Wright writes.....

[great central]

It could well be a most apposite thing that the Woodhead electric names perpetuated those carried by much earlier locomotives - railway history is full of such instances. But, I think Tony Gee is dead right in his conclusion with the regard to the naming of a Class 47 - it was after the man, not a previous loco.

 

In the case of the 86s, we get some real puzzles as to origins. Take 86223 HECTOR for instance. A name carried by EM1 26048, MS&LR No. 34, a GWR broad gauge loco and L&NWR 2-4-0 classes G and N. Surely all of those were named after the Trojan warrior slain by Achilles? Or, could it be, as you suggest, that the EM1 was named after No.34 and, also (is this possible?) that the 86 was named after an arcane L&NWR 2-4-0? Still with the 86s, I think it's a fair bet that those named after cities were just that - not named after previous Princess Coronations that were named after cities.

 

I suppose the greatest puzzle as to its origin could be Class 47 47090 VULCAN. Was it named after the Roman god of fire, or after WD 90732 (which was named after the Vulcan Foundry), or after Britannia 70024, or after a GWR broad gauge loco, or after a GWR Duke Class No. 3318, or after an LMS Scot No. 6133, or L&NWR G and N Classes (were these the same because they both carried the same number, 275?), or L&SWR No. 115, or, finally, MS&LR No. 33? 

 

I think it's definitely safe to say that in the case of the likes of the Warships, most of these were named after ships named after other subjects. including Biblical, Greek and Roman mythology. But, many of these names had been carried by other locos previously. The same was true for some of the Jubilees and the later Class 50s. 

 

Little did I realise that a simple point, and that still holds true that none of the Woodhead electrics was named after Greek Gods or Goddesses (neither, then, were the earlier locos), could grow into such a discussion. Is that what the interweb is all about?

 

Does this mean that 26054 was named after the well known co-star of various Disney films?

 

Edit, just remembered that 45 106 also carried the name Vulcan in it's Tinsley days. Remembering the plane or something to do with a Trekkie?

Edited December 17, 2015 by great central

[Jol Wilkinson]

Precisely my reason for not liking compensated or sprung mechanisms in my locos! If one axle can go up and down relative to the next, the rod length changes, so you need extra big holes in your crankpins.

 

 

Tony,

 

the effective change in length is so small that the running tolerances in the bearings, etc. take care of it.

 

Jol

[Stanley Melrose]

Of course if you really want to investigate this kind of motion, you really need to start with <Lissajous curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia>

 

I remember seeing in the 1960s an oscilloscope display of the motion of parts of a Ford car engine which introduced me to this topic.

 

Stan

Because the angle of the connecting rod is changing constantly, the piston does not exhibit pure simple harmonic motion so the plot is not a sine wave but only an approximation. The longer the connecting rod, the closer the approximation becomes.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Stanley Melrose

[Jol Wilkinson]

Because the angle of the connecting rod is changing constantly, the piston does not exhibit pure simple harmonic motion so the plot is not a sine wave but only an approximation. The longer the connecting rod, the closer the approximation becomes.

But does it matter in the operation of a "steam engine"?

Is the effect so small as to be irrelevant?

Do the other design and construction benefits of longer/shorter connecting rods, inclined cylinders, etc. have more influence in the maintenance and efficiency of a locomotive?

[St Enodoc]

But does it matter in the operation of a "steam engine"?

 

No.

 

Is the effect so small as to be irrelevant?

 

Yes.

 

Do the other design and construction benefits of longer/shorter connecting rods, inclined cylinders, etc. have more influence in the maintenance and efficiency of a locomotive?

 

Yes.

[The Stationmaster]

I think the name Vulcan on 47090 ( previously 1676, nee D1676) was a simple matter - former GWR engine name applied in 1965 to a WR allocated loco at a WR depot.  It was one of several GWR associated or historical names including, contemporaneously, such examples as  'North Star',  'George Jackson Churchward', and 'Isambard Kingdom Brunel'.

[ejstubbs]

Have I split an infinitive?

 

No, because there was no infinitive in your sentence.

