How about a V4?

I see that another group ,apart from the A1 trust ,is talking about building a second P1. All very good & laudable, but do we really need two P1s? Will the main line market stand it?
Just a personal thought but would it not be better to build a V4 2-6-2 ? Only two built , cancelled by Thompson, the first called 'Bantam Cock'
What a useful loco this would be, 3 cyl 2-6-2, wide box, 250 lb , route availiable anywhere, I would think this would be a cheaper option & just as interesting loco.

 

I think you mean a P2?

Regards,

Dan

 

Martin, I think Dan is refering to the original post.

 

I have misgivings about one P2, let alone two. Not the ability of the A1 trust to build it, but the workload available for such an engine to work economically, and the effect it may have on the track - which is what is currently being researched I believe. We'll see.

In the meantime, putting aside the usual debate on numbers of new builds, a V4 would be an interesting, useful and I think popular choice

 

I'd love to see a V4! Yes, the wide firebox is an advantage, but being a 2-6-2 she'd run sweetly in reverse which would be a plus for preserved lines. Of the original pair, one also had a steel firebox, so there's a precedent that would save some money!

Foxy

 

And the second one was built with a single thermic syphon.
Yes I did mean P2!

 

Perhaps in the short term; but isn't the jury still out?

 

A V4 is certainly one of those locomotive designs which never had a chance to show what it was capable of. I seem to recall the K1 was preferred as the long term solution to the requirement that brought about the V4? Perhaps because of its simpler and cheaper construction.

Regards,

Dan

 

Not in the Bulleid world. Steel fireboxes for 70 years.

 

Thought it was the B1 that Thompson built instead of the V4.

 

I agree that I'd like to see the results of the Deltarail simulations before making any judgments on the track, but looking at the types of trains being assembled for railtours, and the increasing mileage done - a locomotive with better tractive adhesion, a propensity for easy steaming, boiler wise, and the ability to start and pull trains of up to thirteen coaches easily would surely be found not wanting for work?

 

I'm generally not very enthusiastic about new-builds but this would be one I'd contribute to financially.

 

Norman McKillop in an article entitled "The Gresley Touch" in the 1956 "Trains Annual"describes a round trip from Edinburgh to Glasgow with Bantam Cock with 10 bogies outward and 11 bogies back. It makes wonderful reading and shows in the authors words "They could go anywhere and do almost anything"Hopefully it won't be too hard to find a copy at any railways secondhand bookstall.

 

A bit OT but didn't Norman write under the name of Toram Beg?

 

In this case he used his proper name(I checked my copy before posting)

 

Interesting. A V4 would definitely get my vote as would anything Gresley.

 

This gets us into a debate about what railtours ought to be (and indeed what they are). I think that these massive railtours of 13 coaches are too much, and that smaller, higher priced tours that are sensible for the engine on the front and can be more tightly timed will be the way of the future. It would be a shame to build the P2 only to find long trains out of fashion!