Hornby P2

[gr.king]

Carrying wheels always remove some of the weight from driving wheels and the 2-8-2 is no exception. I recall seeing a video on the Union Pacific FEF3, a locos with 4-8-4 wheel arrangement, and guys overhead saying "thats a slippery beggar." It seems likely the BR 9F 2-10-0 had more usable haulage power because as it pulled on the load the weight transfer would be to the rear drivers, not a rear truck.

 

No argument with the logic of the weight transfer business there, that I understand is why Riddles ordered the "tractive effort at higher speed" calculations to be refined or "fiddled" to favour a a 2-10-0 with restricted wheel size over the original plan for a 2-8-2 with larger wheels. The 9F was not however a true passenger loco (even if it misused as one on many occasions) in the way that the P2 primarily was by design (and exclusively so in use). If we bring freight engines such as the 9F into the argument then the P1s with boosters in operation, or the Worsborough Garratt  stand out as obvious candidates for the brute-force championship. A P1 certainly ran on a semi-fast passenger turn on at least one occasion.

[bluebottle]

Carrying wheels always remove some of the weight from driving wheels and the 2-8-2 is no exception. I recall seeing a video on the Union Pacific FEF3, a locos with 4-8-4 wheel arrangement, and guys overhead saying "thats a slippery beggar." It seems likely the BR 9F 2-10-0 had more usable haulage power because as it pulled on the load the weight transfer would be to the rear drivers, not a rear truck.

 

Agree absolutely - interestingly a GWR 'King' had just over 75%of its wight on its driving wheel, a P2 was a couple of tons short of getting 75% of its adhesive weight onto the drivers - and had the adhesive disadvantage of a trailing truck., and as you say a 9F was even better.

 

I was already hesitant about differing with the Coach before the 'master buffered up too … Oh well …

I know that the BR standard heavy freight loco was to be an 8F 2-8-2 before Riddles overruled Bond and Cox and prescribed the 9F, largely because of the success of the WD 2-10-0, but also because of the frequently made objection that a loco with a wide firebox and a trailing axle will “sit back” on that axle when the load comes on the drawbar. I have seen a pacific slipping frighteningly, and the damage to rails caused by the worst examples of this occurrence. I know too that the 9Fs ran up to 90 m.p.h. on occasion. This, I gather, was ended because of expected excessive wear on machinery not designed to operate regularly at that speed

The P2s – and especially 2001 – have been heavily criticised for a variety of failings, fairly or unfairly, but inability to start a train without slipping is rarely – if at all - cited. To quote O.S Nock, an enthusiastic observer of the type: “The way (No.2002 “Earl Marischal”), with loads of more than 500 tons, got away with its trains, and climbed the heavy gradients southbound between Aberdeen and Dundee was deeply impressive.” and Robin Barnes, who I don't think has any professional connection with railways, but is assiduous in listing the authors he uses in research, “... the P2's ability to start the heaviest load out of the most awkward 'hole' was legendary.”

When Thompson turned the P2s into A2/2s, they lost about a ton and a half in weight, but 13 tons in adhesive weight – and all their surefootedness.

A bit back, I suggested that: it would have been interesting to see how a “King” got on between Dundee and Aberdeen, but I've since remembered that during the post-WW2 locomotive exchanges, “King Henry VI” wasn't allowed further north than Leeds because of its limited route availability and loading gauge restrictions.

Nock, again: “In my footplate experience on several of them (the P2s), they rode easily and elegantly round the sharpest curves, and never gave any impression of binding, or of spreading the road."

Perhaps, after all, the P2s were simply the best locos for their job?

 

EDit: punctuation.

Edited October 29, 2013 by bluebottle

[coachmann]

No argument with the logic of the weight transfer business there, that I understand is why Riddles ordered the "tractive effort at higher speed" calculations to be refined or "fiddled" to favour a a 2-10-0 with restricted wheel size over the original plan for a 2-8-2 with larger wheels. The 9F was not however a true passenger loco (even if it misused as one on many occasions) in the way that the P2 primarily was by design (and exclusively so in use). If we bring freight engines such as the 9F into the argument then the P1s with boosters in operation, or the Worsborough Garratt  stand out as obvious candidates for the brute-force championship. A P1 certainly ran on a semi-fast passenger turn on at least one occasion.