 

St Enodoc is correct: adverbs of manner such as "firmly" usually go in 'end position' ie at the end of the clause.  In the case of your sentence, there is also an adverbial phrase of position ("round the ear") which also usually goes in end position.  Since both the adverb and the adverbial phrase must appear in end position, the adverb of manner should appear before the adverbial phrase of location, following the 'manner-place-frequency-time-reason' ordering rule.

[coachmann]

I think I'll have a full English end position with a slice of spotted-dictionary for lunch.

Edited December 17, 2015 by coachmann

[billbedford]

If they were named after other locos, which you might well be right about, it shows remarkable foresight by George Dow. In 1948 the EM1s were (with one exception) still three years away from existence, and the EM2s were six years into the future. Furthermore (other than TOMMY) it was over a decade before the names were applied. I know the BR naming committee met on many occasions in 1948 to decide on the names for the likes of the A1s and the Britannias, but it didn't take over a decade for those names to be applied. Was George Dow still responsible for such things then on BR, in 1959/60? 

 

The full story is that G. Dow suggested that the recently ordered locos should be named in the first formal meeting of the BR naming Committee in October 1949, but it was turned down. The suggestion was brought up again when Dow was chairman of a meeting, in April 1954, to discuss arrangements for the opening ceremony of the new Woodhead tunnel. Again the suggestion was rejected by higher authority. Finally after transfer of the MSW electric stock from ER to LMR jurisdiction it was agreed in July 1958 that twelve EM1s with boilers and the EM2s should be named. Dow's original list was received except that substitutes (Archimedes and Stentor) had to be found for Hercules and Jupiter since these names had been use on new Warship class locos.

 

It seems likely that Crewe's list of 'Suitable Names for Locomotives' was more extensive than Doncaster's.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

But does it matter in the operation of a "steam engine"?

 

No.

 

Is the effect so small as to be irrelevant?

 

Yes.

 

Do the other design and construction benefits of longer/shorter connecting rods, inclined cylinders, etc. have more influence in the maintenance and efficiency of a locomotive?

 

Yes.

 

 

10/10

 

We'll now wait for the argumentative one at the back of the class to say something

Edited December 17, 2015 by LNWRmodeller

[HeeleyBridge]

A Tinsley engine carrying the name Vulcan could have something to do with the fact that a statue of Vulcan (some old naked Roman blacksmith apparently) adorns the Sheffield Town Hall and appears on many things associated with the city.

 

Or not ...

 

(edit tripos)

Edited December 17, 2015 by HeeleyBridge

[Mallard60022]

No, because there was no infinitive in your sentence.

 

St Enodoc is correct: adverbs of manner such as "firmly" usually go in 'end position' ie at the end of the clause.  In the case of your sentence, there is also an adverbial phrase of position ("round the ear") which also usually goes in end position.  Since both the adverb and the adverbial phrase must appear in end position, the adverb of manner should appear before the adverbial phrase of location, following the 'manner-place-frequency-time-reason' ordering rule.

I apologise but I have lost the will to continue. I really can not post anything else as I will be excluded for not being able to write proper.

P

[glo41f]

This thread is really amazing at times. How fortunate we are to have such erudite and learned folk happy to dispense their wisdom. Thank you. Now to get back to trains, there have been some really amazing pictures recently of some equally amazing models. What sets them apart is the sheer detail and the finish which gives the real "used" look and is very difficult to achieve. All this in such small scales too. Clearly modelling is not dead. Please keep them coming chaps as they brighten up the dark winter days when the shed seems uninviting and cold.

What you have collectively shown is that it is possible to replicate the mighty steam locomotive in miniature form. 

 

Martin Long

[coachmann]

I apologise but I have lost the will to continue. I really can not post anything else as I will be excluded for not being able to write proper.

P

Easy if you follow these simple steps.....            p....r....o....p....e....r

[LNER4479]

Here's a model project in progress (trying desperately to get the thread back on track and knowing how much 'sir' likes us to do show n tell...)

 

I'm replicating in model form what the erstwhile GNR did back in the day, namely rebuild their D4 4-4-0's into D3's. Main work here is to extend the smokebox and add cut down fittings (chimney, dome).

