rodent279

Disregarding the general absurdity of the idea, could you not have an inside cylinder set amidships, driving the front wheelset, and outside coupling rods? Yes you'd still need a crank axle, but you could still have central mounted cylinders.

I think there were some uniflow engines in the US (where else!), and I have a feeling that a GN Atlantic may have been given uniflow cylinders as an experiment. Edit; I knew it was LNER, but NER rather than GNR. Two were done, a B15 and a C7. https://www.lner.info/locos/C/c7.php The Paget engine was a fascinating machine. I wonder if any of the problems could be solved today, with modern materials, and the ability to manufacture to closer tolerances?

Possibly the same thermal advantages of the uniflow engine?

Yes, it really was a thing:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_ML_2/2

An opposed piston steam engine. Is that workable? Was it ever a thing? Edit: I guess it's a special case of the uniflow engine. Single acting, so effectively only 2 cylinders, not 4.

Using a transformer designed for 25Hz at 50Hz would result in greater eddy current losses in the core, resulting in it running hotter for a given power. That may or may not be a big issue, but some analysis & testing would need to be done first, otherwise there is a risk of insulation breakdown and/or fire.

It's used for a good mix of local/short distance work, and longer distance runs.

I don't have the leaflet to hand, so I can't quote the claimed savings. A quick calculation, assuming avg 45.4mpg, which is 10m/ltr, and fuel at £1.30/ltr, equals 13p/mile in fuel. If the treatment reduces fuel consumption by 10%, then 45.4mpg is now 49.94mpg, which is 11m/ltr, and cost per mile is now 11.8p. That is a saving of 1.2p/mile. It will take over 8300 miles to recoup the £99 outlay. That is less than our annual mileage, so it would pay for itself in under a year, and assuming 10000 miles annually, would knock about £20 off the annual fuel bill. But cycling to work an extra day a week would save me ~£1.50 a time. I've only got to cycle to work an extra 12 or 13 days a year, and I'd make the same saving. So all in all, saving £20 on an outlay of £99 doesn't seem very good value for money.

I don't really think they are cheating anyone, so much as selling something that isn't really worth the money. It's a bit like water filters, that are reputed to remove all the nastiness in tap water-they are creating an idea in the customers mind that there is a problem, then saying here is the solution.

I don't have the leaflet to hand, but they make claims about improved mpg and reduced CO2 emissions. How you hold them to that I don't know. How do you prove you haven't got your extra 2mpg or whatever? How do they prove you have?

Probably, but I guess you need proof. What impressed me about the council Most place was that when I first took my car there, they failed it, because the gasket on the fuel filler cap was missing. We've had the car (a Morris Minor) since 1986, and it's never had a gasket under the filter cap, and this has never been brought up before. I checked, it is a valid MoT check item, and can be failed if missing, and there should be a gasket. I made one to fit, it passed. That have me confidence that they were thorough.

I believe they are an independent. They are desperate for me to MoT my car with them, but I take it to the local authority testing station. They are not allowed to do commercial repairs, so they have no interest in finding reasons to fail it.

Ah, it doesn't count if its not stood on its own wheels......!

Nicely done, sir....

We're back to steampunk!

Just had the car, a 2005 Micra 1500 diesel, serviced at the local independent garage. For the 2nd time, they offered me EDT treatment, £99. For those who don't know, this is a power engine flush that claims to rid the engine of contaminants. I said no. What's the hive mind view on this stuff? My view is that it's unnecessary, as regular oil changes with detergent based oil should do exactly that. The only thing it is going to flush is my bank account of £99!

I believe that another problem with the tandem arrangement is that of lubricating the central gland, and keeping it steam tight.

Tandem engines, usually compounds, were quite common in mill and other stationary applications. There were some tandem locomotives, in the US I think, but it never became a big thing, probably because of what @Gibbo675 said above. Edit:- I wonder if balancing may have been more difficult with tandems?

How do the boiler dimensions of a 240P compare to a King or a 47XX, in terms of barrel length, dia, no. and size of tubes, firebox heating surface etc?

I think that firebox & cab may be deceptive-look at the angle of the cab front plate. I suspect the boiler & firebox backplate is over, or close to, the rear axle.

I can't do the artwork, but my vision of a Swindon 4-8-0 would be something of a hybrid between this :- https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:240P.jpg#mw-jump-to-license and a King. Possibly a smaller wheel diameter, say 6'3", would allow a larger boiler diameter, which might bring the ratio of diameter to length between tubeplates to something more like that of a King or Castle. Fully Chapelonised steam circuit, with angular or curved steam pipes from a position high up on the smoke box to the outside cylinders, Kylchap double chimney, and, dare I say it, compounding on the de Glehn system.

Ah, I understand now. Hadn't appreciated that it wasn't using the old alignment. Must keep up!

The Cathedral looks too much like an extended King, in fact with the narrow firebox & long barrel, I would have thought it would have been an indifferent steamer, like TGB. I know M. Chapelon managed to get some impressive performance out of his P-O (?) 4-8-0's, but he had the benefit of a larger loading gauge.

Wouldn't EWR only be turning back at Bedford, not going north? Unless they are planning to reopen to Northampton?

Ah, the Telephone Rentals building. I started work in there. Happy days.