2251

1 hour ago, Artless Bodger said:

Thank you 2251 - I never knew it went back so far, presumably the ancients used a pole lathe of some sort, like the furniture bodgers?

 

Looks like the man in the film had spun his own hat.

Presumably reciprocating power in some form -- a pole, bow, cord pulled back-and-forth, etc.

I think it is right to say that there is no  real evidence that wheels were applied to bring continuous motion to lathes until the Middle Ages. 

19 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

How long has metal spinning been used? Early on wouldn't it be a coppersmithing job to hammer it to shape on a former? Could you spin an oval cap for a double chimney anyway? Just asking as I've seen some interesting old craft making films for things like tinsmithing, basic tools and expertise.

The basic idea dates back to antiquity and does not require much in the way of complex equipment (although it does need a good deal of skill). This video gives the idea.

On 12/07/2022 at 10:00, billbedford said:

I once heard about a testing system for recruits in the German/Russian/Turkish army. They were tested for intelligence and the ability to work hard. Then they were divided into four groups:

 

The intelligent and lazy became officers. 

The intelligent an hardworking became NCOs. 

The stupid and lazy became ordinary solders. 

and the stupid and hard working were taken out and shot, because they were always going to cause more problems than the army could deal with. 

This story has various iterations. Another is attributed to General von Manstein, who is supposed to have said:

“There are only four types of officers.

First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm.

Second, there are the hard-working intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered.

Third, there are the hard-working, stupid ones. These people are a menace, and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody.

Finally, there are the intelligent lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.”

1 hour ago, spikey said:

 

In which case it must be spun in two parts, so the obvious question has to be how are they joined?  Does the top part just overlap the bottom and be a good fit, or what?

Traditional practice would probably have been to spelter braze them together unless the two parts would need to come apart. 

34 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Yes, that sounds like the poisonous gas. Phosgene was a chemical warfare agent used by both sides in WW1.

 

CTC is extremely nasty stuff.

As you say, at high temperatures it turns into phosgene; but even on its own, it is extremely toxic, affecting the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys. It is also carcinogenic.

If I were responsible for a museum with an elderly container of it on the shelf, I would want to think pretty long and hard about the precautions in place.  

23 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

That looks good. 

The problem is that, AFAIK, there were no blast furnaces in the London area that would be a source for the pig iron. The nearest sources would be; East Moors in Cardiff, Redcar on the Tees and possibly Lysaght's in Scunthorpe. The later was known to ship pigs by sea in the 30s but there's no record from earlier. 

 

The closest rail connected sources found be found in S. Wales, Nottinghamshire, Scunthorpe ands possibly the West Midlands*. 

 

* Maybe Steph could suggest iron works connected to the LNWR?

 

Between the closure of the last of the Wealden blast furnaces early in the nineteenth century and the opening of the Ford operation between the wars, I cannot think of a single blast furnace in south-eastern England.  

What about the Pembroke and Tenby Railway? It gained proper signalling, supplied by McKenzie & Holland, shortly before the GWR lease and take-over in 1896/1897.

On 27/06/2022 at 14:35, Nearholmer said:

A lot of sense, but the trouble is that by the 1950s the burden of Victorian Bloat, and Victorian legislation, had already been weighing the railways down for decades, and needed to be dealt with much before that.

 

How about we nationalise in 1923, as was seriously advocated by people from a surprising breadth of the political spectrum, and put Sir Herbert Walker in charge of the whole ruddy lot?

 

He was an arch moderniser, and a man who really understood how to take costs out of railway operation while still providing viable services.

 

If we give sufficient capital to permit real investment in “spend to save”, as well as in tapping emerging markets, which is what he secured on the SR, we might really get somewhere, but watch out for early use of motor lorries and buses, taking over local goods distribution and the least sensible branch lines. Some of the common carrier obligations will need to be lifted, and a lot of the capital will be in the form of low-interest, government-backed loans, aimed at maintaining employment in industry, through modernising the railways.

 

More taking a good set of pruning shears to the thing, and making sure it is properly fertilised and watered, than the axe that eventually had to be used because it was all too out of hand.

The man at the Southern whose role is grossly insufficiently appreciated is Robert Holland-Martin, chairman from 1935 until his death in 1944. A good deal of what people now tend to think of as distinctively "Southern", such as the use of Malachite green, was due to his influence.  

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

“The reason for the station's construction is a mystery.”

 

 

It is pure speculation on my part, but the "big house" (Dalnawillan Lodge) about four miles to the south might have been part of the logic.

29 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Ireland?

Tewkesbury!

On 25/06/2022 at 19:14, The Stationmaster said:

Most likely because there wasn't enough space to arrange the Down platform in any other way - although that does to some extent depend on what was built when.

It is worth remembering that Pen Mill had an overall roof until some point in the 1940s or 1950s, but the removal of the overall roof did not result in an alteration of the basic platform arrangement as it had come to be. There are some photos half-way down this page:

https://www.yeovilhistory.info/penmillstation.htm

I am not at all sure what the platform arrangement was when the overall roof was first built, but how it came to be makes more sense once one appreciates that it started out with an overall roof.

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Well, this is not a very original thought, but given the current situation, I have to ask ....

 

... what's the best "Prototype for everything" picture for trains not running?

(putting on my best flak jacket)

Am I mis-reading this, or does it include part of the Cheltenham-Honeybourne line? And I note that the GWSR are running today. 

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Interestingly I've never heard of a 4-2-2 tank, despite the fact that, on the surface, it doesn't sound like a horrendous idea for the early 1860's

The Bristol & Exeter (inevitably) had quite a number. They were, I think, later re-built into tender locomotives.

36 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Something, probably inaccurate, rumbling in my brain says the GWR changeover from red to yellow distant arms began in the London district c 1924. Maybe 1927 before the programme started to be applied in other districts?
 

