7027 Thornbury Castle

And it sort of bookends the story with ‘Saint Martin’ being used as the basis for what became the ‘Hall’s I think some people at Didcot have maybe forgotten about doing something and doing it right, not just kitbashing in 1:1 scale, and thinking ‘yeah that’s passable’

 

I dont think that is quite fair, the 47 will be totally correct other than the boiler. It will look like a 47xx and will probably go just as well as a 47 used to running at 25mph on a heritage railway. With a 21 element castle boiler it may even go better than an original with a 16 element No7 boiler.
They are using a different boiler and dressing it up to look like a 47, but this is no different to what is being done with an A1 boiler for the P2, although unlike the 47 group they are building a new boiler, it is not a genuine P2 boiler. Nobody seems to bothered about that so why all the fuss with this?
With all the other additional mods to cylinders, pony truck, roller bearing axleboxes with different hornblocks as a consequence, valve gear mods , air brakes etc you could argue that the P2 will be less like an original P2 than the 47 will be like an original 47.

 

Because from the start they've said it's an additional P2, not a replica, with various improvements. All new components as well, not a mash up of bits of scrapped locos. The boiler is designed to be interchangeable with 60163, not just using whatever is available.

 

They do describe it as a Gresley P2 though when it clearly isn't. I think Sir Nigel would be unlikely to recognise any of the engineering as ' his ' !

 

Utter rubbish.

 

Given the circumstances of its thorough reworking, which l am completely in agreement with, maybe it should more correctly be called an Elliott P2 !

 

There is plenty of precedent for locomotive designs being extensively modernised by subsequent CMEs but retaining the original designer's name. No-one talks about a 1950 Castle as anything other than a Collett Castle, do they?

Top,

 

If you are going to take on the challenge of building the next locomotive in a class why simply build a copy of what went before? If the technology involved has moved on why not take advantage of this? Again if there were ideas in the Company which built the original production series to improve the design then why not include those improvements? And if you have to take steps to modify the locomotive design to cope with loading gauge restrictions why not do it? Reductions in chimney and dome cover height were quite common, whistle positions were changed, cabs were reduced in height, buffer beam profiles were modified and so on.
The P2 is a new build and not a copy build and so will, quite rightly include improved design features. If you are building a copy then build a copy but remember that the railway world and the people who work in it have changed and what was acceptable to locomotive crews a hundred years and more ago is not so acceptable today. Some consideration given to the ease of preparation and disposal of a locomotive is viewed in a favourable light as is some consideration to crew comfort. No one likes their hobbies being made unnecessarily difficult and the novelty value of working on a time consuming machine with no redeeming features is best not talked about.

 

Evolution not extinction

 

Should David Elliott get more recognition for his work? Absolutely. Has he ever claimed Prince of Wales is not a Gresley P2? No.

The extent of the redesign can be found here: https://www.a1steam.com/prince-of-wales/about-prince-of-wales/design-development

Virtually everything on the new P2 follows an LNER practice or standard that was introduced either in Gresleys time or shortly after, to improve the efficiency of the various Pacific types in work for the LNER and then BR.

The design study gives all the details of the changes:
https://www.a1steam.com/educational-resources/prince-of-wales/design-study

One significant change is to the pony truck, which uses a modified version of the V2 classes’ own modified pony truck (itself a Thompson era design based on the Stanier 8F pony truck).

Such changes are logical alterations and were carried out to other LNER locomotives.

I think it’s quite insulting, to be honest, to the designers of the P2 to make the bold claim that it’s not a Gresley P2. All major dimensions, virtually every component, are in line with the original Gresley design and where there have been changes there are logical advances that he would have likely made, had he had the advantage of the tools we have today.

I remain convinced it will be a most successful locomotive when running and I look forward to seeing it in steam.

 

Just on that, is a Rebuild Merchant Navy class locomotive a Bulleid Pacific or a Jarvis Pacific (arguably the most extreme example we have!)

 

There is, but in the case of the 47xx its not being modernised, its being changed yet still being billed for fundraising purposes as 'Churchward's Last Masterpiece'. The GWR did quite a lot of this evolution, but when they did it they changed the classes (3100/5100/5101/6100 being an example which springs to mind where boiler changes led not to sub classes but 'new classes'. Perhaps they could go down the WSR route and number her 2707 or 4727?

To bring the thread back to its title a bit, I see it was the GWS AGM this weekend just gone, I wonder whether this topic reared its head again and/or the movements of funds from restricted funds?

 

The A1 Trust now refers to the new P2 as a Gresley-Elliott P2, rightly so in my opinion.

 

I am reluctant to say much further on this topic on the grounds that opinions are so entrenched that there is really no point.

GWR numbering is something of a hobby horse of mine though, and in my opinion it is entirely possible, even probable that had Collett elected to have built Castle boilered 47s instead of Castles when the running department requested more 47s then they would have been numbered from 4709 and referred to as 4709 class. One may note 4073, 5101, 5205 , 5193 and 6959 as being similar examples.

 

Very happy with that outcome , l was unaware of that !

 

Probably better to not build a steam locomotive then!

 

The 47 maybe be a mash up of bits of scrapped locos as you call it, but they are the correct bits, new parts have been made where required. The boiler is available as you say, it has done nothing else in the last 60 years so they may as well make use of it as it will only keep on deteriorating sitting about in the open air.

 

I don't think any of us are claiming that the modifications from the original (various) versions of the Gresley P2s for the new one make it not a Gresley P2. It is a "new improved" P2, and still mostly Gresley in its design. 4709 will likewise be mostly a Churchward 4700.

That does seem a plausible "might have been", though if Swindon had built a new batch they would more likely have given them No.7 boilers rather than No.8s.

4709 will indeed be less changed from the original 4700s than the new P2 will be from the Gresley originals. I see only two real differences between the two cases.

One difference is the reasons for the design changes. In the P2's case the reasons are to overcome weaknesses in the original design, to allow interchangeability of boilers with the A1, and for better compatibility with the modern railway. In 4709's case the reason is just expediency.

The other difference is that 4709 is getting the boiler of a Castle that many had hoped would be restored in its own right, however forlorn that hope had become.

 

If you look back to post 3624, that's exactly what hyboy was claiming - that the P2 is not a Gresley loco.

 

(actually 3624) I stand corrected -- but does anyone else share that view?