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

Why ?

 

A good question, with several possibilities:

1. it doesn't exist
2. it does, but he doesn't want to share it
3. point 2, but he's writing a book
4. point 2, but he doesn't want someone else writing a book to have it

From my point of view I haven't cared particularly about keeping my research a secret: far from it, sharing it and making sure people go to the right resources, is in my best interests because reporting on railway history accurately is the thing I care about most at the end of the day. Hence why I shared my spreadsheet for the Thompson research, the bibliography is freely available, etc etc.

 

Dog in the manger. Mere b---y-mindedness?
(And BTW I'm not sure that "divest" was the right word. I think he meant "divulge".)

 

Bonavia sets out the Memorandum (dated 24 July 1947) from the CGM (Beevor) to the Joint Locomotive and Traffic Committees re the East Coast Diesel Scheme of 1947 in full in Appendix 2 of his History of the LNER (Volume 3). Bonavia notes the context on p81 and that the board approved it. Tenders were received by 12 November but it was then too late for the LNER to progress this and the Railway Executive chose not to pursue this.

 

Presumably something other than his idea of converting a Newport-Shildon Bo-Bo electric to diesel electric for use on coal trains between New England and Ferme Park mentioned on p78-79 of Bonavia's History of the LNER (Volume 3)?

 

I have that copy, I need to go and find it.

1947 suggests this was likely a Thompson or Peppercorn scheme (latter more likely given date).

 

Surely this was proved with the Thomson book where many theories were debunked and several avenues of research were revealed. Whilst only minor my references to Harry Knox's writings on both Haymarket and St Margarets depots was a link that Simon may not have been aware of (my apologies if you were aware) but contained personal experiences that cast a different view on situations that may not have been revealed to / recorded in correspondence with senior management.

Whilst there may be different points of view leading to discussion, such open correspondence such as this thread is only one of many threads that identify new facts and areas of research. I know that my brief friendship with the late Brian Webb identified areas of history that his researches confirmed but for reasons of confidence he was not allowed to publish at that time; details of the LNER discussions with English Electric being one of them. His tragic death at such an early age (of 43) lost a valued historian of UK railway diesel traction whose researches and access to English Electric records were casting light on BR's Modernisation Plan from the industry's - rather than the railway's - view.

 

I read that Gresley went to Germany to see and discuss with the operating staff that "Flying Hamburger".
This was a high speed two car unit. Not ideal for the ECML, but perhaps he considered the concept of a longer version?

 

No apologies required Fred: I was grateful for your views and your pointing me in the direction of Knox's writings.

 

IIRC the LNER Board was impressed but Gresley felt steam traction still had much to offer with the bonus that train lengths could be adjusted to meet market needs with less trouble than building complete new (2-car) trainsets.

 

Plus Gresley felt that his proposed streamline stock could offer greater levels of comfort and on train services than the German two car dmu.

 

In that he was abundantly right. God I wish I had witnessed the Coronation.

 

You and me both.

 

To all whom have contributed - what simply wonderful incites you have all brought to this thread, 30 odd pages and counting with something new on virtually every page. Superb!
Simon really looking forward to the book coming to fruition and being published and in the same comment I really must pick up a copy of your book regarding Thompson - its certainly on my Xmas list for this year.

What may end up being answered is the progression in the kind of 1, 3, 5 and 10 year plans of the LNER under Gresley, especially in the years leading up to the War breaking out. I wonder what else may of been in the pipeline so to speak (apart from the V4) and if Gresley and the wider organisation was planning/looking at a form of standardisation and what might of been if war hadn't of broken out?
Certainly all of those time scaled plans would of been scrapped and priorities changed; as almost overnight the railways use was changed to being part of the vital war effort.
I'm aware its a very narrow timeframe compared to looking at the whole of Greley's tenure as CME to the LNER; but in my eyes it was during this period that Gresley and the LNER as an organisation appeared to be making big strides forward.
I'm sure you'll have it covered Simon as it almost deserve a chapter in its own right...

 

Thank you for your kinds words. To clarify, though, my book is focusing on all of Gresley's stewardship as C.M.E., with a look at what the Use of Engine Power document can tell us over the war years per each of his designs.

Re what was in the pipeline when Gresley died - it would be unfair to make this a critical point, but there was no specific strategy or plan, locomotive design wise: there was emphasis on getting the V4 prototypes settled, looking at the electrics, diesel shunters, and trying to make sense of a situation in which the LNER was getting increasing numbers of locomotives shopped and also stopped for repair and/or out of use at sheds.

 

But the important factor that is often omitted is what influence did his early employment as an LNWR Premium Apprentice then L&YR Carriage & Wagon designer have on his GNR / LNER career. I often feel that J.F. Harrison's contribution - noting he was an LNER Premium Apprentice to Gresley IIRC - to 71000 Duke of Gloucester and its construction at Crewe Works completes the Gresley circle that began and ended at Crewe. (see https://www.steamindex.com/people/harson.htm#:~:text=Upon nationalization he became Mechanical & Electrical Engineer,,to Bond. He retired on 14 September 1966. for more info)

 

There are several reports of Gresley's visits to Germany regarding the Flying Hamburger. I believe he went twice, once in Spring 1934 to travel on the train and once in Autumn to discuss with the manufacturers and MAN, as a result of which they submitted a proposal regarding a three coach set weighing 114 or 115 tons (reports differ). As a result of the first visit he reported positively on the performance but negatively on the cramped accommodation, also no proper refreshments. I haven't seen details of the train itself, but IIRC the Germans proposed a schedule of 4 hours 15 minutes to Newcastle and 2 hours 45 minutes to Leeds, and it is reported that the LNER board suggested to Gresley that steam could do at least as well. Hence the successful test runs to and from Leeds with a load approximating to that of the German train and Newcastle with a more realistic load, and of course the result was the Silver Jubilee etc. It is evidence of the clientele the LNER were trying to attract that the Coronation had two kitchen cars in an eight or nine coach train, and seating in first class 1 and 1 either side of the gangway; no wonder the standard of accommodation and refreshments were issues.
The train Gresley travelled on in 1934 would have been the original prototype unit of 1932; the Germans themselves realised the cramped accommodation and the production 2-coach sets of 1935 had fewer seats in a longer and heavier train, but still no proper refreshments. Later the power output of the diesel motors was increased allowing the Germans to build three coach sets with better refreshments.
Incidentally I think the Germans were a bit cautious with their scheduling. The power/ weight ratio of their proposal was roughly the same as a Deltic with ten or eleven coaches, and even in the first Deltic timetables the schedule with this load to Newvcastle was 4 hours and to Edinburgh six, the same as the steam streamliners despite several speed restrictions after the war that hadn't applied during the 1930's. On the face of it, therefore, the German train should actually have been able to keep the same schedules as steam, but of course still with very limited accommodation.

 

Apropos the Flying Hamburger; another advantage of a loco-hauled train over even a modern DMU is the absence of the noise and vibration from the diesel engines.

 

Less so nowadays, but on early examples, ditto the pervasive aroma of diesel, both liquid and exhaust.

 

On the Flying Hamburger the diesel motors were mounted on the bogies at the outer ends of the set, which must have insulated the passengers from noise and vibration to some extent. Also looking at the video posted above the exhaust pipes seem to be carrying the exhaust well clear of the roof. Incidentally the video doesn't look like the Hamburg line, more like the Rhine Valley or possibly the Elbe south of Dresden.