Jump to content

Edwardian

Regency Rails - Georgian, Williamine & Early Victorian Railways

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

Steam power was simply not economic for most freight. The history of Cutty Sark shows that. Ships like that lost the trade in high value cargoes such as China tea decades before they lost to steam on lesser value cargoes such as wool where the cargo wouldn't spoil through delay and therefore the cost of coal was more significant

 

I thought that had as much to do with the opening of the Suez Canal giving a much shorter route to India and the far East, making steamships viable for that route. Sailing ships continued to go round Cape Horn to California, until the Panama Canal opened.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
6 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

... However the concept puts me in mind of the slightly confused person who is always one step behind the action. The sort of person who in the early 19th century if presented with a sailing ship and a steam engine and asked to consider how the former might be improved by the latter, would go to a great deal of trouble inventing a mechanism to furl and unfurl the sails without ever quite seeing that replacing the sails with paddle wheels or a screw powered by the engine would render the sails obsolete and the ship more efficient. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_huh.png 

Funny you should quote this as a cul de sac. 

It has now become quite the greenest form of cruise ship around - a 4 master with an entirely computerised bunch of sails set/furled/reefed by myriads of solar/battery powered lekky motors. These have become a common sight in Grand Harbour, Malta in recent years.

I understand from a marine engineer friend that giant Maerske freighters are being introduced using the same principle - possible even crew-less ! (God help us)

dh

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, runs as required said:

I understand from a marine engineer friend that giant Maerske freighters are being introduced using the same principle - possible even crew-less ! (God help us)

 

 

Given the dreadful way Philippino and other crews are treated by the industry, that might not be a bad thing. To say nothing of rendering piracy fruitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drones to defend against pirates? Scarily possible. They could even be programmed to act autonomously, which is super-scary.

 

And OT. Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather imagined that it would be pointless to board and attempt to gain control of what would be effectively a sealed, remote controlled container.

 

All this has reminded me of a book I enjoyed as a boy, called, I think, Camberwell Beauty (or at least that was the name of the starring ship), set in the time of the tea clipper races. Unfortunately I can't find any details on the internet, as I've failed to fight my way past a 2000 chick-lit novel by Jenny Eclair and a 2011 V.S. Pritchett short story of the same name, nymphalis antiopa, and the numerous salons of SE15...

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, runs as required said:

Funny you should quote this as a cul de sac. 

It has now become quite the greenest form of cruise ship around - a 4 master with an entirely computerised bunch of sails set/furled/reefed by myriads of solar/battery powered lekky motors. These have become a common sight in Grand Harbour, Malta in recent years.

I understand from a marine engineer friend that giant Maerske freighters are being introduced using the same principle - possible even crew-less ! (God help us)

dh

 

Yes it is one of those things that seem to be going full circle. Things like the  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail ot the other alternative the Rotor Ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship .

 

Interesting ideas and quite efficient in some circumstances. Although the emission reduction aspect is somewhat nullified by the need for some form of conventional motor to drive them. Presumably solar cells and batteries for work at night but I suspect a bit of an engineering nightmare to find room for all that and cargo.

 

Nearly 50 years ago when I was in my middle twenties I worked for a period in a shipping agency where I had to, amongst other things, turn out at all hours to meet incoming ships. I remember one arrival where the ship was guided into the dock by tugs then swung to line it up with the wharf, but done with a little more gusto than was necessary. The ship moved sideways rather rapidly straight at the wharf and smacked into it with considerable force and everything on the wharf including us and cars all got lifted into the air. Fortunately the wharf's pilings were springy but the effect was something to behold. So I hope these remote control crew less ships have better means of control. :blink: 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very enjoyable pair of videos, thank you.

Main comment: The Planet seems right on the cusp between progressing into small familiar 0-4-0 locos and the primitives. It looked pretty dangerous with the  levers reciprocating while at speed, but which the young driver had to work for starting presumably to ensure steam entry into the correct sides of the cylinder.

dh

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I particularly liked the last video because it showed the driver operating the gab type valve gear.  I don't know which type 'Planet' has so I dug out a couple of different versions.  The first one is a later type than the second one.

 

wp5ab7004d_05_06.jpg

 

wp70d4fd76_05_06.jpg

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, runs as required said:

Very enjoyable pair of videos, thank you.

Main comment: The Planet seems right on the cusp between progressing into small familiar 0-4-0 locos and the primitives. It looked pretty dangerous with the  levers reciprocating while at speed, but which the young driver had to work for starting presumably to ensure steam entry into the correct sides of the cylinder.

dh

 

 

 

It is an exposed and dangerous place that footplate - imagine driving through rain or a snow storm in that environment.

