P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Google won't say anything directly, unless you're looking at its AI summary which still has a patchy record. Apart from that, Google just shows you other sources of information, with no garauntee of reliability. E.g. If I search that question now your post proclaiming this fact might pop up on the search results!

Sent from my PGT-N19 using Tapatalk

 

Correct.
The P2s were fitted with a Diagram 106 or 108 boiler with a grate area of 50 sq ft.
The A3s were fitted with a Diagram 94 boiler with a grate area of 41.25 sq ft.

 

Thanks, it just goes to show you, you can't trust some sources of information, but I'm glad someone has come up with the definitive answer,
Sorry for the wild goose chase,

 

RCTS Green Bibles.

 

With the best will in the world Martin, Google will only repeat what it's found and if that's erroneous, it will perpetuate it. Some years ago a friend of mine wrote a book and he sent me a chapter in which I had a particular interest to proof-read.

It was absolute cobblers, because he'd used Google to research the subject. However, some time ago I'd gone back to primary sources for my research and learned that the truth was very far from what was written in the English-speaking world. As a result, I re-wrote the chapter for him after presenting him with my research notes. Slowly, it is now being accepted as the truth but myths are very hard to kill.

 

Reading Bulleid's paper to the IMechE, the decision was basically made because he wanted to use a pressure of 280psi and copper was not considered to be up to the job.

What Bulleid said in his paper to the IMechE in response to a query in the discussion as to why he did not use Flannery flexible stays:
"There was no reluctance with regard to the fitting of flexible stays; the matter was thoroughly discussed, but owing to difficulties in design in accommodating this type of stay, they had not been fitted. In this connection, the area which should be fitted with flexible stays had not yet been clearly defined. It must be readily apparent to anyone studying fireboxes that where flexible stays were used, the number fitted had gradually grown. Starting with one row at the top of the firebox sides, fireboxes were now designed which were now almost completely fitted with flexible stays at the sides. This led one to conclude that the area of the plate relieved by fitting flexible stays tended to throw whatever stress it obviously carried on to the adjacent row fitted with rigid stays."

( large dollops of deja vu here, the same issues crop up on Bulleid Pacifics every 12 months or so on this forum).

 

Thanks for that. I haven't been a close follower of the years of Tornado's original history on the main line as I didn't contribute to its build. So then, were the problems and solutions to them, incorporated into the later boiler(s) ?

 

In case you are interested.

 

Yes allegedly. The plan was supposed to incorporate the wider water space that the Trust rejected for the original and lessons learned on the flexible staying pattern, but as we’ve yet to see one here in Blighty, we can’t say for sure.

 

Possibly dont want to admit that the Grate area will be smaller and then have to rewrite all the bumf.
One day i hope to see a P2 in action because to my mind all this Britains most powerfullest stuff isnt true until its demonstrated...

 

Meanwhile, back in May 2022 , this was the boiler No.2, the first of the pair of new boilers, this one was originally intended for Tornado as part of her overhaul, before they decided to refurbish the original to ‘save time’. The boiler is said the be due for delivery in Autumn/Winter of that year, 2022. (Just checking my calendar ……)

 

This is exactly what i was looking for above.

If you are going to weld up a firebox, and you are starting from an un-restrained plate, it must be fixed down securely before you start welding it, because it will move once the heat starts going in. Further, once its fully welded out, a post weld heat treat would be a wise idea to remove all the residual stresses that will have built up during welding. In theory, when the box is removed from the fixture, it should come out dimensionally to drawing, if all the stresses have been removed correctly.

How would this be done on a big box? 1. put it in a huge oven and bake it. or 2. wrap it up in heat jackets and bake it.

Once done, the welded stays and welded foundation rings wont have both the stresses of the service condition AND the residual stresses from welding present.

Note the total lack of fixturing *rollseyes*

 

I also had noticed the lack of any framework, especially to keep the area that would form the foundation ring from warping as plates are welded, What I am unsure of is this just a difference between UK, and continental practice, or bad practice in the factory?

In German locomotive design, are the fireboxes sufficiently above the frames enough to make limited distortion not so much of a problem, if it does not impact with frames or running clearances ?

 

And what firms do you have in mind Martin?

Peter

EDIT I was replying to post #3933 not the one quoted above. Don't know why the wrong quote appeared.

 

Suggest you get hold of the attached paper, which should be free if you are in the IMechE. Otherwise it will be £30+ I imagine from Sage.

 

Do these not still have rivetted foundation rings tho?

 

Reading all this about the P2 is having a serious effect upon my mental health. Recently I have been struggling with my mortality: to give an example, I was looking at some new shrubs for the garden. They apparently reach the desired size in ten years - and I looked at that that and thought "will I even be around to see that?". Ever more, I find myself looking at things and saying "I'll never get round to sorting that." Time, as I have often opined, is not linear but logarithmic and it definitely passes faster the older you get.

Now I find myself looking at a locomotive I've sunk a five-figure sum into and am wondering "Will I ever get my run behind that?"

 

Super that. As I'm a member I'll request that. Thanks for the info, looks like an interesting read.

 

My thinking too.... I might only get my ashes thrown in the firebox....

 

I edited the original post because i though even though there was nothing not already known, some people might take exception to it, if they thought i was unduely critical of the decission to have the boilers made in Germany.

I was thinking of Israeli- Newton, especially for welding the firebox parts, the South devon railway has produced Bulleid fireboxes in component pieces for many years, so if formers were availible,they could have produced a kit of parts for production somewhere else, the Severn valley have made an completely new boiler for the standard 3, I know this is recently but i'm sure across the industry there were firms that could have rolled the barrel sections, and others who had the expertise to build boilers from the kits of parts.