New Build P2

I suggest it should be "The Loch Ness Monster".

- Scottish connection
- All speculation, or reality? You choose
- And it is a monster......

 

I can feel a poll coming on ..... :behindsofa:

 

Yes, though perhaps the poll should be restricted to those who fund it . Just a thought...


Tom

 

Maybe name it "Mark Renton" average scotsman, moved to London to make his fortune, links to railways.
Alternatively what about "Big Man- The Hero of Linlithgow" after the bloke helping the TTI out this week.

 

Is this idea/project dead then? I have been looking for some sort of update for a little while with no success...???

 

Had to be alive first to be dead. The Project is subject to a feasability study which from what i can gather is still ongoing.
No point in building it unless it will be allowed to run on NR to which end a virtual P2 is being modelled and tested on a track vehicle Sim program...

 

True if we're talking about the A1 Trust venture. http://www.a1steam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=699&Itemid=248

No idea about the Doncaster project though?

 

I have heard a couple of rumours from members of the A1 trust that the P2 feasibility study is progressing reasonably well. Is this actually true, and can we perhaps hope to hear something this year ?

 

I reckon it will get built, but it won't be a P2, it will be a pastiche. Last time I heard they were looking at possibly linking the bogie and front coupled axle (Krauss-Helmholtz truck?) and that represents a big departure from the GResley design.

 

Personally, I don't see the problem with that. If it looks indistinguishable from the original (espec. one of the early design) but has hidden modifications that make manufacturing simpler / ease maintenance / improve route availability without fundamentally altering the appearance, sound or power characteristics of the original, I don't see what the problem is. After all, no-one seems up in arms that the cylinders of the Brighton Atlantic are fabricated rather than cast, do they? A revised leading truck arrangement that improves route availability, cures a known problem with the original but is not visually significantly different seems a small price to pay if it makes the difference between the loco being viable or not.

Tom

 

What about the the likely use of British Caprotti too, roller bearings and rocking gate? The list could get quite lengthy!

All these changes would result in a loco which addresses the shortcomings of the original and the reliability and performance needs of the modern railway. Otherwise you'll just end up with a very expensive static exhibit (I can't see too many heritage lines wanting to run a 2-8-2 for any length of time.

 

Hmm yes. Enthusiasm aside, It is rather difficult to see the point. If it's not going to be allowed to work to its potential, then it hardly seems worth the effort. It would be great to see for sure. But 60163 is still restricted to 75 mph, and the P2's were reputed to be track spreaders, so almost main line use only then. With restrictions.

 

I'm a big fan, assuming that the vehicle dynamic modelling exercise comes out favourably. Lots of commonality with Tornado, in particular the boiler of course. Can imagine the A1 Trust being able to offer great tours with say the A1 from London to York or Leeds then the P2 over the hills and far away etc

 

Absoloutely - if a P2 had survived does anyone really think that they would not have been modified and updated to modify their design failings.

The knockers have to have something to take a tilt at, even when it doesn't exist yet!

 

I thought they were modified...by Thompson...

Only pulling your leg btw....

 

What's happened to the Doncaster streamlined version proposed? Are they dead and buried now?

 

If you were about to embark on a multimillion pound project and someone else was doing a feasability study into an almost identical one, wouldnt you be treading water til the findings ?...hadnt heard that a KH arrangement was being looked at (but then no one said it wasnt either)...who is providing the data for that sim then ?

 

It's not a question of knocking, just a reality check. And acknowledging what a previous poster said.

Personally I think it would be a wonderful locomotive to create. But nothing is ever that simple.There's been lot's of talk about 60163 being permitted up to 90 mph - and let's be honest, that's about 20 mph short of it's potential range - but it's not happened yet. I can only see obstacles put in the way I'm afraid, which won't be any better with a P2. They should probably put a bit more effort into negotiating better operations with the A1 before pressing on with another engine with radical enhancements.

 

But hopefully with the bugs ironed out. Like, more water space round the sides of the firebox.

 

:ban: