V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

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!

 

Sorry but cannot find where I read that Gresley wrote rather angry letters to NBL.

 

Alright. What, if you can remember, was the subject matter of HNG's angry letters to North British. What do you allege was his grievance?

 

Not sure but something like bad design,overweigth,late delivery to much money, all the usual stuff when spoiled children have been underperforming.

 

From memory was it not the other way round, did not NBL show displeasure with HNG for not getting a second contract to build more B17's, after designing and building the first ten. The remainder being built by Darlington (52) and Robert Stephenson and company (11).

 

Capacity at North Road had to be utilised in 1928 on completion of previous builds.

 

Maybee,but quite interesting in its own rigth:Who sired Sandringhams that did not quite impress everybody and was the V4 a late second try for same job?

 

Interesting thought.
Having produced Pacifics thats would happily 'cruise' at 90mph and a 2-6-2 that despite smaller wheels was no slouch then Gresley would expect his V4 to have been a 70mph machine. Whether that would have been good enough for Sandringham work im not sure but there were still a lot of Pregrouping engines around that we're overdue replacement B12's, Clauds, Directors etc...To My mind the machine that is the obvious 'Benchmark' for a V4 would be the Standard 4 4-6-0.

 

A Gresley-like big boiler and three cylinders propelled it self,two firemen and 9 coaches 101.6 mph for a very short time.
If cruising regularly means one motivated fireman and no pressure drop ,90 mph with a paying load, is hardly possible.
Cox says 1615 indicated horsepower with clean,fresh fire.
There is a speed calculator in general railway chat forum.
I will try to use it for 8 coaches.

It is aproximate total lengths of 180meter.
It is aproximate total masses of 450 metric tons.

The 8 coach train needs 1638indicated horsepower to maintain 90.

 

I appreciate that Hermod has a far better command of the English language than I have of his Danish (nil!), but does anyone understand the point that he is trying to make here?

 

Let me try.
Cruising happily at 90 with 8 or more coaches pulled by a LNER pacific is impossible

 

It is quite a big statement to make that something is 'impossible' when:

1. You have made approximations in your calculations (post #509), therefore your power calculation will also be an approximation.
2. You have no idea if the speed calculator you are using is 100% accurate.
3. Tornado (and probably many LNER pacifics before her) has done it.

Oh, and this has nothing to do with 3403, so probably best to start a new new topic if you wish to continue your theories.

Keith

 

I am wondering if this affair was actually the exchange of correspondence between Gresley and Sir Sam Fay of Beyer, Peacock Ltd over the contract for the last batch of ten B12s built by BP. After the contract was placed, Gresley wanted a change to Lentz poppet-valve cylinders instead of piston-valve ones. This caused extra costs for BP which they claimed and Gresley disputed. From memory - and without looking it up - I think the matter was settled on a 50 : 50 basis.

 

Sounds familiar.
I stand corrected

 

I don't think they were. The B17s were designed specifically to run express passenger services, 6'9'' drivers didn't really lend themselves to anything else. The V4, with 5'8'' driving wheels was very much more in the camp of a mixed traffic engine. The V4 was intended to be a reasonably powerful, versatile loco with a wide route availability. Gresley's own take on a loco to fill a Black 5's niche, hence why Thompson cancelled the order for 10 further V2s and instead rolled out the B1. I reckon if one were to compare the B17s to an LMS engine I'd imagine it would be closer to the role performed by the Compounds.

 

I think you'll find that Mr Thompson cancelled the [what you may call the production batch of] 10 V4's that had been ordered. The final 4 [I think] V2's were turned out as another batch of rather ungainly looking Pacific's. IIRC the material for the 10 V4's was already on order. I for one always looked on the two locos' as the prototype pair for the new class, in the same way that twenty years earlier the first pair of A1 pacific's 1470 Great Northern and 1471 Sir Frederick Banbury were the prototype pair for the A1 class. The subsequent production batch of 10 coming into service in 1923-4.

 

6ft 8in drivers on the B17s chaps.

 

V4 is what I meant. I'll blame clumsy fingers and a tired brain for that one!

 

Musing over the drawings noticed that the V4 cab is quite small with a Lot of Backhead in it.
Given the size of the electronics etc that are needed for mainline running i think they will struggle for space.
Using the Tender peculiar to the P1 instead of the Group standard 4200 gallon would give them that space and a bit more water to boot...

 

You really think this hasn't been thought about? A certain K1 seems to cope quite well? As did a K4