 

I've decided to live with the more-noisy-than-I'd-like motor/gearbox Tony. I unsoldered it all to adjust and think I managed to quieten it down a bit.

[AndyID]

But does it matter in the operation of a "steam engine"?

Is the effect so small as to be irrelevant?

Do the other design and construction benefits of longer/shorter connecting rods, inclined cylinders, etc. have more influence in the maintenance and efficiency of a locomotive?

 

Yes, it does. It won't have much effect if any on the efficiency and power output, but the higher frequencies produced by the overtones of the fundamental frequency (the wheel's rotational frequency) produce vibrations that can lead to interesting things like cylinder bolts loosening and crosshead pins falling off.

[Tony Wright]

Here's a model project in progress (trying desperately to get the thread back on track and knowing how much 'sir' likes us to do show n tell...)

 

IMG_5744.JPG

I'm replicating in model form what the erstwhile GNR did back in the day, namely rebuild their D4 4-4-0's into D3's. Main work here is to extend the smokebox and add cut down fittings (chimney, dome).

 

I've decided to live with the more-noisy-than-I'd-like motor/gearbox Tony. I unsoldered it all to adjust and think I managed to quieten it down a bit.

Looking good, but I hope you're going to change those twelve-spoke bogie wheels to ones with ten spokes. 

[Pebbles]

Nobody seems to bother about the number of spokes on B16 main driving wheels.

[jwealleans]

I imagine they would bother more if correct (and self-quartering) ones were readily available.

[Grovenor]

 

The longer the connecting rod, the closer the approximation becomes.

Sure, but also the longer the connecting rod the more it weighs, with consequencies for the balancing, hammer blow etc. So the designer has to choose a suitable compromise.

Regards

[unclebobkt]

      ... .       

  Where will it all end?  Next thing we know some expert will be telling us that "GWR" doesn't stand for "Gresley Was Right" after all.

 

        After the successsful conclusion of the 1925's loco.-exchanges we know that 'Gresley Was Right.' to accept and to apply the major lessons to be learnt from 'Caldicott & from Pendennis Castles.'.

 

       

[billbedford]

Yes, it does. It won't have much effect if any on the efficiency and power output, but the higher frequencies produced by the overtones of the fundamental frequency (the wheel's rotational frequency) produce vibrations that can lead to interesting things like cylinder bolts loosening and crosshead pins falling off.

 

But was any of this known when 'computer' was a job description and a slide-rule was the instrument of choice for doing calculations? i.e. when steam locos were last commercially designed.

[Tony Wright]

Being basically simple, all this recent clever discussion about real steam engines (yes, the engines which drive the locomotive) has left me completely baffled. I don't understand most of the technical words (neither, with the greatest of respect do I want to). If I may be so bold, quite frankly, in my humble view, the whole 'argument' is irrelevant to the making of small scale electrically-driven models of steam locos. Why? Because in the model it's the driving wheels which push the connecting rod and thus the piston rod via the crosshead and slidebars, not the other way round. When I make a model loco, the length of the connecting rod is mechanically irrelevant. Obviously, it must be the right length for fidelity-to-prototype reasons and its connection to the crosshead/slidebars/piston rod.crank pin must cause no interference/binding/catching, but that's it. The locos actually run better without any outside motion/gear because there's less to push and shove around. My apologies if my comments above offend the intelligent.

 

I'll also say no more about grammatical matters, because it only proves how ignorant of the complexities of English I am.

 

Speaking of complexities, or the opposite of them actually, yesterday Roy Vinter and I spent a splendid time installing the first of the ground signals he's made for Little Bytham. Typically, I was content with the notion of just having 17 dummy ones, but this was unacceptable to this most-ingenious man. He wanted to make something for the project and insisted upon it. 

 

 

I have a copy of the signalling diagram for Little Bytham (thanks Mick Nich) and here's one of Roy's signals and operating mechanisms on it. The signals themselves are MSE/Wizard products. The operating mechanism is simplicity itself, consisting of a metal 'L' bracket, some brass wire, a bolt or two and some phosphor bronze strip. 

