P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Here’s a summary of news I’ve heard recently…..

All monies from donations and Covenanters are being used to complete track work at Darlington site as this is part of tenancy agreement with a completion date to be met.

The second boiler may never land in UK as it’s distorted and despite being heat treated they haven't been able to straighten it.

Third boiler, they have found a UK boiler company that will take on this boiler but only after major concerns are rectified. Foundation ring one serious concern. UK company is willing to work to sort smaller issues.

Don't expect any work to be done on P2 anytime soon or for a boiler to appear at Darlington.

I’ll post more on the Tornado thread shortly ….

 

Vorsprung durch Technik?

 

I feel pretty sick to read this. None of this has been shared with covenantors. So, either Sheff has been fed incorrect information, or the Trust has been repeatedly telling us that the boiler will be arriving in a few months when they know that is not true. I am reluctant to kick someone when they're down, but I stopped my P2 donations some time ago due to lack of confidence in progress. It looks like I was right to do so. Will they have the funds to pay a UK company to salvage the boiler? Maybe "salvage" is the wrong word, but you know what I mean.

 

I have every confidence in @Sheff being correct.

 

Sadly I fear my sources are correct, it certainly goes a long way to explaining the continuing trend of the P2 boiler failing to show up on every promised occasion to date doesn’t it?
Let’s just hope this isn’t the case, of course the Trust are always welcome to put the record straight if not.

 

Going on past behaviour, I would not be holding my breath, it's not a good look is it,
no work being done on, the P2, or likelihood of it starting, if funds have to be diverted elsewhere,
A boiler that if its distorted, clearly is just so much scrap metal, but how did this come about, when the trust claimed it was being inspected at every stage,
There I would think, must be serious questions about the P2 , and the ability of funding,
then how would this impact on the A1, if funds are needed, but not forthcoming, thats the only asset the trust has,
The committee can ask supporters for more money; will they thought be forthcoming? what's the options, abandon the P2, never to be finished, join forces with a major benefactor, i.e. , LSL, or West coast, who will have the backing and the money to complete the P2, or sell the only asset they have, I suspect that any deal, would see the A1 trust being absorbed into another trust, and control of the A1 passing to that other trust,

 

It would be a crying shame at least if the P2 failed after all the finance, effort and time that has been enthusiastically given to the project so far.
It would be good if there was a careful and open response to these concerns from the Trust sometime this year.

 

Well you could attend the annual convention, I no longer attend myself.

 

How much distortion ?
Can the distorted boiler be placed that further aft witout much ado?

 

I somehow don't think its ever going to be a question of "near enough". Nor should it ever be. Also there is no mention of what plane that distortion is in, be it longitudinal, or twisted.

 

Sounds like the 3801 saga.

 

Who knows? And those that do aren’t likely to be coming clean any time soon.

Bear in mind it’s not that long since the original boiler came back distorted after is ‘refurb’.

 

To put things in context, this was the update on the P2 boiler in TCC75 received 2 weeks ago.

"A lot of work on certification and
approval has been undertaken between
DB Meiningen and TUV Thuringen. Whilst
discussions have been ongoing it has not
been possible to provide a public update,
because it is not easy to provide clarity.
A number of regulation changes have
occurred since Tornado's boiler was built,
and also guidance on interpretation of
standards. For a period of time only four
items remained outstanding and we are
now pleased to say that a way forward
has been agreed on all of them.
The issues around the manufacturing
of the regulator and specification
for the foundation ring corners has
been resolved positively. Methods of
installation and materials used have
been agreed and no major work will be
needed in these areas.
Regulation changes have affected the
manufacture of the Banjo Dome, and the
fire hole door. This despite DB Meiningen
having made hundreds of fire hole doors
to the same specification! For both items
it has been agreed that laboratory testing
of equivalent samples will provide the
data needed to enable approval to be
given and it is not anticipated that there
will be an issue.
Whilst this will take a little time the
team have now finalised plans to visit
Meiningen to witness the hydraulic test.
Accommodation bogies for the boiler,
kindly donated by Hitachi Rail, will arrive
in Darlington shortly".

 

Thanks for that. I’ve only just got back from holiday, so that may be waiting in my inbox unread.
I’ll seek it out ……

It doesn’t exactly sit well with their previous announcements that delivery of the boiler to Darlington works is expected in (insert any date stated in previous newsletters - April being the latest version).

 

Thanks for you faith, but as they say ..
Past Performance is no Guarantee of Future Results.

Edit : after re-reading the TTC article above, I’m left wondering which boiler they are referring to - the long overdue second one or the kit of parts that’s the third one? The mention of foundation ring corners tallies with what I’ve heard about the third one.

 

Moving back to the 3rd boiler, if this is just a collection of platework, what's stopping its being assembled as a traditional rivetted construction? and changing the inner firebox to a copper inner? or better still, scrapping the entire plan, and instead have a new boiler constructed, here in the UK, to the original LNER design, modified to fit the current loading gauge that would do away with concerns about the foundation ring, because its a separate plate construction, riveted , and not U formed plate, That to me makes better sense now, than continuing the farce that is happening at the moment, but of course, it will mean admitting we have screwed up, which those in high places probably won't.

 

What do you think was wrong with the late David Elliott's original design ? It ran successfully, trouble free for many years didn't it ? As you have previously stated you have boiler experience. So what is your "professional" opinion on the original design ?

 

I wonder if anyone on this site knows what the "regulation changes" are? Presumably these are related to pressure vessels in general rather than railway locomotive boilers in particular and this stems from the fact that these boilers are being constructed to a hybrid design rather than the Doncaster original.

 

There were always anomalies in the boiler design/construction as even pre Brexit British design standards were 'Different' to European standards, as I understand it on the first boiler it was found to be more cost effective to pay British welders to carry out the welding than to re train German welders to the required standard, probably due to the one off nature of the job, the matter of the length of the stays has been done to death and I understand that the CE certification had to be carried out by the A1 trust. I know from My limited boilermaking experience that the paperwork for a new boiler is so complex that 'Re Building' although more labour intensive is the 'Preferred' option.

 

Thats why i in my post, asked about the posibility of reverting to riveted construction, than welded, Could bulleid practice, like on the MN boilers, a normal foundation ring, riveted to the inner, and outer welded box be used instead of an integrated foundation ring, with the firebox rivetted to the barrel ? whats the requirement for pre heating like compared to welding, if rivetting is used, can a boiler smith answer ?