P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

You're quite correct. Brain fade on my part - as if the eccentric wasn't clue enough....

 

Why the machined recess in the back of the wheel in that photo? I dont understand what else it would be for if not to be filled with weld...

Looks like nyloc's to me also. I dont really see an appreciable difference between riveting and bolting here. Alignment is the primary concern, not sealing.

 

The P2 Facebook page is worth having a glance at. They are setting about the production of the boiler cladding. Building it up around a jig for storing away until needed. Check it out. Parts to sponsor. Some very reasonable indeed.

 

Full details of the 'skeleton' are on the P2 website here.


Foxy

 

Wow! The P1 trust don't mess about do they?!

 

P1... That's another one I'd definitely like to see built! 2393 looked superb without the booster.

Richard.

 

Would this follow on from the V4 and the V3?

 

What the photo illustrates is the complex nature of the oval boiler cladding profile - no two crinolines are the same shape.

Foxy

 

I did mean P2, fat fingers and not proof reading what I'd wrote!

 

Another big-hitter has joined the party! Cleveland Bridge, who have, erm, a *little* bit of experience of steel fabrication, are to sponsor the tender tank construction for No. 2007. They are also providing apprentices for Darlington Locomotive Works! You can read the whole story here.


Foxy

 

Has the Water/ Coal ratio of Tornado's tender (8T / 6,000 + Gallons) been judged to be about right ? or would you be looking forward with more coal capacity/ water 'from the train'... ?

 

From all reports the balance is about right.... I gather Tornado only ran out of coal once and that was at the end of a run! Water consumption has been much better than other Class 8 locomotives (which could expect to use about 35 gallons per mile), Tornado is regularly recording sub 30 gallon returns - this may have a lot to do with the efficiency of the superheater and the very high degree of superheat being achieved (as measured by the recently fitted pyrometer) which justifies the decision to use this type in No. 2007 rather than the Robinson type fitted to the original class. However, the provision of a dedicated Mk3 train does leave the option open for some extra water capacity to be built in.

Foxy

 

Great news. This imaginative type of symbiotic relationship, especially the apprentice experience on 2007, is precisely the kind of scheme needed to keep steam traction not only alive, but relevant to today's engineering industry and tomorrow's engineers.

 

Well said! Totally agree, this is great news for the P2, and a fantastic opportunity for the young engineers.

 

The P1 was best looking LNER locomotive according to mr Bulleid.
With three inches smaller and five instead of four sets of driving wheels,and three cylinders it will be magnificent and hard to beat.
Smother riding than 9F and nicer looking

 

P1 has same wheel arrangement as the P2. The LNER used letters to identify locos by wheel arrangement, eg all 'A' classes were 4-6-2, 'B' 4-6-0 etc.

 

David Elliot at one of the P2 Roadshows drew attention to some video of 60163 when it was working over the S & C. Attention was drawn to the exhaust, it was displayed wonderfully in the cool air, but for a few feet about the chimney nothing was visible. Water vapour is visible but steam is another matter.
He went on to point out that the way that the small tubes are fitted at the firebox end results in a slightly more restricted gas flow area through these tubes with the result that the gas flow through the flue tubes is increased. The end result is a higher level of superheat.
Malesco or Robinson? The first is bolted to the superheater header the second is expanded into it. The superheater surface area is to all intents and purposes identical. Unless you feel the need to design it to be different. But there again a modest adjustment to the gas flow through the tubes can deliver some interesting results.

 

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I doubt it would ride better than a 9F. In my experience, few men were fond of the 9s, but all agreed it rode like a coach. This possibly explains the reported 90+ mph exploits: the driver was probably unaware that he'd reached that speed.

 

Ah, yes. But a famous Eastern driver who had experience of both types considered the P1 to be a far superior machine - and it was never fitted with the long travel gear.

 

Better he never tried to do 90mph with a P1