Tornado fails on ECML

[jjb1970]

I can't see how you could be wrong "Engine" can apply to just about any mechanism with moving parts. Babbage called his invention a "difference engine" and there were "siege engines" long before that.

 

The etymology of engine is quite interesting, and for most of human history an engine (and indeed the term engineer) had a very different meaning to the generally accepted meanings of today. Which indicates that trying to claim that the more modern interpretation is sort of dumbing down is on very shaky ground (ditto claiming exclusivity on who can call themselves an engineer).

 

If looking at an engine in terms of thermodynamics, the different types of heat engine are defined by the thermodynamic cycles which in turn are defined by the working fluid process. Therefore in a steam engine the boiler would be an integral part of the engine since it is difficult to boil and superheat water/steam without a boiler of some sort (and there are lots of different types of boiler and steam raising plant). One of my pedantic pet hates (yes, even I have pedantic tendencies) is the misuse of terms such as diesel engine but I'd better not re-open that argument as I did once before RMWeb and we ended up debating it for lord knows how many pages.

Edited August 15, 2018 by jjb1970

[jjb1970]

In the Clyde steamer terminology I grew up with, 'going to see the engines' [also I later discovered a euphemism for visiting the bar] was always plural, even in the case of a paddle steamer engine such as the Rankine & Blackmore triple-expansion set on PS Waverley, three cylinders each with an independent set of valve gear, on a single forged bedplate. The Turbine steamers also had multiple engines, including a reverse turbine. More questionable when there was just a single Marine diesel.

 

Yep, on every ship I ever sailed on we logged finished with engines. Plural. Stand bye engines. Even on single engine ships.

 

Yet a steam turbine was either a turbine or a turbine set, never turbines even though there were two shafts (HP + LP and astern) and with the LP/astern one carrying two separate rotors, the LP ahead rotor and the astern rotor in case the ship needed to go backwards.

[Gibbo675]

The etymology of engine is quite interesting, and for most of human history an engine (and indeed the term engineer) had a very different meaning to the generally accepted meanings of today. Which indicates that trying to claim that the more modern interpretation is sort of dumbing down is on very shaky ground (ditto claiming exclusivity on who can call themselves an engineer).

 

 

Q. What's the difference between an etymologist and an entomologist ?

 

A. An Etymologist knows what an entomologist does !

 

Yes I know, feeble attempt.

[Mallard60022]

eastwest divide had the best statement. The announcement should have been more user friendly [and thus educate the m(asses)] ;last 5 words mine not ewdivide's. Could have easily introduced the correct term after using the words more familiar to the onlooker (cylinders, pistons, valves etc.) Gently educate rather than poke pedantly.

Amen.

[Reorte]

If looking at an engine in terms of thermodynamics, the different types of heat engine are defined by the thermodynamic cycles which in turn are defined by the working fluid process. Therefore in a steam engine the boiler would be an integral part of the engine since it is difficult to boil and superheat water/steam without a boiler of some sort (and there are lots of different types of boiler and steam raising plant).

Yes but... you can have water-powered engines that are similar. Water powered pistons have been used from time to time, which are probably the closest comparison (doubtless some interesting challenges designing one of those - might explain why the one I've seen doesn't seem to have been very reliable). There the pressurised water supply wouldn't be considered an integral part of the engine AFAIK.

[stewartingram]

Maybe we should get back to bird watching?

I watched Carol present the weather on BBC1 this morning...........

 

Stewart

[Colin_McLeod]

Can you remember what she said.

[rab]

We are a fickle lot aren't we.

We complain when we don't get any information,

then when we get information we

complain about what is said.

[Mallard60022]

We are a fickle lot aren't we.

We complain when we don't get any information,

then when we get information we

complain about what is said.

Fickle? Moi? Na, I'm just an ar$£

ATB

Phil

[roythebus]

At a recent railway staff reunion at the Bluebell Railway I was chatting to an old workmate who happened to be the loco inspector on the footplate of Tornado when the failure occurred. He asked me not to reveal certain details but said it made a hell of a noise then stopped making it when whatever broke fell off! He said it was lucky it fell into the four-foot otherwise the results could have been catastrophic.

[Steamport Southport]

This correct terminology has caused confusion before. A GWR driver had a problem with the outside valves on one side of his big passenger loco. He disconnected it then continued on his way, perhaps hoping for some praise for his initiative when he wrote in his report that he '... worked the train forward with three engines.' He was less happy to be asked why he felt the need to use so many locos!

 

 

I remember reading a report in one of the books by someone like Ahrons about which said something along the lines of "The train had four engines" and was thinking "Wow! That would be impressive having quadruple headed express trains". 

 

I seem to recall he was referring to two 2 cylinder locomotives adding up to four "engines".

 

 

Jason

[Colin_McLeod]

At a recent railway staff reunion at the Bluebell Railway I was chatting to an old workmate who happened to be the loco inspector on the footplate of Tornado when the failure occurred. He asked me not to reveal certain details but said it made a hell of a noise then stopped making it when whatever broke fell off! He said it was lucky it fell into the four-foot otherwise the results could have been catastrophic.

If you can't reveal details then why say anything?

 

I know you may not have the answer to the following but I wonder what's the big secret anyway as it should all be included in the investigation report? If not why not? If it is sensitive not to release some bits of information until formal publication then why did he say anything that was currently confidential?

