P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Has anything happened with the A4-nosed P2 since last year? I guess 2007 is taking a lot of the funding from those who want to see a P2 (P2/4?)

 

I can

I can. Men of a certain age with disposable income, until the ferryman catches up with them. Good luck to both of the P2 schemes. I do, however, feel fairly confident that "Prince of Wales" will be the first one to steam!

 

I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's minds that 2007 will steam first and will also definitely be completed. I'm also a founder member of 2007 (F103 - was just a little too late to get in on the first century!) and the appeal for funds and how successful it has been is staggering. So much so that the frames, running plate, all wheel sets, axle boxes, the smokebox door - all completed and in some cases waiting to be fitted to help the next stage. The rate of progress far outstrips that Tornado had and now with the full advantages of modern CAD work we can see a 3D P2 on the computer screen come to life in the metal so very quickly.

Steam Railway ran recently a table of new build schemes showing the development of a number of the schemes and when you realise that some projects have been going nearly ten years longer than 2007 with much less work completed it shows the excellence of the message and the confidence in which the P2 Trust are held. And rightly so.

 

Is there such a thing as the "P2 Trust"? Insofar as I can understand the website (and the 2014 accounts), donations for the P2 appear to be invited to what I assume is a restricted fund within the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust (a company limited by guarantee). There is a subsidiary company of the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust called the P2 Steam Locomotive Company Ltd but it is not clear if this is currently active.

 

I don't understand your logic there. 2007 is taking funds from those who want to see an original P2, and by the same token 2001 is taking funds from those who wish to see a 'P2/4'. It's a free choice.

The relative progress of the two projects reflects that choice and also to some extent the confidence of the donors in the likelihood of seeing the loco completed within their lifetime I suggest.

 

And is there anything wrong with using a tried and trusted method?

 

Sorry if this has already been asked but 42 pages is a lot to look through.

Do the two groups talk to each other? For example when ordering pasts/patterns many castings will be the same for the two locos. It seems pointless both starting from scratch and bulk orders should also be a a lower cost price.

I understand that two replicas of a class of origionally 6 when so many other LNER types were not preserved may seem OTT. But both locos will lock, and i imagine sound different

A personnal view, i feel replicas should take on the next number in sequence and not take the identity of a scapped loco in case future generations get confused. Thus i would number 2001 as 2008. But at the end of the day its only a number.

I look forward to the day when both locos are operating to see the gala that some railway arranges having the two in action together. What railway will be first to have a all replica Gala?

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. I suspect that there are many who would like to see a P2 and have gravitated to the project with more of a track record.

 

It's just a shortened form and an easily identifiable way of knowing which part of their operations we are addressing.

 

I understand they have previously talked to one another. However (and rightly so) when costs for potentially sharing information and toolings was discussed, communications broke down.

I apologise if this is not correct but that is how I understand the situation. May I add it's fair to expect recompense of some form for research and work undertaken at expense.

 

I draw your attention to the "Grand Parade" saga: LNER 2744 (BR 60090) was severely damaged in an a collision at Castle Cary (not the Somerset one!) in December 1937, and the "repaired" loco which emerged from the Plant was a new-build, bearing only small artefacts such as name/worksplates, whistle, cab fittings etc. It is rumoured that at some stage two "Grand Parades" were resident in the Plant within a few hundred yards of each other.

By this token, and I believe this was established LNER practice, LNER 2001 can re-create "Cock o' the North" simply by carrying a piece of the original. At least one nameplate decorates the NRM.

Slightly OT, the Germans are suffering identity crises with some Reko-52's which were re-assembled from several parts of original 52's.

Apologies for re-opening the "grandfather's axe" can-of-worms!

 

According to companycheck.co.uk:

The Doncaster group was incorporated in Sept 2010 - just over 5 years ago
The Darlington group was incorporated in May 2013 - about 2.5 years ago

Therefore the Doncaster group should really be much more organised and be much further down the road than the Darlington group. I suspect that frustration with lack of progress/management is also a factor in people moving to the Darlington project.

Looking at the Doncaster groups Facebook I sense some resentment that the A1 guys are so far ahead (or maybe that's just how I'm reading it), but to ask the A1 guys to give you all their data/drawings/patterns without due recompense is rather arrogant and somewhat naive.

Personally I don't think the Doncaster group will finish their loco (happy to be proved wrong though!), as they don't seem to have achieved anything since the frames were cut in April last year.

Just my 2p worth!


Keith

 

It's inevitable that the Doncaster group will run into trouble, much of the new 2007 will be interchangeable with Tornado including the boiler. This is a compromise as the original boiler was longer but there will be no external visual difference.
I'm not sure how the 2001 group is fund raising but again 2007 has a distinct advantage with a lot of contacts from the building of Tornado for sponsorship. Sorry to say it but my money is on 2001 never being completed as the available money will be sucked into 2007 as the project shows even more tangible progress.
Incidentally, neither Tornado or 2007 are replicas. It may have taken 60 and over 80 years respectively to do it but they are just the next locos in the series!

 

In the interests of balance, the 2001 Group do post from time to time updates on their own CAD work and other details and components which have been bought and have been prepared, but it must be firmly said that the progress of no.2007 far outstrips theirs. The Tornado effect is not just limited to the people who turn up to see the locomotive!

Covenators for no. 2007 is however only 22% commonality with Tornado's so there's a lot of new supporters to this build. I myself haven't signed up as a covenator yet as I am still paying off my founder membership. When that finishes I will start donating an amount each month.

It's an interesting debate to have regarding the builds. My personal preference for 2007 would have been for it to more closely match 2002 as built, not 2001, purely on the basis that the Walschaerts valve gear is proven and there is a very similar set available to measure up on Green Arrow. However I am more and more encouraged by the work done on 2007's new valve gear so my preference, whilst it remains, has less foundation.

 

For me, as an engineer, the challenge of sorting out the Lentz gear with the aid of modern design techniques and materials is all part of the attraction, and of course it allows the recreation of the original aesthetics too, which to my eye are much superior to those that followed.

 

I understand that Sheff and normally I would agree. My reasoning followed the "get it out there and working" ideal and having built one Walschaerts valve gear locomotive successfully it seemed to be logical to do the same again. However as you state, the work behind the new Lentz gear is extremely impressive and I have no doubt it will be much superior to the original 2001's.

In terms of aesthetics, I prefer 2002 as built.



But I don't think it can be denied that no.2001 as built was one of the most striking, handsome locomotives ever built by a British railway.

 

Definitely aesthetically handsome, regardless of valve gear. Whereas those with the A4-style front end are pig-dog ugly. YMMV...

Tom

 

Very true, and 2001 looked even better.

 

I'm surprised by this - I always preferred the A4 nose. Ah well, the joy of difference!

 

One man's meat is another man's poisson. I personally prefer 2002 to both 2001 as built and as they were all rebuilt, but admit a fondness for the oddball no.2005 with the single chimney. Still can't quite understand why when the advantages of the double chimney were so well known after work on the four A4s, 10000 and 2001/2002 poor Thane of Fife was so handicapped unlike her sisters.