I brought the 9F into the debate (not argument) simply to illustrate a point about rear carrying wheels. A large wheel 4-8-0 could also be cited but i don't know if the route the 2-8-2's were designed for would have taken a 4-8-0 due to axle loadings................The 2-8-2 wheel arrangement might have been adopted precisely to spread the load to meet civil engineers strictures while still putting enough weight on the rails to aid adhesion.

[gr.king]

Agreed regarding the terminology. "Debate" is a less emotive term for those who only recognise the colloquial concept of an "argument" (shouting and throwing things around) rather than the application of the word to a reasoned case, as in law or science.

Edited October 29, 2013 by gr.king

[melmerby]

I brought the 9F into the debate (not argument) simply to illustrate a point about rear carrying wheels. A large wheel 4-8-0 could also be cited but i don't know if the route the 2-8-2's were designed for would have taken a 4-8-0 due to axle loadings................The 2-8-2 wheel arrangement might have been adopted precisely to spread the load to meet civil engineers strictures while still putting enough weight on the rails to aid adhesion.

For reasons, no doubts others know precisely why, the LMS wouldn't allow double headed Pacifics on the route, hence the P2 so maybe other possible solutions (large wheel Garratt?) where also ruled out.

A pair of medium sized 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 Gresley machines in a Garratt formation would have easily given the power required and adhesive weight needed.

 

Keith

[Grovenor]

What did the LMS have to do with it?

The LMS did look at some passenger Garratt proposals but did not buy any. I have never seen any record of any such proposals from Beyer Peacock to the LNER.

regards

Keith

[Bon Accord]

What did the LMS have to do with it?

The LMS did look at some passenger Garratt proposals but did not buy any. I have never seen any record of any such proposals from Beyer Peacock to the LNER.

regards

Keith

 

The LMS controlled the line from Kinnaber Junction to Aberdeen Joint, now whilst that is only a small part of the Edinburgh-Aberdeen route, the route Southbound from Aberdeen is particularly challenging for a steam loco with a heavy train. There are quite a few photos and sound recordings of A4's slipping furiously trying to get their relatively modest loads out of Aberdeen Joint when working the 3 hour expresses in the mid 60s. Hence a gutsy loco with a lot of adhesion would be desirable for some of the heavier expresses.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Bon Accord

[MrB]

The LMS controlled the line from Kinnaber Junction to Aberdeen Joint, now whilst that is only a small part of the Edinburgh-Aberdeen route, the route Southbound from Aberdeen is particularly challenging for a steam loco with a heavy train. There are quite a few photos and sound recordings of A4's slipping furiously trying to get their relatively modest loads out of Aberdeen Joint when working the 3 hour expresses in the mid 60s. Hence a gutsy loco with a lot of adhesion would be desirable for some of the heavier expresses.

 

I agree, leaving Aberdeen heading south at Cove, Leaving Montrose to Usan, and Leaving Dundee over the Tay are all steep assents.

[Guest 2750]

I was fortunate enough to get close and personal with the pre production P2 and have a go operating it on Tony Wright's 'Little Bytham'. She runs very smooth, and as Tony has said himself, it certainly has no trouble hauling.

 

 

 

I quite like this one!

[edcayton]

There's an excellent article on the P2's in this month's Railway Magazine. It's great to know that at least one replica looks likely to go ahead I can't help thinking that building two is madness. I also don't get building one with an A4 front-too similar to what we've already got!

 

Ed

[will5210]

There's an excellent article on the P2's in this month's Railway Magazine. It's great to know that at least one replica looks likely to go ahead I can't help thinking that building two is madness. I also don't get building one with an A4 front-too similar to what we've already got!

 

Ed

The A4 nose & Walchaerts valve gear version was the most efficient version back in the day. I believe the A1 group's version with the rotary valve gear will be an all singing/dancing modern version with a lot of common parts with Tornado.

[micklner]

There's an excellent article on the P2's in this month's Railway Magazine. It's great to know that at least one replica looks likely to go ahead I can't help thinking that building two is madness. I also don't get building one with an A4 front-too similar to what we've already got!

 

Ed

No idea if you are talking full size or models.

 

Full size they are not even simlar to the A4 many differences. Different wheel set up, valve gear, different tenders etc.

 

If its models there are a number of differences, Valve gear,Front end, Different tenders and Hornby have never done the current A4 in LNER green.

