V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

We still have a long way to go before attitudes like this disappear. Sigh.

 

Duplicate - sorry.

 

What J39? There's a 21 strong Facebook group, who may be the same lot who were initially suggesting using a completely copper boiler, and that's it. The P2 will be ready in a couple of years, I would guess the V4 in about 10 years time. The other P2 consists of a couple of sheets of steel sitting on a wagon dumped in the corner of a road vehicle museum, with no other visible progress in several years.

 

It was an old man last try to prove that real locomotives shall have three cylinders,drive unto mid driving axle and therefore need a Gresley conjugation and that swing link pony trucks( patented by Gresley) were better than boggies and that a 28 feet square grate is best as wide over a Cartazzi.

 

I'd stick to Hans Christian Andersen if I was you.

 

After so long in history there seems to be Thompson -wasn't a poor locomotive engineer- Deniers. Sorry meant K3, get mixed up with the facebook snowfake groups, but a J50 and a J39, and a U2 will do nicely too Darlo chaps.
Great Britain 25 maybe?. KX-York TORNADO Maybe with a mechanical stoker York-Settle-Carlisle-Falahill-Edinburgh. 2007 Edinburgh-Aberdeen

 

He wasn’t a locomotive engineer.

He was chief mechanical engineer and his remit was far, far more than that.

 

Reading the text from F.A.S. Brown ( Nigel Gresley Locomotive Engineer) it is suggested that the V4 design was specified to be as light as possible to be used on secondary services thereby replacing older main line types which had been transferred to lighter duties once more powerful locomotives were introduced. The V4 had a secondary purpose to compare the copper firebox of 3401 with the steel firebox of 3402 but the exigencies of wartime needs brought the experiments to an untimely end. Brown notes that the V4 was essentially a smaller version of the V2 but incorporated lessons learned from the A3 / A4 Pacifics and the V2. The wartime demands led to work being suspended after Gresley's death and the immediate need for power led Thomson to design his B1 as a simple 2-cylinder 4-6-0 but geared to undertake the same role that Gresley had intended for his V4 design. Brown also notes that A.F. Cook defined the V4 as "Rolls Royce engines to do a Ford car job" hence the understandable decision of Thomson to halt further work on the expensive V4 and produce his cheaper B1 instead. As you have noted at length - and overlooked by many critics - many questionable decisions were made under pressure of wartime needs and the V4 / B1 comparison is not helped by the tragic death of Gresley in the midst of it; Thomson compounded the problems by only having a short time until forced retirement would need to resource another CME.

 

Is a V4 any lighter than a B1 ? and if so isnt that due to more expensive boiler materials ?
Any other hand - without reference to the drawings -one would expect the Guaging / Profile of a V4 to be somewhat smaller than a B1...

 

The V4 v B1 argument is entirely superfluous in this case as it will make no difference whatsoever to the decision to built a V4. The decision has been made and I hope I'm still around to see it run.

 

Had to get an old Ian Allan Combined out.
B1 71 ton 3 cwt loco, 52 ton tender
V4 70 ton 8 cwt loco 42 ton 15 cwt tender

 

According to my 1948 Ian Allan ABC of B. R. Locomotives 1948 edition a V4 weighs 70 tons 8 cwt, and a B1 is 71 tons 3 cwt. The 3500 gallon tender for the V4 is 42 tons 15 cwt, and the 4200 gallon one for the B1 is 52 tons. Thus the V4 is some 10 tons lighter overall.

Edit - compiled at the time of std tank's posting above. Also the V4 has a wider Route Availability at R.A. 4, while the B1 is more restricted by being R.A. 5.

 

Exactly the same dimensions as quoted in the post before yours.

 

I for one don't give a t*ss whether a V4 is better or worse than X Y or Z, I'm just glad we will be gaining a fascinating and worthy addition to the pantheon of British steam. Should look absolutely splendid double-headed with 8572 in apple green, hint hint!

 

Can’t we love them both? And support both?

They’re both apple green thoroughbreds.

 

The amount of steel and work for a V4 can make a Webb three-cylinder coal compound.
Most fasinating three-cylinder and a blind alley as well.
That is one I would support and travel to see

 

V4 can go mainline and earn its keep, Webb would have limited use on heritage.

 

Is there anything which would specifically prevent one of Mr Webb's more idiosyncratic contraptions being used on the big railway (subject to the normal design approvals)?

 

Flangeless third driver?

 

Joy valve gear (if that's what it has?)