New Build P2

Chums,
forgive me if this has already been done to death, but I'm sure I heard rumblings that the A1 mob might be looking to build a P2 at some point. A wonderful proposition, but I wondered if anybody knew anything more regarding this.
By the way, they're also clamouring for a P2 on the Hornby forum, but that's by the by.
Ho hum,

Ralph

 

Heard this a while ago, immediately after tornado was launched, however i think they we hitting an obstacle regarding a flangeless driving wheel or something similair.

If they went for it, they are guaranteed another £10 a month to do it.

 

It's discussed a bit on this thread http://railways.national-preservati...-New-built-replicas.?highlight=build+replicas

 

Their chief engineer - in person - told me they are up for it whilst Tornado was at MOSI - that good enough?

 

How could it be viable? It would be too large for preserved lines...

 

They were cleared to negotiate curves of a minimum radius of 7 chains, or 462 ft/141m. though originally they were cleared for 6 chains. The design would need a degree of modification in order to be acceptable today and that in turn might bring this figure down to the originally proposed (hoped for?) 5 chains/330 ft. They are big engines, no escaping that, but the seventh in the series would be a facinating prospect. With close on 80 tons of adhesion and boiler, cylinder and front end design to make use of it, other designs could well be left with no where to hide in the hill climbing stakes.

 

.... and whilst under-utilised during their original service life in Scotland, modern day charters regularly exceed 500 tons over a 200 mile journey. This sort of challenge would show what this design of engine was really capable of.

 

It would be great if they built it as a replica of 2001 or as an extension to the class but in the style of how 2001 vwas built. That was the best styling of the P2s in my opinion.

 

I think their is a big difference in being up for it, and being ready to do it.

The current economic climate probably stops construction being thought about at the moment, and will undoubtably help tornado clear a large portion of its debt.

I guess what the A1 trust would not want is for Tornado covenantors to jump ship to the P2 project, and thus hinder tornado's future.

Got to agree would be fantastic to see, but what would a guess at the cost be, tornado cost £3m, over a 19 year period, with todays costs etc.., a figure nearer £7m would probably be needed. Thats an awful amount of covenantors required. Where do you build it, remember torando will be back at darlington at some stage for its first overhaul, although expected to be only light, their is only room for 1 loco.

 

60163, 6233, 6024 etc......... basically just about every class 7 or 8 is too large for Preserved Railways, doesn't stop them visiting though, i can see where your coming from in that the sums have to add up, but i'd suspect 80% of it's work would be on the big railway anyway.

 

With an updated Caprotti gear ( a la 71000 ) to give constantly variable changes to cut-off in place of the original Lentz design which had only 6 fixed cut-off steps, double Kylchap exhaust, 43000+ lbs of tractive effort...... Some engine......

 

And as Bulleid had something to do with the P2, I'd support if I can afford it. If it were up to me, I'd probably name it "Bell the Cat" after Archibald Douglas, 5th Earl of Angus (1449-1513), who dealt with the ineffectual James III of Scotland by ordering the hanging of several of his court 'favourites', thereby loosening his grip on power. James III was noted for being an unjust leader.

 

I suspect this is where you'd have difficulties - to benefit from grandfather rights the way Tornado has, the ORR/VAB etc will likely want any new loco built as closely as possible to original drawings, especially when it comes to the chassis and motion.

Chris

 

Our group had a talk from the A1 Trusts David Elliott a few months ago.
He stated then that they would be looking at the P2 as the next project.
But only if the outcome of a feasability study was favorable.
A lot of the data generated from the A1 trials can be used as part of the computer design process and also to assist the feasability study.
We will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

Why would utilising Caprotti Valve Gear affect her operation on the mainline ? Surely if it is felt to help improve performance / reliability then there should be no concerns. The VAB just want to ensure that a loco that is not fit for purpose is not allowed onto the mainline.

 

It doesn't work like that, though. I know that there were concerns about the minor mods made to the S15 in getting it accepted for Esk Valley line running and these mods only involved the fitting of a rocking grate. True, the VAB want to ensure that the loco is fit for purpose but the more you mod, the less Grandfather rights you have. When you modify, you have to go through much smaller and many more hoops and build bigger mountains of paperwork in the process.
Having said that, I suspect that a P2 would have minimal Grandfather rights after this length of time.

 

Cock o' the North had Caprotti gear of course, and had at least two variations of it. I would imagine you could cherry pick? And there would be some modifications anyway, Tornado is full of them to meet modern requirements.

 

2001 had Lentz gear not Caprotti. The LNER did quite a bit of development and testing work on Caprotti gear prior to WW2 using modified B3s (ex GC 9P "Lord Faringdon" 4-6-0) with encouraging results. The company did use the gear so it shouldn't create too much of an issue if it were to be used on a new build P2. However I would like to see the results of leakage tests on Caprotti gear c/w results of best practice on piston valves before making a decision. Then there is also the matter of clearance volumes to say nothing of mechanical robustness.

 

One fears that although an existing design, as a new build the Vab hoops are still going to be their even if Cock of the North were rebuilt exactly to the last bolt, but the Tornado team have been there before so if any one can navigate that minefield...
On the plus point a lot of the negatives regarding the P2 ( the draughting, and motion) we're worked out by Doncaster in their later designs and i am sure the engineer will be able to draw on this. If what we end up with is what Peppercorn and then Cook MIGHT have done to the P2'S (stronger crank axles/webs/ middle big ends, optical alignment roller bearings etc?) we have a 1930's design evolved to 1950's best practice - nothing wrong with that
Of major concern is perhaps how to defeat the stresses caused by the wheel base -do you engineer to greater precision and rigidty, or somehow build in more side play, or both, Mr Elliott didnt seemed phased by this problem... I like the idea of the Poppet valve gear, the Duke has shown us that it can be done and works well with a double Kylchap, and the strong blast should enable the original bulleid style front end which is my personal preference, to be used, indeed the only thing i dont like about the idea is the name.
I think Torram Beg would be a good one, in tribute to a railwayman (who ironically didnt like the P2's) but 'wee norman' is quite fitting for such a beast.
The other thing i dont like is that you could restore a Merchant Navy to 1950's condition for perhaps slighly less money.

 

'Wee Norman" ?? You're not serious? What could be more fitting than Cock O' the North - for that is surely what it would become