Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Those bullet points do refer to some features of the V4 but do not in themselves provide any evidence that construction would not have continued had Gresley lived. 30854 has answered those points in the post before mine so no need to repeat here.

 

Yes. Primary evidence again. Board minutes, reports, Stanier/Cox Report and the mileages/availability data (V4 below):

Thompson supported the use of fabrications instead of castings where required, but the board was not happy with the complexity of those used in the Gresley V4, as the time taken to manufacture them was over and above the castings on other locomotive classes. This was noted primarily because manufacturing capacity both in the works and in the foundries had been severely reduced in favour of the armaments and other items for the war effort. The issue here isn't the fabrications/weldings themselves, but the complexity of those fabrications that were required for manufacturing of the Gresley V4, over and above other locomotive types. Afraid the board minutes are pretty clear on this.

This boiler was replaced in 1945. The boiler type for the V4 wasn't standard with any other locomotive, and was far more complex and time consuming to build than the B1 boiler - fact.

Noted and referenced both inside the LNER and outside of it. Fact.

We don't know for sure, but we can do more than indulge in supposition: educated statements and likely scenarios based again on primary evidence taken from the actual time period in question, directly relating to the issues.

There is no argument against the proficiency of the V4 as a locomotive: the issue (which seems pretty clear cut to me) is that the complexities are in the design, materials and manufacturing and on that basis the V4 was curtailed pretty swiftly by Thompson and the board, in favour of a (significantly cheaper and simpler to build) 4-6-0.

Again, the major issues are derived from the big driving factor - WW2 - which in turn pushed the LNER's major works, depot and significantly reduced maintenance staff to their limits.[/quote]

 

Looking at the mileage and availability comparisons, is there any indication of whether the lower figures for the V4s were indicative of mechanical issues (as 3402 received a similar boiler to 3401, is there a record of how long it was OOS for this reason), or merely tied up in diagramming issues for a class of just two locos?

 

Bulletin 10,Rugby,BTC showed that thermic syphons were useles on MNs and SNCF found the same when testing an american made 2-8-2.

Does someone here have a link to this report?

 

So the figures themselves don't tell us that, but the availability figures indicate quite a lot of time spent at works - whether that was mechanical or boiler related, we won't know unless we have one of their engine record cards. RCTS seems to suggest it was likely mechanical and conjugated valve gear issues.

 

Could you expand on this, please? Without knowing what precisely was claimed for the feature by way of any economy, my (distinctly limited) understanding is that syphons improved water circulation, ensuring the firebox crown remained covered and provided some additional 'staying' to same.

Thanks Simon. It'd be intriguing to get closer to the definitive answer from the record cards. I wonder if the A1SLT/V4 team have managed to get their paws on them?

 

I'd be surprised if something hasn't come to light.

I hope nobody gets me wrong - I actually love the class V4! As a design it is probably Gresley's finest work in terms of intricate detail to meet a brief. There is no - and I really do mean no - doubting the ability of the original pair of locomotives to do work across 80% of the LNER's system.

The reason I am perhaps quite dogged in my responses is that, with my asset engineer's hat firmly on, if I had a choice between 10 V4s and 30 B1s, I'd have 30 B1s and be asking for more. The whole story of locomotive design is not just performance once built.

 

With all due respect, it wouldn’t have been you making the decisions in 1941 if Gresley had lived. Nor would it have been me.

 

Its a tricky comparison though. All else being equal you'd expect lower mileage and availability from a class of 2 against a class of 400.

 

There is no primary evidence for a “what if” surely? What Gresley would have done had he lived is always going to be supposition. Would the board have reined him in? Would he have modified the design? Would he have designed a completely different loco? We will never know.

 

The Bulletin 10 must be accessible somewhere in UK.
Mr Giesl Gieselingen evidently had a copy and described the uselessness in ISBN 3854160895.
The SNCF equal expirience was mentioned somewhere by Cox and also some french magazines

 

IMO the graphs are not primary evidence in a "what if" situation as had Gresley lived, there wouldn't have been a B1 with which to compare the V4.

 

Southern Locomotives ltd has a copy. I received a pdf from them. There is also a report from the University
of Illinois, now available on the net, which was highly critised by Giesl-Gieslingen.
The gist of it al is that it is an expensive piece of equipment that increases evaporation at the cost of
superheater temperature. In the case of the MN/BB class removing it was as useless as keeping it.
Kind regards

 

I feel strongly that this is becoming a surreal interaction between the Judeans Peoples Front and serious historians.

 

i am no fan of the V4 , but by 1946 the two V4s were chuffing around on branch lines often with 2 or 3 coaches in tow.
a small class of 2 non standard engines was never going to be high in the queue for spares in the post war world, availability would always be poor for that reason.

i think his (HNG)early death was fortuitous in terms of his reputation. loco availability was terrible during the war years and i doubt he would have had the will to deal with it.
whatever medium sized new build he chose to take the LNER thro' the war and after would , undoubtedly have had 3 cyls , conjugated gear and high build and maintenance costs. he would never have built the enlarged B12 with outside cyls that was the obvious answer.

when he stated all those years before that he would only build 3 cyl locos in the future he defined his unsuitability for the job. he gave the LNER a stud of locos that were often too big and expensive to build and maintain. he could have built a 2 cyl B16 with 6ft drivers back in 1923 and been well ahead of the game . add in a 6ft 8" version together with his A1 and the already existing GC 2-8-0 and Pom Poms the LNER would have been well placed for the 1930s and beyond with a lot more money available to replace the older locos.

 

That's maybe a tad strong. Its always compromise in design. One may hypothesise that the better balance and smoother power delivery of the 3 cyl config might pay off in terms of reduced maintenance and a better ride for the passengers, and the more even draught on the fire in coal consumption, and that would apply to any size of locomotive. But as ever the problem would be actually determining whether that was the case. The trouble is that a proper comparison would require otherwise similar locomotives with 2 and 3 cylinders and ideally two or three of each. Doubtless Gresley's 3cyl designs showed up better in service than their predecessors, but one may wonder whether they had the facilities to test whether that was because of the configuration or not.

 

Judeans Peoples Front? Didn’t realise you were a member.

 

With respect Ralph: in your haste to continue your personal vendetta here, you’ve ignored that there are several other authors and some genuinely qualified historians writing on this thread.

You are by far the most disappointing of moderators on this site. Your forum is personally thanked in my book. I, and others like me, have added value to your forum by being here and having these discussions.

You never add anything constructive. You never wish to engage constructively.

Why are you here?

What is your problem with me?

We have never met personally. I’ve always reached out to try and resolve issues. You continue repeatedly to hammer away at this thread, to undermine me and what I do (happily, what I do stands on its own merit).

So in the spirit of the season - any chance you could back off, desist in your incessant and unnecessarily nasty commentary - and go do something constructive elsewhere? Please?

 

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.