The P2 New-builds

[alexl92]

I seem to be creating a lot of P2 threads recently - sorry if anyone's tired of it.

Just been looking at the two P2 projects - the A1 trust/P2 Steam Locomotive Company (P2SLC) in Darlington, and the Doncaster P2 Locomotive Trust (DP2LT).

I'm a huge fan of all the new-build projects. I think it's fantastic for our railway and engineering heritage, for the UK businesses involved and for the future of heritage railways and railtours (for the 20 years or so that they probably have left).

Thing is though, whilst the P2SLC has the experience, skills, connections and support to make their project happen, based on what I've been able to see of them online, I'm far less convinced that the Doncaster project will be a success. Whilst Darlington have been working to develop the P2 design, including to reduce track wear, Doncaster seem to be going for an exact replica of 2001 - which surely means they'll encounter the same problems that the LNER had with it?

(I heard somewhere that they'd approached the P2SLC and asked about using some of the improved designs... P2SLC said no problem, if they'd be willing to make a contribution towards the costs of developing the designs, to which the DP2LT said 'not a chance!' Don't know how true it is though.)

Secondly, I can't imagine that there would be the demand for two locomotives of that size and power. Railtours are an obvious option and I'm sure there'll be a certain level of demand as there was with Tornado. However, unless one of them is permanently based at somewhere like the GCR I can't imagine that there'll be enough demand for galas because of their route availability, running costs etc, and unlike, for example, the two B17s being built, whose societies are supporting each other and whose size and versatility will ensure both can be a success, I am wondering if having two P2s could have a negative effect on both?

I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone within any inside knowledge, as well as general thoughts on these projects - am I wrong on the Donny group, or the demand for these engines?

Cheers

 

[fsmr]

And not to be left out we at Stapleford have a 1/5th 10 1/4" P2 being constructed by our prolific loco builder at the railway John Wilks (who previously built the NYC Niagara and EAR 31 class) for the last few years No completion date as yet

 

[alexl92]

Wasn't aware of that fmsr but I have to say I'm really more interested in the real thing! I'm really keen to hear the thoughts of those who are 'in the know' on these things, as from what I can tell as a punter, the Donny group seem to be all ambition and ideas with much less substance to back it up.

 

[E&W Lucas]

It's dead easy to set up a web site and an appeal. However, after the A1, how many of the new build projects are actually going anywhere?
The various GWR schemes, essentially putting existing components together in a different order, stand a decent chance, especially when backed by established societies, with a major support base, eg Didcot.

Building an exact replica of a 1930's design can't happen - modifications are necessary to comply with today's legislation. Plus you might as well design in mods to allow for today's traffic requirements too, such as air braking if you intend to operate on NR.

I wish any steam based scheme well, but considering how hard it is to raise the finance to overhaul an extant loco, how much chance to you have to raise 4 -5 times that to build a new one?

 

[Monty]

You'd be surprised, and while there are quite a few new build projects out there there border on the realms of fantasy there are number of projects that spring to mind that have progressed far enough to see a working locomotive within the next five years, these being:
LMS Patriot 4-6-0 'The Unknown Warrior'
BR Standard Class 3 2-6-2T
Brighton Atlantic 4-4-2 'Beachy Head'
NER G5 0-4-4T

This is excludes the GWR rehashes which 2 are nearing completion and a 3rd is at an advanced stage.

Personally I think the lesser known P2 group who want to build the version with the 'A4' front are going to struggle for funding and may never see fruition (though I am aware they had ordered the frames a while back but have heard nothing since). The group trying to build a new Clan have set numerous set backs over the years but refuse to go away and dispite the issue with funding they may see their tenacity rewarded. There are also two groups trying to build a LNER B17 4-6-0, though one is trying to raise funds in the more traditional manner while the other is hoping to raise money from Manchester Utd's massive supporter base (guess what they are naming their loco? ).

 

[Oswyntail]

Could someone explain the point of all this. Part of the joy of history - of life - is that things vanish, and we have to use memory and imagination. However "accurate" a new build is it is NOT the real thing, with its rusty, dusty life experience. Beatles tribute bands are not The Beatles, and are nowhere near as exciting; "Tornado" is just a full-sized model, not a grumbling, wheezing, living locomotive. And a P2? If people have the money to spare, spend it on the genuine article, not a necessarily inaccurate replica.

