Gresley: A Master Remembered
April 5 marked the 80th anniversary of the death of revered engineer Sir Nigel Gresley. Tim Hillier-Graves reviews his career.
April 5 marked the 80th anniversary of the death of revered engineer, Sir Nigel Gresley. Tim Hillier-Graves reviews his career, accomplishments and legacy.
APRIL 5, 2021, marked the 80th anniversary since Herbert Nigel Gresley, arguably one of Britain’s greatest engineers, died. Although suffering from poor health which might have ended the careers of lesser men, he struggled on and died ‘in harness’.
With the Second World War at its height and Britain’s very existence in jeopardy, his strong sense of duty kept him going to the end. This helped ensure that the LNER could support the war effort and help turn potential defeat into victory.
As a man he was steadfast, determined, a strong and pragmatic leader, a scientist by nature, and an engineer of great substance. In essence, he was a polymath who developed a detailed knowledge of many subjects during his lifetime, allowing him to solve a series of complex problems that may have defeated others.
In so doing, he never lost sight of the economics and politics of big business, and the need to balance many factors in producing engineering solutions that enhanced the railway’s operation. Such was his success that his name is probably as well-known now as it was at the height of his fame.
Achievements
To ensure this remains so, we have many examples of his work around us today, such as Mallard and Flying Scotsman, plus a new ‘P2’ on the way. There is also a statue at King’s Cross which continues to attract interest.
But among all these signs of engineering prowess, many details of his life seem to have slipped from memory. So, to mark this anniversary, it is fitting to remember his life and the totality of his remarkable achievements. Herbert Nigel Gresley was born in Edinburgh on June 19, 1876, while his mother, Joanna, was visiting the city to consult a gynaecologist, suggesting there were problems with her pregnancy.
After a short period of recovery, she returned to the family home in Netherseal, Leicestershire (later Derbyshire), where her husband, the Reverend Nigel Gresley, vicar of the parish, and their other four children awaited her and the new addition. From an early age, Bertie – as his siblings called him – demonstrated a fascination with engineering and the railways, aided by his father’s love of science. This growing interest was encouraged by three years of schooling from 1890 at Marlborough College.
Due to his father’s rapidly declining health, it seems Gresley then chose to become a premium mechanical engineering apprentice with the London North Western Railway at Crewe, rather than attending university and therefore being a drain on his father’s diminishing resources. He studied under the dynamic but difficult Francis Webb, and his works manager, Henry Earl.
Having qualified in 1898, after five years of hard work, Gresley successfully applied for a post with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, where John Aspinall held sway as Chief Mechanical Engineer. Over the next five years, he occupied various posts, rising in rank to become Assistant Superintendent at Newton Heath.
Such was his growing reputation that, during 1905, he was appointed to be the
Great Northern Railway’s Carriage and Wagon Superintendent by Henry Ivatt –and with this significant posting the most important part of his career began.
Creative thinking
But no matter how much his training and guidance from wise men helped him develop as an engineer, these influences could only cast their spell if the individual concerned had talent and the ability to think deeply and creatively.
There is little doubt that Gresley was so imbued, demonstrating these qualities from very early in his career and continuing to do so as he rose to the top of his profession.
In the early days he gained experience of design work, his clever mind absorbing a great deal of information along the way. But he did not fully take the lead in this area of work until 1911. In that year Ivatt announced his intention of retiring, and the prospect of promotion raised its head.
Gresley, with well-established credentials and now a mature father of four (Nigel, born in 1903, Violet in 1904, Roger in 1906, and Marjorie in 1908), was thought to be
his natural successor. He was undoubtedly groomed for the role by Ivatt and the Great Northern’s 70-year-old chairman, William Jackson, the 1st Baron Allerton.
However, their plans almost came unstuck when their protégé became ill. A blackthorn spike pierced his leg and sepsis set in, followed by superficial phlebitis. Gresley’s health quickly deteriorated to the point that amputation and severe disablement seemed likely, and death a possibility, too.
To halt the decline, leeches were applied to draw out the poison. This cure took some time to restore Gresley, and he was left with a weakness in the infected leg. Luckily, the chairman had few – if any – doubts about Gresley’s ability to do the job. Though he would clearly have harboured concerns about his health, those fears were allayed to a certain extent by Gresley’s eventual return to work in October 1911.
