How good was Gresley?

[brsince78]

I wonder whether Gresley ever met some of the other "greats" from the transport world through the Institute of Mechanical Engineers etc, e.g. Reginald Mitchell (who started off in railways before moving to aviation) and Henry Royce?

W O Bentley was a Doncaster apprentice.

... and I think I read somewhere that he was a contemporary of A.H. Peppercorn and they remained friends?

[jwealleans]

Is anyone reading in the Gresley Society?

Last year they published one of his letters of appointment - I think by the LNER but I may be wrong - including a clause regarding royalties on use of any of his own patents. If anyone can scan or quote me the relevant passage I'd be grateful.

[Captain Cuttle]

One of the saddest LNER stories is how the Clauds were slightly spoilt and none preserved. Gresley's pistons caused them to get cracked frames so he didn't always improve locos.

In my view Gresley was a researcher at heart. Some call it fiddling, but he had an enquiring mind and used it.

[jwealleans]

Gresley's pistons caused them to get cracked frames

I believe it may have been Thompson, rather than Gresley, although as the top man he takes the responsibility. That's not something I've heard before, though - what's your source?

[richard]

Yes I was thinking it might have been Thompson - he was also responsible for the "Gresley" B12/3 rebuilds.

Gresley was in the top job, so his name gets attached to everything, even if his underlings (or contractors) were responsible. cf. the design of the "Gresley EM1", and Bulleid's work on the Gresley P2.

[Captain Cuttle]

Gresley's pistons caused them to get cracked frames

I believe it may have been Thompson, rather than Gresley, although as the top man he takes the responsibility. That's not something I've heard before, though - what's your source?

This website

It says the 16/3s developed cracked frames and were withdrawn first.

[Captain Cuttle]

Yes I was thinking it might have been Thompson - he was also responsible for the "Gresley" B12/3 rebuilds.

Gresley was in the top job, so his name gets attached to everything, even if his underlings (or contractors) were responsible. cf. the design of the "Gresley EM1", and Bulleid's work on the Gresley P2.

Worsdell was in charge when the three-cylinder compound was developed, but Smith gets the credit for it. Blame and praise don't always follow the same path seemingly.

[Bill Bedford]

It says the 16/3s developed cracked frames and were withdrawn first.

It was the 20 engines given new cylinders with piston valves which were prone to their frames cracking. The other 64, rebuilt with their original cylinders didn't have this problem.

But then, when the Stratford D.O. did the design work for these rebuilds they didn't have the benefit of computers running finite element analysis to tell them what they were proposing would break the frames. Actually metal fatigue was not well understood at all until 20 years after this work was done.

[49413]

Gresley left behind the most perfectly proportioned and best looking locos with the most beautiful sounds eminating from thier cylinders at full clap and with the perfect whistles to match. You can say that about the GWR's Kings and Castles too, but you certainly can't say that about many other non-LNER designs.

EDIT: Gresley perfection http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq316odf_Sk

you,ve obviously not heard a 4 cyl. LMS pacific doing 90 with 600 tons on the hook

[49413]

I wonder whether Gresley ever met some of the other "greats" from the transport world through the Institute of Mechanical Engineers etc, e.g. Reginald Mitchell (who started off in railways before moving to aviation) and Henry Royce?

W O Bentley was a Doncaster apprentice.

... and I think I read somewhere that he was a contemporary of A.H. Peppercorn and they remained friends?

and HNG was an apprentice at Crewe under the much maligned Francis Webb

[49413]

apologies for raising this again. but I,ve just found this site ,and discovered some interesting stuff here.
you probably gathered from my handle that my loyalties lie with the LNWR.,but this question struck a chord, as it,s something I,ve given a lot of thought to .
now I,m not ex railway, neither am I a trained engineer .I have ,however taken a deep interest in railways for over 50 years .
whether or not this gives me the right to express some fairly strong views is for you to judge.

my take on gresley is that he was a very gifted man, particulary in his dealings with his colleagues.i,ve never seen a bad word in print.
however, I think he may have been lazy. there seems to be (IMO) little doubt that the conjugated valve gear was Claytons work.
he multiplied the Pom Poms, Directors & B12 ,when you might have expected new designs .he also
had E Thompson do the work on the B12 .,probably the Clauds as well, but I,ve never seen anything to prove one way or the other .the frame failures would suggest his involvement, as E Ts cylinder design was superb .witness the performance of the B1 in 1948.

his early assertion that he would only build 3 cyl. locos was foolish at best. my real feeling is that he got the job at too young an age .he had a massive personality that may well have dissuaded others, opinions being aired.

if NB loco works had been contracted to build a 2 cyl. class 5 instead of the B17, the LNER would have had a 6.2" 180lb mixed traffic Scotch Arthur with Thompson cylinders producing 26000 lbs. TE. and 85 to 90 mph top speed . eight years before the LMS.
what an engine that would have been .
and what an idea for a new build!

I wonder what Andre Chapelon,s terms were for collaboration on a compound .HNG was never keen to pay royalties on the Kylcap blastpipe.

enough has already been said about the middle big end .all I can say is it was never resolved until Cook dealt with it , and even then ,it could be a challenge (see P Townend . Top Shed)

this is sounding like a tirade , but it really is,nt intended that way.

the LNER was always strapped for cash, but he gave it expensive 3 cyl. power.
you have to say, Thompson was right, he just never had the personality to make it happen
he certainly got up the nose of O S Nock.

[49413]

part 2 (sorry)

2 other things detrimental IMO are the lack of power in the A4 .I have never seen a log that credits an A4 with much over 2000 idhp . 1000 less than the Duchess.
as Fiennes says, "he gave us 2000hp when we needed 3000" from We tried to run a railway..( I think)

and the things slipped .comprehensively .all the time .Ok a bit of a generalisation .but all LNER pacifics slip. and it was never dealt with .

having said all that., yes he produced some of the most beautiful engines ever built onto the rails .Mallard holds the record for steam (unless a Duchess gets a go at stoke).They sound & look fabulous ,and they provided the LNER with fantastic publicity.

is that enough ?

probably not

now where,s my tin hat ?

[notascoobie]

Mallard holds the record for steam (unless a Duchess gets a go at stoke).

Hmmm, maybe it's time to go trolling on the LMS Forum.

Perhaps an A4 would be able to stop at Crewe?

[49413]

Mallard holds the record for steam (unless a Duchess gets a go at stoke).

Hmmm, maybe it's time to go trolling on the LMS Forum.

Perhaps an A4 would be able to stop at Crewe?

fair comment.
with all those braking tests they had more practise !

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all
If the A4's lacked power, how did they manage Herculean efforts during the war?
Silver Link (only a single chimney A4) hauled a TWENTY FIVE coach train from Kings Cross to Newcastle unaided. and Capercaille (double chimney) hauled a TWENTY TWO coach train south from Newcastle to King Cross.
The A4's were produced for short high speed trains, the P2's were built for heavy trains. When a P2 boiler was married to a six coupled chassis to produce the rebuilt W1, it produced another loco with great haulage power. Then there was the proposed 4-8-2 for heavy trains.
Earlswood nob