62613
-
Posts
1,925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by 62613
-
-
On 28/03/2024 at 16:32, The Johnster said:
Debatable. They both sound like good ideas, but have drawbacks in day-to-day railway use; remember, the idea isn't just to build things that work, enny fule can do that, but that work profitably. HP marine-type boilers are a little delicate for the rough'n'tumble of railway work, and therefore are only practicable on duties where the profitable income offsets the increased maintenance and down-time; the LNER could not find such a duty. Turbines work most efficiently at full chat, and are not suited to the constant throttle setting changes of railway work up hill and down dale, though Turbomotive successfully worked the 10.00 Liverpool Lime Street-Euston and return, one of the heaviest jobs in the country and often loading to 16 bogies, for many years. It was rebuilt into conventional form when the boiler needed replacing in 1952, suggesting that it was not worth continuing with in turbine form in post-war conditions. The problem with constantly changing throttle settings on turbines was mechanical, and not to do with steam-raising.
By the late 30s, and certainly as built under Bullied, Ivatt, and Riddles' direction, boilers had become very efficient indeed as steam passages were improved, and there was probably little need to consider hp. Turbines had a place in railway work, but nowhere proved to be ideal for general duties. By the end of WW2, the need was for easily and quickly prepped locos with high availability that could be used with poor coal and limited shed staff, and the design problems were around hammer-blow and forward visibility. The obvious way forward was with diesel and electric traction, but in the UK the war-damaged economy prevented electrification and the lack of generators of suitable small size and high power restricted the development of diesel-electric traction for at least another decade.
One of the problems was to do with load changes on the boiler. There was apparently a lot of expansion and contraction, which led to tubes leaking (where they were fixed to the drums?). Marine boilers will do best in steady load conditions, after all they would steam at maximum capacity for weeks at a time. It was the same with diesel generator engines; they weren't adequately tuned to the duty cycle they were expected to perform.
No problem with low cylinder power diesels; just multiply them up (double heading, etc.). One remembers seeing that m.v. Georgic and Britannic, built for White Star Lines in the late 1920s, had 2 - off 10 - cylinder double - acting diesels, for 20,000 bh.p. 10 years later q.s.m.v. Dominion Monarch (Shaw Savill & Albion) had four 5 - cylinder Doxfords. I'm just trying to remember the name of the one which post - war suffered multiple crankcase explosions while on trials after her post - war refit which had four 8 - cylinder trunk piston engines. Wouldn't Melbourne Star have been twin - screw in order to reach the required power to drive her at 16 knots?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, peanuts said:
thoughts on the treatment of Gateshead fc being denied their rightfull playoff place due to not having a long enough (10yr) lease on their stadium ?
also should solihull be given a bye or should they be playing Aldershot who are next in line ?
very shoddy by the EFL/ national league to let it get to this point in the season before acting
Not really. The rules are there, and have been for at least 20 years. They apply allthe way down the non - league pyramid. The real villains are South Tyneside MBC who own the ground and won't grant them the lease.
As for The Moors, yes they should have a bye. Aldershot failed to qualify (how far down do you want to go?) and again the rules have been in place all the way down the non - league pyramid for many years now.
Of far more import is the disgraceful stitch - up between the FA and Premier League to remove replays from the FA Cup from round 1 onwards.
-
2
-
4
-
-
On 19/04/2024 at 17:55, 6990WitherslackHall said:
As AYmod has posted earlier, there is a Class 47 named Beeching's Legacy (kind of funny as the Class 47 helped to replace the steam locos that Beeching got rid of)
Beeching didn't have anything to do with ending steam; that was the 1955 modernisation plan
-
2
-
-
On 19/04/2024 at 17:45, OnTheBranchline said:
I've seen arguments that Crommell is overcredited for his successes in the English Civil War and the credit should go to Sir Fairfax.
Well, Sir Thomas Fairfax (junior) was the first G.O.C. of the New Model Army. Cromwell was the commander of the cavalry.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, jjb1970 said:
It was a regular on menu cards in P&O Containers.
And on BP menus as well!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:
Good luck with that! I made the mistake on engaging with the online comments. Never received so many downvotes for any point I've made. I had the audacity to suggest that perhaps WCRC was not as innocent as they claimed and that preventing fatalities was a good idea. The top voted post suggested that Brighton beach should be off limits as people might walk into the sea and drown...........