In December, Ivatt departed the scene and his deputy stepped up to a position he went on to hold to great acclaim, with the GNR and LNER, for the next 30 years.
The GNR was a fairly progressive company but not hugely profitable. This tended to influence its development policies, which may have lacked the ambition of others – most notably the North Eastern Railway, where the highly motivated Vincent Raven succeeded Wilson Worsdell as Locomotive Superintendent
in 1910 – but achieved much nonetheless. A few years later, during a presentation to fellow engineers, Gresley seemed to confirm this when he recorded that: “In the days of strenuous competition, the Great Northern has always more than held its own.
“This is largely due to the comfort, speed and punctuality of its services, for which the Locomotive Department has principally been responsible.
“For these results my predecessors are responsible, and I have only to carry on their good work.”
Frustration
He seems to be saying that Ivatt had made such good progress in locomotive and rolling stock design that there was little need to do more in the short term. For such a creative, ambitious man this was probably frustrating, so he sought to build new where required, improve the fleet he had inherited where necessary, and await events.
His first design, the ‘H2’ 2-6-0 mixed traffic engine, appeared in 1912, followed by ‘O1’ 2-8-0 heavy goods locomotives in 1913
(20 in all), and the initial batch of ‘J23’ 0-6-0 tank engines in the same year. A promising start, but the outbreak of war in 1914 added a new layer of constraint that delayed his emerging ideas even further.
But at least this pause gave him time to consider future motive poweer needs as the company struggled to move people and material in ever increasing quantities.
On May 11, 1918, he gave an inaugural address to the newly formed Institution of Locomotive Engineers, summing up some of his emerging ideas and philosophies. For reasons that are not entirely clear, he left out a number of key issues which were, by then, important to his work.
This included his growing interest in Pacific locomotives, the number of cylinders, and types of valve gear to be employed. By then, his work had already resulted in one patent being taken out with more to follow.
“The locomotive of today is a very different machine. The improvement is chiefly due to a kind of continuous evolution. During the past 10 years, this has been greatly accelerated by the introduction of superheating,” he said.
“The power of an engine depends upon its capacity for boiling water. The boiler is therefore without question its most important feature, but many engineers still compare the power of engines by their tractive force only and not the boiler.
“As a measure of the power of an engine, tractive force is useless unless the boiler is able to supply the necessary steam for long and continuous service.
“Mr Ivatt’s first Atlantic engine had comparatively small boilers according to present-day practice. The heating surface was 1,442sq ft and a grate of 26.75sq ft. The large boiler Atlantics have 2,500sq ft of heating surface and 31sq ft of grate. Except for the boilers, the engines are identical so far as boiler pressures, cylinders and wheel diameters are concerned.
“Therefore, the tractive powers are equal, but the large boiled Atlantics have proved to be much more powerful as express engines and are able to haul much heavier trains and keep time.
“Then, later on, when the 2-6-0 type was introduced [by Gresley] the first 10 had smaller boilers – 4ft 8in diameter. The later ones had boilers 5ft 6in diameter, but the grate area was the same in each case, and the engines in other ways were identical. During the last year’s work the 10 engines with the smaller boilers consumed about 5lb more coal per mile for the whole year than the engines with larger boilers.
“Talking about fireboxes, it may be of interest to record that the wide fireboxes of the Atlantic engines introduced by Mr Ivatt are more economical from the point of view of life, and I think also from the point of view of efficiency.
Belpaire debate
“Then there is the much debated question of Belpaire and round topped boilers. I have tried to find some explanation for the apparent conviction of certain engineers in the superiority of the Belpaire type. There must be some explanation of this.
“In the case of almost every railway which has adopted the Belpaire box, the firebox roof of the old round topped boilers were stayed with roof bars, which are well-known to be objectionable on account of the difficulty in keeping the firebox top free from dirt.
“Naturally, when they introduced Belpaire boxers with direct roof stays, many of the troubles disappeared, and the improvement was put down to the adoption of the Belpaire type boiler. On the other hand, the use of general stays in round topped boilers has been the general practice on other railways.
“To such the Belpaire boiler offered no advantage; in fact, on one line it was tried and abandoned.
