62613

No. 200, with the Garratt; are the wagons being used as barriers? If so, what sort of train is it? Surely not a delivery run?

Agree with all of them. You missed the sight-feed lubricator on the side of the smokebox of the rear engine. i think the different steps is to do with the shunting pole. Also I think that's the fire irons on top of the tank of the leading engine.

I can agree with that; it's not just on the railway, either! About 15 years ago I was working on a job for the new leisure centre at Cirencester (the swimmng pool bit) I remember going to a site meeting, trying to discuss with thee civils and H & V contractors on site to try and get a bit more space for our kit. In the end, there was a multi-disclipinary meeting at the consultant's office trying to make the point that our kit wouldn't fit and couldn't be maintained in the space we'd been given. In The end, a red line was drawn on the drawings with the remarks "That's what you've got; fit it in somehow!" Our kit was crucial to the whole pool working properly; it was the filtration plant!

Going off on a slight tangent, that photo emphasises the point about obtaining a photo of the loco you want to model; Without really trying, I can spot two, maybe three, differences between two locos which are the same class, aside fro the shunting pole.

HI Dave, I'm not one to comment much on these photos; their quality speaks for them. All i can say, looking at those last two, is that your mother is, or was a very hardy and tolerant lady!

Well, as he's one of the only two Englishmen ever to score a goal in a World Cup Final, that would to for me........

Bump felt in engine-room!. Nothing a bit of TLC and T-Cut won't fix!

They've got as much experience as the bus companies that ran our railways had when they started!

Retrofit, i think. I had my first trip 4/E on the Centaur, in 1978, and I'm pretty sure we didn't have it then.

Yeah, I was in the the same department as you, so most of the stuff I picked up was second-hand.

As I recall, Shell Tankers used to tank clean with an "Over-Rich" atmosphere in the cargo tanks; petroleum vapour will explode with a concentration of between 5% and 15% in air, so if you could keep the atmosphere in the tank either below (lean) or above (rich) that band you are safe; but it is almost impossible to keep it like that, given you have to access the tank to put the tank cleaning machine in. Am I also correct that the jet of water emerging from the nozzles of the machine created static electricity, and it was that combination that caused the explosion. There was a third VLCC, the Kong Haakon VII, which also suffered an explosion at around the same time, and it was these three disasters that set off the research that discovered about the static electricity. As Steve W has pointed out, inert gas systems had been around for years, since before WW2, if I recall. BP was the pioneer in installing it in the late 60s, partly as a result of the British Crown explosion mentioned earlier. Could Bon Accord confirm that the trials ship was ss British Skill, her sister ship and that the first ships fitted from new were the "Titty" class of product carriers from 1968, and the the first generation VLCCs from 1970 on? Another advantage of I.G. is supposedly it reduces corrosion, due to the oxygen-poor atmosphere in tanks, I think Lastly, I remember there was a serious explosion on a VLCC fitted with I.G. in the mid-1970s; the seal water pump was shut down, which allowed vapour to leak back into the funnel uptakes, where it went bang.

They did. Stockport - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge and over Standedge.

Second attempt! I think I more or less said that in my post above yours. I was sking a question.

No. 134: Anyone any idea why no. 2898 has a fully enclosed cab (even a weatherboard on the tender front).? And what is that on the footplate just in front of the cab?

Can the two TOCs not talk to each other? Or is that not allowed?

Is it an empty wagon being used as a barrier between the tanks and the rest of the train? But no barrier between the locos and the tanks, which suggests either that the second loco is the barrier(!) or that the tanks are empty

Well, up until the 70s, yes! Then only the coal, or coke, and limestone.

No. 124; Nottingham? In nos. 115 and 118, the locos have bogie brakes No. 122 is surely in Midland days?

Well. it's a special (reporting number on the smokebox) so who knows?

I would say that, apart from British Steel, British Coal, and possibly Britoil, all the markets are completely artificial; that is, there was very little chance of true competition between the actors in each service.

So, what you're saying is that there are ways and there are ways.

No 91, of MR 2601, was photographed by K.A.C.R. Nunn. According to the caption (Steam in Camera, 1898-1959, compiled by Patrick Russell), it was at St. Pancras on a Leicester express, sometime in 1901. In No 89 of MR 25, is that an indicator shelter on the nearside of the smokebox?

I thought that the liberty ships had reciprocating engines; you couldn't get much simpler. Remember they weren't meant to last as long as they did. The turbo-electrics were the T2 tankers, weren't they?

My first trip junior was the Gull, from 1959. She had no A/C at all. 220V d.c. electrics, 2 scotch boilers for steam, and an exhaust-piston H & W main engine; luvverly jubbly!