Sounds like a good idea to me!😁
-
1
-
-
On 11/04/2024 at 18:35, Dunsignalling said:
Two storemen receive a batch of female mannequins in kit form during their lunch break.
Once finished with the comestibles, one said to the other, "shall we join the ladies?"
John
IKEA mannequins?
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:
A new arrival in Manchester, former West Midlands 323 at Piccadilly with an Alderley Edge service this morning.
Had one of them on the Hadfield line a few weeks back.
-
1
-
-
Just now, 62613 said:
Huddersfield Station closed at the moment, for the first phase of the changes. TPE were operating an hourly Manchester - Marsden shuttle on Good Friday. I used the 0812 to go from Stalybridge to Greenfield; I nearly had the train to myself.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 26/03/2024 at 08:37, DY444 said:
Is that all? Luxury. In the leafy SW London suburbs we recently made the stupid mistake of taking the bus through Worcester Park. Took 35 minutes to go half a mile. Always a congested road at the best of times it is even worse now. Why? Because it is outside the ULEZ expansion zone but all the roads to the east of it are in the zone. Improve air quality by increasing congestion. See also LTNs. Genius.
Too many cars on the road delaying public transport, then.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, DaveF said:
Some black and white photos taken around Nottingham for this evening.
Annesley probably J5 down goods c1951 JVol6153
Near Awsworth Occupation arch on MR Kimberley branch closed 1916 on right Awsworth or Giltbrook or forty arches viaduct on GNR Pinxton branch c1950 JVol3187
Nottingham London Road Goods GN J52 68814 c1952JVol3039
Nottingham London Road Low Level A5 69817 down goods c19
David
Jvol 6153; what's the provenance of that 4 - plank wagon behind the loco?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Dungrange said:
I think that's a wider issue with regards misunderstanding about taxation. There are also people who will tell you that National Insurance pays for state pensions and the NHS - again, it doesn't: the money raised just goes into the general taxation pot for the government of the day to use as it sees fit. Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax that is paid if you want to own a car and use it on the public road network, but it doesn't just pay for road maintenance and could be regarded as a 'sin tax' in the same manner as duty on cigarettes, alcohol etc.
How road maintenance is paid for depends on who owns the road. If it's a local authority road, then it will be paid for from Council Tax (and therefore paid by Council Tax payers irrespective of whether they own a car or not), albeit some local authority funding comes from national government payments, which will have come from the big pot of money that includes all forms of taxation (Income Tax, National Insurance, VAT, Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty etc).
Agreed! And the proportion of central government grant making up local government finance has been falling quite steeply since before 2010, while the means local councils have to make up the shortfall has been limited. hence liesure centres, libraries, etc., being closed or privatised, and local roads falling apart.
-
1
-
-
Just now, adb968008 said:
Most people wouldnt care about semantics.
its a tax to use the road… we all know that.
But you implied that it was used exclusively for roads maintenance and construction, which it isn't. I'm happy paying £3 - odd a week just to let my car rust away on the road (if that's what I wanted to do!)
-
1
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, adb968008 said:
Try explaining that to the taxpayer, especially those skipping meals to subsidize someone elses vacation travel.
If you mean by "taxpayer" that exclusive group paying income tax (as if there are no other taxes, which everyone pays some of, somewhere), then those skipping meals won't be paying much of that, since they will be in low - income groups; that includes large numbers of people on minimum wage, or pensions, or state benefits.
5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:Ive elsewhere made the case that for a few hundred quid a year in taxes we could have a well funded rail network for free for taxpayers.
however in both cases the world doesnt work like that.
Schools, libraries are more important than rail travel in remote areas mostly used by tourists.
This was Beechings principal, and that rationale hasnt changed. Scotrail is unable to stand on its feet, aside of 1 route.
scotland has a good, under utilized road network to the same places too, funded by the road tax, which gives road users unlimited road access for free.
YE Gods! There is NO such thing as "Road Tax"; there hasn't been since 1937. What we have is Vehicle Excise Duty, which goes into the general revenue pool, some of which will be spent on roads.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, Wheatley said:
Neither did drivers before privatisation (and yes I did adjust it for inflation using the BoE calculator). The franchising model has decided the rate of pay for drivers, based largely on it being cheaper for the more profitable TOCs to poach trained drivers from the subsidised ones rather than carry the costs of training their own, and cheaper to pay over-enhanced rates of overtime than carry additional headcount to actually have enough drivers on the books to run the service. You can't blame ASLEF for that.
