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

Well, since some of that has been written by me, I can't exactly mark my own work. But I think the strikingly close emergence of the first Chapelon rebuild and the W1 is interesting. Given that Bulleid spoke French, you might imagine that upon seeing the pieces in the railway press about this strikingly effective rebuild of a French compound, at the same time as trying to get to grips with your own novel compound, it would be natural for Bulleid and Gresley to solicit the opinion of its creator. I don't know if it's documented anywhere how and why they first got in touch, but clearly a relationship was established.

This is of course hypothesising, but Langridge wrote about the large library of the latest publications in one of his Drawing Offices, and how the ardent advocacy of one particular editor for Robinson's work led to something of a fashion for Great Central practice at the time (I think it might have been the LSWR, and hence came the 180psi boilers of the Urie engines). It's easy to think that everyone is an objective, analytical professional in the engineering world, but it simply isn't the complete picture and the press can have just as much influence as the institutions, in a way that is much harder to trace back down the years.

 

Yes, my mistake. But 240 No. 3566 was running trials in 1925 and after extensive testing was released for service in 1929, at least that's what my source states (Rogers). If that's not correct and I can't find any corroboration, 3566 was released at about the same time as the W1, so the idea that Chapelon got the concept of a compound from Gresley is clearly incorrect.

 

Other than it not being a 240 at all, I can see how a misconception might have arisen here. I suspect 3566 was on trial in its original form in 1925, so as to determine what the issues were and what could be done to it. The proposal for work was accepted in late 1926 and the rebuild released to service in 1929, presumably not being a high priority at the time.

 

Nobody said that. I refuted that Gresley was influenced by Chapelon with his compound W1, which remains accurate.

 

The rebuild of 3566 was delayed by the death of M. Paul Billet, creator of the PO's R&D section, and the retirement of M. Louis Lacoin, both strong supporters of Chapelon. It seems that nearly everyone else at PO were sceptical of Chapelon's work. Chapelon had to write a note to M. de Boysson. The latter asked him for a full explanation of the whole project and at length agreed to its continuation.

 

From here: https://www.a1steam.com/Portals/0/TCC 67 _WEB V2.pdf

"Due to this lack of a suitable testing station in the UK, one of Gresley’s French counterparts, Andre Chapelon, arranged a visit for Cock o’ the North to the newly opened locomotive test bed at Vitry. The pair had met whilst Chapelon was in the UK in 1926 visiting Davey Paxman, at the time the licensee holder for the Lentz poppet valves and associated gear in Western Europe. Gresley had already started experimenting with the Lentz gear on several locomotives and it seems that the technical director at Paxman arranged for the pair to meet at their works in Colchester to discuss the valves and their
uses. From this early meeting a fruitful friendship blossomed with Chapelon and Gresley sharing ideas and theories between each other."

 

The first review of my book.

No copies have arrived on these shores yet, no one except the peer reviewers and the editor has seen a manuscript.

You have to laugh.

 

Same initials but definitely not me!!!

 

Have you done something to upset him, insulting his mum perchance?

 

I must confess I never saw a need to contact the Great Western Society about my book. Indeed it didn't even occur to me. Clearly its a major omission on my part.

 

Looks like you've rattled a cage there...

I'd take it as a compliment...

 

Ah, but did you contact the Gresley Society?

Tom

 

I did - they were a great help!

 

Good grief.

 

He's determined I'll give him that!
I take it you're not on his Christmas card list then...

 

I wouldn’t care to be, he’s not academically relevant to me.

 

I'm disappointed, the review's been taken down. I mean, what kind of retailer removes reviews sent before the book's even available...

 

I’m now leaving it in my editors hands, but I hope by sharing this I have give a few people a chuckle or two.

On a serious note, I do think there’s a right way and a wrong way to voice dissent with views, and my door has always been open for criticism.

I am proud of the work we have all done on Nat Pres with discussions on railway engineers and railway engineering and long may that always be the case.

 

Just makes him sound an absolute tool doesn’t it?

 

Somehow a shame.
Chapelon advanced the state of art.