 

[Monty]

What's the point of life? With respect people are doing what they love and if the public deem it to be a worthy charitable cause then what's the big deal? That aside if you overlook the finished product it does keep certain engineering skills alive within this country.

 

[West Ruislip]

The Doncaster P2 frames are now at Didcot Railway Centre, but have yet to go on display.

 

[alexl92]

At the end of the day, Tornado IS a locomotive, not a model. It's still a fully working coal-powered machine, using the vast majority of Peppercorn's design. The sight, sound, smell, principle all remain. It is still capable of the same level of performance as the original. If anything, it's an example of how the design of steam locomotives may have progressed further given more time. Likewise with the P2, the A1 trust state themselves that the design never realised it's full potential, so they're looking at developing it to reach that in a similar manner to 71000.

The point is that if we want to continue enjoying the experience of steam traction either on heritage lines or the national network, relying entirely on machines which for the most part are over 60 years old is only going to make things more and more difficult. New locomotives offer everything the old ones do but with the benefits of hindsight and modern technology, and theoretically greater reliability and less maintenance (to a degree - obviously there are still regulations with which they must comply). Finally, it's a chance for those too young to remember to see real working examples of classes that never made it into preservation. Just because they're fitted with TPWS and ERTMS or whatever doesn't mean they aren't real.

And of course there's the engineering skills, the (in many cases local or relatively local) businesses such as the foundries and steelworks who're benefitting, and the enthusiast community get to see something they never thoguht they would. If anything, it's hugely impressive.

 

[Spamcan81]

At the end of the day, Tornado IS a locomotive, not a model. It's still a fully working coal-powered machine, using the vast majority of Peppercorn's design. The sight, sound, smell, principle all remain. It is still capable of the same level of performance as the original. If anything, it's an example of how the design of steam locomotives may have progressed further given more time. Likewise with the P2, the A1 trust state themselves that the design never realised it's full potential, so they're looking at developing it to reach that in a similar manner to 71000.

The point is that if we want to continue enjoying the experience of steam traction either on heritage lines or the national network, relying entirely on machines which for the most part are over 60 years old is only going to make things more and more difficult. New locomotives offer everything the old ones do but with the benefits of hindsight and modern technology, and theoretically greater reliability and less maintenance (to a degree - obviously there are still regulations with which they must comply). Finally, it's a chance for those too young to remember to see real working examples of classes that never made it into preservation. Just because they're fitted with TPWS and ERTMS or whatever doesn't mean they aren't real.

And of course there's the engineering skills, the (in many cases local or relatively local) businesses such as the foundries and steelworks who're benefitting, and the enthusiast community get to see something they never thoguht they would. If anything, it's hugely impressive.

Where's the "like" button when you need it. An excellent post.

 

[sprinterguy]

Could someone explain the point of all this. Part of the joy of history - of life - is that things vanish, and we have to use memory and imagination. However "accurate" a new build is it is NOT the real thing, with its rusty, dusty life experience. Beatles tribute bands are not The Beatles, and are nowhere near as exciting; "Tornado" is just a full-sized model, not a grumbling, wheezing, living locomotive. And a P2? If people have the money to spare, spend it on the genuine article, not a necessarily inaccurate replica.

Some - many of us, quite possibly - would like to see a more tangible representation of what has gone before, however, which is what makes projects like "Tornado" and other new builds so attractive.

I fail to see how the lack of an authentic service history from sixty years ago makes the finished article any less "real". A number of today's existing preserved steam locos have spent more years in operation in preservation than ever they did in revenue earning service as it is, and that number will continue to grow.

The fact that the preservation movement can offer the technical knowledge and engineering expertise to make these schemes a reality is a great tribute to the skills and efforts of the individuals involved.

