V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

To kill it off now it will be LNER Apple Gren and BR Black during it's first operating cycle.

 

Wasn't Ecky Bocky an N.B. engineman who was a subject of Norman McKillo's writingp in Ace Enginemen. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy to refer to. The name always stuck in my mind for some reason!

 

Deranged more like.

 

His opinion, I don't agree with it but if that's what he thinks, then fair enough.

 

Surely you mean Early BR Apple Green...

 

The answer is simple. Start your own new build scheme to fill a gap that you think needs filling. I suspect we'll see the "waste of money" P2 and the "silly" V4 long before that though.

 

The V4 represents a different way of addressing the mid power mixed traffic requirement. Most lines went for a 4-6-0, we have lots of these, but one of our best, some would argue our best, designers chose a different route. On test the machine in question was very impressive, the design marked the introduction of welded fabrication rather than castings into LNER locomotive construction and weighed less than the design that replaced it. So it is an interesting design in its own right. Years ago "enthusiasts" doubted the wisdom restoring the sole surviving K4, let alone trying it out on the mainline it being an engine with an undistinguished reputation in their view, and some still maintain that view.
If you want a different design, GC, NB, whatever then get a plan together and build one, there are many options. The V4, like the A1 and P2 is not intended purely for preserved line use. There are many designs that would be useful for heritage line use, but there again, it could be observed that these lines have significant numbers of engines whose restorations and overhauls are not, for various reasons, progressing very well. A new build, next in series, is attractive but it would need careful management or it could just end up as another item in a slow moving queue after a few decades.
The A1 is the next in series of a design that had a reputation for power output and low running costs. The P2 is the same, a next in series and the originals were not much altered, 2001 and 2002 were the test prototypes, the poppet valve gear fitted to 2001 was not found to be satisfactory, the piston valves on 2002 worked but the soft blast through the Kylchap exhaust necessitated a change to the front design to the Bugatti type. The design was not fully developed, more changes were needed but these were never adopted. 2007 will include what some recognised should have been done plus some extras that the LNER would have included if history had been kinder. It will offer a locomotive with superior performance characteristics to what we have, to date, available which will prove welcome on the National Network.
Importance can be much argued over, particularly when objectives are misunderstood or dismissed.

 

It has to be said that the K4 didn't disgrace itself during its preservation main line career(s) - I for one am sorry to see the wee beastie disappear, but I respect Mr Cameron's decision. At least it's facing a better future than that which some formerly operational locomotives have had; for that we must be thankful.

 

Now you're talking.

 

I was mainly just putting the cat amongst the pigeons. I don't think there's an infinite funding pool, and I think the apparently infinite series of types the A1ST wants to bring back means insufficient funding for more important gaps (LNWR, Midland, GCR, Scottish, Welsh companies...). But of course personal preference is all.
But I have to pull you up on 2007. It will be a magnificent achievement, and one hopes a superb performer. But it will *not* be an LNER P2 with some extras. It will be an entirely different machine in all its essential design components - essentially an A1 on an extended 2-8-2 version of the V2 chassis as improved by Thompson et al, with a valve gear never used in the UK.
All very splendid, and I quite like it as a concept, as I'm never very bothered about authenticity, but don't be kidded: it's not a P2, or even a P2/X, it's a new design (P3?) made to look like 2001 in original form (in which form it was a disappointing performer and didn't last more than a year or so).
I shall go and see it, though. But let's not pretend it's "bringing back" anything missing.

 

You make the mistake of thinking that funding the V4 et al will mean insufficient funding for something from another stable.
Why not say the same of all other new builds? People support what they wish and if the V4 project had never been announced, it does not follow that potential backers would rush off and build something from the LNWR, MR etc. Such is the parochial nature of this hobby.

 

+1

 

Sorry but you are wrong on two counts. Firstly the P2 is 90% the original design and probably what it would have become if Gresley had gone on to develop it further. Under the skin it will have an A1 boiler for the purposes of standardisation, the eventual aim is to have three boilers, two on the locos and one under overhaul, common railway workshop practice. As the last in the series logically it should have an A4 front end but the decision was made so the public don't confuse it with Mallard or 60007 ( Tornado is often mistaken for FS) and the original engines looked so much better.
On funding you are also wrong, Tornado proved that the project brought in money from completely new sources and a lot of the larger donations came from those with only a passing interest in railways. A good example is an old work colleague of mine who was a spotter at York for a couple of years then lost interest but read about the A1 project in the national press and became a covenanter having had an old interest rekindled. Skilled professional fund raising has been key to the whole project and they have also built up a lot of contacts within industry for sponsorship.

 

I'd not put money into any project until the P2 came along, and now they have extracted mucho spondooliks from me - and before I retire, I'd like to put some cash aside for the V-series locos. Preferably via charitable donations from my company, thus keeping Hammond's filthy mitts off my hard-earned.

 

Spot on. I just wish they'd gone for the A4 front end.

 

I have done over the years both directly and indirectly but never such a large lump sum as I did to become a P2 founder. I didn't get involved with Tornado but when they announces the P2 I thought, yes this is the one they should have built in the first place.

 

Same as me , then. I remember being given a forthright answer by David Elliott when I said in all innocence "how about a W1 next, then?" but a P2 in the form being built was in all honesty, a dream come true. And you can see from my signature file where some of my money has gone... never mind the component purchases!

 

There's always the Doncaster P2, Tobbes...?

 

Errrr yes, they have a set of frames, should be finished within the next 100 years. Seriously, I don't think we need two P2s and where would anyone put their money, with the outfit who have done it successfully already or an unknown group in Doncaster? I suppose they do have the backing of Brian Blessed but I'm not sure that's a positive.

 

Whilst not wishing to denigrate the efforts of the Doncaster P2 team, it does look like it's entirely in the shadow of its Darlington rival and you summarised perfectly what the Darlington team said to us at the last Roadshow I attended: if they'd given it an A4 front end, it would have been mistaken for an A4 in the way Tornado gets mistaken for FS.

But for Tobbes... Enjoy