[PatB]

I don't think saying that the failure was noisy and potentially very serious would really count as "confidential" given that it was fairly obvious from the very first pictures released that this would have been the case. Hearing it from someone who was only 20-30 feet from the flailing metal, though, does, I think, have a certain anecdotal interest/relevance in a thread like this.

[AndyID]

I think it's great that steam locomotives are allowed to run on NR, but the lack of information regarding the root-cause of the failure isn't doing a lot to support that idea.

[LMS2968]

Ah, the joy of the internet, where we need all of the information instantly, whether or not it's actually known.

 

If I were preparing the report, I wouldn't drip feed the facts to the media either, but wait until I had them all suitably prepared in the final document. I realise that this is anathema to some people who have no actual interest in the subject other than shear nosiness...

[rockershovel]

The confusion and ambiguity between various applications of “engineer” only really exist in English. Our colonial cousins refer to a train driver as “the engineer”, after all. In French it’s “conducteur”, while the collector of bus tickets is... something else. The Germans call the chap in the cab “lokofuhrer” or something of the sort.

 

No other European language uses “engineer” to denote someone who services boilers, having a range of terms denoting “technician” to denote someone who isn’t professionally registered and does no design or analysis (a comparison I sometimes encounter in my travels, to differentiate between the two terms). Nor do they use “engineer” to denote a machine tool operator working to a specification designed or defined by an Engineer.

 

I was listening to Radio 4 in the car yesterday, on Any Questions? someone (Norman Lamb MP, I think?) made the observation that he had been told by Germans (during his apparently, brief spell as Minister for Something-or-other) that WE put our financial people on a pedestal, while THEY put their Engineers on a pedestal, and the results were easy to see.

[Colin_McLeod]

I don't think saying that the failure was noisy and potentially very serious would really count as "confidential" given that it was fairly obvious from the very first pictures released that this would have been the case. Hearing it from someone who was only 20-30 feet from the flailing metal, though, does, I think, have a certain anecdotal interest/relevance in a thread like this.

I was referring to the information that he was asked not to reveal.

[Mallard60022]

The confusion and ambiguity between various applications of “engineer” only really exist in English. Our colonial cousins refer to a train driver as “the engineer”, after all. In French it’s “conducteur”, while the collector of bus tickets is... something else. The Germans call the chap in the cab “lokofuhrer” or something of the sort.

 

No other European language uses “engineer” to denote someone who services boilers, having a range of terms denoting “technician” to denote someone who isn’t professionally registered and does no design or analysis (a comparison I sometimes encounter in my travels, to differentiate between the two terms). Nor do they use “engineer” to denote a machine tool operator working to a specification designed or defined by an Engineer.

 

I was listening to Radio 4 in the car yesterday, on Any Questions? someone (Norman Lamb MP, I think?) made the observation that he had been told by Germans (during his apparently, brief spell as Minister for Something-or-other) that WE put our financial people on a pedestal, while THEY put their Engineers on a pedestal, and the results were easy to see.

Sterownik silnika............Polish description. I have also heard Mechanista used at Wolsztyn which is a wonderfully poetic term from a driver.

Just thought, in my youth many boys wanted to be an Engine Driver, so I have heard the term 'engine' but not quite in the context discussed earlier on this thread.

Phil

Edited August 18, 2018 by Mallard60022

[rockershovel]

Sterownik silnika............Polish description. I have also heard Mechanista used at Wolsztyn which is a wonderfully poetic term from a driver.

Just thought, in my youth many boys wanted to be an Engine Driver, so I have heard the term 'engine' but not quite in the context discussed earlier on this thread.

Phil

I’ve heard “Mechanista” in Russian, too. Given the common use of “maschina” to denote more or less any sort of car, lorry or self-powered plant, I suppose it’s logical.

[keefer]

IIRC in Germany the term 'Engineer' is used to denote a professional qualification - much like 'Doctor'.

I.e. degree/further qualifications and membership of the relevant professional body/society

Edited August 18, 2018 by keefer

[rockershovel]

IIRC in Germany the term 'Engineer' is used to denote a professional qualification - much like 'Doctor'.

I.e. degree/further qualifications and membership of the relevant professional body/society

That was my point. Most European countries regard Engineering as a profession in the fullest sense, unlike here where we HAVE Chartered Engineers, but you’d never know ..

[Reorte]

That was my point. Most European countries regard Engineering as a profession in the fullest sense, unlike here where we HAVE Chartered Engineers, but you’d never know ..

Is it simply the case here of it being used inaccurately for so long by people trying to make themselves more impressive that it's become common to accept the word being used for technicians?

[rockershovel]

Is it simply the case here of it being used inaccurately for so long by people trying to make themselves more impressive that it's become common to accept the word being used for technicians?

No, it’s more than that.

 

I dare say most, of not all of those reading this forum are familiar with the phrase “vorsprung durch technik” but how many can paraphrase it accurately? Why, come to that, do it’s popularisers feel it is most effective in that form?

Edited August 18, 2018 by rockershovel

[newbryford]

Going O/T - apologies.

 

As a verb - to engineer.

1. design and build (a machine or structure).

•  

   

1. 2.skilfully arrange for (something) to occur.

 

 

I can do both of those, so does that make me an engineer or an Engineer?

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Mallard60022]

If Tornado had been DCC it wouldn't have failed.........................................................

P