“I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that, from a maintenance standpoint, the Belpaire boiler offers no advantage over the
“He developed close links with men such as Andre Chapelon and Ettore Bugatti...”
direct stayed round topped boiler, whilst undoubtedly its first cost is greater. “Another feature worthy of note in modern engines is the tendency towards greater accessibility of working parts. Outside cylinders and, particularly, outside Walschaert valve gear offer great advantages. It is possible to secure better cross-bracing of the frames, to say nothing of easier oiling, inspection and maintenance of motion.
“With such an engine, it is not necessary to put it over a pit before leaving the shed and the essential parts can be better examined in a good light – a very important consideration.
“The use of mechanical lubricators for axleboxes has also tended to simplify the work of the enginemen, the oiling of all boxes being controlled by one lubricator. There has been a marked decrease in the number of hot boxes and an economy in the consumption of oil, due to the fact that when an engine is standing no oil is being used. It is an important point that the mechanical lubricator should be connected to a point in the motion which has a constant travel and not to a valve spindle, of which travel is reduced as the engine is notched up.
“The economy to be obtained by the introduction of a really satisfactory feed water system is second only to the economy which has resulted from superheating.
“Considerations of ease of maintenance have largely influenced firebox design. If more units of work have to be obtained per unit of weight out of locomotive boilers, the fireboxes will have to be designed to give more complete combustion and possibly with the provision of combustion chambers and auxiliary air supplies.”
Rather interestingly, and to demonstrate his openness to other forms of motive power, he added: “I should remind our members that this is an Institution of Locomotive Engineers, not an Institution of Steam Locomotive Engineers; all kinds of locomotives, steam, oil and electric are our concern.”
With the end of the Great War approaching, Gresley was given the opportunity to put some of these ideas into practice. In very short order he produced a single three-cylinder 2-8-0 Class 461 engine in 1918, based on his prewar twocylinder ‘O1s’.
It was a significant step forward, most importantly because on this loco he introduced his trademark two-to-one conjugated valve gear, which allowed a third set to be eliminated; a concept he would soon refine further.
He strongly believed that this configuation achieved a more even crank effort, reduced wear and maintenance requirements, and made for a smoother start from rest.
Debate has raged over the years about who invented the two-to-one valve gear and the role of Harold Holcroft – a young engineer with the GWR and soon to join the SECR – in this process.
Design concept
Accusations of plagiarism by Gresley have hung in the air for many years which may or may not hold water.
It is probably safest to say that the concept had its origins during the late 19th century in the work of David Joy, when he was employed by the Barrow Shipbuilding Co – which was developed and patented by Holcroft in 1909 but allowed to lapse four years later.
Gresley subsequently picked up the research and patented his own version in 1915, and then refined it with Holcroft’s assistance.
Wherever the truth might lie, there was no denying that Gresley remained firmly wedded to this concept for the rest of his life. As a result, he would use it again and again despite growing reservations about its effectiveness.
The early 1920s proved to be a boom time in locomotive and carriage design as the effects of the war slowly receded. Recession lingered on, exacerbated by the Great Crash of 1929, but the amalgamation of existing railway companies into a ‘Big Four’ in 1923 led to new investment opportunities.
Gresley profited from these changes and was appointed CME of the newly formed LNER. Having introduced a large new Pacific class in 1922, he then set about developing this idea further.
Although a major part of his plans, the 4-6-2s didn’t dominate his thoughts to the exclusion of other possibilities. His mind was far too fertile for that. Among other things, his thoughts turned to carriage design, the development of 2-8-2 locomotives, new classes of 0-6-0 tender engines, 4-4-0s, 4-6-0s, 2-6-2s, and, during this period, he experimented with articulation, rotary cams, compounding and high pressure boilers, and so on.
As his assistant, Bert Spencer, later recalled: “There was an explosion of ideas in the 1920s and 1930s.” And he could have added: “With the highly creative figure of Nigel Gresley at their core.”
One thing is certain: no one man, no matter how skilled, could have managed all this without a very talented team around him. Here Gresley was blessed – with the very able Arthur Stamer, who became his deputy, Oliver Bulleid, his future assistant, and Arthur Peppercorn and William Elwess, the Chief Draughtsman, who were inherited.
