V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

Two Stephenson and one slip eccentric compared with two walschaerts and conjugation.

 

Whilst it may not be significant in today's new-build environment, it is germane to the discussion of Thomson v Gresley in that the V4 is seen by many as Gresley's last design whilst the B1 is seen by many as Thomson's first design - and both designs were designed for similar operations. IMHO this is more germane than the perennial argument that Thomson's rebuild of "Great Northern" shows (proves ?) his anti-Gresley attitude.

 

Anti-Gresley attitude...

Fred can I give you an invite to my October Thompson lecture at the model railway club of London?

 

I read Fred's words as an accurate reference to a frequently uttered argument, not as implying that he himself thinks that way.

 

When OS Nock describes rebuilding 4470 to A1/1 as ‘the most disappointing and tactless act in [Thompson's] short and stormy career as CME' , I find it hard to argue with. Even it wasn't deliberately malicious, Thompson showed no emotional intelligence, grace or sense of history to treat Great Northern in this way - and if the reports that the drawing office tried to disaude him from using 4470 are true, then the case for it being malicious obviously increases.

History has been harsh in its judgement of this decision - and rightly so.

 

I refer you to the Thompson thread where we categorically showed that Thompson didn’t select Great Northern.

I would humbly suggest that if there’s anyone still out there falling for the ridiculousness of “Thompson rebuilt great northern to sing Gresleys memory” it’s a failing not on their part, but of the LNER writers of the past not doing their research or listening to only a few people.

 

There a bit of discussion about this here https://www.national-preservation.c...son-wartime-c-m-e-discussion-2012-2019.35938/
Its rather interesting and worth a read

 

Disagree this is not a thread about two CME's, it's about a specific new build. The merits of V4 v B1 have had and will have no effect on the project to build 3403. IMO this thread should be about the project and the people building it. If you wish to extend the unending discussion regarding the different approaches taken by Gresley and Thompson, there's already a very long running thread on just that subject.

 

A very fair point - my apologies to all for diverting the thread.

 

I was also trying to be humorous

 

Wasn't that 2751?

 

I hope that both V4 and the Sandringham come alive.
It is the last chance to see if Gresleys insistence on single shaft drive was well founded.
The wheeldiameter difference does not matter much for threecylinder sub 75 mph engines.

 

Except that Sandringham (a B17) had divided drive.

 

Exactly and was designed by NBL and Gresley made angry noises

 

Not aware of Gresley making angry noises. For the size/capacity/power required Doncaster couldn't design a loco for the GE section within the permitted axle weights. As it happens NBL couldn't either and were permitted a concession for an increase, from 17 to 18 tons if my memory is anything like right. Even then these locos were too lightly built and suffered frame cracking in their early days.

 

What? What are you talking about? Please give the source for this ridiculous statement.

 

Lets go round again.....

 

Let's not!

 

Indeed, that's exactly what I had in mind when I made the post, sadly was not in a position to access You Tube at the time!