I do not want to see the available labour force and skills base in railway preservation, and the donations and other funds on which they rely, diluted excessively by these new build projects and diverted away from deserving schemes to restore and preserve our existing historical artefacts. However, personal disposable incomes are growing as the decades pass, and if people feel they have the money to float such a project, or to otherwise support it through donations, etc, then fair play to them.

I would counter these points, however, by agreeing with the original poster in saying that two operational P2s might be flooding the market somewhat, to the detriment of both organisations. There's only a limited number of preserved lines suitable to accommodate such large, heavy and powerful locomotives, and only a limited number of railtours, with a limited consumer market to draw on, each year.

 

[ThePannier]

Personally I'm really looking forward to seeing a P2 get rebuilt!

Overall, I think the rebuilding of steam locomotives helps the whole of the preservation world. If somebody goes to the naming ceremony of this new-build, chances are they may want to see more steam locos in action on preserved lines.

 

[alexl92]

Personally I'm really looking forward to seeing a P2 get rebuilt!

Overall, I think the rebuilding of steam locomotives helps the whole of the preservation world. If somebody goes to the naming ceremony of this new-build, chances are they may want to see more steam locos in action on preserved lines.

I'm really excited to for no.2007 as well. And all the new ones to be honest - particularly the Patriot as I'm an LMS fan, but I wish every single one of them the best.

I do agree however that these projects shouldn't be a hinderance to preserving what we already have and restoring/overhauling the precious relics from the past.

Incidentally the Donny group had some kind of public meeting yesterday - anyone heard anything from that?

 

[Bevan Price]

Pity they cannot cooperate and just build one P2 - two P2s seems one too many to me, and diluting funds into 2 competing projects could mean that both projects fail.

However, personally I would prefer such projects to concentrate on "missing" locos of a size that is more suitable for use on heritage lines. The "82045" project is ideal for producing a useful "branch line" loco. There are many types of 0-6-0, 2-4-0, 4-4-0, 2-6-0 & 4-6-0 that failed to survive into preservation, but which would be more widely useful than a large "express passenger" loco.

 

[alexl92]

I think that's a fair point - I think the P2 is a case of 'We can, so we will!' - but the A1 trust have the means to do so.

I think many people agree with you on the idea of smaller engines, and there are a fair few projects which are going down that route -

- LNWR George the Fifth
- BR Standard 2MT 84030
- Holden F5
- Wordsell G5
- BR Standard Class 3 77021

Yes, there are things like the Hengeist project too which are big, powerful express engines too, but I think that looking at the overall picture, it puts forward a very positive picture of the state of the heritage industry, and particularly the new build sector.

To me, it shows that we have a wonderful mix. There are those who are super-ambitious and say 'If we can dream it, we can do it!' - from these we have the P2 projects and Hengeist amongst others - and the heritage industries need these people because they are the people who will drive the industry forward with projects that some would think would be impossible. Yes, these loco projects could be seen as luxuries because they're too large for many preserved lines, but it's fantastic that they're doing it.

On the other hand, and equally importantly, we have those who have recognised a practical need for smaller locomotives and have identified an opportunity for a project which will be cheaper, more realistic and also have a wider use across the industry.

We need the sensible and the bonkers in equal measure - and it seems we have it! As far as I'm concerned, that's a good sign.

 

[DarloRich]

Merge the two efforts - build it at Darlo. Simple.

No dilution of funding, no competing work streams, no duplication of effort, no competition for resources and skills and no pointless competition or aggravation.

 

[alexl92]

Merge the two efforts - build it at Darlo. Simple.

No dilution of funding, no competing work streams, no duplication of effort, no competition for resources and skills and no pointless competition or aggravation.

That would make the most sense.

Unfortunately it seems that the Doncaster crew have decided that it's of national importance that we have an A4-style P2.

 

[Mvann]

On the point about about limited railtours use, if scotrail is going to do more of the west highland style service, won't this give certain new builds more work?

 

[Monty]

That would make the most sense.

Unfortunately it seems that the Doncaster crew have decided that it's of national importance that we have an A4-style P2.

Well according to the their website the Doncaster P2 group are doing an A4 style version because it was in this form they were more reliable and required less maintainance (the biggest difference being the Walschaerts/Gresley valve gear).

