Edwardian Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 3 hours ago, Nearholmer said: The main subject under contention is whether common notation (Bo-Bo etc) should be adopted for non-steam locos. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Actually highly relevant. There were non-steam locos in the period under consideration. Not many, I grant, but some. The Cycloped, for instance. Under Whyte, I think it would be an 0-4-0, assuming that all wheels are driven; under UIC possibly B; and, under IRS probably 4wHM, where H signifies horse, E for equine already being taken as E for electric, and M signifies mechanical transmission. These things matter. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 35 minutes ago, Nearholmer said: Actually highly relevant. There were non-steam locos in the period under consideration. Not many, I grant, but some. The Cycloped, for instance. Under Whyte, I think it would be an 0-4-0, assuming that all wheels are driven; under UIC possibly B; and, under IRS probably 4wHM, where H signifies horse, E for equine already being taken as E for electric, and M signifies mechanical transmission. These things matter. No this is too silly. I don't much care what people call diseasals or electrics or any non-steam locomotive engine and I don't agree that we suffer from a lack of a notation system where earlier experimental forms of motive power relevant to this topic are concerned. You need a notation for "horse"? How about "horse"? Unique or rare forms, such as a horse mounted on a wagon or a steam engine with legs can surely just be described without the need for a "notation", being in classes of their own! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 You sound almost as if you are taking my input on this topic seriously. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 31, 2020 59 minutes ago, Nearholmer said: The Cycloped, for instance. I prefer the description "hay burner" for a horse (4 feet version). 4F hay burner, maybe? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 2W2?? Does the UIC convocation cover the distinctions between square rigged and luggers? Edited January 31, 2020 by Northroader 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Nearholmer said: Yes, that’s the point being made by some protagonists. The main objections seem to be: - nobody understands it; - it’s foreign (but then, so is most of the notation used now, and we are members of the UIC). Much the same objections have been made against the système international d'unités and yet we mostly rub along understanding both that and the imperial units. But there might just be occasions when being conversant in both could be useful. I imagine @jamie92208 explaining to his neighbours the distinction between his Cn2G and Ch2G locomotives, despite their common 2.438 m + 2.591 m empattement. Edited January 31, 2020 by Compound2632 Dimension corrected. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, Northroader said: 2W2?? Does the UIC convocation cover the distinctions between square rigged and luggers? A pair of rigidly-mounted axles, 23 pairs of legs hanging over the side, another pair of rigidly-mounted axles, and a method of propulsion that breaks the system... 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Simpson Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 31, 2020 4 hours ago, Compound2632 said: The UIC notation is unambiguous and gives complete detail ... For most early-mid Victorian purposes purposes, 1A1n2S, 1Bn2P, and Cn2G suffice. Can you tell if it's got inside cylinders? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Ian Simpson said: Can you tell if it's got inside cylinders? Unfortunately not at the level I've looked at it - there may be refinements e.g. for compounds, which cylinders are HP and LP? Also, notation for water-carrying seems lacking - not distinguishing between tender and tank locomotives, or the multifarious possible locations for the tank(s). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 58 minutes ago, Regularity said: I prefer the description "hay burner" for a horse (4 feet version). 4F hay burner, maybe? I would have thought that a 4F could haul much more than a horse could? Jim 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Nearholmer said: You sound almost as if you are taking my input on this topic seriously. Sorry, Kevin, put lack of humour down to B-Day Which, conveniently, sounds like .... 4 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Compound2632 said: Much the same objections have been made against the système international d'unités and yet we mostly rub along understanding both that and the imperial units. But there might just be occasions when being conversant in both could be useful. I imagine @jamie92208 explaining to his neighbours the distinction between his Cn2G and Ch2G locomotives, despite their common 2.784 m + 2.591 m empattement. From experience of variously working with metric, Imperial and US (decimal feet) I’d feel that even some engineers don’t understand more than one measuring system Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 52 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said: Can you tell if it's got inside cylinders? A Bo-Bo with outside cylinders is probably in serious trouble... I'll stick to Whyte. The UIC notation seems more akin to convoluted organic chemistry! 11 minutes ago, Edwardian said: Sorry, Kevin, put lack of humour down to B-Day Thats Monsieur Bidet to you!!! (moving towards a hygenic railway) 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Edwardian said: Sorry, Kevin, put lack of humour down to B-Day Which, conveniently, sounds like .... Today we become the second country to leave the EU! Interestingly enough, fishing rights seem to have figured prominently in the departure of Greenland in 1985. One thing I didn’t realise, was that the EU actually had an extended system of “outer territories” of various descriptions, including places like Greenland, Tenerife, Azores and assorted scraps of rock in the back of beyond. Edited January 31, 2020 by rockershovel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbcompound Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, Hroth said: A Bo-Bo with outside cylinders is probably in serious trouble... 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 17 minutes ago, Hroth said: I'll stick to Whyte. The UIC notation seems more akin to convoluted organic chemistry! Actually, I have to confess it was putting me in mind of Pratchett's version of dwarvish. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welchester Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Edwardian said: Sorry, Kevin, put lack of humour down to B-Day Which, conveniently, sounds like .... Is the single tap hot or cold? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Bishop of Welchester said: Is the single tap hot or cold? I think the concern is rather that it won't be frictionless 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Metropolitan H Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 6 hours ago, webbcompound said: But that is surely a B-B rather than a Bo-Bo - as the axles on each bogie are mechanically coupled and driven by the same motor / engine. Regards Chris H 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 31, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, Metropolitan H said: But that is surely a B-B rather than a Bo-Bo - as the axles on each bogie are mechanically coupled and driven by the same motor / engine. B'B' in UIC notation since each four-coupled pair is mounted on a sub-frame. But whether that's B'n2B'n2 or B'B'n4 I haven't quite worked out. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbcompound Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Of course as far as the AAR classification is concerned a Bo-Bo is classified as a B-B since the number of motors/couplings is irrelevant, only the number of driven axles, which takes us back to the beginning of this discussion Edited January 31, 2020 by webbcompound 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbcompound Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Just found this early (1930s) film of even earlier steam locos and carriages: One Hundred Years of Railroad Development, made at the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad "Fair of the Iron Horse". They are US of course but the early stuff (2.5 to 5 mins) is very similar to UK practice, starting with Tom Thumb, the first US steam loco, and progressing through the early 19th century. After the 5 minute mark it gets a bit modern for this thread . https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=316&v=ocdTR9UKQC4&feature=emb_logo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 14, 2020 Author Share Posted February 14, 2020 2 hours ago, webbcompound said: Just found this early (1930s) film of even earlier steam locos and carriages: One Hundred Years of Railroad Development, made at the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad "Fair of the Iron Horse". They are US of course but the early stuff (2.5 to 5 mins) is very similar to UK practice, starting with Tom Thumb, the first US steam loco, and progressing through the early 19th century. After the 5 minute mark it gets a bit modern for this thread . https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=316&v=ocdTR9UKQC4&feature=emb_logo Great film, thanks. For convenience ... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
webbcompound Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Sorry, just couldn't work out how to embed it. Obviously needed a young whippersnapper to do it. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now