M.E. produced work that still brought great benefits to the railway company and did so with a certain Je ne sais quoi.

 

I think you're right with your last sentence --- why is Jimmy Greaves one of the footballing greats?

You know the genealogy better than I do, but

Churchward-----Stanier, Collett, Hawksworth?

Stanier---- Ivatt, Fairburn, Riddles?

 

Churchward
Collett, Hawkesworth, Stanier, Cook (WR and NE/ER) plus Holcroft and a good number of others...

 

But how many of these worked directly with Churchward rather than simply follow the guidelines he established ? At least the 3 C.M.E.s produced by Gresley were directly working with him rather than working with his standards hence their successes.

 

All of them? Although Cook would have had limited contact with Churchward before his retirement.

 

How many of them worked with Churchward directly?

 

Did they though...?

But regardless, one of two C.M.E.s that have achieved that, I reckon?

 

Collett was assistant to the Chief draughtsman, Works manager and deputy CME under Churchward.
Hawkesworth inter alia did the GA for the Great Bear and was head of the locomotive section of the drawing office about the time Churchward retired.
Stanier worked in the drawing office in the early days of the Churchward era and was works manager under Churchward.
Holcroft worked in the drawing office in the key era of the Churchward standards and was principally responsible for the detailed design of 1361 and 43xx inter alia.
Cook was a premium apprentice under Churchward and seems to have had a good deal of contact with him after his retirement.

 

This is why we discuss and debate. Thank you Jim, I am better informed now.

What that does is leave me in no doubt of Churchward's excellence, of course.

 

And I hadn't even started on the International ones [grin]

 

The LMS produced a streamlined train, (possibly with articulation?) that was exhibited in USA, Although due to world events it never went into operation, one of the great "what ifs" of British Railway history was what would of happened to speed records if WW2 didn't happen, or if it had occured later, both for LMS and LNER, and possibly even Southern.

It just goes to show that everything is difficult to consider in isolation of outside conditions.

 

Please feel free to!

It is a talking point for sure, but Gresley's Coronation/Silver Jubilee/West Riding certainly were streamlined - we are talking smoothed surfaces, valances down to rail level. The USA set was not quite as good as the LNER alternative, I dare say, in that respect...

 

Well there was Watson on the G&SWR in Ireland and then Beyer Peaock - although not a very successful follower, E E Lucy on the NSW Government Railways, I have a vague memory there was another in India... I'm sure it applied to the other lines too: major companies like the GWR - or Maudsley where Collett did his apprenticeship - took on more premium apprentices than they could possibly employ, and would aim to keep the best while the rest scattered round the country and empire to smaller organisations. I imagine someone who was an expert on the people side of the LNER could find you more Gresley proteges. I've been helping on and off to transcribe a register of GWR draughtsmen, and a phenomenal number of people passed through the rooms. I never dreamed I was taking on such a big list when I volunteered!

 

With those LMS 57' long coaches still with screw couplings and end corridor gangway connection that look like rejects from a piano-accordion factory that got made mistakenly in metres rather than feet. At least the LNER went in for longer coaches with Pullman gangways, Buckeye couplers and retractable buffers, and dare I say it, probably better riding bogies, too.

 

+1

 

Don't GWR ones largely fit that bill, as well?

 

Presumably meaning the LMS bill - yes. One feature of some GWR buffers that I don't understand. They have rectangular shanks to stop them turning, but are fitted with round heads....!

 

Yes, the LMS Coronation Scot set that went to the USA was (mostly) articulated, and there were two other sets completed after the war, none of which went into service as trains. In addition the LMS designed and built a three coach articulated streamlined diesel unit just before the war.