What if P2s weren't rebuilt and survived into BR days

[Threepea51]

Lets say Thompson didn't rebuilt the P2s into A2/2s and they made it to BR Days, what would they be classified? 9Ps? 9P10F?

 

[Harvester]

I doubt if the P2s would have lasted much longer in Scotland on the Edinburgh to Aberdeen route, because of their high running and maintenance costs. Like the rebuilds, they would have probably been transferred to York or New England, and used over the straight easy graded sections of the ECML on heavy fast freights and secondary passenger duties. At a guess they would probably have been classified 8P9F in original form!

 

[Bevan Price]

I doubt if the P2s would have lasted much longer in Scotland on the Edinburgh to Aberdeen route, because of their high running and maintenance costs. Like the rebuilds, they would have probably been transferred to York or New England, and used over the straight easy graded sections of the ECML on heavy fast freights and secondary passenger duties. At a guess they would probably have been classified 8P9F in original form!

As freight locos, they would probably have suffered the same fate as the earlier Class P1 2-8-2s. The P1s could handle huge trains, but these were too long for most of the loops available. And it was uneconomic to use them on lighter trains which did fit into those loops, as that work could be performed at lower cost by using alternative, smaller locos (e.g. Class V2 2-6-2s or O2 2-8-0s)

 

[randyrippley]

Let's face it, they would probably have been scrapped.
Said to be fragile, unreliable, non-standard (even within class), track-wrecking microfleet. Nothing going for them.

 

[Harvester]

Let's face it, they would probably have been scrapped.

Bulleid had a fair opinion of them! Maybe a switch to the SR during WW2, for use on the heavy traffic to the south coast?

 

[randyrippley]

Bulleid had a fair opinion of them! Maybe a switch to the SR during WW2, for use on the heavy traffic to the south coast?

Would there have been clearance issues with the four coupled axles on the third rail?

 

[2392]

I've for many years had the feeling, that but for the War starting in 1939 and Gresley's passing in 1941, a lot of the P2's "issues" would have been ironed out, making for a better improved machine. If you read Dudley Popes "Battle of the River Plate" about the first major sea battle of the War. Hitler had, had a sort of 5 year plan for any military campaigns with any invasions not happening before 1945. Which had suited the German Navy fine, as it would have taken until then to build up a relatively small but new Navy [compared the the Royal Navy].That would have given the LNER/Gresley 5 years to sort out the P2 problems. One way or another......

 

[Threepea51]

what would the P1s with boosters be classified in BR lmao, 9XF? 10F?

 

[Harvester]

Would there have been clearance issues with the four coupled axles on the third rail?

There may have been issues! After Bulleid took over as CME of the SR, his first proposal was for a new class of 2-8-2 loco based on the P2s, to supplement the Lord Nelsons. The design was not approved and the Merchant Navy Pacifics were built instead.

 

[6Gman]

Bulleid had a fair opinion of them! Maybe a switch to the SR during WW2, for use on the heavy traffic to the south coast?

Bulleid was not noted as an entirely pragmatic and practical engineer!

 

[70014IronDuke]

Bulleid had a fair opinion of them! Maybe a switch to the SR during WW2, for use on the heavy traffic to the south coast?

Would be interesting to see how a P2 would deliver on the banks west of Salisbury!

 

[Taunton]

Would be interesting to see how a P2 would deliver on the banks west of Salisbury!

... or get round the curve approaching Southampton tunnel! As I understand it, the P2 issue on Edinburgh to Aberdeen was the long 2-8-2 fixed drivers wheelbase actually damaged the track on the various sharp curves on the line, such as the check-railed zig-zag through Kinghorn tunnel, let alone on various crossovers. Bulleid would have been more than familiar with this, for as Gresley's principal assistant when they came along he probably knew more about them than the chief himself. A 9F 2-10-0 had no flanges on the middle drivers (and smaller driving wheels so closer together), but you can't do that on an eight-coupled loco. The LNER had eight-coupled 2-8-0s already, but they were small drivers freight locos, not higher-speed, larger-wheeled, longer fixed wheelbase locos.

In passing, as Riddles was key in the policy decision to design the 9Fs, did he have any experience from when his wartime WD 2-8-0 design was extended to many built as 2-10-0s, primarily to get a lower axle weight (along with a bigger firebox, for poorer coal). Did these have flangeless middle drivers, to get round curves better than the 2-8-0s, as well?

 

[Rescars]

Express locos could have large flangeless driving wheels, as proved by Pearson's 9 foot 4-2-4 tanks on the Bristol and Exeter back in the days of the broad gauge. OK, I know. That's a very long time ago and the past is a foreign country where they do things differently......!

 

[randyrippley]

In passing, as Riddles was key in the policy decision to design the 9Fs, did he have any experience from when his wartime WD 2-8-0 design was extended to many built as 2-10-0s, primarily to get a lower axle weight (along with a bigger firebox, for poorer coal). Did these have flangeless middle drivers, to get round curves better than the 2-8-0s, as well?

According to this page they were flangeless

8F 90750 – 90774 2-10-0 MOS (WD) Austerity

Power Classification 8F Introduced 1943 Designer Riddles Company Ministry of Supply Weight – Loco 78t 6cwt Tender 55t 10cwt Driving Wheels 4ft 8½ins Boiler Pressure 225psi supe…

preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com