New Build P2

It does seem compassionate to paint the loco to suit a benefactor who may not live to see the loco when the scheduled livery is due to be applied. You would have to be pretty cold hearted to raise an objection to this action! (General point - I know that you agreed with this 'Autocar')

On the other point, I think you might be reading a little too much into that statement (does 'Mr Davo' speak for the trust or was he was expressing a personal opinion?). What I took it to mean was that the loco would be turned out from overhauls and possibly publicity/Trust logos etc would be based on the apple green livery. I don't think there is any intention to give predominance to that particular livery.

I could of course be very wrong!


Keith

 

You're quite right Keith, no sense in getting overly dramatic about it at this stage.....lets just see what happens. It might be I am misreading things. However just to clarify the statement from Mr Allatt was as follows (as taken from the website) when referring to the repaint into BR Green:

Also just to clarify I will remain a supporter of the A1 trust and in all probability am likely to contribute to the P2. Still awaiting the expected backlash about my comments on the latter.

 

im sorry to say this but why cant they be content with one! building another loco isnt needed wahts needed is something that will look after our allready " preserved" items of stock this isnt really going to help anyone else but more just drain the funds im sorry but its seems the a1 steam trust cociety of model engineers are out and about just to make money!

 

IMHO the fact that Thompson's rebuilds of the P2s into Pacifics were far from a success is insufficient reason not to build a P2. With modern technology and materials it will be a simple matter to provide continuous scroll cams for the valves gear as opposed to the stepped cams as fitted to 2001. This would negate the complaint that"one step wasn't enough but the next step was too much" and thus have a hopefully beneficial effect on the coal consumption and power delivery. The problems they encountered on the curves north of Edinburgh could likely be overcome by redesigning the pony truck, perhaps a Kraus-Helmholz arrangement. We have a chance here to show what a P2 could be capable of and I think this chance should be grabbed with both hands. I cannot agree with your statement that the ultimate P2 development exists in the shape of 60532, the ultimate P2 won't come about until 2007 is built IMHO.
Equating success with class size is an interesting argument. Certainly holds true for the Black 5 for example but would you also say the same for the 4F? Apologies to Fowler 4F fans everywhere but come on, they weren't exactly brilliant now were they? (Tin hat donned and cover sought). Success can be measured by many yardsticks.

 

Would the A1 trust be better off building a modern rake of coaches to go with Tornado 60163. With the possibility of increase main line speeds from 75mph to 90mph. This would allow network rail to be more flexible with timings and paths for rail tours. This could be a winning package for tour operators and for the A1 trust with the possibility of running more rail tours over a longer distances and increasing more profits for both parties. The A1 trust could also lease their modern rake of coaches to other tour companies when not required and again bring more welcome money in to the A1 trust bank account.

 

This assumes other locos are passed for 90mph or that other owners even want their locos passed for 90mph. Plus with only one rake, only one loco at a time could use it and that means if locos are certified for 90mph, only one loco at a time could use the stock so not many runs per year with which to recoup the costs of high speed certification. Anyway, the Mk.2 rakes are already passed for 90mph so the capacity for high speed steam is already there to a certain extent.

 

I can’t see the point in building another main line loco just to go at a maximum speed of 75mhp what’s the point. If a case could be put together for increasing top speed to 90mph I would agree with building another main line loco. Surely with the track record of 60163 on the main line there can be justification for increasing main line top speed for another new build?

 

I don't really get your point. It is not the coaching stock that causes this restriction, it is the restriction imposed on the locomotive. And if you are referring to approval being sought to run at 90mph, then why not do this with 'Tornado' itself?

I am yet to be convinced by the proposals for the P2, and am not sure it will have quite the draw to the non-enthusiast public of Tornado, but that is very much my own opinion (and I would be more than happy to be proved wrong!)

