P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Wasn't the boiler designed by DB Meiningen? I thought that was the point of having them build it - that they could provide a design and build a CE marked boiler.

 

Tornado's chassis didn't exactly get off to a good start, either!

 

Was this when John Graham drew attention to aspects of the work on the frames that gave him concern?

 

Why the exaggeration over 60163's boiler? Considering this was effectively a prototype, it's actually been very successful. Yes, it had to go back to Meiningen for some modifications, but that is in the nature of such things, & it came back pretty quickly too. The next one to Dia 118A will take the initial problems into account, will it not? The other serious job-stopper was the air pumps, but that could have happened to any locomotive; that wasn't specific to 60163.

As for the frames, at least that was picked up early, and again, if you're going to be pioneers, as the A1 Trust certainly are, then mistakes are not unknown.

 

The Doncaster P2 group have announced on FB that the frames for their locomotive have been ordered .I wonder if they are using the same CAD drawings as the
P2 Locomotive Company ?

 

I doubt the CAD renderings would be of any use to the Doncaster crew, given that I don't think they are aiming to use roller bearings. Have they published any drawings of the frames yet?

Meanwhile the nay-sayers will continue to have a pop at No. 60163, after all, many of them said is was a heap of scrap and would never turn a wheel in anger because it was so badly flawed.... Oh! Hang on.......

Foxy

 

Concerns have been expressed on this forum about the number of new build projects, all competing to some extent for funding. (While some people will support their own pet projects, if those happen, and otherwise not support any, many of us will have sympathy with more than one project, so either have to pick one or give less to each.)

It is therefore particularly sad to have two groups both intending to build P2s. The Darlington people not only have an established track record but have done a great deal of high tech preliminary work, resulting in improvements to the original design. If the Doncaster people have done anything similar they have kept very quiet about it. They appear to be aiming to reproduce the original design (wedge-fronted version) as closely as possible, and therefore complete with the flaws of the original. They are now starting to spend serious money; but will that design ever be allowed to run on today's national network?

 

I agree in many respects. It is a shame that we have two similar projects although the finished articles will look very different. What is even more disappointing is the continued sniping about the 'original P2 design' on the Doncaster group's FB page...... comments such as, "we think the streamlined P2 looks quite exotic, the original looks quite ordinary in comparison! It was the obvious choice considering all the flaws in the original as well." smack of point-scoring. Personally I think the original No. 2001 looked impressive but that in no way means that the A4's didn't as well, why can't both designs be considered aesthetically pleasing?

Foxy

 

And the question "what routes it will work profitably?" didn't get an answer. Perhaps I should have asked "what routes it will work profitably for either of the two version?"
I maintain both seem a bit like the Night Owl in a way with a weak, if not non-existent, business case.

 

"What routes it will work profitably for either of the two versions?" - No. 2007 will have NR clearance (RA9) on a wide variety of routes (the whole point of the Vampire study surely?), the ECML seem an obvious stamping ground and the potential for some serious hill-climbing must mean Scotland beckons. OK, the Cambrian Coast route is probably out of the question.....

The whole point of all the ground work was to ensure that No. 2007 (at least) has a working future, that is why it has taken so long to reach this stage.

Foxy

 

I assume you're referring to the GWR 47xx. They were actually known as "Night Hawks" (not to be confused with 60078). Most owls are creatures of the night!

 

Hi, I know pretty much nothing about these projects, and I don't really want to read through 8 pages of discussion, there are two companies making a P2, right? one is the same people who made Tornado and another is a new group, right? If those two are correct, which one is the "darlington group" and which one is the "doncaster group" referred to here? and which group are doing which design (streamlined/original) thanks, just want to get it straight in my head
Alex

 

Darlington Group = the Tornado crowd = the original front end; also lots of initial research on changes to the frame design and the group who have produced all the CAD drawings seen so far on this thread = http://www.p2steam.com

Doncaster group = the "new group" (in your phrase) = A4-style front end = http://www.cockothenorth.co.uk

That's my understanding, anyway. Interestingly, both groups use a picture of 2001 on their websites, but at different stages of its development!

Tom

 

thanks for that, by the fact that you put "the new group" (in your phrase) have they done something before then? Or just been trying to make a P2 for a long time so don't constitute as "new?"
cheers

 

No. 2007 - name to be announced - Darlington, original nose, Caprotti valve gear.
No. 2001 'Cock o' the North' - Doncaster, A4 nose, Walschaerts valve gear.

Foxy

 

The latter - they've been around, at least on Facebook (!) for a couple of years.

Was really just using the phrase you had!

Tom

 

What routes will any loco, new build or otherwise, work 7+ years into the future? Impossible to say IMO but why let that get in the way? I'm sure the A1 Trust will be pleased to know their business case is weak to non existent.

 

"What routes will any loco, new build or otherwise, work 7+ years into the future?" - Glass half empty? We might as well mothball the mainline fleet now then....

It's that sort of attitude that made preservation what it is now, after all. If the doom-mongers hadn't been so vociferous the bloody-minded among us might not have felt quite so compelled to prove them wrong, No. 60163 being a particular case in point.

Foxy

 

I didn't take Spamcan's post that way, but rather along the lines of "Damn the torpedoes": no-one knows what the situation will be in the future, but let's hope for the best and get on with it. I take his "I'm sure the A1 Trust will be pleased to know their business case is weak to non existent" to be sarcastic.

 

I think Foxhunter was referring to louis.pole's post - to which I replied - rather than mine and yes I was being sarcastic regarding mister pole's remark about weak/non existent business cases.