How about a V4?

Touche Jamie, I agree with your summation there. It will be interesting to see what the market can or will sustain over the coming decade.

 

A good few years ago I attended a seminar; I can't remember what exactly it was on but one presentation was about vehicle geometry and these guys had produced a computer model of a P2 running on various track conditions and their conclusions were that it was pretty bad as a vehicle.

 

It's interesting to debate the P2 (perhaps for another thread) on that subject as the arguments against seem fairly solid: hot axleboxes, rapid wear in journals, fractured steam pipes, etc etc, and this is what caused Thompson to rebuild them during the onset of the second world war (dependent on your sources, of course. I speak purely from the view of Peter Grafton here).

The arguments for a P2 do have to take into account some extraordinary facts - given the tight curvature of the line in and out of King's Cross Top Shed yard, you would have thought damage/derailment/and so on to be rife. Yet the P2s used from there on those rare occasions do not seem to have had that problem, where certain diesel classes thereafter were banned for similar offenses!

The inherent problem with the P2 seems to be related best to 1) the leading pony truck (with a fix already known for the V2s and similar classes), 2) its axleboxes (roller bearing axleboxes would solve this) and 3) its overall wheelbase and curvature of lines. What strikes me is that many of the lines on the national network today will have been getting smoother into the curves, surely, not tighter, as a result of trying to decrease times and increase line speeds.

Of course, a V4 wouldn't have any of these problems, except perhaps in its overall range. The advantage of building a P2 relates to the commonality of shared parts - as I understand it, boiler, cartazzi, tender, and many other components including all the changes that were made and applied to Tornado.

 

Using the BR system, would power class would a V4 be in theory ?.

I agree about the point on Railtours, many seem to be loaded on the basis that every loco is a sure footed class 8 when the reality is somewhat different.

 

There must have been a good reason they were cancelled by thompson and can not of been great success dont want to spend millions on a loco which is not up to much if we want to do that could build leader instead

 

There must be a good reason thompson cancelled the loco batch not a good idea to build a new failure

 

It would seem from contemporary accounts that there was nothing much wrong with the V4s and they were well up to the sort of work that was expected of them, but essentialy the V4s were the equivalent of a class 5 4-6-0, where Halls, and later Black 5s, had proved that a 2-cylinder engine was adequate for the job. Instead of a fleet of V4s the LNER ended up with hundreds of B1s. Three cylinder engines were more expensive both in first cost and maintenance and that could not be justified in wartime.

 

Were V4's intended for more lightly laid routes ?, if there was a need for a reasonably powered mixed traffic loco on core routes instead of designing/building V4'/sB1's would another batch of V2's sufficed ?.

 

I've been under the impression that the V4s were built purely with the West Highland Line in mind. Whether the intention was to replace or supplement the K4 and K2s on duties may never be known.

 

They were not a failure but we were in the middle of a war when Thompson took over and he considered that a less complicated design was the answer. The fact that only two had been built by the time Gresley had died didn't help, a class of 50 may well have survived untouched.

 

The V4s had a much wider route availability than the V2s. They could cover 5000 out of the LNER's 6400 route miles as opposed to the V2s 2750.

 

The V4's were built for the same purpose as the B1's and Black 5's - basically go everywhere do anything. But they were a high tech design and there was a war on. (Not that it stopped OVSB!)

Their capabilities were tested out on the GE and no doubt if they had gone into batch production they'd have taken over the expresses from the Sandys just as the B1's did.

 

The V4 was tested in East Anglia and was found to be extremely capable. True the design was a little more complicated than a 2 cylinder 4-6-0 but extra complication did not stop the S.R. building 3 cylinder Pacifics during the war years. The design had two problems, the financial state of the LNER and, more importantly, Edward Thompson.
It would perhaps not be a good idea to build one - too many Black Five enthusiasts would get very upset.

 

A better idea than a Claud Hamilton I think but for asterisk's sake lets get something else finished before starting yet another scheme!!!!

P.H.

 

How about building a K9 ,use anything you can find to build it. Chums it will have no pedigree ,will be a mongrel ,have a dogs life
and could be named Phaideaux .

runs and takes cover

 

Gresley built six K4s for the West Highland line, and Thompson rebuilt No. 3445 (BR 61997) "MacCailin Mor" (Son of Big Colin!) with two cylinders. This subsequently became the prototype, with a few alterations, for Peppercorn's K1 class.

 

Agree with your comment apart from not being a good idea to build one! I think it would be a great addition to the preserved steam fleet.
It might show these 'Black Five Enthusiasts' there's equally good engines from other companies!

 

Like a Hall or a County you mean.

I can see the benefits of building something like that, rather than a P1. Particularly when its admitted the P1 is going to be modified with odd additions like Caprotti valve gear. Whats the point of being a defunct class, if you modify it beyond recognition when you do it? You may as well go the whole hog and build a 5AT.

Besides, the V4 is a very handsome looking machine. It would also help make up the gap that Green Arrow has left when its ticket ran out.

 

One question: If one was to be built, would it have a mono bloc cylinder arrangment as per the orginals or would it be changed to 3 seperate cylinders?

 

It's the P2 you mean, and actually British Caprotti valve gear won't look all that different to the Lentz gear when applied, but it will be significantly superior as 71000 has proven over the years.

The point of adding it, amongst other improvements, to the A1 Trust version of the P2, is simple - in the same way Tornado has all roller bearings, different coal space to water tank ratio, reduced height for the national network, streamlined passages in the boiler, modified front bogie amongst other details, a new P2 numbered 2007 would be the "next in the class", allowing a degree of flexibility in development whilst also retaining most of the character and technology of the original.