 

Thank goodness other "preservationists" don't see it your way. There was arguably "no point" in building 60163 but happily the A1 Trust didn't apply that sort of logic and we now have
the wonder that is Tornado. I hope to see several more new builds of long gone classes before I shuffle off this mortal coil and more power to the collective elbows of those striving to
give us a Patriot, Clan, B17 and many more.

 

If I have understood Mark Allat correctly, the reason for considering constructing another loco is to keep all parts of the A1 Trust's team involved and active while Tornado is operating on the network. Those skilled people whose interests are in heavy engineering won't have much to do until overhaul time comes around.

I agree with those who are suggesting making improvements to things like the pony truck and valve gear. I find that the original appearence of 2001 is much more striking than the A4-style front end of the later locos. Maybe 2007 will be a P2/2?

How about a medium-sized loco? Well, three things, I suppose:
1) Generally, class 7 and 8 locos can pull more profitable trains. I know Tysley work to different equations, but provided you can sell all the seats, an 8P loco on 13 coaches should net more profit than a 5MT on 8 or 9 - or perhaps allow cheaper seats for the same profit. There is a sizable niche for Black 5s and Halls, and a scarsity of surviving LNER equivalents, but more than enough mainline certified locos of that size at the moment. There is a shortage of class 6/7 locos with wide route availability - with Tangmere's repairs delayed, they only alternative at the moment is Ollie, until Britannia and/or Braunton can start work. Maybe a V2 would be a better bet?
2) How much cheaper would a class 5 loco be to build, maintain and run? My guess is there's probably only 10 - 15% difference.
3) A big, glamourous, rare loco would be an easier sell, not just to semi- and non-enthusiast supporters, but to almost all of us.

As for Thompson - my understanding is that he was a sour man with a big chip on his shoulder and was rather jealous of SNG. Several of his rebuilds, most notably the P2s, could be seen as spiteful. The K1 and B1 were certainly successful, but I think the best you can say about his record is that it is "patchy". It seems to me that the A1 and A2 classes were successful despite him rather than because of him.

Tornado livery - I'm not a "purist". The apple green livery looks stunning and has become firmly linked with Tornado's "brand" in the public mind. The association with Flying Scotsman has also helped in this respect. Mark A and his chums are very astute, as we have all remarked in recent months, and they know that you mess with a successful brand at your peril. I'm sure they will be very careful how they handle changes to the loco's image. I'm a little disappointed that BR blue won't be next, since I like that livery a lot, but I'm content to wait a few years.

 

Straying off topic but the A1s and A2s were successful designs after Peppercorn got to grips with them. I remember reading that when the rebuilt P2s were sent to Scotland, they were sent right back with the comment "they'd slip on Mussleburgh Sands." Also they were the first LNER pacifics to be withdrawn by BR IIRC.

 

The A1slt exists to operate the A1 that its built. Its proven to be good at this but dont loose sight of the fact that its a bunch of like minded people who ve done this thing by patience, perseverance and some very relevant know how and good will. It isnt some massive money making corporation planning to take over the steam world and populate it with Applegreen monsters.

An A1 was a missing link that has prven to be very good at what it does, and if it gets approval to run 90mph i dont expect it will be running flat out 90 for fun, but it will allow a little more flexibilty to keep to schedule.

If the feasability study comes out positive to build a P2 using as many 'evolved' (ie A1/A2, A4, V2) components parts as poss then one wonders whether a new trust will be set up solely for it.
I wouldnt count on much by way of a redesign.

A P2 will probably run faster than 75mph to, but its get out of jail card is probably more power to rail allowing better acceleration

If a P2 Isnt feasible its difficult to imagine another LNER engine courting as much support...

 

You couldn't be more wrong. You make it sound like the A1 Trust is a money grabbing business - well I can assure you it isn't. It's a group of people who are passionate about steam, but who also understand the need for it to be properly financed. And if we want to build another fabulous machine then why not, so long as it's financially viable. I'll certainly support it, because a P2 would be very special indeed. I've spent plenty on Barry wrecks in years past, and on narrow gauge too, so now I prefer to sponsor something a bit different. So the money won't "drained" from other projects in my case, or that of most others I suspect, as it's the P2 or nothing right now. If we wanteds to make money (other than for re-investing in the Trust) then we'd be taking the interest from our loan bonds etc - something that most of us choose to wave.

