P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Yes, but the fact that they have been successful at doing just that is actually something to celebrate ?
Without that we would'nt have an A1 and most of a P2 for us to bitch about the (mis?) handling of now would we.

 

Just read this, where does it say it’s the ‘2nd boiler’? My source stated that the 2nd boiler is irreparably distorted, and that the 3rd boiler had faults that had to be addressed before it could be shipped to the UK for finishing …… these included the foundation ring corners - which corresponds with the MM article.

Out of interest, they make a point of stating that the corners going in were ‘forged’. This was a change made to Tornado’s firebox many years ago to address the cracking problem with the machined originals. So was the new ‘box somehow constructed with the old style corners? If so, why wasn’t this picked up by the Trust’s QA process?

 

Wondering if the water spaces have actually been increased as per the originally proposed Meiningen version of the
design and they have been working to that design ( with its continental foibles) rather than a Tornado boiler redesign ( with its UK Peculiarities)?

 

But I thought that reading posts on this forum that the third boiler was a kit of parts ? Apologies if I've misread things.

 

It seems it has progressed from that state now, but as someone said above, the proof of the pudding will be two complete and compliant boilers sat in Darlington. I'm afraid as far as I'm concerned the Trust have lost all credibility until proven otherwise.

 

Thanks...as you rightly point out.. until "sat at Darlington" is the word. I'm still open minded.... I just want to see a P2 in the flesh before I go to landfill...a dream come true...

 

I hasten to add ...not a dream going to landfill....just to see a P2...

 

If the concern is the foundation ring, surely why not have a conventional cast foundation ring Rivetted to the firebox sides, or will the side sheets of the firebox need to be changed to do this, ?

 

I always thought foundation rings were forged, rather than cast.

 

Might be according to some posters on here...

 

sorry yes, your right, must engage brain first next time, but the question remains, if using a forged ring eliminates the cracking issue, is it a viable alternative?

 

IIRC the design was to be based on the current Tornado stay configuration and foundation ring forged corners, but with increased water space width. Now that the old boiler has been refurb'ed, instead of being set aside for later modification to the new spec, this will result in having two boilers with incompatible grate dimensions, so no commonality of spare grate sections. In fact the brick arch will also differ to some extent too.

 

The Southern had a procedure for welding them.
Pat

 

Yes, some forged complete and machined, others forged as four pieces, then welded and machined.

 

In January at the infamous visit, that was what was told, as @Sheff says, it may have gone into construction in the meantime???

 

Out of curiosity are the basic components of a boiler/firebox stress relieved before welding ? For instance rolled steel is already stressed even before being machined/welded...just curious.... My years in engineering saw that machining (milling) one side of a rolled bar of flat steel released stresses...round bar and turning was not such a problem as you were dealing with a slightly different grain structure....

 

Different grate area doesn’t automatically mean no commonality in grate sections. I don’t know what a Peppercorn grate looks like in detail, but the key thing is what is disposable, ie the firebars (in a conventional grate) or the cast elements in a rocking grate. They may well be interchsngeable, just perhaps having one element fewer in width, for example.

As for brick arches - they are disposable and cast in situ just using a simple wooden former. So not much odds if two fireboxes differ in width by a couple of inches or so; you cast to fit the space.

Ultimately, steam locos are in some facets precision machines built to close tolerances, and in others very definitely not!

Tom

 

I've often wondered about your last paragraph. Having been in the machine tool industry all my life chasing half "thous" ( .0005 inches) and then microns made me smile...

 

I take your point Tom. I’ve only built arches in narrow box locos using precast firebricks. I can imagine in a wide box this may not be practical and so a former and fire cement is preferable, in which case my point is redundant.

What happens with Bulleids with their syphons and S160s with arch tubes I wonder?

As for the grate, it would be fairly straightforward to enlarge the area slightly by widening the side bearers, but not so easy to go smaller as in this case ?