V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

The new A1 boilers will not be the same as those originally built and are now so far removed from diagram 118 that they are given a new diagram code 118B. And the Trust may yet develop the design further in the future depending on what they experience during operational life.

Boiler pressure is a part of the design process, a variable that you make use of within the limits that you understand and can design and construct within. If the repair costs of the Bulleid Pacific boilers working at 280 psi were less than those of the boiler fitted to the A1 then it would come as no great surprise. Steel boilers and fireboxes working at a higher pressure had been in use elsewhere in the world for some time, the designers involved must have been some peculiar fetishists, or maybe they were in a better situation than UK designers, or maybe it was a very bad idea because it wasn't done here or couldn't be made to work here and therefore these designers were very much mistaken and should have realised the error of their ways.

The USA had the Flannery Bolt Company, the French developed a very good water treatment system and as a result closed many boiler repair facilities. Post war material shortages were a problem but perhaps the Bulleid engines were a little too much for the conservative BR. An adherence to an limit of 250psi was then, it was out of step with the state of development elsewhere, but this is now. The A1/P2 team are not limited to the BR way of thinking. The engines are being built not as strict replicas but as the next in the series making best use of what is available now not what was available 60 and more years ago.

Piston valve diameter is one thing and port area is another. Today the diameter is not the same issue that it was because new refinements allow for a 9" design to behave as one substantially larger. So the proposed Super A4 would not present any problems in this area. But this is just considering a possibility on a wish list. The P2 and the V4 will be far more useful for today.

There appears to be a behind the scenes drive to get the 2-6-2 done sooner rather than later. 240P15 is right, these people do not hang around or let the grass grow.

 

I just wish it was the V3 coming first, not the V4...

 

I wish it was the K3...

 

NRM were also surprised when Network Rail asked them for the Gresley drawings.
https://blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk/the-gresley-design-that-wont-die/

 

Great to see orders being placed for Bantham Hen, sorry, the loco soon be known as *fingers crossed*

As for those NER ploughs, glad to hear NR taking heed of the situation this past winter which left both east and west coast lines shut for 4 days! The snow storms were known well in advance and we basically sat around and watched the lines get blocked. They could have done prelim runs through the days to keep them open, but failed to do so. It really messed up my whole week!

 

Please give it a rest about what Network rail did or didn't do! What's more exciting?

 

There are two standard LNER tenders, unrestored, in existence, more or less. One destined for the Sandringham, the other for the footballer.

Obviously the Trust is likely to have a new build tender, but given a whole tender exists already, for what is unlikely to ever become a working loco (Manchester United) one wonders if a statement of intent would be to buy the unrestored tender and put together a fully restored, mainline one, which would add an extra level of authenticity to the V4.

Just my two cents. Obviously dependent on the parties concerned. It just seems to me that the reality of the footballer is that it's unlikely to come to pass as a working steam loco. Why hold onto an asset like a tender which could be made to work well for someone else? The NBL group who own it might be able to use the funds for restoration work on their other locos too. Win win for all concerned?

 

Do you work for them like?

 

Can't speak for Matt - but I do work for NWR. I've seen the internal stuff on ordering the springs and the issues with the snowploughs on the internal web (don't ask me to quote direct - I am not allowed).

I think - trying to be balanced - it would be nice to remember that we do have employees of NWR on the forum. We're not going to defend everything we do - for my part, if we get it wrong, we get it wrong and we should be responsible enough to admit it.

At the same time, I have observed first hand how hard everyone works in NWR - particularly in my end of the business - it would be remiss of me not to remind you that there's 30,000 employees all doing their best in a company continually pushed from pillar to post by DfT, the treasury, TOCs, FOCs, ORR, RAIB, railway media, etc etc.

Maybe the topic on the V4 is not the right place for making a complaint about NWR. You have many other opportunities to make your points in other spheres, with respect. Including, if you like, referring it back to me privately. I welcome constructive stuff I can pass on - on our Yammer app we are able to pose questions and get answers pretty quickly. There's my olive branch.

 

I wonder if the data exists to compare cost of ownership for the RODs in their various forms, steel inner boxes, GWR copper belpaire, LNER round top etc...

 

Well said, Simon. If there is one thing that pisses me off bigtime with forums, it's when carping individuals respond to anyone supportive/defensive of an organisation they're critical of with "Oh, you must work for them then." Not thinking that they could, you know, actually be wrong themselves.

See also: Daily Mail BTL comments re. the BBC &c.

 

30,000 doing their best, on my experience of working at such government bankrolled companies that would suggest that NR has a total workforce of c.120,000?

 

I'm reliably informed by a colleague that it's actually 37,000 direct staff. Yes, there's probably up to and including 100,000-120,000 if you take into account everything that is sub contracted, or falls under TOCs/FOCs doing work for us.

 

My only connection with Network Rail is when I buy a ticket for my latest journey, the point I'm trying to make is let's rather not use this thread as an excuse to have a pop at what Network Rail have or haven't done in the past, because this is certainly not the right place, however I've a rather warm feeling that a design from nearly a century ago is being re produced because there's still stuff in use on our network that needs it and a group that's intent on building something new gets the chance to take advantage of it.

 

My apologies if this has been posted before, but the brevity of one of the search terms excluded it from my search:

https://www.v4steam.com/

 

This was all new for me, so thanks for posting it

 

It is interesting to note that their boilers lasted only 17 years before needing replacement - although I do wonder if it was the whole boiler or just the inner firebx in need of renewal - can anyone shed any further light on this?

 

Must admit I too was somewhat surprised at the relatively short life span of the boilers on the V4s.

 

Don't forget that in steam railway terms renewal could mean something closer to "repair to make like new again" rather than "scrap and replace with a new one"

 

This feels more likely, given that most classes had a pool of boilers to ensure that the locos were in the works for the shortest possible time - something that with two locos presumably didn't happen. Thus, for a non-standard design in the late 1950s, total renewal wouldn't have been attractive given that there were other locos that could take on their WHL duties.