P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

I think it is part of the ACFI feed water heater, specifically the pumps.

Tom

 

Could I respectfully ask what is item 30 on the running plate, is it a dual acting feedpump? It is connected to item 31 which looks like a filter.[/QUOTE]

It's the ACFI feedwater heater. I believe on No. 2007 the air pump is being disguised to look like the ACFI heater externally.

Sorry Tom, you beat me to it - And edited the quote better!

Richard.

 

More news on the P2 front...
https://www.p2steam.com/2021/04/?cat=3

Richard.

 

I’m pretty certain the two air pumps will sit between the frames as per Tornado.

Iirc It’s the steam turbo alternator(s) that were proposed to be mounted on the fireman’s side running plate, in place of the feed heater pump.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thank You Steve, that would make sense, I'd forgotten the P2 is having 2 air pumps - It would be hard to disguise both of them as an ACFI heater.

Richard.

 

Us spotters at Wood Green and Hornsea had no problem with the looks and proportions of the A2/2 locos, you may not like the looks of these locos, but appearance aside they served 35A and 50A well until after the advent of the diesels, and what magnificent names they sported. Although I will admit that the smoke deflectors on the A2/3 class are not the most elegant.
According to P. N. Townend the block cement train from Cliffe to Uddingston booked for 9F haulage, but could not keep to the timings, the only loco to master the job was an A2/3, not bad for a repudedly poor class of locos.
Incidently after discovering the midland region I found the Crab 2-6-0's highly attractive in appearance, both normal and Reidinger versions.
At the moment there is a lot of support for a new build GWR County class 4-4-0, as a personal choice
I find these locos misproportioned, but clearly others like them and I hope to see this loco in steam in the future.
Beauty, eye of the beholder, etc.

 

An update on the tender...
https://www.p2steam.com/2021/04/?cat=3

Richard.

 

Thank you for explaining what the apparatus on the O/S running plate was Tom, as I'd always felt a bit ignorant to ask myself Ironically, given what Sheff says in #2624, I'd always thought it was probably some kind of turbo-generator, so fancy that!

 

More interesting progress on 2007:
https://www.p2steam.com/2021/05/?cat=3

Richard.

 

More news!
https://www.p2steam.com/2021/06/?cat=3

Richard.

 

Again the Trust demonstrates its progressive consider /research /develop approach to solving potential problems - Although the G.S.N. chaps use of undergraduate researchers for pretty much the same problem makes theirs more laudable imho

 

It's all come an awfully long way from sticking thumbs in plasticine (assuming one well known tale to be more than apocryphal!).

Some mysteries will doubtless remain, such as why the Maunsell moguls here needed smoke deflectors, whilst the all but identical 5'-3" gauge edition worked successfully, for the best part of four decades over in Ireland without such embellishment.

Incidentally, the only Irish locos ever to sport deflectors were a solitary GSR Class 400 4-6-0, comprehensively rebuilt in slightly different form to it's classmates (cost dictating an official rethink), which thus fitted presented a decidedly 'English Southern Rly' aspect and the GNRI Class VS 4-4-0, the non-compound version of that line's V Class (as represented by preserved No.85 Merlin, which never needed them). Images of both GNRI classes below. Judge for yourself how similar they were:

Class VS

[Image courtesy stephensonloco.org.uk]

Class V

[Image courtesy train.spottingworld.com]

 

Another interesting update from Darlington:
https://www.p2steam.com/2021/06/?cat=3

Richard.

 

A superb application of modern technology to validate design work ahead of manufacture. One lovely aspect of this project is the way A1SLT quietly radiates reassuring competence, even to the extent that it's often easy to forget just how monumental is the task they've set themselves.

 

Couldn't agree more. Their track record with the A1 was the main reason I signed up to be a covenantor for the P2. It almost feels like the loco is in touching distance now. What a spectacle it will be!

 

The A1 steam trust could say they’d be taking 60163 to the moon, my only question to them would be ‘via what route?’

It’s bloody exciting isn’t it?!

 

When the P2 was first announced, it seemed so unlikely a candidate for a new build that I had to pinch myself to check I wasn't dreaming. It's all come a very long way in such a comparatively short time that I still occasionally feel the need to pinch myself again!

 

I'm a very 'bottom-line' person; does the stuff actually reliably work in service?

'Image' does little for me (although I concede it may help bring funding in).

The A1 has been pretty good so far (although the lubrication-induced failure on the 'Ebor Flyer' was a bit concerning). We'll have to wait and see on the P2. I've got my fingers crossed, metaphorically.

Noel

 

There's only one way to find out if it works "in service", but that is what all this research is for- to maximise that possibility- it's a lot more than just "image" going on here- this is the business end, and in some way, the fascination of the design- that it was never fully realised, principally because it was ahead of its time, metallurgically speaking, so I fully understand the desire to get it right, and the rationale behind all this r&d work. Even though the concept is 1934, this is still cutting edge work, here. And there is an awful lot of potential oeuf sur la visage that no self-respecting engineer would want to be left with. All credit to the team- I think it's brilliant, what they are undertaking.

 

Sorry, I can't recall, so far as 60163s lubrication problem went, were components involved of (digitalised) original design, or something on the 'substantially reworked' list? Or was it down to a manufacturing issue, operational or inspection procedures? Given 60163 is back on the mainline, methinks it's safe to assume the problem has been sorted.

Of course, any failure by any steam loco (or indeed any other motive power) out on the big railway is concerning, be it safety critical or "merely" a pain in the proverbial for snarling up running schedules. On those mercifully comparatively rare occasions something untoward occurs, I think we're all on tenterhooks, hoping beyond hope that whatever caused any given problem with a steam loco wouldn't be that last straw which broke the camel's back, so far as mainline running goes.

What with contemporary attitudes to mechanical woes having hardened big time, since steam days, no-one now would have much time for Bulleid's "an item which never fails is probably over-engineered", which I've always suspected was tongue in cheek anyway (and try telling that to NASA). For better or worse, that's just the world we're living in.