Speaking to supporters at ‘Locomotion: The National Railway Museum at Shildon’ where Tornado is paying a visit, Mark Allatt, chairman of The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust commented: “It has long been the desire of the Trust to build a second locomotive as it would be a great waste to allow the skills and experience that we have developed in the construction of Tornado to go unused. However, we first had to ensure the successful commercial introduction of Tornado into main line service and then work to secure her future financially.
“We are therefore delighted to announce that thanks to the hard work of our volunteers and the generosity of our Covenantors and other supporters, the debt incurred during the construction of Tornado has been halved. By the end of June 2010, all that will remain to be repaid will be the £500,000 bearer bond which is due at the end of 2016. In addition, we are able to predict with some confidence our future income steams and set aside funds for maintenance, overhauls and Tornado’s support vehicle.
“The P2 is the most frequently requested locomotive the Trust is asked to build next. In addition to its striking looks, incredible power and undoubted glamour it also has around 70% commonality with Tornado, including the boiler, tender and many other detailed fittings. However, the design was never fully developed and the locomotives failed to reach their full potential. The Trust is therefore conducting a feasibility study into the construction of a new Gresley P2, to be numbered 2007 as the next in the series. As a part of this study we are examining the commercial, engineering and certifications challenges that we would face in completing that development work to make a new P2 a success. Initial conversations with the regulatory bodies have been very positive but we have a long way to go yet.
“The aim of the study to answer the question once and for all as to whether the Trust can successfully and commercially build, certify and operate a P2. If the answer is yes, then we will launch the project. If no, then we will look at an alternative locomotive to build. Anyone wishing to play a part in this exciting venture should come on board as one of our Covenantors if they are not already.”
Numbered 2007 as the next in the series - count me in! That also means picking an all new name for the locomotive
I hope the study is successful so that we can look forward to a new build P2 in the future
Last edited by S.A.C. Martin on Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I would be absolutely delighted to see this come to fruition. Even a firm decision to go ahead would give me something to smile about. As a devout sceptic in nearly all matters, I fear that a "feasibility study" only at this arguably late stage is not much to shout about. How many years is it since the P2 was allegedly penncilled in as the team's next project, and how many genuine or atrificial obstacles to progress may they face in the feasibilty study alone, I wonder?
I'd love to feel excited about this news, but I feel that would be premature.
Let's hope for the best anyway, and I for one sincerely hope for the original "air scoop" front end style on the loco. There are plenty of Bugatti noses in preservation already.
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
Atlantic 3279 wrote: How many years is it since the P2 was allegedly penncilled in as the team's next project, and how many genuine or atrificial obstacles to progress may they face in the feasibilty study alone, I wonder?
I'd love to feel excited about this news, but I feel that would be premature.
1994, but they've already done some preliminary research prior to this announcement. I heard as early as Tornado's trials on the GCR in 2008 that they were looking at a P2 design and putting it through the same software Big T's design had to go through.
Let's hope for the best anyway, and I for one sincerely hope for the original "air scoop" front end style on the loco. There are plenty of Bugatti noses in preservation already.
I'll second that - interesting notions about the Lentz valve gear, driving wheels and pony truck being thrown about on the preservation forum at the minute, someone has suggested a flangeless driver...which would be pointless as flangeless wheels are banned from NR.
That said it's stimulating discussion - that's the main thing!
I do hope they go ahead and do it - can you imagine a hill climb of shap from the bottom up? I think a lot of engines in preservation might get a bit wary!
Atlantic 3279: I believe they are thinking of the early shape. There was a lot of variation between the 6 locos (eg. firebox size, valve gear, front end), so I suspect 2007 would be a "pick and mix" of the best - especially if they are trying to get the design to be a mature one. This would also follow in the spirit of the P2s having so much variation
As for skepticism: I think they timed it right. Priorities were elsewhere - as they should have been. They've done some initial research (eg. talking to Network Rail - which is potentially the biggest barrier of all), and this is a formal study. If it is like anything else from the A1 Trust, then this is going to be something very professional and beyond the ability of most steam preservation groups.
Would rather have seen a B17 aptly named "Newcastle United" of course.
A sceptic like Atlantic 3279 I cant see this getting past N.R., hope I am wrong tho.
If we do get the real thing, will that generate enough impetus for a RTR model, rendering the efforts of all of us who have struggled with ProScale, NuCast, and in due course PDK offerings, obsolete?
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
Atlantic 3279 wrote:If we do get the real thing, will that generate enough impetus for a RTR model, rendering the efforts of all of us who have struggled with ProScale, NuCast, and in due course PDK offerings, obsolete?
