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

In my original post I didn’t mention that I’m fairly certain it was the streamlining of the whole train that produced the saving, not just the locomotive.

 

Gresley certainly designed the whole train with streamlining in mind.

 

I am unaware of any association between the occasional high speeds of 9Fs and Bill Hoole. Is there any?

 

Isn't this the 90mph down Stoke Bank episode?

 

No mention of it in Semmens's biography, which surely there would have been. 92184 was a Grantham loco, so more likely than not 35B.

 

Yes, ones from the railway company at the time of development and other photographs may be taken later by third parties without context or without information.

Example: we have photographic evidence now of the W1 being wind tunnel tested from the LNER.

Separately we have a photograph of a model of the W1 purported to have been wind tunnel tested, taken long after the event.

 

So, question for the audience…

If we accept that the W1 is a streamlined locomotive, and came out in 1929, does that now mean it predates both the Hiawathas and the Commodore Vanderbilt, generally accepted as the first genuinely “streamlined” locomotives in the world (1935 and 1934 respectively)?

Or is there anything earlier?

Answers on a postcard…

 

Do people accept that the W1 was streamlined, though?

 

Does the photograph in question prove that the wind tunnel testing was for the purposes of streamlining, or could it have been for other reasons (smoke deflector efficiency etc.). I don't doubt there was wind tunnel testing occurred, i'm just wondering if the proof exists of the end goals.

 

Well, I did reference the French "coupe vente" (windcutter) locos earlier on the thread which - for however much their aerodynamic performance was relatively unsophisticated - were without question explicitly developed with the objective of lowering wind resistance. So I'd suggest they would be a contender from almost fifty years earlier.

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/bec/bec.htm

Tom

 

I would humbly suggest they should.

We are again missing the point.

The original intention might have been smoke deflection and draughting only, but in the development process it became streamlined and at the end of the process is described as such by company and designer.

If the end result ends up as definably streamlined, meeting the criteria required to be called that, then it is streamlined. Intent is not as important as the end result.

Definite contender I think Tom. Will read up on that, thank you for posting.

 

Well, you'll have to do a lot better than that to persuade me. I readily accept that it was wind tunnel tested for the purpose of smoke deflection and for the purpose of ducting air to the ashpan but any pretence at streamlining goes out of the window when you take into consideration the smoke deflectors, a half uncovered smokebox door and handrailing across the front. You and the publicity department can call it streamlined if you want to but it falls short on too many points. On the subject of the handrail on the platform, the reason for providing it intrigues me. Whilst a sensible thing in todays world, I think it is almost unique on a UK main line steam locomotive and was not perpetuated on later LNER locos.

 

The Prussian S9 Altona 561 and 562 did around 85 mph on level rail in 1904

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preußische_S_9_Altona_561_und_Altona_562



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_S_2/6

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamliner

The answer seems to be railcar W1W.

 

LNER EE1?

 

There is a link online which suggests it or they were built in 1897. Machine Coupe-Vente Nr. 2752 Lencroître - Category:État 2751 to 2754 → État 220-011 to 014 - Wikimedia Commons

 

The two Prussian möbelwagen (furniture van) engines were weird. Apart from the encased bodywork, they had an odd variety of 3-cylinder compound propulsion, with the two outside cylinders working in unison.

If that is streamlining, then we need also to consider the various types of steam railcar with enclosed engine units, including those built for the LNER:

https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/sentinel.php

Perhaps Simon Martin will discuss these in his Gresley book?

Thanks for posting the link to the you-tube video on streamlined engine - some of these were new to me. In many cases, there will be differing opinions on whether something is or is not streamlined. Pointed smokebox doors were certainly popular in many countries in the early 20th Century, and were not completely unknown in Britain, as seen in the attached picture.

 

On Drummond's locos, that form of smokebox door wasn't;t an exercise in streamlining (an 0-6-0 goods would be an odd choice to streamline in that fashion!) They were instead designed to enclose a spark arrester.

Tom

 

With respect Steve, I don’t think you are looking closely enough at the W1’s casing.

The “half uncovered smoke box door” isn’t actually anything the like when you study the loco more closely. It was very purposefully designed for channelling of air across the top of the smoke box.

A handrail across the front somehow stopping the locomotive from being defined as streamlined is wrong, IMO - I have seen far more questionable additions on the front of “streamlined locomotives” - and in any event wasn’t in the original drawings or on the locomotive originally.

Having smoke deflectors does not mean the locomotive has not been streamlined. That is clearly not the case with the W1, where the smoke deflectors themselves are part of the overall equation of the locomotive’s shape at the front end. There are other locomotives across the world which were developed as streamlined that have smoke deflectors. Case in point:



Source: https://br.pinterest.com/pin/663858801312855217/

One of Chapelon’s streamlined locomotives. It has smoke deflectors. Are we seriously suggesting the W1 isn’t streamlined, but this is?

Have a look at the W1 in profile, Steve. Start from a front end view and then look from above the locomotive. You will have your answer. It becomes, if I may be so bold, “bloody obvious” when you realise that the engine actually achieves a better overall profile in streamlining than some other locomotive types. It’s about shape, surface area and channeling of air. The W1 actually achieves a better overall profile than some streamlined engines after it, as it happens.

With respect to the publicity department, I don’t need to rely on them: primary evidence by way of the internal documents of the LNER answer that question well enough as well as the obvious photographic evidence we have of the locomotive’s development.

Just out of interest, would you consider then the GWR locomotives “streamlined?” If so, why?

I am also perplexed that we can look at the examples Tom has provided, and perhaps consider them streamlined, yet say the W1 falls short. Contradictory standpoints, no?

I think there is enough merit in the evidence to say the W1 is the first truly streamlined steam locomotive, produced in a scientific fashion. It is certainly Gresley’s first foray into streamlining and parts of its design are carried forward into other work, as it happens.

Is it perfectly streamlined? Absolutely not, I am not arguing that it is, there are clearly areas for improvement and we actually see that with the A4 after which in its casing actually has some elements of the W1’s development. In particular, look at the drawings provided by the RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Part 2A and then William Brown’s book on the W1. Then if you can, look at the W1’s file at the NRM.

I think it is also fair to say there are earlier examples of steam locomotives that were intended to be “streamlined” but failed to meet the brief required (i.e. evidentially reduce air resistance on the casing).

I say this because that’s what my research is telling me.