So what shall we name the new P2?

[Blink Bonny]

Assuming that the P2 design package does pass the "will it ruin our track" (computer-modelled?) test, I will be fascinated to learn of the added flexibility measures that have been designed into the vehicle.

They probably won't need to anything about adding flexibility. Just substitute a LMS type sprung pony truck for the Gresley swing link one (as was done on the V2s after the war) an most of the wear problems will be sorted

I suspect that there may be some cross-fertilisation with the 9Fs frame design. Should give the neccessary!

[auldreekie]

Oor Wullie

(not Hoole)


Mons Graupius

The Gododdin

auldreekie

[auldreekie]

...continued....

Schiehallion
Bride of Lammermuir
Fat Bob
Soapy Soutar
Edinburgh's Disgrace

Something in there for nearly everyone....

I see I've turned into a character from Thomas the Tank Engine. Can I no be a wee pug?


auldreekie

[auldreekie]

.. oh, and I like Famous Grouse, except that my near and dear might think I was becoming swollen-headed...

ar

[brsince78]

.... Alex Salmond

Ok... I'll get my coat.....

[manna]

G'day Gents

After all these wonderful names, are we any nearer to an announcement, on whether there going to build the 'wee engine'

Any info.............please.

manna

[S.A.C. Martin]

Deltarail is in the early stages AFAIK but all signs look promising. I will try and dig out my covenator's updates for you.

[Atlantic 3279]

So the computer modelling exercise is rather a long one is it? Or have they only just been asked to start?

[S.A.C. Martin]

So the computer modelling exercise is rather a long one is it? Or have they only just been asked to start?

It's a long exercise. Best explained by Graham Nicholas' excellent post on the trust's website.

Spring 2012 - an update by Graham Nicholas

About ten years ago, I attended a training course entitled ‘an introduction to railway vehicle dynamics’, given by AEA Technology Rail (now DeltaRail, a UK railway engineering consultancy whose genealogy goes back to BR’s Research & Development department). In amongst the copious course note hand outs, a somewhat surprising picture leapt out at me – a computer generated diagram of a Class P2 2-8-2 steam locomotive, which sought to demonstrate the locomotive’s poor curving performance. At the time, I found this mildly amusing. The P2s had this supposed reputation for spreading the track and here was someone within the modern railway, using a state of the art technique to somehow prove this. More recently, as talk of a P2 as the Trust’s Lot 2 has gathered pace, it has occurred to me that many of today’s current railway engineers are unwittingly being taught that a steam locomotive called a P2 had a reputation for spreading the track!

Unfortunate? Well, perhaps, but make no mistake about it – we are starting from a rather different place when it comes to considering the engineering design and ultimate acceptance for a P2. Despite the above, there appears to have been no recorded instances of any of the original P2s derailing of its own accord on the main line whilst working a train. However, as may be well known, the P2s were fitted with the same ‘swing link’ leading pony truck design as was originally fitted to the V2s, and there were no less than four recorded mainline derailments of the latter:

4844 – Newark 13th March 1944
4878 – Thirsk 24th February 1946
3645 – Hatfield 15th July 1946
905 (4876) – Marshmoor 10th November 1946

It was the latter two accidents that led to the front pony truck design being changed (the first two accidents had originally been put down to other causes but were subsequently determined to be due to the pony truck). Meanwhile, the P2s did suffer mechanical failures on the main line with no less than four instances of crank axle failure during their comparatively short working lives. Such things were more common in those days, with a general live and learn level of tolerance towards them. Nowadays, an axle failure on the main line is unthinkable and all rolling stock engineers live in fear of such a thing happening on their watch. As if to emphasize the seriousness of such occurrences, a particularly unlucky combination of circumstances (oil tank wagons passing through a station) led to multiple fatalities when an axle failed in Italy two years ago. Changes to railway legislation at European level have been rushed through as a result.

