P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

I fear for the success of the project anyway- aside from my misgivings about when a P2, isn't really a P2 anymore.........

The recent events surrounding 60163s protracted overhaul, then the issues surrounding it's operation on the mainline and comments regarding whether more preserved line work would be sensible does make me question what the future for the P2 would look like.

It's unlikely to be a popular hire for preserved lines outside of galas, and Tornados mainline calendar doesn't appear to be packed, with operators clamouring for the use of the loco or to work with the trust.

I can't help but think that the V4 would probably have been the more sensible build.

Chris

 

David’s heir apparent was Daniela, who was proving to be a very capable understudy, in fact so good that she left to set up her own business serving the heritage railway market, which appears to be going very well.
We can speculate all we like as to why she chose to leave when she did, but clearly it was a great move for her, and I for one wish her every success.

 

On the occasions I was fortunate enough to have met Daniela, I was very impressed by her and yes, she seems to be doing very well indeed.

 

Sensible? Where is the fun in that?!

Im delighted this got the green light, because bluntly, no one else has the bravery to take on this project.

Is it going to be built in a linear fasion and to time...... not sure. I for one am delighted its being built.

 

I was delighted that it was to be built and I threw in my thousand pounds as a member of the Founders Club when I was already a covenanter. But I became thoroughly disenchanted with the dog's breakfast of Tornado's overhaul and the Trust's appalling communications. I still hope that the P2 will be completed but I am not yet persuaded to resume my support to the Trust.

 

What do you have misgivings about?
The ‘monobloc’ is an improvement on the original thermodynamically, the fact that it’s a fabrication rather than a casting doesn’t bother me. I doubt the project would ever have got off the start line had a casting been retained.

The boiler will look identical with the cladding in place, and will be common with the A1’s

I can live without the feed water heater, as it adds a complexity/reliability question mark and will be visually compensated for by the twin turbo-gens in appearance.

Over to you Chris ….

 

Tornado has always been presented as the next A1 in the class, with modern improvements, not as a re-creation or replica of one of the originals. The same surely applies to the new P2. Visually it will look very similar to the first P2 – and very different from the later version. The valve gear should make the performance better; how much better remains to be seen.

I don't know whether I will live to see it running. I hope so, but unless and until the Trust shows more evidence of competence I am not inclined to contribute funds.

 

I have full confidence in the work of the late David Elliott and feel sure his "brain dump" will have been very thorough. The Trust have admitted that he is unlikely to be replaced, so their in-house engineering work will be limited. I wonder at the cost of getting a competent engineering company to produce protype valve gear, test and develop it into a reliable component of which they will only make one set, with the risk of reputational damage if it was not successful. Who would want to take it on?

 

You have sort of said exactly what concerns me.

The same boiler as Tornado, which hasn't exactly been trouble free- which is dimensionally different to the P2 anyway. (Remember the uproar about the GWS boiler for the county)

A cylinder block that is of a new design and production method, that is as yet untried-with valve gear yet to be designed- I hope you are right that it will be an improvement.

It strikes me that it's a visual facsimilie of a P2, as opposed to being a P2, so much is different to the originals- I believe I'm correct in saying Boiler, smokebox, valve gear, axles/bearings, leading truck, braking system, the tender is extensively changed.

So how much is truly P2?

Wheel arrangement and sizes, general layout and appearance?

 

What reputational damage? Anyone liable to be involved in procurement for the industry is going to be very much aware of the circumstances.

 

[decided better not said]

 

Being a well "qualified" engineer, I am sure the fabricated cylinder block will be superior to a cast one. I have experience of bigger fabricated structures, replacing cast ones in the machine tool industry. With FEA at your finger tips today, you can work wonders. Mr Gresley, I'm sure, would have loved FEA. After all, he wasn't exactly a stick in the mud "we've always done it this way", was he ?

 

Thanks Chris, valid points maybe , but here’s my view …

The boiler will be to the latest design, which should address the staying issues that have plagued Tornado. Of course if everything had gone according to plan, this would already be proven with the first new boiler in service on the A1 by now ……

The cylinder block I’ve mentioned above, I don’t believe we’d have ever got off the CAD screen if this had been mandated.

The valve gear hasn’t changed, other than the use of more wear resistant materials to achieve Gresley’s original intent of infinite variability. Going back to the stepped compromise would be non-prototypical. The only change is the introduction of rocking arm to accommodate the optimised valve layout - a common enough feature in other gears

The leading truck was modified for safety reasons from Gresley’s swing link, as were the V2’s so I can’t see why you’d not include that?

Roller bearings are common sense to me, and invisible externally.

The tender is a container for coal and water (and these days safety system kit too). AFAIK it will look virtually identical externally to the original. Of course there won’t be a scoop and there will be ground level fill couplings, but without these additions you aren’t going main line, which is rather the point. Ditto the air braking.

 

If anyone wants to see photos of the casting and machining of a monobloc for a P2, I suggest that they have a look at the book "Gorton Tank" by David Gosling. Yes, the monobloc cylinders for the P2s and V2s were made in Manchester, not Doncaster.

 

Thankyou for your well thought out, reasoned response- something that often isn't forthcoming on this forum.

I can see why many of these things would be developed or used, it just feels to me like the end result will be so far removed from the original that it's a stretch to describe it as a P2 when a relatively large proportion (other than the aesthetics) isn't consistent with the originals.

Chris

 

I forget how many iterations on the P2/n classification there were originally, but just adopt the next digit in the series ? Eg P2/5
It will still be much closer to 2001 than any of the other five.

 

LNER.info says:

• P2/1 - 2001 with Lentz valve gear, poppet valves, ACFI feed water heater. Standard nose profile.
• P2/2 - 2002/3/4/5 with Walschaerts valve gear, piston valves, no feed water heaters. 2002 had the standard nose, 2003-5 had the "Bugatti" nose similar to an A4.
• P2/3 - 2006 with modified boiler incorporating a larger combustion chamber.

2001 and was later rebuilt to be consistent with P2/2.

I can sympathise with both sides of this argument. I think the key thing depends on what you said in your mission statement. The team building "Beachy Head" stated that the aim was to "recreate Beachy Head". The A1 Trust's stated aim with Tornado was "to build the next loco in the A1 series." Those are different objectives and lead you in different directions when there are significant engineering decisions to be made. I'm pretty certain that had Gresley chosen to build 2007 back in the mid 1930s, incorporating improvements gleaned from knowledge of the first 6, he would simply have marked it as a sub-class of P2.
So I guess "Prince of Wales" should really be a P2/4 rather than as a new class ("P3"). In that sense, to my eyes what is being built is an LNER P2, it just differs from all those built 90 years ago.

Tom

 

Thanks Tom, that’s what I was trying to say.

 

Not an entirely fair comparison. The boiler for the County incorporates some (not much!) of an 8f boiler, just enough that it will be limited to 225 psi, below even the later working pressure of the Counties and well below their original design pressure. So the loco will be somewhat less powerful than the originals. The P2's boiler will work at a higher pressure. Even with correspondingly smaller cylinders the TE will be about the same as that of the originals and the improved valve ports and valve gear should make the loco a bit more powerful than the originals. Given that Gresley tried different kinds of valve gear, if he had lived longer and the War had not intervened it is plausible that he would have experimented further. He might not have improved the leading pony truck, but that is certainly a change well worth making; likewise the stronger crank axle.

 

It was also partly due to the scrapping of another loco to make yet another GWR 4-6-0. With all the work needed to create something that's now only 80% of a proper County, scrimping on the boiler seems daft.