Personally I think the A1 steam trust's effort is more about preserving the new skills they have natured over the last few years. Their locomotive will be a very difference beast from the original and has had significant modifications to its design.

 

[Spamcan81]

Pity they cannot cooperate and just build one P2 - two P2s seems one too many to me, and diluting funds into 2 competing projects could mean that both projects fail.

However, personally I would prefer such projects to concentrate on "missing" locos of a size that is more suitable for use on heritage lines. The "82045" project is ideal for producing a useful "branch line" loco. There are many types of 0-6-0, 2-4-0, 4-4-0, 2-6-0 & 4-6-0 that failed to survive into preservation, but which would be more widely useful than a large "express passenger" loco.

Duplication and dilution of funds is an argument that's been bandied about since locos started escaping Barry but that's not stopped preservationists doing what they want. I can recall being told when 34081 was about to emerge from Barry, that with 34051 in the National Collection and 21C123 running on the Bluebell, the preservation scene didn't need another Bulleid Pacific. Never underestimate the capacity of the movement to confound the experts.

 

[Bevan Price]

On the point about about limited railtours use, if scotrail is going to do more of the west highland style service, won't this give certain new builds more work?

Not on lines like West Highland, or Kyle of Lochalsh - unless the locos are no larger than a Black 5 or B1.

 

[alexl92]

Well according to the their website the Doncaster P2 group are doing an A4 style version because it was in this form they were more reliable and required less maintainance (the biggest difference being the Walschaerts/Gresley valve gear).

Personally I think the A1 steam trust's effort is more about preserving the new skills they have natured over the last few years. Their locomotice will be a very difference beast from the original and has had significant modifications to its design.

The A1 trust are attempting to rectify the known faults with the P2 to allow the new-build to work to its full potential. The modifications are simply the product of that. Wherever possible they're doing it in the manner it may have been done at the time. As an example, they're rectifying the issues with the leading bogey by using the design from the V2.

I don't think you can blame them for wanting to take the next step forward. The P2 would be phenomenal achievement.

 

[Monty]

That is true, though while the are correcting a lot of the problems associated with the design (pony truck etc) they are still recreating the loco as much as possible in its as built form dispite Gresley himself abandoning many of its original features and having 2001 and 2002 rebuilt to match the later batches. I am sure the loco's design modifications will increase the reliability greatly however it remains to be seen if it will make the locomotive more efficient. Both of Gresley's Mikado designs (P1 and P2) were very high on coal consumption and needed very heavy trains to make them viable which limited work available to them.

 

[Kinghambranch]

It's dead easy to set up a web site and an appeal. However, after the A1, how many of the new build projects are actually going anywhere?
The various GWR schemes, essentially putting existing components together in a different order, stand a decent chance, especially when backed by established societies, with a major support base, eg Didcot.

Building an exact replica of a 1930's design can't happen - modifications are necessary to comply with today's legislation. Plus you might as well design in mods to allow for today's traffic requirements too, such as air braking if you intend to operate on NR.

I wish any steam based scheme well, but considering how hard it is to raise the finance to overhaul an extant loco, how much chance to you have to raise 4 -5 times that to build a new one?

Looking at the various websites and receiving newsletters from the 3 new-builds that I support financially (a tiny fraction of the £ required!) namely 45551, 82045 and 77021, this has been a very good year for virtually all the established (not just a Farcebook Page and a few likes) new build steam projects. 2015 looks like being even better provided the funds and expertise keep coming. It all boils down to the fact that, in a democracy, even a heavily taxed one like ours, people will choose how to spend their money.

Today, Saturday 20 December 2014, according to the BBC News,

"Shops across the UK have been packed with last-minute present-buyers on "Panic Saturday" - the last Saturday before Christmas.
Retailers are expecting to double their takings throughout the weekend, with shoppers likely to spend around £1.2bn." One point two Billion!
Don't worry, the UK is awash with money and people who have just seen the price of fuel plummet (I know its volatile - in every sense!) so what we railway enthusiasts have to do is to encourage more people to spend it on what we like! In the case of the Darlington P2, that is something they do really well!
I look forward to seeing many of these new builds really coming together in 2015 and ex-Barry Yard inmates have not been forgotten either, witness GWR 42xxs 4270 at GWSR and 4253 progress at KESR. Onwards!