 

Some folk don't appear too keen on the creation of a P2, in tractive effort terms the most powerful express passenger steam locomotive built for service in this country. The seventh engine in the class would be the most powerful in horsepower terms too if the design was refined as it ought to have been - I wonder if this is the real reason why some are less than enthusiastic?

I wonder where the notion comes from that the boiler on the A1 is interchangeable with a P2, it isn't. The A1 has a modern version of the type 118 or 117 boiler, the P2s were fitted with either diagram 106 or 108 boilers, with a greater distance between the tubeplates, larger superheating surface and larger firebox heating surface in the case of diagram 108, both types had a larger total evaporating surface. Interesting---------

 

I too agree with what you write, When i was in loughborough i donated a couple of pounds to their canopy appeal, then at the cvr i supported them, then the llangollen patriot gala i gave to there extension and to the patriot project. in the past i have given money to all other sorts of projects but i dont really want to keep giving more and more money to the same projects. Im very happy about the chance to see one of these fine machines and go behind it on the mainline. How much longer can we keep these old locos running with replacing parts. the new locos give us the chance to easily repair and keep things running with out years and years between overhauls.

 

iN REPLY TO 242A1

Certainly is, have pondered over this a few times, but without the drawings to hand....is it the case that, other than the tubeplate distance,the other dimensions are v similar, and the difference in length can go into the smokebox (which does appear to be a little crowded). Im sure that this question has already been put to the Meiningen boffin...

Thompsons boiler proportions at least do work, i dont think Peppercorn altered them at all. The 107 boiler/firebox/ draughting did not work terribly well and couldnt cope wIth the volume of exhausted steam when 'worked hard'....

 

The Peppercorn A2s had a shorter smokebox than the Thompson A2/3s from which they were developed.

 

Are there any paid staff within the a1 trust?

 

I have been an A1 covenanter for almost 19 years now. In that time I cannot recall any formal survey that the A1SLT has carried out to seek opinions about what, if anything, they should do next and I certainly haven't volunteered any opinions of my own on the subject.

I don't know who has been asking for a P2 to be the next project, but I do believe that it is number 1 in a field of 1 as far as Mark Allatt's personal wish list is concerned.

The A1SLT (One clue is in the name...) exists to build and operate a Peppercorn class A1 Pacific steam locomotive (...and another in the mission statement). Note that there is no mention of any other ambition.

In its first two years of operation 60163 Tornado will have paid off all of its construction debts other than the £500,000 bond, which in theory at least we will need to pay off in full by 2016.
The A1SLT has a covenanter income that is at least £120,000 per annum before that nice Mr. A. Darling (or his imminent successor) stumps up his gift aid contribution.
Tornado itself must be earning at least another £250,000 per annum from operating fees and merchandising.
Given the above figures, it would be reasonable to assume that within two years, Tornado will have no financial liabilities other than its on-going running costs.

In effect Tornado is a hugely valuable asset worth much more than its £3,000,000 construction costs, with a massive earning potential for say another five years after the bond issue repayment has been put in the bank and before the boiler ticket expires.

I have a horrible feeling that somebody may decide that the locomotive could then be used as security to guarantee a loan that would be used to kick-start the construction of another.

I have no objection to constructing another locomotive and would certainly sign up to contribute, but I want to see it built by a separate trust that has no financial links whatsoever to the A1SLT, and thus involving no possible risk to what has already been achieved.

 

Id guess there must be one or two especially on the support/maintenance side, even if its just a contribution to expenses,there a certainly a couple of individuals who are entirely devoted to the loco and it doesnt stand still for long...