Brian Haresnape and Gresley's proposed 4-8-2

[NZRedBaron]

I've got a somewhat battered old copy of Brian Haresnape's Gresley Locomotives: a Pictorial History; and on pages 20 and 21 of the introduction, he mentions that before the War, Gresley had proposed a 4-8-2 locomotive for heavy express passenger work, as a follow-on development from the A3 and P2 classes.

The book included a technical diagram of his proposed design, with estimations of weight and length, tractive effort, boiler pressure/diameter, cylinder size and so on. I was curious about how feasible this might be.

Could be slightly interesting to try and model, too.

[Hatfield Shed]

Since there wasn't the will to persist with the fast 2-8-2 experiment in the absence of both Bulleid and Gresley, there's the answer. Killed by the wartime economic demands, and the austerity that followed. (Bulleid couldn't bring the relatively more prosperous SR round to his idea of a truly monster steam express loco, and had to confine himself to the proven boring pacific format...)

In different circumstances, an eight coupled fast locomotive, better able to absorb the power from a 50 sq ft or larger area grate looks sensible in concept: but when explored it is quickly apparent that a mechanical stoker will be required if the potential power output is to be sustained. (Chapelon ran into that with his 4-8-0 compound.) Necessarily, much more coal and water in the tender, longer loco frame than a pacific, the loco might not go on a 70ft turntable, potentially yet more cost there. And was there the demand for some combination of yet more speed and increased capacity to supply an economic loading of the services these monsters might operate? Six hours London to Scotland with half a dozen station stops en route might have done it.

Fun to build in model form whatever.

[Pyewipe Junction]

There is an illustration of a proposed Gresley 4-8-2 opposite page 72 of Locomotives That Never Were by Robin Barnes. Frankly, if it is true to the the original schematic, then it looks a little dated to me, being little more than an A3 on steroids Barnes also make some points about the deficiencies with the design, the need for 70+ ft turntables and so on. Apparently it was intended for heavier trains, not necessarily faster ones.

There is also an illustration of a proposed LMS 4-8-4 in the same book, intended for heavy fast freight and mixed traffic. This looks more 'the business' to me, although again it it is based on the existing 'Coronation' Pacifics.

[greenglade]

An excellent new book published last year by 'Pen and Sword Transport' titled 'Gresley and his locomotives L&NER Design History' written by Tim Hillier-Graves has a lot of excellent unseen drawings/photo's collated into a large and heavy tome that to me is perhaps the best book on the subject to date. There is a lot of archived material from Bert Spencer who worked very closely with Gresley, the book goes into a lot of detail on the team behind Gresley and gives some insight to what made Gresley the man we all love.
Anyway, here are some drawings that cover the 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 possibly planed designs.







There are some very detailed sections on the P1/2's and the W1, also info on streamlining including pictures of the W1 model used at Teddington wind tunnel (evidently the tunnel was used a lot to get the shape correct) and also the various shaped nose sections for the A4 wind tunnel models, including dimensional drawings.

Pete

[NZRedBaron]

Definitely a neat idea, but there is a bit of a hassle; the LNER had already used every letter except "I"; so if the 4-8-2 had the "I1" designation, what would the 4-8-4 have been?

Still, like others have said, a fun idea to ponder, including possible numbers and names; I kind of feel that the 4-8-2's, assuming they were used on fast fitted goods trains as well as express passengers, might have suited having warship names, like "Dreadnought" and "Temeraire".

[kudu]

Clearly this is why the 4-8-4 never happened. Holding the drawings, the office clerk asked what letter they should be filed under and when no-one could answer he took them home for his children to colour in.

Kudu

[strang steel]

I apologise for being somewhat ignorant of the facts, and I'm sure the subject is discussed somewhere; but having looked at those drawings, is there any reason why the rigid tender chassis was perpetuated? Would it not have made sense, at least with larger locos, to articulate the tender wheels and have them on bogies similar to some Southern tenders?

