The LNER Encyclopedia

Hi I think we all fall into the trap of lauding Gresley for his successful LNER designs and gloss over his designs that were not so good i want to open an unblinkered discussion about these locos.
I also applaud Gresley for trying to modernise the LNER ie Woodhead electrics but why did he not embrace diesel shunters instead of building more J50s/J72s.
I would love to hear your comments.

(the J50/J51 was successful for what it was designed for; and the J72 was a Worsdell design)

Diesels were still a bit experimental. The LNER did have a few trials of manufacturers' prototypes. The first diesels were actually ordered during the early 1940s - this is probably the earliest that diesels of sufficient size had proved themselves.

The final batch of J72s was actually ordered under Peppercorn's tenure, although they weren't built until after Nationalisation. I think your question has more weight there - and at that time, LNER management (according to Bonavia, who should know) were actively debating the merits of coal steam vs oil steam vs diesel power.


Richard

I recently acquired a copy of RCTS 'Green' Part 10A - one of the 'bits & pieces' volumes, but it has some fascinating details of possibilities that for one reason or another never happened.

Re diesels, the LNER had plans to build both shunters and main line locos. The intention was to build about 200 shunters, which would probably have been 0-6-0 350 hp locos similar to the few they already had. This order would have been placed in 1947 but got killed off by nationalisation and the dependence on imported oil for fuel, which could not be afforded post-war.

The LNER would also have ordered a batch of main line locos for the principal ECML services. These would have been 1600 hp machines using English Electric power units similar to those fitted in LMS 10000/1. Although this unit was the most powerful diesel engine available for rail traffic at that time, it was still not powerful enough to hadnle the ECML services as well as the steam Pacifics did, so the diesels would have been used in pairs. The LMS pair were used in such a fashion on the hardest duties as individually they were only rated the equivalent of a 5XP 4-6-0.

Yes the J72s were built by 3 different regimes but no one has said why when there were other alternatives. I can only assume that they were efficient simple steam engines. It was not my intention to cause controversy just to stimulate debate.
I wonder if following the Woodhead success it would have been an option to electrify the ECML at 1500 Vdc instead of employing pairs of diesels to replace the pacifics. I can shut my eyes and imagine Tommy leaving KX with the ten o clock.

G'Day Gents
The J 72's were a nice simple engine and they already had the blurprints, so they could order them very quickly.
Britons foreign debt was very high just after the second world war (250 million a year to the US ) I think the last repayment was in 2007! ( enough to pay for two park benches and a set of swings )
The 'Electric train now standing'

Its also an economic and employment question, in the 50s we had millions of tons of coal on tap, fuel oil had to be imported and after WW2 we were virtually bankrupt (So whats changed ?), one working steam engine would keep 1.3 miners in work, economics of the day. All public buildings had to be heated by coal / coke, I know this as I was a public servant at the time and it was the Holy Grail that pits were kept in work, one coal fired primary school equated to 2.6 miners jobs and so on.Eventually it was cheaper to import fuel than dig coal and in the 60s we needed steel to produce cars, sooooooooo build diesels to use cheap oil, scrap steam engines for a ready supply of prime quality steel and non ferrous hence your Black 5 became half a dozen or more exportable Minis. BMC was Govt owned at this time.
Quite simple really if you happen to think like Sir Bernard Ingham.