Others came later, such as Bert Spencer, Tom Street, Robert Thom, Edward Thompson, and Douglas Edge. But no matter when they arrived, it was the CME who moulded them into a very effective and dedicated team.
To truly understand the nature of
Gresley’s achievements, we must consider all the elements he had to manage in his path to success. First of all, there was the pressing need to develop an effective design philosophy, where understanding a demand, producing a detailed specification and translating it into an advanced product were crucial skills.
Then there was the need for good leadership, a variety of up-to-date scientific and engineering skills, a strong sense of the economics of big business, effective day-to-day management of all aspects of any project, and a clear understanding of how myriad number of demands fit together.
And a safety-first principle had to be applied, because loss had to be avoided and shareholders had to be appeased.
Yet, gambling on emerging technology and developing new ideas can often achieve a higher return in the long term. The ability to take calculated risks became an essential part of good business philosophy, too.
Gresley was aware of all this and much more, and seems to have adopted the business mantra ‘on time, on cost, and always adding value’ as a matter of course. But he contributed much more than this and always sought to stretch what was possible within the
limits imposed by good business principles and practice.
He learnt how to manage constraint and expectations with a master’s touch, leading and being supported by many talented people of equally sound judgement and skills along the way.
Leading any business is a juggling act that seeks to balance many factors, but some of these are less obvious than others, and here Gresley also proved his worth.
Politics, both positive and negative, will inevitably come into play. The chairman may seek a traditional solution with quick returns but little long-term potential. Politicians may try to inflict their creed on any business, especially one as large as the railways.
It was here that Gresley proved to be a master of this balancing act, working through direct persuasion and argument, and by marshalling his many contacts to achieve success. These are just some of the attributes he displayed as his achievements quickly mounted.
There were undoubtedly many other influences that came to bear over the years.
This was most apparent in the friendships he forged with fellow engineers and scientists, and his active participation in the work of many learned institutions. His was an active, enquiring mind, and he counselled and advised others as a matter of course, but he also sought help and advice where necessary.
Towards this end, he cultivated many close personal and professional relationships. Here, the likes of George Churchward of the GWR, William Stanier, Frederick Johansen, a scientist working for the National Physical Laboratory, William Dalby, Professor of Engineering at London University, and the leading metallurgist of the day, Professor Thomas Turner, and his son Thomas Henry Turner, both of whom Gresley employed, were important.
Overseas links
While overseas he developed close links with men such as Andre Chapelon and Ettore Bugatti in France, and Richard Wagner in Germany, as well as looking to designers in America for ideas to consider. Each, in their own way, would add something to Gresley’s developing ideas and be involved, to some degree, in his evolving story.
Although the needs of industry and commuter services around London and other cities the LNER served were main sources of revenue, the east coast main line express services attracted most attention. They proved to be an essential tool in publicising the company’s success.
Speed, sleekness, comfort and modernity were the key messages, and soon stories of each new development or each new speed record filled many column inches in newspapers and magazines, and appeared on cinema newsreels.
In Gresley’s work, there was much for the media to devour. When fast, new, non-stop services departed from King’s Cross, they drew crowds and immense amounts of publicity.
Inevitably, these successes made Gresley a public figure of some standing and brought his achievements to a wider audience. This would have undoubtedly increased his standing within the LNER and help remove or reduce any constraints placed on his plans to develop locomotives or experiment with new ideas. This was nowhere more apparent than in the continuing evolution of his Pacifics and the adoption of streamlining principles, which were rejected by many other engineers in Britain at the time.
Then there was his compound four-cylinder 4-6-4 ‘W1’ locomotive which rolled off the production line at Darlington in 1929. It was a design noted for its use of an experimental Yarrow’s-built marine water tube boiler – a brave attempt to move steam locomotion forward that ultimately didn’t succeed because it could offer no appreciable advantages over more traditional designs, and was eventually rebuilt by Gresley himself.
Then there were his massive ‘P2’ 2-8-2 passenger engines, which first appeared in 1934. They were designed specifically for the demanding route from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, but in service they demonstrated some shortcomings.
