V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

It is not nessecary to be so british.
Three cylinders to second driving axle will do.

https://eastsidepilot.wordpress.com/on-shed/lnwr-3-cyl-compound-a-class-0-8-0-goods-engine/

 

And now for something completely relevant.
https://www.a1steam.com/2019/03/26/...Y_Hzuw-C_iJwKtPlcpbFaR2aYngUL6o39AjDDUX3tuNVQ

 

They do seem to be having a run of luck with components and opportunities to save money on the V4 popping up, don't they? Must be refreshing after what seems like a hell of a year for 60163.

 

Not surprising really when it's been the great "one day I'll .." for so many people Good luck to them!

 

Quite agree paul. As I've mentioned previously "Success breeds success!" What with Tornado being 10 years old and Prince of Wales coming along like there's no tomorrow. All the A1SLT need to do is open an account and the money pours in so to speak almost without naming what L.N.E.R. type they're going to build........

 

What height we're these little beasts originally....

 

Possibly suggesting that Gresley implemented "standardisation" on a greater scale than has hitherto been acknowledged ?

 

Blimey! At this rate there's a good chance of them having a K3 up and running before I cark it!

Richard.

 

If he did, I’m yet to find it. At the high level, 81 boiler types in 1941 across the LNER? Adding new loco classes and rarely withdrawing any?

I love Gresley and all that he did but I don’t think anyone with an LNER bias can reasonably suggest he was as good at standardisation as other railway company CMEs contemporary to him.

 

Well with a new monoblock cylinder fabrication being made, it could run to a second, and, maybe cheaper one for Green Arrow. Unless, of course, they are very different...............just saying

 

Can't remember if this has been mentioned before, but in the world of model engineering 1000's of this design must have been made in 3/4"scale ie 3.5"g to LBSC's "Bantam Cock" design, and very good all the examples I encountered were, though they had only 2 outside cylinder not 3 cylinders and no conjugated gear for the missing inside cylinder.

One might argue that the middle cylinder in full size was superfluous on the V4s - all 2 of them.

Cheers,

Julian

 

How interesting Julian. Dare I open that can of worms here?!

 

Didn't;t the LNER already work that out - they realised that the optimum configuration for a mixed traffic loco of about 27,000lbf Tractive Effort was, oh, I don't know, maybe two cylinders about 20"*26"; around 225psi; maximum accessibility of motion; a grate area of about 28 sq ft that would fit easily between the frames .... Now, where have I seen about 400 of that design?

Tom

 

I may be grinning from ear to ear on my train to work.

 

First new V4 components delivered!

https://www.v4steam.com/2019/08/12/first-new-v4-components-delivered/

 

And you end up with a locomotive of R.A. 5. So can we get it down to R.A. 4 and maintain the power output?

 

I take it that the V4s were R.A. 4. Was the difference from a B1 in axle load, and if so how was that possible for similar power output? Or was it just the reduced hammer-blow?

 

Not necessary. There's not many lines in LNER days that are actually RA4 compared to RA5. B1s could go virtually everywhere the V4 could, and on the lines the B1 couldn't go you actually had ample 2-6-0s or 0-6-0s that could do the same jobs the V4 could do.

I would argue that the comparing the V4 to the B1 is the wrong comparison - the point of the V4 was to provide something that was lighter than a V2 that could cover similar traffic on more lightly loaded lines.

Thompson continued to build V2s (and O2s) in the war, and started the building of B1s. The two V4s were conjugated valve gear machines and the LNER after the Cox report was presented to the emergency board was not going to build anymore conjugated machines outside of the orders for larger classes already being processed. The V4s, and a batch of V3s, were cancelled almost immediately.

I'm not convinced that the V4/B1 are so closely linked in decision making as is often made the case.

I personally think it's to do with the fact that the V2 kept being built and there were ample existing locomotives of similar axle loading and power to do the work the V4 could potentially have done. Not convinced tbh that the V4 had a specific purpose, despite being stated it was for "East Anglia" - which then made do with B1s, B2s, B12s and B17s for the sort of work the V4 would have undertaken. Probably borne out by the fact they were then sent to Scotland and led fairly average lives.

Don't get me wrong - love the loco, think it's one of Gresley's prettiest and most potent classes - I just don't think it had a future, whether under Gresley and certainly not when Thompson took over.

 

Duplicate.

 

An exciting one this. Surely the riding of a dogs dinner B1 should be considered in comparative trials to settle the question. What with this, and a J39 and the P2, its so exciting to see which will arrive first.