V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

There's a big difference with taking an existing narrow firebox 2-8-0 and fitting a different narrow firebox boiler. What you are suggesting is taking a loco with frames designed for a wide firebox and putting a narrow firebox one on it. New frames, new boiler, a new set of coupled wheels, new coupling rods and various ancillaries. Presumably new individual valve gear. Is that a sensible scheme? I think not.

 

I just don’t understand the necessity for rebuilding a V4 into something else.

I took it to mean a Thompson thing because, well, that’s what he did when the V4s were around.

Honestly, a V4 will be a brilliant bit of kit.

That aside, the reason they were scrapped early is simple.

There were two of them, there were 409 B1s, over 70 K1s and the original K4s still existed in Scotland.

By 1957 they had two clapped out boilers and the view at the top was to run down the smallest least standard classes first.

Pretty much sums up the fate of most of the small classes.

 

That’s...a new engine...

 

I don't think any of us disagree with that. We were only speculating on whether anything else would have been possible. Not necessary but possible if someone wished.

A lot of us here may no longer be around by the time the new V4 is running, but if we are around we'll be very happy to see it.

 

Not one of my better 'Musings'.

 

Is it too late to make the V4 a V4.5 and give it 8 drivers?

*tongue firmly in cheek but also keen to see a mock up*

 

V = 2-6-2

 

It'd become an O-something from a V4...! O8 I guess is the next one free.

 

Musings are fine - my apologies if you felt picked on by me.

 

Or P-something, presumably? P3 - “Bantam Cock’o the North”.

Tom

 

That's clever and made me laugh!

 

O= 2-8-0, P= 2-8-2 - thought we were talking 2-8-0? My bad if I misread again!

 

I think we’ve moved on - putative 2-8-2 stretch cabriolet version of the V4...

Tom

 

Gentleman's sporting loco?

 

Going to have pretty small wheels !, opt for the next size boiler up ( V2) and its still a squeeze, lengthen the boiler a bit and you can probably get wheels a little over 5ft in... oh hang on you've just designed a P1/2

 

For the sake of argument only the rear extention frames need be replaced, and at a width to suit the B1 boiler... wheels are an existing pattern, coupling rods... so what, the rest of the engine and motion left as is. (at the expense of rousing Mr Martin) less work than making a P2 a pacific ? perhaps

Still dont think it could work as the wheels are too big unless very closely spaced meaning the ashpan would be a buggers muddle .. think i had shut up before Hermod chimes in and makes it a compound.

 

A Webb compound with Joy for low-pressure valve.
Very british indeed

 

Good show old sport...

 

Wordsell compound with joy valve gear...

 

Now you're talking!
Presumably as a 2-2-2-2-2 with three uncoupled driving axles, each driven from one cylinder.
Or you could have a 2-2-4-2 with one driving axle driven from the LP cylinder and the rear two coupled and driven from the HP cylinders, like the rotten thank loco Webb tried with this sort of arrangement. Or like the 2'4'' gauge tank locos sold to the Antofagasta Bolivia, as featured in Backtrack a few months ago.
Now *that* would be a new-build worth doing...
(Seriously, I'd settle for any LNWR passenger loco - a *much much* rarer breed than Gresley locos).