Imaginary Locomotives

[melmoth]

 

8 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

I asked Midjourney AI to create a picture of a "Bulleid pacific steam locomotive"

8 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

And here's the Flying Scotsman. I guess the AI wasn't shown many examples of steam locos when it was trained.

 

These are pretty simple, reasonable and inoffensive posts

 

3 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

that's not real art. You're not an artist. As someone who's close friends with at least 2 real artists, it's frankly insulting seeing this wretched theft of the real artwork of numerous people. Not only that, but it's merely shoved through an algorithm and passed off as "your" "art".

 

2 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

my stance that it counts as theft comes from the fact that I've seen AI outright mimicking the watermarks of freelance artists. Although my stance is different for corporations, theft of the artwork of active freelance artists without so much as credit to them is mildly disgusting on a moral level. Whilst that key clue isn't present on this specific case, I've seen dozens of cases of artwork like that being made by real people.

 

These responses less so.

 

My bold highlight illustrates that @tythatguy1312 has basically gone off on one about something obviously important to him but without evidence whatsoever that @BachelorBoy

is in anyway guilty of the offense imputed to him. For what little my opinion is worth, I agree that an apology is in order.

[tythatguy1312]

Alright i'm sorry. I strongly stand against the use of AI art in general but I'm sorry for reacting so boldly over this based on my own assumptions, even in the face of said assumptions being either unverifiable or wrong

Edited January 8, 2023 by tythatguy1312

[BachelorBoy]

30 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Alright i'm sorry. I strongly stand against the use of AI art in general but I'm sorry for reacting so boldly over this based on my own assumptions, even in the face of said assumptions being either unverifiable or wrong

 

Thank you. Appreciated. Now, back to using genuine and not plagiarised human imagination again :-)

[BachelorBoy]

32 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Alright i'm sorry. I strongly stand against the use of AI art in general but I'm sorry for reacting so boldly over this based on my own assumptions, even in the face of said assumptions being either unverifiable or wrong

 

I must admit I was not at all impressed by what the AI produced. And I do share your concerns about the dodgy provenance of the images that are used to train the software. 

 

[melmoth]

The rendition of the coupling rods on the Scotsman suggested that a fair amount of water had been carried over into the cylinders.

 

 

[tythatguy1312]

5 minutes ago, melmoth said:

The rendition of the coupling rods on the Scotsman suggested that a fair amount of water had been carried over into the cylinders.

 

 

so the cylinders based on the Peppercorn A2's?

[AlfaZagato]

In regards to the shaping of both ends of a train;

There is a concept in automotive styling termed a 'Kamm tail.'  So named as originating from Karmann.  To my understanding, at least in automotive applications, fancy streamlining makes little difference unless you pursue a full aircraft-style tail.  Success was found in 'clipped' tails. 

 

I would be curious what the max length of body is for a kamm tail to beneficial?  Depending on that value, sloped observation cars would be of dubious value.   I believe at least one of the UK streamliners bore a simple shroud to enclose the gangway and end fittings.

[RedGemAlchemist]

On 05/01/2023 at 19:41, john new said:

It is outside the NRM, York Station hotel and what was then the Insurance Co HQ are visible in the background as are the buildings in the Y of the Scarborough branch.

I stand corrected. Then again I wouldn't have spotted those details as I don't know York all that well and where I got the photo from included very little details other than the date. 

[tythatguy1312]

Something that I managed to find during my hours of meaningless research is the LMS' consideration towards buying a batch of GWR Castles (not to be confused with the Highland Castle 4-6-0's) prior to the construction of the Royal Scots. Assuming this had occurred (IIRC the GWR said no) I'm tempted to imagine the impact on LMS locomotive development, which could perhaps be huge.

[JimC]

8 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

 I'm tempted to imagine the impact on LMS locomotive development, which could perhaps be huge.

I have a feeling that the Castle detail design, geared for Swindon's sometimes expensive and finicky maintenance, might not have fared well at LMS sheds and factories. And what's the betting that after the drawings had passed through the LMS drawing office they would be subject to the same kind of 'improvements' as the Garrett design received? We know that a number of GWR features didn't transfer well to the LMS even with Stanier there to keep things in hand. Without him, well, I think the GWR board probably did the LMS a favour in refusing the drawings. Look what happened when Inchicore had a set of Churchward Star drawings.

[DK123GWR]

I have read (on RMWeb) that there were laws against the railway companies building locos for each other, but have never been able to verify it. If it was illegal, can anyone point me to the relevant legislation? I would like to give it a read as I think it would be interesting to explore any loopholes there may have been.