That's been the UK employment strategy for at least the last 30 years; and if employers can't find UK citizens who will do the advertised work for the pay provided, they are poached from abroad.
-
5 minutes ago, peanuts said:
the footbridge at Greenfield is supposedly going and either being replaced with a new structure and lifts or the old underpass being reinstated and access built from Oldham road for disabled to the eastbound platform.the road bridge is a major obstacle can only see lowering of the track bed
Which what I was saying. Marsden doesn't look right brilliant, either, come to think of it
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:
Moreover if someone invented a vacuum based CDL system that could be proved to meet the basic requirement of preventing a passenger from being able to open a locked door (however much they pull / push / bash it) then the ORR would have no issue with such a system being employed.
Anyone up for the challenge? A pure mechanical system is non - starter, I think. I'm thinking about something that works directly off the brake cylinder actuating a solenoid, with an electricomagnetic lock. Against such a system might be; why operate it off the vacuum cylinder when you can operate the lock without it anyway; and, what would happen when the vacuum is destroyed when braking?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, adb968008 said:
People might want wcrc to go away, but theres no one able to replace them… and in the interim nothing prevents Scotrail seeking the slots either, then its game over.
* suitable now being unsuitable to the orr.Why do you think anyone would want WCRC to go away? There might be some who are sick and tired of all the shenanigans of dealing with them, but force them out?
-
1
-
-
On 18/03/2024 at 22:15, St Enodoc said:
My, totally uninformed, guess is that were she to be moved she would break up of her own accord without any assistance from mankind...
I don't know anything about secrets and have never heard of "excess" power before but I assume that's how she won (and still holds) the Blue Riband.
A bit like the two 32,000 dwt tankers built for BP in the 1950s, which were built with sufficient speed to operate with the RN.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ikcdab said:
So I guess the canal engineers had an even more difficult job. They had to build an exactly level line and the maps 100 years before the railways were built were even more Spartan.
Which accounts for the way some of the earliest wander all around the countryside (around hills, rather than through them, and so on). You only had cuttings, embankments, viadusts and tunnels, as well as lock flights, when there was no other way of doing things.
-
9 hours ago, Rivercider said:
By 1830 there must have been quite a lot of knowledge of the geography or topography, particularly in the affluent areas of Britain where the first railways were built.
There were a thousand Turnpike Trusts controlling 18,000 miles of road, also 4,000 miles of canals. The first OS maps were available around 1801, with the 6 inch to the mile survey had commenced (starting in Ireland in 1824).
The promoters of the Great Western for example knew which places they wanted to connect so looking at the basic maps of the day a number of potential routes would suggest themselves. Presumably at the local level Brunel or his fellow engineers would have employed someone with local knowledge to show him around?
cheers
I would imagine that, just as with tunnelling, cutting and embanking, there would have been a fairly large pool of surveying experience from the canal builders.. Weren't some of the engineers from a military engineering background as well?
-
2
-
-
Are these on the building on the island platform which is going to be "carefully dismantled and rebuilt" on the island platform?
-
27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:
No. The symbols are capitalised but not the names when written out. So: 92 MHz but 92 megahertz; 87 N but 87 newton.
This is the difinitive guide: https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure.
And, note, newton not newtons.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Canal Digger said:
Sorry but it is Kg for Kilograms
'μ' = multiply by 10 to the power of -6
'm' = multiply by 10 to the power of -3
'c' = multiply by 10 to the power of -2 as in cm, centimetre
'K' = multiply by 10 to the power of 3
'M' = multiply by 10 to the power of 6 as in Mega.....
'G' = multiply by 10 to the power of 9
I could go on but point proven.
Nope! Units are only capitalised if they are named after a person, e.g. Volt, Amp, Watt, Joule, Newton and so on. I've never heard of anyone called kilo. Among the multipliers, the only ones I know of are Mega, Giga and Tera.
-
1
-
3
-
Imaginary Locomotives
in Modelling musings & miscellany
Posted
And the Mirlees engines in the Brush type 2s as well. They were great in trawlers, apparently. For reasons already discussed.
Weren't the Deltic engines removed in one piece? At least they weren't Paxmans😬