LMS 2P 4-4-0

This is years later but I believe that a Class 2P would be an ideal subject for a new build especially if there is a 4F boiler around, which is the same boiler in use. Most preserved railways are on a restricted speed and 2P's and their Southern equivalent the L1 would be an ideal locomotive for the preserved lines. However the 2P was ideal for pulling up hill but was terrible at running at freely down hill. If you were to build one now they should take the experience of the Southern and build one with long travel valves.

 

Then would it not be more logical to build an L1 ?

 

I don't know where the idea that the 2Ps couldn't run came from. David L Smith, that expert on all things Glasgow & South Western, wrote about the warmth of their welcome in SW Scotland. He asked one rather cynical Stranraer man about how the engines had been received there, and was told " They fairly love them - gey near take them tae their bed with them" One of the class, 647, gave Smith his first 75 mph on the Glasgow to Ayr line, not a line abounding in gradients to run down! Smith did say, mind you, that the removal of by - pass valves by the LMS in the 1930s did the engines no good at all.

Ian

 

Well, these sort of proposals to build replicas of express types to run on 25m.p.h. on a tourist line never seem particularly practical to me. Incidentally the equivalent of the 2P was not the somewhat larger L1 but the S.E.C.R. D1 and E1 types. They handled 300 ton Dover boat trains which I don't see the 2P managing.

PH

 

The problem with the 2Ps - and why they wouldn't run - was due to the convoluted steam passages. The valves were below the cylinders, so the steam on both admission and exhaust had to squeeze its way through very constricted passages. The LMS builds were slightly better as the cylinder diameter was slightly reduced, allowing slightly wider passages, but not by very much. Fitting long lap - long travel valves would not overcome the problem: steam would still be unable to enter or leave the cylinders fast enough.

Whatever the opinions of the GSWR men (and this would be influenced by comparison with what they had had before) Camden and Crewe North men did not approve. They would be on a Pacific, and the very heavy overnight trains ex-Euston were often given a pilot engine, invariably a 2P, as far as Rugby. This was to assist on the climb to Tring, in which they were useful, but for the ret of the way to Rugby the Pacific alone would not only be hauling the train but also pushing the 2P. On balance, most top link drivers would have preferred to forego the luxury of assistance to Tring and done the job with the Pacific alone.

 

I wouldn't have thought their exhaust passages or downhill running would matter a jot at 25 mph. A 2P is an obvious loco for a replica though and quite a straightforward build I would have thought

 

One survived into my young days as station pilot at Watford Junction and I think I once saw it pottering about somewhere around Harrow, so I would quite like to see one in operation again. However I have much more enthusiasm for several of the existing new build projects and have contributed cash to some of them.

 

I have to say in terms of steam galas it would be a good edition as they worked all over the network. I'm sure the S&Djr fans would enjoy seeing one. I personally would love to see a 2P as I think they are a great looking machine.

 

It would perhaps. But there are likely to be more parts available which are common to the 4F.

 

In line with Midland policy wouldn't a pair need be built to work in tandem?

 

I don't think the complexity of building, nor for that matter the precise arrangement of steam passages, are especially relevant. The key factor is whether you can find enough people to fund it. That means finding people who, having multiple calls on their discretionary income, see a 2P as the most important thing they can do, or at least as a significantly important thing.

Even for a small loco like a 2P, the cost is likely to be in the order of £1m or so. Once you have got past two or three years of relatively low cost (and probably largely under the radar) planning to work out the feasibility, locate drawings and so on, you enter a phase of pretty high expenditure. If you want it finished in the lifetime of those building it, that probably means being able to generate at least £50k per year, rising with inflation, sustainably, and even then it is likely to take 20 - 25 years. Generating £100k per year, rising with inflation, is probably a more realistic target.

So how do you raise £100k per year? Well, It's a lot of merchandise to sell, especially as merchandise has an up-front cost anyway, and the margin is less than 100%. Sponsoring components is a possibility, but that gets easier the more you are into a project, i.e. once you have some credibility. Or you can get altruistic donations, but £100k means finding a thousand people all willing to donate £100 per year for 20 years. That's the Tornado "A1 for the price of a pint every week" model, but it is a lot of people to find for a relatively unglamorous loco. Or maybe you find 5,000 people willing to pay £20 per year, but at that point, you are rivalling some fairly large railways in terms of membership numbers. Or maybe you find a wealthy benefactor who just happens to have a burning desire to see a Much Meddling and Little Snoring Railway prime mover in the flesh, and is willing to put his/her money where there mouth is - in which case, good luck.

None of which is impossible: there is enough evidence out there of new builds that have been completed, or are moving inexorably in that direction. But the thing that unites all of those that are successful, and differentiates them from those that haven't gone much beyond a painted-up cab side, is significant ability to raise funds, in volume and year after year.

Tom

 

Didn't Stroudley and Dean (and no doubt others too) put the valves beneath the cylinders, the latter with very large diameter cylinders in some cases, on some very free running locos?

 

Probably. The 2Ps were not unique in this. But Stroudley and Dean belonged to a previous era; they weren't building engines in the late 1930s!

 

I gave a wry smile. The 2P's managed 6 coaches quite happily up gradients of 1 in 50 and since timings aren't totally critical they would be ideal for may preserved railways. I accept the comment about the cost of building and keeping running and it is probably S&D and Scottish enthusiasts who either remember them or would want them. I do have memories of a 2P piloting a west country from Evercreech Junction with 9 or 10 coaches on. The West country kept losing its feet for over a mile on the bend going up hill while the 2P wa sure footed and accelerated this train.

 

Even with parts common to 4Fs, though, I don't see that being much help - there aren't many 4Fs about! And where does the idea of a spare 4F boiler come from? I've never heard of one.

 

no you build a 3F 0-6-0 to pilot it and everyone smiles.

 

Far more suitable for many preserved/heritage railways, and of cause you can paint it in S&DJR & M&GNR liveries as well.

 

Are you sure that the Spamcan wasn't slipping because it was having to push the 2P as well as drag the train? No loco is going to slip if it is short of steam and 2P's weren't exactly the best boiling kettles in the world (along with the 4F's).
(And that's from an LMS aficionado.)

 

Didn't they also have the inferior Midland axleboxes so running at any speed under load would have probably sent the incidence of hotboxes through the roof.