Give it a year...or two. I don't think an RTR model would be announced until the project was underway (should they go ahead with it).
One of the advantages of doing the Peppercorn A1 first is knowing that things like the boiler, tender, cartazzi and similar can be made again with little effort (mainly fundraising). The big step I think will be the frames and driving wheels.
Simierski wrote: someone has suggested a flangeless driver...which would be pointless as flangeless wheels are banned from NR.
Does that mean that Evening Star will never again appear on the York - Scarborough specials, or anywhere else on the national network for that matter, no matter how much restoration funding is available?
A "blanket ban" on flangeless wheels is interesting. I can see some of both sides of the argument. The 9Fs seemed satisfactory, even on passenger turns at 70mph or around less than well maintained yards, and in their way so too the super Gs, yet I gather the of the L & Y to run 2-6-2 tank engines with flangeless drivers were "less than successful" shall we say. But what of those old broad-gauge 4-2-4s..........
The safety and effectiveness of flangeless wheels must presumably depend strongly upon where they are within the loco wheelbase and what proportion of the weight they carry, which in turn tells us how much of the centring force they are (not) providing.
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
Simierski wrote: someone has suggested a flangeless driver...which would be pointless as flangeless wheels are banned from NR.
Does that mean that Evening Star will never again appear on the York - Scarborough specials, or anywhere else on the national network for that matter, no matter how much restoration funding is available?
I believe it would still be able to go on certain routes, if clearance was given, but as far as I was aware ALL 9Fs are banned from the national network due to the damage the flangeless wheel will do the trackway over some turnouts.
I personally can't see Evening Star being restored to steam sadly - far too much in the railway press suggesting it isn't at the moment
But that's for another thread!
On the subject of the P2, I have a feeling whether it sinks or swims will be wholly dependent on the side play of ALL of the driving wheels - it was hot boxes and failures as a result of that, that has generated the most discussion whenever I've brought up the conversation with A1 Trust members. David Eliott seemed extremely confident they could fit the pony truck and similar P2 problems.
Other countries have 2-8-2s and they seem to do very well - was it the fact the P2 had larger driving wheels as opposed to a long wheelbase?
Simierski wrote: someone has suggested a flangeless driver...which would be pointless as flangeless wheels are banned from NR.
Does that mean that Evening Star will never again appear on the York - Scarborough specials, or anywhere else on the national network for that matter, no matter how much restoration funding is available?
As far as I know, the ban on flangeless wheels is because of the risk of them striking raised check rails, why some check rails are raised is a mystery to me - perhaps somebody can explain.
As for the P2, I sincerely hope that the study comes out positive and that they can raise the cash in these austere times, I will certainly covenant to such a project.
I only hope that when it is built, we see more of it in the frozen north than we see of Tornado, the ECML north of Morpeth is almost a steam free zone this year.
Here are some boring figures produced by calculation via the standard mathematical sag formula to illustrate the amount of sideplay potentially necessary for a P2 to stand on a curve of 4 chains (80 metre) radius, although this is a sharper curve than I gather the P2s were ever designed to cope with. The coupled axles of the P2 are conveniently 6' 6" apart, which is near enough 2 metres. This result ignores any slop available between flanges and rails, it shows only what would be necessary for each wheelset to sit perfectly centred between the rails. In practice any slop would presumably reduce the need for sideplay, as indeed would forced flexing of the track or the loco chassis (?!)
If we consider three "adjacent" coupled wheelsets, I reckon the middle set of wheels would potentially be displaced 2.5 cm (one inch) laterally compared to an imaginary straight line linking the other two sets. If we consider all four sets of wheels, both inner pairs would potentially be 5cm (two inches) out of line with the outer pairs.
If the curve radius were 5 chains (100m) I reckon the side-displacement figures become 2cm and 4cm respectively.
All mathematical garbage I know, and not what happens in practice......
Wouldn't it be easiest to contemplate putting any necessary really significant sideplay into the trailing coupled wheelset, where there are no problems with closely overlying crossheads and con-rods having to clear crankpins? Suitably designed hornblocks, sliding in slightly curved horncheeks in the frames, and universal joints in the rear portion of the coupling rods on each side of the loco doesn't seem like a "rocket science" proposition, not to my dim mind anyway.
Most subjects, models and techniques covered in this thread are now listed in various categories on page1
Dec. 2018: Almost all images that disappeared from my own thread following loss of free remote hosting are now restored.
