LNER 4771 Green Arrow

I would consider that the most sensible idea yet. And someone mentioned that they thought that £400k was rather a lot for this. I wouldn't be suprised if the complete job came out at half as much again.

Regards

PC

 

Hey Guys, Keep this up, I think a bunch of great ideas are coming out of this thread. May I suggest if any of you have time to meet up somewhere start working together to come up a STRONG long-term plan. That is what it shall take to make this happen.

Just an idea
I hope that I haven't overstepped my boundaries

 

there are equally valid arguments for both the manufacture of a monobloc and for three separate cylinders. I'm all for keeping the skills of patternmaking and casting alive and would favour this if finance was available. However, the idea of replacing with individual cylinders, probably fabricated, is a sensible approach, as well. It gets the loco back where most people want it at the least cost and, if cost is a deciding factor, it becomes a no-brainer. It doesn't have to result in outside steam pipes, either. That's just the way the rebuilds were done, probably for ease of manufacture. Whichever way is chosen, the original monobloc becomes available for display, although the complexity of the whole can only be really appreciated if it is sectioned.

Some high prices seem to be being quoted for both schemes. With good project management the actual costs should be more reasonable.

 

Where does the tired firebox come into this? I'm guessing this work would go with the work that would need to be done with the boiler?

I recall that the engine had not been working at it's full capacity temperature.

 

Indeed a much missed loco and one that became a firm favourite of mine. There are some pretty special videos of it on the Churnet Valley on youtube courtesy of Mike Snow (steamontheweb) during the last few months of it's ticket and i'll never forget travelling behind it in a rake of LNER teaks during the SVR 2007 gala. Services were only running between Kidder and Bewdley because of the wash outs and with it's ever loving NRM minder on the regulator and a remit to clear the section as quickly as possible so as not to delay the following mainline special to Snow Hill, we stormed up to Bewdley tunnel in volcanic style. A very fitting tribute and a a superb way to remember this fine loco. I hope it isn't my only memory of it and it does have a future back in steam.

 

I think that was just at the end; reduced boiler pressure in order to see out the last few weeks of the boiler certificate at the NYMR. IIRC it was small weeps at stays and/or tube ends; to rectify them wasn't time or cost-effective.

 

It was on a reduced boiler pressure long before she visited NYMR, it had definitely been reduced for her visit to GWSR in June 07. She failed whilst at NYMR but they reduced her boiler pressure further to let her work one last day. The result was phenomenal, just imagine what she'd been like if working at full capacity though!

 

Before we get to deep into this, What are the reasons for its being withdrawn from service?
If I recall correctly it is due to the NRM saying that no repair can be done due to it then not being in original or as withdrawn state.
Is this correct and are there any more reasons?
I would expect that this would apply to the whole loco but would exclude the normal wear and tear items such as the boiler etc.

 

The main reason she was withdrawn was the boiler required significant work that couldn't be justified with there not long being left on her ticket.

However, the monobloc is also on borrowed time so to speak and so any future overhaul will require the replacement of this. There are two options, replace with a brand new monobloc that will require an expensive and complex pattern, or replace with 3 separate cylinders as BR started before it was decided to replace steam with diesel.

Replacement with a new monobloc will keep the engine original, which has was hinted at previously was the main reason she was preserved. If she had been modded in BR days then it is highly likely another V2 that hadn't been modified would of been preserved instead.

The 3 separate castings though will more than likely be cheaper, and are easier to maintain. The idea of doing this and displaying the monobloc has been mooted, I think it was mentioned in the old thread we had when she was originally withdrawn IIRC.

Either way, at present there is nothing in place for 4771 (sadly) with their being so many other NRM locos running all over the UK.

 

This suggestion probably won't curry favour as it is a 'hybrid' that is neither monobloc nor three-way casting, and therefore not original or 'authentic' but could a three-way casting that looks like a monobloc be developed?

 

The 3 separate castings with a removable exterior cover?

 

The monobloc has done its job.
Would I be right in saying that no V2 would have been preserved if not for the unique feature of the monoblock?

 

As others have said, it is no doubt because 60800 had a Monobloc that it was chosen as the preserved example. Whether none would have been preserved if they had all been rebuilt with three separate castings is a moot point - they could always 'regress' one - they had no fear about calling a total rebuild a restoration in those days, 251 being the ultimate example!

 

I'd go with any kind of cylinder arrangement that got her back out on the main line, with the mono-bloc displayed at the NRM, where it's actually of more interest than on the loco, where you can't see most of it!

 

There was a fund going to save 60836, but once '800 was saved people turned their attention elsewhere.

 

I see no problem with using the later modification of three separate cylinders.
As said above used as a separate exhibit it serves to demonstrate the evolution of this particular class of loco.
The addition of outside steam pipes does very little to alter the looks of the loco but does show its evolution.
You need to ask yourself would you rather see it silent in a museum or roaring defiance at some gradient on the main line.
I know which I would rather see.
As to authenticity no loco is ever authentic take 5000 as an example 3row superheater not two as built plus it also has odd driving wheel sets, still a damn good engine though a bit rough compared to 5110.
I remember it well from the SVR and the main line.

Cheers Dave

 

This, I think, is the main point. There are other locos and projects that the NRM wish to work on in the medium term. I guess if someone came up with a sensible proposal and enough funding then the various options would be investigated by whoever was in the relevant posts at the time. Until that time, there's no need to make any decisions except where and how to display her.

Next time one of us is at Shildon, we should buy Anthony C a coffee and see what a little charm can do... ;-)

 

Well she's over the pit at York at the moment, showing another rarely seen aspect of a loco with more than 2 cylinders.

BTW you're as likely to find me at York as you are Shildon these days, but the offer of a cuppa will rarely be turned down - we are human after all!

 

Saw green arrow over the pit at york last year. I seem to remember seeing the bottom of the middle cylinder is the crack visible, I seem to remember seeing a crack but is it the one in question?

Chris