Gresley V4

I agree with that point, however would you say that if someone came up for a plan to build something like a new Leader you'd consider putting a few quid in?

 

I would expect that, if it was being properly managed, an early conclusion would be reached as to viability.

 

I would but then again, I'm slightly mad.

 

Totally agree; however, were a credible plan put forward for a loco like an L1, an early management task would be convincing potential backers (both funders and host railway) that it represented a sensible choice. Since there is a much larger range of potential locos that could be recreated than could ever possibly come to fruition, any pre-existing baggage in reputation for a particular design is going to make that task harder, even if the "baggage" might be largely irrelevant in modern conditions.

Tom

 

Lets start by looking at the restoration of 71000, and continue with the fact that we now have two P2 projects, both apparently making progress. At risk of enough flaming for comment on election/referendum results, its surely very hard to argue that the original service reputation of those locomotives can have justified so much time and money being spent on them. Isn't it more likely to be a combination of project leadership and a certain bizarre "charisma" certain types seem to possess?

 

Surely the problem with building a locomotive of a design that was recognised as being less than satisfactory is that the promoters would have to assure funders that they understood the reasons for historical bad performance and that they would be designed out. In which case it would not be a clone but something that looked like (in this case) an L1 but worked better. The approach taken with Tornado was slightly different in that the original design was good so the revisions were largely those required by currently available materials and construction techniques and by health and safety requirements. Prince of Wales is straying from this in that the recognised original design faults have to be addressed in addition to the changes as per Tornado above. The V4s, in their final form, seemed pretty good. They were almost certainly superior to the B1s, but lost out because of their complexity in a wartime situation. I would have thought that building a new one would be closer to the Tornado exercise than to the Prince of Wales. Of course, I'd like to see a new build Deeley 999, but there again, the Deeley scissors gear was never fully refined. A new one with improvements now available would look the same but could exceed the Midland Compound in performance. Really, they could have been the George V class of the Midland.

 

Other factors might be involved, though, such as opportunities for economies of scale in building. For example, we know that the V4 is to follow the P2, and that too has 5'8" wheels, so pattern making costs could be shared. I've heard that the cylinder design is the same as the A1, so those patterns too could be used and of course there may be other components in common. Maybe the A1 axleboxes could be used as well - presumably they are more robust than the original design.

 

No, the P2 has 6'2" wheels.

 

I meant the V4 has 5'8" wheels, but actually, that doesn't help as the L1's are 5'2" and I don't think the patterns are around after all - but if 62005 or 61994 ever needed them.....

 

Hope i didnt confuse by saying that the P2 'should have had' 5' 8's earlier.
But post V4; - the V3 has 5' 8" wheels. as does the K3. and for a real challenge the 'Gresley V5/ L1' - ie the tank engine derivative of the V4 also would have had these ..

 

Are you trying to drop a little hint?

 

The under representation of LNE types in the ranks of preserved locomotives is unfortunate. Now we are creating not only samples of those machines that we knew in the 60s but sadly did not leave through the usual processes of preservation a surviving example but are also creating examples of those designs that we used to dream about, those things that we wished that we could have seen. And we still continue wishing and dreaming.

Then there are those who would like to have questions answered. They recognised that designs with "terminal drawbacks" according to some writers and observers had, in truth, no such thing, 71000 and the P2 can serve as examples. So after some attention to a few engineering details they can rewrite the judgement books.

You then have other machines which are more of a mystery. The V4 was highly regarded on testing. It was built making use of welded fabrication in many areas where castings were previously used. The type was an alternative solution to the high route availability, mixed traffic requirements met on other lines with 4-6-0 types. And because these two orphans are in such a minority they are all too frequently dismissed as failures. But those that suspect that this was far from the case are wanting some hardware that will provide the numbers, the data, the performances that will provide a firm rebuttal to those who adhere unflinchingly to the view that the big numbers cannot possibly be wrong. The verdict will be delivered in due course.

One step at a time please folks. We now want machines that were only proposed. Will we go on to produce a machine that has not yet been proposed? I so want to exceed the long established 40ihp/ton record.

 

(Thread drift warning) The obvious candidate is the 5AT or something like it. How can enough support be gathered to make that viable?

 

Going back to the naming...surely 'Bantam Chick' especially as Chick is a common Scot nickname...Or Bantam Turkey in light of the Norfolk connection...Ahem maybe not

 

I think that suggesting the Norfolk connection was a failure demeans you rather than the V4. According to contemporary reports the locomotive was successful but the designer's early death saw his replacement preferring the 4-6-0 concept that was encapsulated in the B1 design rather than continuing the build of V4s which were the next stage of development that Gresley envisaged.

As noted above, there is value in following up the intentions of designers to see "What if .... ?" with the WSR's classic creation of 2-6-0 9351 being one example of answering "What if .... ?" whilst 71000 is the classic example of ironing out the faults to prove the original design was NOT as flawed as many thought. Given the progress in metal sciences / standards I think that the V4 is a good example of "What if .... ?" with the potential to meet current main line standards with its 75 mph restrictions.

 

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Turkeys were 1st raised in Norfolk commercially in the UK, a connection that continues with Bernard Matthews, and it was to that I was alluding. The second meaning of turkey being why I suggested maybe not. As I understand it the V4s were well liked and it was a change in circumstances/priorities that prevented them proliferating. I am sure I have read that they were a better machine in many ways than the B1 but were much more expensive to build and possibly also maintain. The B1s being the right loco for the time, powerful enough, robust enough, simple to maintain and cheap to build

 

Sorry I had taken the "derogatory" meaning to your use of the phrase. AIUI the Norfolk crews liked the V4 and were hoping to have more as replacements for the main line traction then in use.