V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

17 years seems a long life for a firebox, so it probably refers to the barrel. Two locos of a non-standard class with a non-standard boiler sound like an obvious candidate for scrapping rather than invest in new boilers.

Tom

 

Surprisingly not rebuilt as 2-8-0's with a B1 Boiler..... ?

 

It's an interesting subject, I feel. Some of the locos in use on the bigger heritage railways seem to be achieving levels of use equivalent to, if not exceeding, those of BR days and it is only now that we're really starting to see boiler repairs so extensive as to require new barrel sections. I'm sure that it is the case that boilers are now repaired where they would have been replaced, but even now the firebox is the focus of mot activity. Perhaps tubeplate replacements were not a usual replacement in the past, for example/

 

I must not rise to it, I must not rise to it...

Sigh. There was no need to rebuild. They were perfectly capable machines and Thompson and his team were well aware of this. They were however inherently more complicated and more expensive to build than the B1s - and wartime expenditure and securing of materials was very closely monitored. You had to justify every expenditure. The V4s were Rolls Royce machines - had they been built a few years before the war, no doubt the LNER would have had a decent sized fleet of them.

(I remain unconvinced that there wasn't an argument, actually, for at least ten of these in East Anglia, but that's a by the by).

Thompson only had rebuilt rebuilt the most troublesome class in any way extensively - P2 - and only fitted standard boilers/two cylinders where renewal was necessary or desirable (K3 to K5, B17 to B2, D49 to D class the best examples). Entirely sensible and logical thinking , I hope you would agree. Whether each individual rebuild did well is another matter, the principle had merit.

 

Yes indeed - I think they went in 1957?

It is funny, the Thompson A2/2s are hailed as having been terrible machines, and their scrapping date somehow reflects this poorness of performance by this small class. The V4s went two years earlier. By that logic, the V4s were worse machines.

We know of course that performance and scrappage dates have no actual link in reality. Pen pushers will scrap small classes first to maintain larger classes and larger pools of spare parts. Looking at what engines disappeared quickly on the LNER routes once steam was on its way out, it was all small classes, one offs and similar. V4, W1 and A1/1 all disappeared in a few years of each other and none of these were incapable machines.

 

Exactly, rebuilding Locos to fit with the newer model 'standard' boiler seems to have been a good way of prolonging the life of many of these locos, not intended to get a rise from anyone....

 

Has it been discussed already if the new boiler for the V4 will be all welded?

 

Somewhere I have the ILE paper on experience with the Bulleid boilers but I can't lay my hands on it so am relying on memory but I thought the average life of the steel fireboxes on these locos was 11 years. As Scottish water was generally considered to be kind to boilers it may well be the case that the fireboxes lasted this long. The quality of Scottish water was the reason the Steel firebox Black 5's were generally allocated north of the border.

 

But could the V4s perhaps have been rebuilt as 2-8-0s (or just left as 2-6-2s) with B1 boilers rather than being scrapped when their original boilers wore out?

 

In all likely hood as all welded as tornado's, Unless 2007's boiler indicates a new direction...
The website is only the Barebones at the moment, sure lots of interesting snippets will follow...

 

Stuff like this tends to be heard at the roadshows/convention.

 

Sure I read they have placed an order with Meinegen (Spelling), for preparatory design work etc... on the P2 boiler.

Read into that what may, looks they are happy with the boiler performance.

 

They have indeed. Think it was in either the Communication Cord or the Tornado Telegraph. However, whilst prep work doesn't equate to a contract to build, they know what the quality of workmanship will be.

 

IIRC Meningen are to provide a spec for the P2 boiler which can then be issued to potential suppliers for quotation.

 

The trust is currently involved in discussions with "more than one" potential boiler supplier, both within the UK and abroad.

 

Difficult to see what justification could bring about a riveted one.

 

Unlikely. They'd have made a very big wheeled 2-8-0 (same as a 4700), and although I haven't actually checked the dimensions, I'd give you good odds that the trailing coupled axle (of the 2-6-2) and firebox of the 100A boiler would clash. Nearly all successful big, six coupled, narrow firebox engines have a sloping grate, tucked just behind the driving axle (also a potential problem with a unified drive 2-6-2) and the trailing coupled axle well back, under the higher rear portion of the grate. The V4, like the V2 and most Pacifics, had closely spaced driving axles. The smokebox saddle, being part of the monobloc cylinder casting and intended for a smaller diameter boiler, would also be a slight problem, though certainly not insurmountable.

Maybe if they were rebuilt as 2-6-0s, with the frames cut behind the driving axle and new rear frames welded on, with the trailing coupled axle moved well back, it could have been made to work. The route availability would surely have been lost, with lower boiler pressure they'd have been down on tractive effort and what on earth would they have been for? In 1957, it would have been very difficult to justify, for the sake of two locomotives.

 

As this boiler was successfully fitted to other 2-8-0 s the problems would not have been insurmountable...and I didn't insist on keeping the wheels... L1 wheels perhaps... but it didn't happen so....

 

Since your normal desire is to take a loco with no trailing truck and rebuild it into a hypothetical loco having one, going the opposite way could I guess be seen as an advance

Tom

 

Thanks for that very definite answer. I asked the question because I thought that might have been what post #402 was suggesting, rather than (as Simon took it) a rebuild that Thompson might have done.