Spencer summed these up when he wrote that “these engines would have performed better if they had been allowed to operate in the south, where their great power could have been harnessed without fear of doing damage to the track or the driving wheels. But overall they proved costly to run and were difficult to maintain in good running order. I recall it being said that for every day spent out of service by the ‘A3s’ and ‘V2s’, the ‘P2s’ had three.”
Rebuilt
Six were built but failed to gain much favour within the Running Department and during the 1940s were rebuilt as conventional Pacifics as their condition continued to deteriorate. Despite this, their development added much to Gresley’s mounting knowledge, which soon found fresh impetus in the creation of his streamlined ‘A4s’ and then the ‘V2’ 2-6-2s, before turning to the challenge presented by electrification.
By this stage, he was at the pinnacle of his career, his reputation strengthened by the
success of his fast-running Pacifics. This was nowhere better captured than in the reaction to No. 4472 Flying Scotsman’s inaugural non-stop run from King’s Cross to Edinburgh, which occurred on May 1, 1928.
It was an event that caught the public’s imagination and helped ensure that this locomotive and its designer-in-chief remained in the public eye to this day.
If this wasn’t enough to cement his place in railway history, the inauguration of the streamlined ‘Silver Jubilee’ service, with a gleaming ‘A4’ Silver Link at its head, in September 1935, then No. 4468 Mallard’s World speed record for steam engines achieved on July 3, 1938, put the issue beyond doubt.
Rapid decline
As Gresley and his team celebrated this last great achievement, war clouds were gathering once more and a bleak future beckoned. It was also a time when his own health was beginning to fail. The next three years saw a rapid deterioration caused by bronchial problems, arteriosclerosis and increasing mental frailty.
Gresley had to increasingly work from home with Spencer, his ever-faithful assistant, at his side, and looked after by his daughter, Violet. With this support, he appears to have coped for a time. Doctor Patrick Ransome Wallis, a respected observer of railway matters, later described, with great sadness, “the sight of him walking down the departure platform at King’s Cross, insisting on all drivers of all Pacific locomotives blowing their whistles for him.”
He remained in post, though to all intents and purposes his great days were over – his final locomotive, a ‘V4’ 2-6-2, entered service in February 1941. His days were numbered: a long-threatened cerebral thrombosis finally occurred on April 5. A blood clot formed, and
Gresley died. He was laid to rest beside his wife, who had died in 1929, and within yards of his childhood home in Netherseal.
Following his death there were many plaudits, but the most heartfelt probably came from his long-time assistant. For 20 years, Spencer was his faithful and dedicated servant, seeing him on an almost daily basis. They were close, so who better to sum up the work of his greatly admired and respected leader.
“I admired Sir Nigel tremendously and never found him inconsiderate, or too busy to listen and discuss my ideas.
“He had the ability to think broadly and absorb a great deal of information before reaching conclusions.
“He sought the advice of those he respected and would always consider other possibilities, modifying his own plans accordingly if the arguments put forward held value.
“But once a decision was made, he pursued a course of action with great determination, taking stock and reviewing progress all the time.
“When a job was complete, he insisted on a programme of testing to make sure the locomotive was as good as it could be and used whatever information he collected to modify the design.
Investment
“It was a constant frustration to him that the authorities were so tardy in building a test centre, where better solutions might have been developed. He believed that Churchward achieved greater success because the GWR invested in such a facility and the LNER struggled to match their achievements because we had none.
“He inspired confidence and led us all with a sure touch, often in very difficult circumstances. He was a great man and it was a privilege to work for him. At the end of my presentation [to the Institution of Locomotive Engineers] in 1947, I summarised all his new locomotive designs for the GNR and LNER in a single table.
“Although not everything he did was included, I felt that this would speak for itself in describing his greatest achievements. I don’t think there was another designer except, perhaps, Churchward, who accomplished so much.
“I was lucky enough to see the CME’s ideas on electrification finally come to fruition after the war and see his influence continue to spread. Whilst his steam locomotives clearly pleased him, I have no doubt that he would have been proud to have witnessed the Shenfield line open and the electric locomotives he planned come in to service and move Britain’s railways into the future.” ■
■ This feature is based on Tim Hillier-Graves’s book, Gresley and His Locomotives, published by Pen & Sword, 2019 (ISBN 9781526729934).