[Guest]

I was fortunate enough to get close and personal with the pre production P2 and have a go operating it on Tony Wright's 'Little Bytham'. She runs very smooth, and as Tony has said himself, it certainly has no trouble hauling.

 

IMG_5546.jpg

 

IMG_5547.jpg

 

I quite like this one!

IMG_5544.jpg

Looks superb!

[Ian Hargrave]

Many thanks.Now,whatever might not be correct about it,the P2 is a head-turner.One to savour,I think.

[micklner]

Nice review of mock up P2 in the latest BRM magazine. Tony Wright has given a good review but (in my opinion, added 12/11/2013) ) he is far to kind to Hornby on the detail changes made to a current Loco compared to previous Hornby Models due to saving money.

 

The Loco uses the non corridor type Tender whilst a superb version of this Tender already exists , Hornby have gone to expense of creating a new version with Moulded handrails. I can see no logic in this whatsoever. Perhaps the moulds have been withheld from Hornbys current factory who knows? The costing on this bears no comparison to the saving of producing the model with a few small straight moulded handrails. But is only mentioned in passing by Tony.

 

 

The review however is spoilt by the following  comments in the text  relating to and I quote

 

" Despite ignorant speculation by some of those who inhabit  the (sometimes) twilight world of websites" this comment simply relates to the use  of  moulded handrails on the model !!.

He then continues. "No doubt some will wring their hands but are they prepared to go the whole way and add say £30.00 to the cost of the model?

He then mentions that he could be accused of nepotism that he should make such comments (why has he got too?) to defend Hornbys decision relating to cost cutting. He then mentions the Backhead which whilst nicely detailed is not detail printed theron and the lack of the oil drive as used on the current Hornby A4's and even on the Railroad version  "

 

Whilst not personally bothering me in the slightest.  I did find them to be most strange and unecessary comments to be made and published in the context of a review of a mock up Locomotive model.

 

Who knows some of the lacking features may even be on the production model anyway ?

Edited November 12, 2013 by micklner

[Ian Hargrave]

Hmmm..twighlight world .Off to our opium dens again,it seems.

[Colin_McLeod]

Perhaps we would be prepared to spend the extra £30.  The alternative is a lot of work and the associated risk of spoiling the appearance of the model.

[greslet]

The pre production looks gorgeous. I can finally give up on trying to get my ProScale kit to run. That has to be my worst buy ever on ebay. Nearly £200 wasted.

[Guest]

Looks great!
I'd love to get one of these, but I know I won't be able to afford it when it's released, and I bet that when I can, it'll be sold out!

[The Stationmaster]

Hmmm..twighlight world .Off to our opium dens again,it seems.

And there was me thinking I'd packed up smoking 15 years ago (next month) - looks like I need more 'phone calls

[Legend]

Hmmm..twighlight world .Off to our opium dens again,it seems.

I suspect the twilight world is one where we no longer hang off the printed word but dare to express our own opinions on Internet forums such as this To me the actual media does not alter the validity of a point but ,being so easy to express an opinion,some clearly regard it as an inferior source of information.

[DaveF]

We can all express points of view here or elsewhere but many of us have not seen Hornby's first production model, Tony Wright has at least seen it, handled it and run it.  

 

Personally I will reserve judgement until I get the chance to see one for myself and will then decide whether it is "worth" the money.  If they sell out before I see one then that's my bad luck - anyway, it's not a model I "need", it's just one I might like to own.

 

David

 

Edited to make a correction

Edited November 12, 2013 by DaveF

[Miss Prism]

Personally I will reserve judgement until I get the chance to see one for myself and will then decide whether it is "worth" the money. 

 

Fair enough, David, but as we move increasingly to a situation where model shops will order only on the basis of pre-orders, it is not possible for many potential purchasers to do what you are planning, and consequently they rely heavily on information and views gleaned from the 'twilight world'.

 

Changing tack slightly, one could also say the equivalent of some magazine reviewers, so if we here are in the twilight world, what world are they in? 

[coachmann]

 

" Despite ignorant speculation by some of those who inhabit  the (sometimes) twilight world of websites"

 

Oh dear....

[railroadbill]

Hmmm..twighlight world .Off to our opium dens again,it seems.

Yes, but opium is totally addictive, uses up all the victim's money and takes over their life completely. Whereas railway modelling.....

er....