So what shall we name the new P2?

[coachmann]

I wasn't aware dyslexia was about poor spelling.....More about good spelling and getting the letters in the worng order!

[Bill Bedford]

lysdexia lures

[richard]

(Simierski: Your banner is broken! Perhaps keep the size down as well - definitely no bigger than the old one)

[S.A.C. Martin]

(Simierski: Your banner is broken! Perhaps keep the size down as well - definitely no bigger than the old one)

Hi Richard - yep, it's broken! Re-sizing code doesn't work, am going to re-size it in photoshop this week with some alterations.

[Archie]

Why not call her sea eagle they are reintroducing them into scotland right now, and didnt all the P2s operate there?

[jwealleans]

Perhaps because it was an A4?

[S.A.C. Martin]

And a Peppercorn A1?

[swanpool]

Having just read the Wikipedia entry on 71000, can anyone tell me when modifications and improvements turn a locomotive into a new design? I don't know that the "Big Four" had consistent practice on this amongst themselves. Weren't a lot of new engines called rebuilds for accountancy purposes (the details of which I've never understood)?

As to the idea that, by picking the "right" name, 2007 will get as much mainstream media attention as "Tornado" did - forget it. You can only build the first new steam loco in fifty years once. Unless you wait another fifty years of course.

Presumably 2007 is designed for the mainline excursion market, with only occasional forays onto such preserved lines as possess the appropriate Route Availability. My guess would be that most excursioneers just want the "steam" experience and are less bothered by which particular loco is at the front of the train. If so, the operators would probably prefer a sister to a proven existing success (Tornado or 71000 if that is the power class wanted) rather than this rather speculative venture, which I am tempted to suggest should be named Red Herring.

If it's media attention you want, then it has to be the speed record. And if Network Rail won't co-operate, see if Deutsche Bahn won't be more helpful - they must have a racetrack or three, and there's no speed limit on their motorways

[Atlantic 3279]

Sorry to openly take issue with those remarks, but, I am absolutely certain that you have missed the whole point of a potential re-creation of a P2! Are you sure that you actually have any enthusiasm for the LNER????

As for

just want the "steam" experience and are less bothered by which particular loco is at the front of the train

, I am so bewildered by this view as to be more or less lost for words .

[swanpool]

If I'm wrong, 3279, I'm wrong - I haven't done any market research. Have you?

[Atlantic 3279]

I'm quite happy to admit that I've done no market research, so you may be correct about some, or even the majority, of steam excursion passengers. BUT, my prime reason for response was that your remarks, to me at least, seemed highly cynical and almost "anti-LNER". In fact the Red Herring suggestion seems to belittle or insult those who may be about to embark upon a highly praiseworthy and incredibly challenging attempt to recreate an icon of the "classic" pre WW2 LNER period.

Of course, if I have mistaken your meaning I apologise.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Having just read the Wikipedia entry on 71000, can anyone tell me when modifications and improvements turn a locomotive into a new design?

Entirely up to the individual to decide. There was debate when Porta published his ideas for the A1 trust way back in the 90s, that Tornado could be classed as an "A1/2" or something akin to showing the significant changes between the actual A1 class and the new build which followed.

Since only a few of Porta's proposals were taken, and most of the changes to the design were done to the A1s in service by the end - with the obvious and necessary requirements for modern running such as lowering the overall height of the engine, and streamlining the steam passages further - this was considered unnecessary by the trust, and in my view - rightly so, as it is not an evolution of the design, but a modernization. Is there a difference? I think so, personally.

I don't know that the "Big Four" had consistent practice on this amongst themselves. Weren't a lot of new engines called rebuilds for accountancy purposes (the details of which I've never understood)?

Absolutely, but it depends on the engine and the extent to which it was "rebuilt". See the Great Northern thread for the same debate, on this very forum.

As to the idea that, by picking the "right" name, 2007 will get as much mainstream media attention as "Tornado" did - forget it. You can only build the first new steam loco in fifty years once. Unless you wait another fifty years of course.