Thus it is that the P2 feasibility study has a very clear purpose: to evaluate whether such issues can be addressed before deciding to embark on building a new P2. As was announced at last year’s convention, the study is now underway. This work is being undertaken by none other than DeltaRail themselves, based around the internationally recognized vehicle dynamics computer modelling package VAMPIRE®. Computer modelling using VAMPIRE is a recognized technique in the UK and is usually used to optimize the design of new or modified rail vehicles and to demonstrate that they will be safe (i.e. not fall off the track!) before they are actually tested out for real. This poses a slight problem for us as all modelling assumptions in VAMPIRE are based on testing undertaken with modern vehicles (e.g. passenger vehicles fitted with air suspension); there has been no fully validated modelling of a vehicle type characterized by a rigid frame chassis, different size wheels and coupled wheelsets – until now!

The first phase of the project has therefore been to develop a fully validated model of a steam locomotive within VAMPIRE. This has to be based on an existing locomotive – and Tornado is the obvious choice! Without doing this first it simply would not be possible to undertake an accurate study on the P2. A fully validated model is one whereby the predicted and actual ride performance of the vehicle have been compared and agreed to be a sufficiently close match. Fortunately we were already aware of all this when the time came to undertake the testing of Tornado. We were asked by Network Rail to undertake some ride testing anyway, but we arranged for a few extra measuring devices (accelerometers) to be fitted as the incremental cost was minimal. Thus as she roared through the night from York to Newcastle and back as part of her own testing on that memorable evening of 18th November 2008, Tornado was also helping to pave the way for her future stablemate.

So the current work (phase one of three) involves building a detailed computer model of Tornado within VAMPIRE. The work behind this is considerable; a particular challenge has been to build a working representation of the Cartazzi rear axle, with its inclined slides. Currently the process of validation is being undertaken – and this involves simulating the York-Newcastle test run. The additional data required is the measured track data for the piece of railway she ran over (specifically the ‘up fast’ road from Tyne Yard to Tollerton). But here another wonder of the modern railway lends a hand. Network Rail’s New Measurement Train (NMT) – the yellow HST – regularly roams the length and breadth of the country’s rails, measuring the track quality. The data so recorded can be fed into VAMPIRE to allow a vehicle model to be run over any stretch of track. The memory bank has been searched and the set of data nearest to 18th November 2008 over the Newcastle-York stretch found to ensure that the model simulation is as accurate as possible. By comparing the ride performance predicted by VAMPIRE with the actual ride performance measured on the night, the model can be tweaked until a good match is achieved. The modelling assumptions can then be confirmed as validated.

This then is the current activity. The next stage is to use the now validated modelling assumptions to build a model of the P2 as originally designed (with the swing link pony truck). We should then expect VAMPIRE to predict that the ride of the P2 will be worse (than Tornado). The final phase will be to use VAMPIRE to its full extent, i.e. to modify the P2 design (and fitment of the later V2 pony truck design is an obvious starting point) until an optimum configuration is achieved (but without noticeably altering its visual appearance!). Provided this redesign can be shown to be a noticeable improvement on the original P2 (and ideally as close to Tornado’s ride performance) then all should be well with the concept of embarking on the build of an Improved P2.

[auldreekie]

That heads-up is superb. A vote of thanks is proposed by a newcomer!

auldreekie

[Horsetan]

"Queen o'the South" should satisfy a good few, including footy fans.

Or, tongue in cheek, "Monarch Of The Glen"?

[earlswood nob]

Evenin' all
How about ST ANDREWS the greatest golf course in history and was on a branch line of the NBR, The Duke of York would be a suitable person to unveil the nameplate as he is a keen golfer.
Or even CARNOUSTIE which is on the original line the P2's were designed for.
Earlswood Nob

[manna]

G'Day Gents

Thanks for the information, at least they are working on solving a few problems.

manna

[S.A.C. Martin]

There is a report in the latest The Railway Magazine that the computer modelling of an "as built" P2 has been started by DeltaRail. This indicates the first stage - to build a proving model of Tornado in the software - has been completed. So it may not be too long before we see some results regarding a P2's viability on the national network, without fixes, and what fixes may be required to produce a "go anywhere" P2 in a vein similar to Tornado.

[65447]

I heard a rumour recently that there is another group evaluating a P2 build, somewhere in the vicinity of Doncaster. On hearing this, I suggested it should be named 'Cock o' t'Ridings' - 'Cock' being a much used form of address between males in parts of Yorkshire.