 

 

Here's one of the mechanisms installed. Just one screw is needed to allow for adjustment. The tube holding the signal has been pushed through a pre-drilled hole and the wire and brass 'plumb-bob' run through it. Pulling the piece of cotton raises the phosphor bronze strip which pushes the bob, turning the signal to 'off'. The phosphor bronze strip is infinitely adjustable. The twist at the opposite end of the wire to the cotton is to allow a counter-balance weight to be attached if necessary.  

 

 

Obviously you can't push cotton, but you can push lengths of wire to which it's attached. Pushing the wire drops the phosphor bronze strip due to gravity and the same force ensures the bob returns the signal to 'on'. No counterbalance weight was necessary. Eyelets give guidance and a strip of insulation tape prevents the cotton fraying against a bearer.

 

 

 

The end of the wire was twisted into a sort of 'U' and fixed through a pair of brass tubes soldered to a nickel silver strip attached to the underside of the edge of the baseboard. At the moment, this is a temporary expedient and proper operating handles will be finally fixed in place, with a mimic diagram printed above them. 

 

The design is so incredibly simple, indeed (sorry to be florid) sublime in its simplicity. It's easy to make, to install, adjust and is 100% reliable in its operation. Granted, on a fixed layout it's less complex an installation than on an exhibition one, but it could easily be adapted (or should that be adapted easily?) for such a purpose.

 

In the past, some layouts have been compared to Frank Dyer's Borchester. In just about every case this is palpable nonsense - the product of foolishness, arrogance and vanity in my view. Mine certainly isn't in Borchester's league because it's not all my own work. Neither is it pioneering nor hugely influential. But, if Frank's looking down, I'd bet he'd be interested in this ground signal system of Roy's. In my view, it's just his style. Inventive, economic, reliable, realistic in its movement and simplicity itself. It's marvellous - thank you Roy! 

 

And, just to prove it works...............

 

 

My venerable WSM J6 waits its turn to be released from the Down north lay bye. 

 

 

Road clear, ground board 'off' and away she goes.

 

 

Clear of the lay bye, she waits to be allowed across all the running lines.

 

 

Signal at clear and off she goes to the Up side.

 

I never thought that the operation of these little signals would add so much to the realism of the layout. Non-working signals of any kind? Not on Little Bytham!

 

It's my job next to make all the pulley posts, cranks and rodding. That won't be working. 

Edited December 18, 2015 by Tony Wright

[St Enodoc]

Non-working signals of any kind? Not on Little Bytham!

Very nice indeed Tony. Another good way to operate ground discs is by using Viessmann damped solenoids, but these are quite expensive. I use memory wire actuators made up using parts of Bic Clic ballpoint pens (I use these for all my signals not just ground discs).

 

 

 

These show a prototype installation fitted to a standard Ratio signal. The Z-bend in the operating wire isn't actually needed and the production versions don't have it.

 

However, many people nowadays use servos for signal operation which if bought via the internet are quite cheap.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But was any of this known when 'computer' was a job description and a slide-rule was the instrument of choice for doing calculations? i.e. when steam locos were last commercially designed.

It was appreciated subjectively by those with a feeling for what the mechanical components might actually be doing when working; and dealt with practically by established custom and practise, such as wire or split pin locking of nuts and conservative dimensional allowances for components under load. Good illustrations of this appreciation may be found in Bill Harvey's 'Sixty Years in Steam'. A fine example is the careful examination of the evidence, by which he was able to 'see' the failure mode which plagued the Doncaster inside big end design, and thus propose the effective solution which was applied. In this same volume his analysis of the various design defects which surfaced on the Britannia class in service is very interesting.

 

 

        After the successsful conclusion of the 1925's loco.-exchanges we know that 'Gresley Was Right.' to accept and to apply the major lessons to be learnt from 'Caldicott & from Pendennis Castles.'.

 You couldn't ask for a better illustration of what those who knew Gresley had to say about his thirst for knowledge. He was after any and all information to improve the output of his engineering team. At an ILE meeting in 1936, he paid a most handsome tribute to a man with the same approach, a certain Mr Churchward; who had acquired this know how about valve events from 'The Frenchmen'. It seems strange now when technical information is very rapidly disseminated and applied: but back then communication was slow, and reliable evidence difficult to obtain.