 

However watching the two videos it is still amazing how there is that discernible leap in the technology between Rocket and Planet and their successors in such a short time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gab gear only offers forward and reverse, not varying levels of cut-off. Which was the first engine with proper variable valve gear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whart57 said:

Gab gear only offers forward and reverse, not varying levels of cut-off. Which was the first engine with proper variable valve gear?

E.L.  Ahrons, in The British Steam Locomotive 1825 to 1925, mentions some 2-2-2  engines, designed by John Gray and built in 1840 by Shepherd & Todd of Leeds for the Hull and Selby Railway being fitted with Gray's Horse Leg motion, which he says was the earliest form of expansion gear used in locomotives and how it had previously been tried in 1839 on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway.

 

I'm sure someone here will be able to come up with exactly which engine ran with it on the L&MR.

Edited by Ruston
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first clip, there's also something waggling on the RHS - is that a crosshead-driven feed pump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Planet, the valve on each piston was driven by an eccentric mounted on the axle, fairly close to the centre. These two eccentrics were “slip” that is, there was a curved slot forming a segment with a stop at each end, so that the eccentrics could move to the extent that they could cover either the forward or backward movement of the engine, depending which end of travel they were at. Once in motion the stop and friction kept them in position for that direction. There was a cross shaft mounted low down in front of the cylinders , and the drive rods from the eccentrics worked rocking shafts, to which the relevant valve spindle was connected. Also connected to the rocking shaft was a linkage, which ran sloping up each side of the engine, to terminate just behind the firebox, so you could see “waggling” movement on both sides, but a rod went across the back so that the movement from one side ended with one of the two levers placed side by side on the other side. By applying pressure on the levers, as the engine began to creep, the driver could make sure that the slip eccentrics had moved to the proper position for the direction required. If you compare an old engraving with the replica, you’ll see the driving position has been moved from right to left, to suit modern practice.

Annies pictures show the DOS 2.0 valve gear for later locos. Here the two eccentrics have been keyed to the axle, another two added just inboard of the wheels, so you could have one eccentric for forward direction, and another for reverse for each of the valves. Forks (gabs) moving up and down could select the direction, and this could be done using a single lever, which no longer moved in tune with the eccentric movement.

  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/10/2019 at 18:43, Annie said:

A later 'Planet' type.  'Amstel' from Holland. (Large Image)  I have the rest of the set of drawings if you'd like me to post them as well.

Yes please Annie! It would be interesting to see them.

 

I think the trailing wheels would classify it as a "Patentee" if it was built that way, although some Planets were fitted with the trailing axle later in life.

 

Dana

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, - it's a 'Patentee', - I got the name wrong when I posted above.  These are big images and a couple are a little well worn since they are scans of the original drawings.  'Amstel' was built for the Dutch Broad Gauge not the narrow  standard gauge.

 

BZLOGu7.jpg

 

8qe7bhU.jpg

 

pPkQWj6.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'De Arend' replica photos. (Courtesy of Oztrainz at NGRM)

 

48951103013_4b0d28bae0_c.jpg

 

48951102703_fcbf25fc9c_c.jpg

 

48951645056_15a9d99e88_c.jpg

 

48951844612_42d09783af_c.jpg

 

48951844417_815d66d5b5_c.jpg

  • Like 10
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This replica of De Arend (Eagle) was built in 1939 for the centenary of the Dutch railways. Owing to the fact it was broad gauge it was not possible to send it round the country on tour so a short section of broad gauge track was laid in an Amsterdam park where it pulled some replica carriages. My mother remembered going on it as a young girl. (The replica that is, not the original!)

 

arend.jpg.e41252f4965ff538e96623c0be0f346a.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Annie said:

'De Arend' replica photos. (Courtesy of Oztrainz at NGRM)

 

 

 

 

 

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48951645056_15a9d99e88_c.jpg

 

 

Great pictures. Interesting that the third (standard/narrow ) rail seems on the platform half of the broad gauge width, so a standard gauge coach would have a big gap between it and the platform (or a wide loading gauge). If I didn't explain that well, the common rail is on the left, opposite to what the GWR did (they had common rail as nearest the platform).

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie586 said:

the common rail is on the left, opposite to what the GWR did (they had common rail as nearest the platform).

 

Perhaps this has to do with modern Dutch stock being built to a much more generous width than De Arend, so to bring the latter close enough to the platform, the broad gauge rail has to be laid on that side.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Perhaps this has to do with modern Dutch stock being built to a much more generous width than De Arend, so to bring the latter close enough to the platform, the broad gauge rail has to be laid on that side.

That could be the reason. I suppose it could just be the loading gauges line up worse the other way as there wasn't a period of mixed gauge so they weren't restricted by platforms for both.  A quick search bought this up http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/holland02.htm, plus there seems to be other photos out there, but not of standard and broad together.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.