 

[Spamcan81]

It's dead easy to set up a web site and an appeal. However, after the A1, how many of the new build projects are actually going anywhere?
The various GWR schemes, essentially putting existing components together in a different order, stand a decent chance, especially when backed by established societies, with a major support base, eg Didcot.

Building an exact replica of a 1930's design can't happen - modifications are necessary to comply with today's legislation. Plus you might as well design in mods to allow for today's traffic requirements too, such as air braking if you intend to operate on NR.

I wish any steam based scheme well, but considering how hard it is to raise the finance to overhaul an extant loco, how much chance to you have to raise 4 -5 times that to build a new one?

The Brighton Atlantic, the Patriot and the G5 are all making very good progress. Also the 82xxx and 84xxx are making steady progress. They'll succeed, just a matter of time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is true, though while the are correcting a lot of the problems associated with the design (pony truck etc) they are still recreating the loco as much as possible in its as built form dispite Gresley himself abandoning many of its original features and having 2001 and 2002 rebuilt to match the later batches. I am sure the loco's design modifications will increase the reliability greatly however it remains to be seen if it will make the locomotive more efficient. Both of Gresley's Mikado designs (P1 and P2) were very high on coal consumption and needed very heavy trains to make them viable which limited work available to them.

Many of the original features of 2002 were not abandoned. The piston valves were retained and the only real change was the addition of the wedge nose. The reason for the wedge nose was that the softer blast of the piston valve locos required the exhaust lifting and the A4 style nose was very good at that. Had the materials been available to make the poppet valves work in the way they were intended, then the sharper blast would have allowed retention of the original 2001 front end. I eagerly await the appearance of 2007.

 

[Teaboy1]

I have to admit that I dont see the point in reproducing a flawed design or something that NotWork Rail wont allow on its metals.
Its too late to change track now that metal has been cut but it also makes sense not to duplicate your efforts either.
Collaborative efforts are best way forward, let Doncaster make the frames and running gear and let Darlington (Germany) make the boiler and cab ??

 

[Spamcan81]

I have to admit that I dont see the point in reproducing a flawed design or something that NotWork Rail wont allow on its metals.
Its too late to change track now that metal has been cut but it also makes sense not to duplicate your efforts either.
Collaborative efforts are best way forward, let Doncaster make the frames and running gear and let Darlington (Germany) make the boiler and cab ??

1. The Darlington team are not replicating the P2 as was. Known faults are being designed out.
2. How do you know that NR will not let the P2 on to the national network? I very much suspect that there will have been and will be many discussions regarding that very thing.

 

[alexl92]

Darlo already have the frames and plenty more for their P2.

 

[markindurham]

My own take on this is that 2007 will be completed well within the timescale forecast by its team; the 'new' 2001 might be ready just as 2007 comes to the end of its first boiler 'ticket', but it just doesn't seem to have captured the public's imagination, & thus funding, in the same way as 2007 has. OK, the 'Tornado effect' has helped, but to me, 2007 looks much more imposing than the streamlined P2s do - the latter, of course, could be mistaken for an A4 at certain angles, just as the rebuilt 'W1' did. Perception, whilst not everything, certainly helps.

 

[Taunton]

However, personally I would prefer such projects to concentrate on "missing" locos of a size that is more suitable for use on heritage lines. The "82045" project is ideal for producing a useful "branch line" loco.

I missed this comment earlier, and I didn't realise that this project was under way. However, having been youthfully around when the 82xxx came to Taunton in their final years (not that they had many) to run to Minehead etc, the crews despised them compared to their 41xx, or even the smaller 45xx, and they were generally left at the back of the shed until the foreman didn't have anything else. The very first time in life I'd ever heard the expression "Couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding" was applied to one of these. Noisy and draughty cabs, controls the wrong way round, men ended up filthy at the end of the run, heavy on coal, short of steam by the top of the bank at Crowcombe, vacuum brake poor, you name it.