 

Update: Further research reveals this site, referring to an injunction granted by Justice Sir J Jessel on 16th December 1875. I'm sure this will be enough for me to find more information, but that would likely mean using a library, and I'm not doing that tonight.

Edited January 14, 2023 by DK123GWR

[tythatguy1312]

4 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

I have read (on RMWeb) that there were laws against the railway companies building locos for each other, but have never been able to verify it. If it was illegal, can anyone point me to the relevant legislation? I would like to give it a read as I think it would be interesting to explore any loopholes there may have been.

I don't think that such a law existed in writing, more-so that it was typically company policy. Notably the LNWR did build at least 1 locomotive for a foreign company, No.1320 for the Pennsylvania Railroad. It was constructed by a contractor but, besides a comical looking cowcatcher and bulked up cab, it was unchanged from LNWR 2-2-2-0's of the day.

Edited January 14, 2023 by tythatguy1312

[The Johnster]

In some ways that's what happened anyway.  As has been said, the Castle would have had to have been considerably modified to be suitable for use on the LMS; a firebox shaped to burn Midland coal instead of Welsh for a start, and it would be very likely that Derby would have insisted on it's favourite axleboxes, and probably shorter piston strokes, even Walchearts' valve gear.  The GWR influenced rather than dictated practice under Stanier, with his 4MT moguls, Black 5s and 8Fs being 'informed' by the leading dimensions of 43xx, Halls and 28xx respectively, and the Princess Royals owe much to the line of development of 4-cylinder Churchwardian engines Star-Castle-King, even to the bent steam pipes, paradoxically more so to these engines than the dimensionally not dissimilar Great Bear.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I don't think that such a law existed in writing, more-so that it was typically company policy. Notably the LNWR did build at least 1 locomotive for a foreign company, No.1320 for the Pennsylvania Railroad. It was constructed by a contractor but, besides a comical looking cowcatcher and bulked up cab, it was unchanged from LNWR 2-2-2-0's of the day.

 

By Beyer Peacock, if I recall correctly. And that's the point: it wasn't built by the LNWR for the Pennsy, any more than the Belgian Dunalastairs were built by the Caledonian. Such transactions were found to be illegal by case law, as @DK123GWR indicates. In the early 1870s, the LNWR built at Crewe a considerable number of new locomotives for the L&YR. The Locomotive Manufacturers' Association (established for the purpose) took the LNWR to court, contending that the railway company was exceeding its statutory powers by acting as a locomotive manufacturer for other companies, and won. They then went on to campaign against railway companies manufacturing locomotives for their own use, but there they were less successful.

 

This did not prevent railway companies from selling off old locomotives second-hand.

[rodent279]

It may (or may not) have been illegal for one railway company to supply locomotives- but would it have been illegal for Swindon to supply drawings, which the LMS all but copied?

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

It may (or may not) have been illegal for one railway company to supply locomotives- but would it have been illegal for Swindon to supply drawings, which the LMS all but copied?

 

As far as I'm aware, that would not have been illegal. Then there were a number of cases where a locomotive building firm made use of the contract drawings it had had from one customer to build engines of the same type for another customer...

 

The first five Belgian Dunalastairs were built by Neilsons, though all the Caledonian's own Dunalastairs had been built at St Rollox, so the Caledonian supplied drawings - presumably there was some form of royalty payment? But the bulk of the Belgian engines, and the various designs derived from them, were built by Belgian firms. I believe it was usual for the builder to supply a full set of drawings, so were the Belgian firms using the drawings they had had from Neilsons? And was there any further royalty payment to the Caledonian? 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Most railways were statutary bodies, set up by Acts of Parliament that dictated what they were allowed to do, and cannot be changed without another Act of Parliament or some other legislation. Ordinary businessses have Articles of Association declaring what their business is, and these can be changed by vote at an Annual General Meeting. This isn't something I know about in detail, but I can easily imagine that most railways' Acts of Parliament didn't allow them to build locomotives for anyone other than themselves.

 

Supplying drawings was probably fine. Intellectual property tended to be covered by copyright and patent laws, as well as physically safeguarding paper documents, and I doubt anyone thought that the sharing of intellectual property came under a railways company's Act of Parliament.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Jeremy C

[billbedford]

Crewe supplied the L&Y with 86 DX class between 1856 and 1872 so it wasn't illegal then. My understanding was that later in the 19th century there was an agreement between the private buildings and the railway companies to the effect that the later should not supply each other with locomotives. 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Crewe supplied the L&Y with 86 DX class between 1856 and 1872 so it wasn't illegal then. My understanding was that later in the 19th century there was an agreement between the private buildings and the railway companies to the effect that the later should not supply each other with locomotives. 

