P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Probably related to pressure vessel directives and standards. Acceptable materials, radii, weld standrds etc etc. These standards do get semi-regular updates and so compliance is a rolling thing.

 

AFAIK the Bulleid boilers also featured welded U section foundation rings ?

 

It's not a hybrid design. It's an all-welded boiler with no rivets.

Meiningen has lost a lot of European customers because of poor workmanship. However if you have an all-welded boiler, you don't have many repair options. In France at the moment, there are no regulations covering copper fireboxes so they cannot be repaired or used. Even a repair in England wouldn't allow use in France.

 

The light pacifics yes, but the MNclass had a normal cast foundation ring that was rivetted certainly 35005 had, unless i am mistaken, I saw photos of the foundation ring being put back on, what I am unsure of is did all the MN's had this arrangement or just the first batch

 

The Light Pacifics did.

The Merchant Navies (with a slightly older boiler design) had a conventional foundation ring.

Tom

 

The U-channel foundation ring does seem to be one of those features that is unquestionably lighter but not necessarily more durable than a conventional riveted foundation ring. The lightness and lack of need for caulking are real, but it’s not like it saves lap seams in a hot zone like the fully welded inner box. With a conventional foundation ring there's no need to form a curved channel at the corners, with its associated potential for residual stresses, and no risk of cracks propagating through the riveted joint from either the inner or outer box.

I definitely remember seeing a light pacific boiler or two with the corners cut out for replacement at overhaul, Tornado seems to have had problems in a similar place, and yet the MN boilers don't seem to be in for replacement foundation rings. On a smaller scale, the Ffestiniog went for a riveted foundation ring in an otherwise all-welded boiler for James Spooner, having had previous experience of all-welded designs.

 

As Bulleid was at Doncaster alongside Nigel Gresley Was the MN boiler based on any of Gresley's designs, or a completely new design, what i find interesting is that it was a mixture of welding, and rivetted construction, and designed to use a steel box from the outset, whereas the original P2 had conventual construction, size wise is the MN boiler smaller than the original P2 type? It's a bit of a what if, but was Bulleid involved in the design of the P2, and would he have designed it differently, I know this is going a bit off subject, but if the P2 had been designed to use a steel inner and outer boiler, from the outset, how would it have differed?

 

Can anyone explain what was wrong with Tornado's original welded firebox/boiler which ran @ 12 years, seemingly without a problem ?

 

I don't think it ran without problems. From memory, it suffered stay problems almost from the word go. Didn't it end up going back to Germany at least once?

 

I can't imagine that Gresley would have used a Belpaire type of boiler, after all, Gresley (Thompson) practically rid Stratford of Belpaires.

 

I'm no expert in boiler matters but Bulleid as I understand it was taken by the American idea of Nicholson Thermic Syphons. These couldn't be fitted to a copper firebox as the ability to weld copper didn't exist back then, hence the use of a steel firebox. Now the use of steel 'boxes was very limited in this country but the major locomotive exporters had been building them for years for overseas use. It was for this reason that the first batch of 10 MN boilers were built for the Southern by North British.

I'm interested that many on here seem to be calling for the use of a traditional copper box for the P2. On a different thread I suspect that these are the same people calling for oil firing on the main line as a solution to periods of high fire risk. Surely if you want to go down the oil burning route then you would want a steel firebox for the simple reason that steel copes much better with the additional firebox stresses than copper does. Discuss

Peter

 

There are pictures, posted on here, on the Tornado thread that show tornado's boiler as built and after each modification, 3 in all, and Yes, Steve is 100 per cent right, first picture shows a few flexible headed stays, but after each workshop visit, the boiler acquired more flexible stays, the boiler, as far as I can remember was not 100 per cent reliable out of the gate on day one, I am not knocking David Elliott, but anyone can make mistakes, or be convinced they are right, even the best designers have produced the odd flawed design, IF I remember correctly the German manufacturer, questioned some of the dimensions, and made suggestions mostly about the size of the water space between the inner, and outer boxes and the need for additional flexible staying, The design for the boiler was based on the original LNER118 boiler, as fitted to the original A1, i don't know the extent of the computer modelling, done, or how accurate the program was, but clearly the testing did not quite get the type of staying required, or the spacing quite right, but the end result does look remarkably like it copied the original staying pattern, and clearly experience shows that as a welded steel box expands , and contracts differently, whatever the final design was, clearly it had not allowed for this, Again, I will state, I am not knocking anyone involved in the building of Tornado, Building a new, redesigned A1 loco from scratch using some design elements that was not possible when Peppercorn built the original locos, I have every respect for what's been achieved, but,, Much was placed on CAD design, and proving, but as with any programme errors can creep in. Some time, we can think of computers as infallible they are not.

 

Anything but. Please refer back upthread, where I posted pics of the boiler over the years as it was repaired and modified on several occasions. Ever increasing numbers of stays have been replaced by flexibles, and the foundation ring corners have suffered cracking and been replaced at least once, maybe twice if changed at the last overhaul too.

 

I've just done some checking, and It seems that the original P2 had an A3 boiler, I genuinely thought it might have been a one off, special design, and the two that were built were rebuilt as A2/2 have I got that right?

 

I’ve been off in the wilds for a few day and am just catching up with posts and PMs on here.

I’m hearing that there’s been a major falling out between Messrs Davies & Smith, and the latter has threatened to pull out of operating Tornado.

On her recent move south to the NVR, the Trust’s support coach was left north of the border with wheel flats and WCRC leant the Trust a replacement for the trip.

I now hear that a WCRC diesel has been sent to bring said coach back to Carnforth.

I’ll update if/when I have more news ……

 

Doesn’t sound right to me. AFAIK P2 2001 had a 50 sq ft grade plus feed preheaters etc.
Are you getting mixed up with the P1s?

 

That if true, possibly comes at the worse possible time,

 

Just re checked and it seems you can't trust even google to have correct information,

 

The P2 did not have an A3 boiler. The grate area was larger by about 8 square feet.

Sent from my SM-A356B using Tapatalk

 

check on what google says, please , thats where i got my information from, they have got it wrong then,