[greenglade]

The 8 wheeled tenders had proved themselves to be very capable of negotiating the curves for many years before these drawings appeared, no need to change them. The intermediate wheelsets had a lot of end-float to allow them to tackle tighter curves. Gresley used articulated carriages a lot, some of his coach sets were so designed. he also designed a locomotive which was articulated between engine and tender but this was IIRC more to do with tractive effort than negotiating curves. The articulated bogie having a built-in booster to generate extra power when required. This loco No727 classed as C7 (later C9) did a number of trials which proved to be very successful in not only pulling heavier loads but also in accelerating much faster between the booster being switched on or off.

Pete

[Atlantic 3279]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2443&start=300

...and onward to page 26. I've seen three or more examples of the non-streamlined 4-8-2 in model form too.

[65447]

It also features in Bert Spencer's 1947 Paper to the Inst Loco E on LNER Locomotive Design along with a 2-6-4-4 articulated engine/tender combo and other proposals.

[NZRedBaron]

To touch back on the 4-8-2 idea, anyone ever visited the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway? I am of a belief that their locomotives #5 Hercules, and #6 Samson in particular, look quite plausible as the basis of a real-life class of "Gresley Mountains".

Also, staying on the RHDR angle for a moment; how much coal and water do you think that standard gauge versions of their various bogie wheeled tenders could carry; and if they would be good idea for modern-day mainline running?

[Hatfield Shed]

A larger tender for more water capacity would suit current main line operation: the good alternative that has been employed is an auxiliary tender for water alone. Major advantage since it can be uncoupled, is that it allows the loco and coal tender to be turned on the 70' turntables that exist.

The built infrastructure of the UK's railways might have posed a challenge for larger locos. Yet more concentrated loads on bridge spans, diversionary routes that couldn't be used, requiring upgrades for the routes they were to operate on.

Definitely a neat idea, but there is a bit of a hassle; the LNER had already used every letter except "I"; so if the 4-8-2 had the "I1" designation, what would the 4-8-4 have been?

Actually there's a choice, R became available from 1935, and H by 1947, so could have a 4-8-4 and another. A very funky 2-10-2 can be made of the Pepp A1.

[Hatfield Shed]

An excellent new book published last year by 'Pen and Sword Transport' titled 'Gresley and his locomotives L&NER Design History' written by Tim Hillier-Graves has a lot of excellent unseen drawings/photo's collated into a large and heavy tome that to me is perhaps the best book on the subject to date...

Strongly seconded. This book - which I carefully arranged to have gifted to me - has done much to enhance what would otherwise have been a very dull Christmas, with none of the usual large scale family gatherings around England that our extended family and friends have always previously enjoyed. (Zoom just isn't the same as a substitute...)

A good understanding of the large scale responsibility and constraints that came with the CME's position in an organisation of the size of the LNER, with its persistently difficult economic circumstances. The man's leadership qualities and that of his key team members very much to the fore throughout, and a most touching conclusion.

[NZRedBaron]

Yeah, the 1926 General Strike and the Great Depression murdering the coal traffic in the North-East, and also having to service the Great Central Railway's debts from the building of their Main Line Extension into London, was probably a lot for their financial plate to handle all at once.

[Hatfield Shed]

That wasn't all of it by any means. The LNER started out with one solidly profitable constituent, the NER, one averagely profitable, the GNR, and four 'commercially challenged'. (And yes, this is crude simplification, but overall justifiable.) When the NER tanked shortly after grouping, it all became very difficult. Pretty much everything the LNER achieved up to 1939 should be seen against the background of very stringent management effort to contain expenditure at the level which enabled the group to return a modest operating profit. Much was done with relatively little, and in the traction department that meant keeping earlier loco designs going, rather than scrap and build new standard replacements; with corresponding route upgrades for 22 ton axle load on all main lines. (That would be a thing to model, what if the LNER had been prosperous...)