 

It was exactly that case that led to the practice being rule illegal, in the sense of being an activity outside the statutory powers of the railway company's Acts of Parliament.

 

9 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

I can easily imagine that most railways' Acts of Parliament didn't allow them to build locomotives for anyone other than themselves.

 

Not explicitly so; the ruling in the case in question was based on interpretation of what was within the powers conferred by the LNWR's Acts of Parliament. It was an example of case law rather than statute law. 

[JimC]

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As far as I'm aware, that would not have been illegal.

And was done. When the GWR wouldn't supply Castle drawings the LMS got Nelson drawings from the Southern. And of course Stanier took GWR drawings with him when he went to the LMS.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, JimC said:

And was done. When the GWR wouldn't supply Castle drawings the LMS got Nelson drawings from the Southern.

 

But didn't make a great deal of use of them. See D. Hunt, J. Jennison and R.J. Essery, LMS Locomotive Profiles No. 15 The ‘Royal Scots’ (Wild Swan, 2019). 

 

7 minutes ago, JimC said:

And of course Stanier took GWR drawings with him when he went to the LMS.

 

Likewise James Clayton took Derby drawings with him when he went to Ashford as Maunsell's Chief Draughtsman, with visible results. So if you think there's Nelson influence in the Royal Scots, just remember that what goes around comes around!

 

I think it's important to remember that the locomotive engineering community was quite small; many of them had trained together or were related, if not by blood then by marriage; people met and exchanged ideas, and there were strong friendships - Fowler and Maunsell, for instance. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I think it's important to remember that the locomotive engineering community was quite small; many of them were related, if not by blood then by marriage; people met and exchanged ideas, and there were strong friendships - Fowler and Maunsell, for instance. 

Did that include those that worked for private companies?  We don't often hear about those who were out of the railway companies PR limelight. 

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Did that include those that worked for private companies?  We don't often hear about those who were out of the railway companies PR limelight. 

 

Yes, I think so; certainly in the early days - Charles Beyer was enormously influential. Dugald Drummond tried his hand at private locomotive manufacture, first in Australia and then in Glasgow - not very successfully, since he was glad enough to take the Loco Superintendant post on the LSWR, which was a bit of a come-down from the same post on the Caledonian. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Compound2632

[rockershovel]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It was exactly that case that led to the practice being rule illegal, in the sense of being an activity outside the statutory powers of the railway company's Acts of Parliament.

 

 

Not explicitly so; the ruling in the case in question was based on interpretation of what was within the powers conferred by the LNWR's Acts of Parliament. It was an example of case law rather than statute law. 

Indeed. It was also informed by case law regarding the implementation of copyright in the armaments industry, where proprietary IPR were extremely valuable in those halcyon days of the 19th Century - and jealously guarded as a result. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by rockershovel

[Corbs]

14 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Something that I managed to find during my hours of meaningless research is the LMS' consideration towards buying a batch of GWR Castles (not to be confused with the Highland Castle 4-6-0's) prior to the construction of the Royal Scots. Assuming this had occurred (IIRC the GWR said no) I'm tempted to imagine the impact on LMS locomotive development, which could perhaps be huge.

 

10 hours ago, JimC said:

And was done. When the GWR wouldn't supply Castle drawings the LMS got Nelson drawings from the Southern. And of course Stanier took GWR drawings with him when he went to the LMS.

 

Is there any evidence that the LMS really did approach the GWR to ask for drawings? I wish I could remember where but I'm sure I read somewhere this is decades-old story that has been repeated over the years but there was no actual evidence for it happening.

I can't recall whether Cox mentions it in Locomotive Panorama or not.

 

 

On the subject of selling locos between companies/building locos for other companies, there is an interesting case in the Highland Railway River Class, which were delivered new to the HR, an argument occurs between loco and civil chief engineers over axle loading and hammer blow, they are never used, and all of them were sold to the Caley.

 

The claim of £500 per loco in the wikipedia page has no direct citation but it makes me wonder whether the statement that they made a profit would have been against the law?

Perhaps the involvement of an outside contractor or the fact they were technically 'used' not 'new' made it ok.

After all, many companies sold used locomotives to each other, so is it the building-to-order bit that is against the law?

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Corbs