How about a V4?

Were there ever any production Thompson a1's or were thay all cut and shut's ?
It would have to be a private funded thing as the design was aesthetically bad (and thats not good) and apart from having less middle engine trouble brought nothing to the party (other that showing Pep what not to do) as a result theres as much chance of getting popular funding for this as there is to streamline a castle

 

If the A1 group had spent their time wondering how to make life easier in their new-build, they'd still be arguing the toss! To all intents and purposes, they started with a blank sheet of paper, and look where it got them! They certainly didn't have components available, and toolings etc.

A V4 is no harder to build than a Baby Scot, a Claud Hamilton, a Railmotor bogie...if we only chose locos for newbuild projects on the grounds of pragmatism over emotion, the 82045 group would now be nationwide with several ongoing constructions and someone, somewhere would have a set of brand new 2-cylinder Stanier 2-6-4T frames!

 

Forgive me Jamie, I merely meant that if you were to build a new locomotive now, it would be logical with the toolings available and locomotives preserved to build one similar mechanically, but outwardly different to the first. That's pretty much the P2 in a nutshell.

No arguments from me there. There would be some benefit to building a V4 (other than a useful engine) - as I understand it, both the driving wheels (but not the rear spacing) and the front portion of the frames are identical to the Gresley V1/V3 tank engines.

Of course, it is the shared commonality of parts and design ethos that has allowed so many GW classes to be recreated in various forms. We have a steam railmotor, a Saint well on its way, a Grange, a County and various other classes. The GW afficionados have the right idea, some might say, if you want to recreate a lost class from spare parts. This way you are offering something different and new in the same package.

 

I'm not sure that logic has been involved in many heritage schemes, otherwise we would have anything bigger than a class 5 on heritage lines. Preservationsist often work along the lines of "because we can" or "we fancy doing that."

 

No problem, wasn't trying to have a go. I think that batch building of 3mts, Stanier 2-6-4Ts would be a fantastic asset to the movement, and I do see your point regarding the P2. Just pointing out that the movement, and newbuilds in particular, are a triumph of emotion over pragmatism!

Have they now? Maybe, in years to come, this might present a worthwhile avenue to providing a solid basis to Eastern Region preserved line's running fleets (on top of the 'unique' newbuilds).

 

It's all in the balance.

 

The only Thompson new-builds, apart from the B1s and L1 tanks, were A2/3s, Nos. 60500 "Edward Thompson" (the vain b*st*rd), and 60511 to 60524. The remainder of the A2/3 batch, 60525 to 60539 were "normalised" by Peppercorn, to become A2s (the original ex-NE Raven A2s having been withdrawn), although the first of these also took the designer's name, whereas 4498 "Sir Nigel Gresley" was actually Gresley's 100th pacific, and the name was suggested by the LCGB.

There was a plan to de-rebuild the A1/1, 60113 "Great Northern", in the 1950's, converting it to an A3 (as it would have been by then, although it was an A1 at the time of Thompson's conversion, all the other A1s later becoming A3s), but this was abandoned, presumably because of impending dieselisation.

 

I do find it ironic that someone with the username Sir Nigel Gresley would still perpetrate this sort of attitude towards Edward Thompson, but there's no evidence that Thompson - who never courted publicity, unlike Gresley - actually made it thus that the 2000th locomotive out of Doncaster would be named after him.

Peter Grafton's book on Edward Thompson, moreover, makes the case that the precedent had been set in any event by the company's directors in any event . I wonder what you think of A.H. Peppercorn, whose first Pacific was named after him...!

60500 was the first all new Pacific design for eight years, and to be fair to Thompson, he had taken the company through the war years as best he could in extremely trying circumstances. I still don't understand why the animosity to the man, who like any other, had flaws, is perpetuated, when the evidence is there if you care look for it that proves the "facts" about Edward Thompson wrong.

This "plan" to rebuild 60113 into an A3 (as you state, it had never been an A3 previously - it had been one of the last of the A10/A1s when selected for "rebuilding" - therefore you can't "de-rebuild" something into a form it never was) is only ever mentioned by a few sources and does not seem to have ever been a serious proposal in any way.

 

Fair point!

No argument from me there Jamie, although the logical train of thought in the building of a locomotive which would work out of the box, first time - Tornado - with its assets and experience going towards a locomotive which could go either way - a P2 - is a rather intriguing thought. Certainly from those I've spoken to in the trust when I've seen them, although it was very much "to build a new Peppercorn A1", it seems the P2 idea was never far from their thoughts. And why not, the P2s were stunning machines, aesthetically, and the records that there are of their runs still astonish.

I'd pay for a V3, most certainly - and if one can be done in conjunction with the building of a V4, the better they will do overall with shared toolings.

But I fear I'd need a euromillions win, unlikely at this point in time, for any of the "new builds" I'd love to see. 60506 for a start...I'm asking for trouble there!

 

Apart from another a1 or the P2, what else could be built using the existing tooling from either tornado or any known patterns that are known to exist?

 

The next in the W1 class maybe? Now that would be a fine sight.....
P1 possibly?

 

You'd better check that out. The drawing for the driving wheels for a V4 is different number to that for the V1/V3. I checked at the NRM today.

 

Fair enough - I did say "as I understand it", mind. Perhaps they are the same size but not necessarily the same pattern?

 

There are the same size 5' 8".

 

Thanks for that. How different can they be - different number of spokes/different wheel balancing?

It's quite a fascinating exercise this - "what can we build in theory, out of what we have already"!

 

Senior Aircraftman Martin: If you read my post carefully, I quite categorically imply that it was never an A3, to which it could be "de-rebuilt", but that at the time of the "plan", all of the A1s/A10s, had been rebuilt to A3 standard. I also implied veiled criticism of Peppercorn in that his first pacific was named after himself. Please re-read my post.