You are right in one sense, and wrong perhaps in my view, in another. Yes, Tornado is the first mainline steam locomotive to be built in fifty years - not the first new steam loco mind, Boston Lodge has been bringing them out one by one since the 70s - but I feel the name of a locomotive does help significantly with bringing the overall profile of a locomotive into the public eye. Does the Duke of Gloucester sound as appealing as Tornado (name for name) to the uninitiated? Does the Eurofighter sound as menacing as Spitfire?

Presumably 2007 is designed for the mainline excursion market, with only occasional forays onto such preserved lines as possess the appropriate Route Availability.

Never presume. I think you should read the trust's website and perhaps talk to covenators, and trust members alike if you'd care to understand the brief better. Of course a 2-8-2 will be route restricted to some extent, but at the same time there's a desire to make a locomotive significantly better than the original P2s - allowing the essence of Gresley's design to be fully realized for the modern day.

Malcolm Crawley put it so eloquently at the GCR a few years ago - that learned with Tornado's building could go into a new P2 and perhaps bring a locomotive to the fore that could, with its significantly higher adhesion, be able to make modern timings for trains and then some. So yes - charters and railtours are the forefront of the design brief, but being able to accomplish them with greater ease remains a goal.

My guess would be that most excursioneers just want the "steam" experience and are less bothered by which particular loco is at the front of the train. If so, the operators would probably prefer a sister to a proven existing success (Tornado or 71000 if that is the power class wanted)

I would beg to differ on this front. It depends on the charter's route, the time of year it is set, and yes - what engine is on the front. I would think more members of the general public would be eager to see Flying Scotsman or Tornado than King Edward 2nd, but equally they may be more enthralled by the prospect of an "authentic experience" on a GWR liveried train, with a GWR liveried locomotive at its head. It is never as black and white as "the "steam" experience and are less bothered by which particular loco is at the front of the train".

rather than this rather speculative venture

Would you start building something only to find that had you researched it thoroughly beforehand, it would not work to the best o its ability? Of course not - that is why for the last six months certain prominent trust members have been conducting a feasibility study into building a P2. The world has changed since the A1 project was started - whilst things such as the boiler can be standardized (and the tender too), other components offer new challenges in the cutting of metal.

,

which I am tempted to suggest should be named Red Herring.

I find that rather humorous, actually! But sincerely, I think the fact that a group are doing this the right way - and yes, I think researching the design first than cutting metal straight away, to be the right course of action - is to be applauded, not derided.

If it's media attention you want, then it has to be the speed record. And if Network Rail won't co-operate, see if Deutsche Bahn won't be more helpful - they must have a racetrack or three, and there's no speed limit on their motorways

I disagree, sincerely. The Blue Riband for Shap, putting it out of the hands of 71000 forever, with a P2 at the head of the train...that would be the ultimate aim! The trust is halfway there with Tornado's recent successes in any event

EDIT: and just to clarify, I'm not anti-71000 by any means - but surely we can have a friendly rivalry, after all?

[kudu]

Personally, I have never been a great enthusiast for the Tornado project since for practical purposes it replicates a loco that "was prepared earlier" viz Blue Peter, of course. Still a great achievement, I acknowledge.

On the other hand, to see a P2 in action is a wonderful idea.

It seems to me that the revenue-earning potential of a new loco may not be critically dependent on what particular class it is, but this depends on who pay to go on these trains as distinct from who drive to photograph it.

Kudu

[S.A.C. Martin]

Personally, I have never been a great enthusiast for the Tornado project since for practical purposes it replicates a loco that "was prepared earlier" viz Blue Peter, of course. Still a great achievement, I acknowledge.

I can totally appreciate that viewpoint, but on the other hand, the argument is (and it is a fair one) that since the P2 and a1 do have parts commonality, it was easier to build a Pacific to go mainline first - and see if it works - than it would have been to build a P2 first. In other words, you had to build one to understand how to build the other to some extent.

[loco_1912]

Why not call it Mikado because that is what it will be.