P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

I'm thinking of the 90s concept of JIT here, which does rely somewhat on suppliers always having stock of what you might need, of course: in my former career we were told the changing environment meant we no longer needed a stores operation on site, JIT would be the answer. However, one preferred supplier was so bad we used to refer to it as "two to follow". Lost count of how many projects they delayed.... however, whilst I can see the merits in not having the boiler on-site until it's needed I was led to believe it was the handy spare to have on site to minimise the down time of one of the Trust's locomotives when in revenue-earning service?

 

I'm in rare agreement here with @guycarr360 - what is the point of having the boiler to hand when there is still so much to do on the chassis? There's certainly not much point tubing the boiler or going too far down a path of certification. Probably the one thing you could do of value with the boiler in Darlington would be to do a trial fit, but no point doing that before the cylinders are fitted. And having done so, you'd only remove it again anyway because on a build like this, there is an absolutely colossal amount of fitting work to be done between the frames (basically all the lubrication pipework, vac system, air system, steam heat and any electronics, all of which has to be routed through confined space) and that is way easier to do without the boiler in place cramping access and making everything dark.

If the boiler were to come back from Germany, all you could sensibly do is stick it in a corner somewhere and carry on with the chassis. So unless the supplier is putting pressure on to finish it so they can ship it out of their works, I can't see much point bringing it back - certainly not just for the same of it.

Tom

 

I may be speaking out of turn here, and very much as an interested outsider, but the more I read, the more obvious it is that someone, don't know who, but someone at Darlington really needs to step up to the plate and start filling in blanks, even if they aren't what people want to hear.
The silence is deafening, and the longer it goes, so the rumour mill grows.
This same thing happened at the Lynton and Barnstaple, and look what that led to. Where there is no communication, the rot sets in, it becomes corrosive , and harder and harder to eradicate as time passes.
A lot of people are financially invested in this, so come on, A1SLT a regular update is not much to ask. The alternative is a loss of faith. What would you rather?

 

And hopefully, the A1SLT will not be charged for storage by Meiningen. I have a car that's been at a garage for over a year whilst they choose to do s*d-all about it and I'm genuinely worried they'll try and charge me for "storing" it, despite no contact from them for a year.

 

There's always the risk of supplier insolvency too.

I'm not saying they have to have it in their shed (but if there's space, equally why not?), but it was "imminent" last september.

Some idea of a plan would go a long way to reassuring.

 

Have Meiningen been paid for their work so far?

 

Good question, though how you’d ever get an answer I cant imagine.

 

Have Meiningen been paid for their work so far?

It is usual to have an outline of stage payments from the outset with a first immediate payment so the manufacturer/repairer can order in materials. This protects liability exposure in the event of either party becoming insolvent or unable to proceed. And should the boilermaker default then ownership of the work done will have passed to the commissioner.

 

It could be very easily argued that the 2nd new one is now not required for @9 years, when Tornado's comes out of service.
Why waste that amount of money on a ornament that is going to take up storage space, in the possibility it is required quickly.
A bit of logical thinking is required here, never mind off to Darlington......

 

Tornado’s boiler arrived at least a year before required.

 

Original plan revised. No reasons given.

 

let’s call them boilers 1, 2 and 3

1 - built for tornado c2006. Originally due to be swapped for 2 at this overhaul but for reasons not disclosed overhauled in Germany but multiple issues on return. Originally due for slow In house overhaul at DLW whilst the spare.

2 - ordered as pair for A1 with 3 for P2, due for delivery in 2020 and to be fitted to a1 as above. Multiple delays mostly blaming covid and last announcement said delivery in autumn 2024 for P2 which has passed.

3 - ordered as pair for P2 with 2 for A1, due for delivery in 2021 and to be fitted to P2 as above. Now due to be fitted to A1. No delivery date and no progress photos.

 

It is the norm for the 'clock' to start ticking once the hydraulic test has been carried out. Although not a legal requirement in itself that is invariably in a written scheme and thus becomes so. If I was the manufacturer, I would want to carryout a hydraulic and steam test whilst in my works. If there is any remedial work required sending manpower and equipment elsewhere is expensive and time consuming and, in a worst case scenario, might require the boiler transporting back to the works. It would be possible to do those initial hydraulic and steam tests then put the boiler into storage and simply repeat the tests when the boiler is finally wanted but against this is the argument that boilers will deteriorate whilst in storage if they have had water and a fire in them. Traditionally a boilers life between internal examinations is not assessed on the number of steamings but on a time period primarily for that reason. On that basis, I would expect the most sensible way forward would be for both boilers to only be delivered when they are required and left in a part finished state at the manufacturers with the purchaser paying for work done to date and perhaps storage charges.
It's something I've done in the past with an industrial boiler when we wanted a strategic spare for four others available at short notice.

 

How i would love to disprove this after todays visit, however, i think it would be very unfair on the really nice chap who showed me around, and was very candid in his remarks.

 

Well that will be 5 or 10 years for Tornado (2030 or 2035) and who knows how long for PoW, probably similar given current inactivity.

obviously contracts have been renegotiated. As a covenantor to both locos and a boiler club member we should be told what is going on.

 

Do what i did, get in your car and go to Darlington.

 

The things i will share :-

1. Tender - All parts are on site, assembly required - seen as a quick win, opens up more space in workshop, wheels need balanced first.
2. Front Bogey - as mentioned a defective item is in the process of manufacture, the same units being required by another group.
3. Cylinder Fit - design work for Lentz gear for piston operation, has just been completed, and this will be tested out of the loco, before it is assembled into the frames. No boiler fit before this is complete to satisfaction.
4 - Boiler (s), i will make no comment.
5. Frames - no electrical or oil pipes installed, that to be finished before (4) installed.

Finish date 2027, for reasons behind (4).

pics enclosed

 

As proposed before and fully in line with the military around Tornado

Alpha,Bravo and Charly

Alpha has generated steam and pulled trains
Bravo has not?
Charly nobody knows?

 

I can think of another military term, maybe two, SNAFU, "Situation Normal, All effed Up" and the 5 P's, Poor planning Produces Poor performance .