LNER 4771 Green Arrow

Saw her last week, though if I remember correctly the inside connecting rod had been removed for some reason?

 

Wasn't Green Arrow towed from Shildon to York? That would explain the removed inside con rod. Mallard's con rods were removed as well for the tow from Shildon to York, and haven't yet been put back on.

 

Is this fact or railway enthusiast folk lore? The Green Arrows were deserved of preservation and, whilst I admit that the original list didn't exactly specify 60800, simply a V2, when the list was drawn up the general policy was to preserve the first class member; failing that, the oldest survivor, which is why we ended up with the wreck that was 49395 and why we got 4073, 6000, 9400, 30245, 30850, 33001, 42700, 42700, 45000, 63460, 65033 and 70000. OK, there are anomalies but that was the general policy.

 

I thought it was eldest survivor in original condition hence 2818 instead of 2807 or whatever.

 

I knew there was a reason why 2818 was on the list but didn't know enough about GW locos to be certain so left it off.

 

Still got the original inside steam pipes IIRC, as BR had started modifying them to outside steam pipes. Not sure if she still has the Churchward cab as well.

 

The first Class 5 to be built and enter service was 45020 (5020) in August 1934. 45000 (5000) did not enter service until February 1935.

 

And with modern technology there is also the possibility of repairing the current cylinders...but we would only find out upon dismantling the loco which is not currently an option.

 

She does have the original Churchward cab - I don't think the 2800s were ever rebuilt with later style cabs, which the 2884s had from new.

 

"Green Arrow", class prototype with principal design feature - a 3 cylinder monoblock, still present. Why was it selected for preservation? Because it was the prototype for the most successful heavy mixed traffic ever to run in the UK and it survived with this distinctive feature intact. As Anthony writes, it may well be possible to repair the cylinder block, if this can be done in due course well and good and there is no great rush to find out. If it cannot be done a replacement the block is not a large casting compared to what can be produced. A superior product to the original could be supplied manufactured with both better materials and casting technology. It would not be cheap, but a fifth rate professional footballer would be far more expensive.

So why the anxiety on the part of some to change a most distinctive and historically significant machine? Just to take a few photographs and listen to a little bit of noise?

Wonderful.

 

I dont think many of us having a problem with Green Arrow 'having a rest' in the short to medium term Anthony, indeed there are other NRM loco's i'd prefer to see steam first, but i'd hate to think she'd become a permenant static exhibit and a return to steam wasn't possible in say 10 years time.

 

As an aside I have my doubts that a removed cylinder block is going to be of that much interest to the wider museum visiting public. There's already a display of how a loco works using Ellerman Lines. Unless a proper gallery about loco building was created, I can't see it being of huge interest, and even then on a short term basis only. I just don't see how it would fit in with any of the current themes used in the museum, unless heaven forbid it gets used as some waste of space 'sculpture'

Far more likely if it were replaced, it would end up in warm store (if it's lucky), as it has far more relevance archaelogically than anything else

 

I'd rather see it displayed in a sculpture like setting (with a small interpretative display) than some rubbish by Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst - an unmade sleeper compartment perhaps, or a guard preserved in formaldehyde?

 

Antony's remark about it might be possible to repair the casting surprised me, because i was thinking along the same lines stitch welding i think they call it isnt it? wasnt the same done for 30120's block, then if fitted with liners the casting should be ok to be re used i would like to see 4771 restored to the mainline to take over from 4472 once her mainline stint is up in 8 years time, assuming that she takes another 12 months before entering traffic that gives the NRM a good 6 years to fund raise prehaps the earnings from 4472's tours could go some way to paying for it, because so though has been the restoration of 4472 that hopefully it will still be in good condition when the next overhaul is due ,and so be far less than this current one

 

She's already had one stitch repair hasn't she?

 

4472 wont even pay for her own overhaul during her upcoming ticket, so certainly wont pay for 4771's as well.

 

I also have an inckling that the cylinder has been stitched once already and that further repair wasn't possible. I certainly hope I'm wrong and Antony is right, I can picture a rather nice LNER photo line up

Dave

 

It has, but the remark was made to me by a respected loco engineer with experience of cylinder repairs, and one might as well see. After all, as Martin quite rightly points out, modern techniques not even known about 20 years ago have allowed the T9 to run again.