Vaughan in A Pictorial Record of Great Western Signalling (a work entirely devoid of foot-notes, and the accuracy of which I am therefore inclined to doubt) asserts on p 15 that "it was 1927 before the Great Western even began to comply [with the Board of Trade requirement] and 1933 before the alteration was complete."

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

But it is not that simple. Do we know what the previously approved "or disinfectants or disinfectants specified or described in such provisions" were? If they included disinfectants (a) or (b) there could well have been a transition.

Jonathan

That is a good point. I have now tracked through the legislative history.

The Animals (Transit and General) Order 1912, provided by Art 21 that:

“(1) A railway truck or other railway vehicle (not being a horse-box or guard's van) used for animals on a railway, shall, on every occasion, after an animal is taken out of it, and before any other animal or any fodder or litter, or anything intended to be used for or about animals, is placed in it, be cleansed and disinfected as follows :

(i.) The floor of the truck, and all other parts thereof with which any animal or its droppings have come in contact, shall be scraped and swept, and the scrapings and sweepings, and all dung, sawdust, litter, and other matter shall be effectually removed therefrom: then

(ii.) The same parts of the truck shall be thoroughly washed or scrubbed or scoured with water; and then have applied to them a coating of lime-wash, or be otherwise disinfected in the manner hereinafter prescribed.

(2) The scrapings and sweepings of the truck or other vehicle, and all dung, sawdust, litter, and other matter removed therefrom shall forthwith be well mixed with quicklime, and be effectually removed from contact with animals.”

Art 27 went on to provide that:

“The prescribed manner of disinfection to be adopted in the case of any place or thing or part of a place or thing required to be disinfected under this Order or any Regulation thereunder

is as follows :—

The place or thing, or- the part thereof, required to be disinfected shall be thoroughly coated or washed with—

(a) a one per cent, (minimum) solution of chloride of lime containing not less than thirty per cent, of available chlorine ; or

(b) a four per cent, (minimum) solution of carbolic acid (containing not less than ninety-five per cent, of actual carbolic acid), followed by a thorough sprinkling with limewash; or

(c) a disinfectant equal in disinfective efficiency to the above-mentioned solution of carbolic acid, followed by a thorough sprinkling with lime wash.”

Thus under the 1912 scheme, the primary method of disinfection was with limewash, albeit with other options available.

Those provisions were revoked by the Animals (Transit and General) Amendment Order 1924.

The new Art 21 provided that:

“(1) A railway truck or other railway vehicle (not being a horse-box or guard's van) used for animals on a railway, shall, on every occasion after -an animal is taken out of it. and before any other animal or any fodder or litter, or anything intended to be used for or about animals, is placed in it, be disinfected, cleansed, and again disinfected as follows : —

(i) The floor, roof, and sides of the inside of the truck, and the sides, ends, and fittings of the outside of the truck, and all other parts thereof with which any animal or its droppings or other excretions, have come in contact shall be disinfected in the manner hereinafter prescribed. Such parts shall then be scraped and swept, and the scrapings and sweepings, and all dung, sawdust, litter and other matter shall be effectually removed therefrom; then the same parts of the truck shall be thoroughly washed or scrubbed or scoured with water; and then be again disinfected in the manner hereinafter prescribed.

(ii) A railway truck or other railway vehicle (not being a horse-box or guard's van) intended to be used for animals on a railway, shall, if it has been used for any purpose other than the carriage of animals be disinfected, cleansed and again disinfected in the above manner before it is used for animals.

(2) A horse-box used for an animal on a railway, shall, on every occasion after an animal is taken out of it, and before any other animal, or any fodder or litter, or anything intended to be used for or about animals, is placed in it, be disinfected, cleansed, and again disinfected in the manner described in paragraph (1) (i.) of this Article, except that such process need not be applied to the sides, ends, and fittings of the outside of the horse-box unless such parts have been soiled by the droppings or other excretions of the animals.

(3) The scrapings and sweepings of any truck or other vehicle which is required to be cleansed under this Article, and all dung, sawdust, litter, and other matter removed therefrom shall forthwith be well mixed with quicklime, and effectually removed from contact with animals, or be effectually destroyed by fire.”

Art 26 (rather than Art 27 in the 1912 scheme) went on to provide that

“The prescribed manner of disinfection to be adopted in the case of any place or thing or part of a place or thing required to be disinfected under this Order or under any regulation of a Local Authority made hereunder, is as follows : —

The place or thing, or the part thereof, required to be disinfected shall be thoroughly coated or washed with—

(a) a one per cent, (minimum) solution of chloride of lime containing not less than thirty per cent, of available, chlorine; or

(b) a four per cent, (minimum) solution of carbolic acid (containing not less than ninety-five per cent, of actual carbolic acid); or

(c) a disinfectant equal in disinfective efficiency to the above-mentioned solution of carbolic acid.”

Those regulations came into effect on 15 April 1924.

It is therefore correct to say that between 15 April 1924 and 1 February 1926, the first alternative went from being “a coating of lime-wash” to disinfection with “a one per cent, (minimum) solution of chloride of lime containing not less than thirty per cent, of available, chlorine”.

Now, is anyone able to say whether the “limewash” used before April 1924 was different from the “one per cent, (minimum) solution of chloride of lime containing not less than thirty per cent, of available, chlorine” required thereafter; and, if different, whether it looked different?

I appreciate that “limewash” is usually made with slaked lime and that chloride of lime is made by exposing slaked lime to chlorine gas -- but is it the case that “limewash” used for disinfection was made with slaked lime?

35 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

This is an area where a degree of imprecision is appropriate in my view. The law came into formal effect on 1 Feb 1926, but will have been discussed extensively before then, and complied with before that date on an ad hoc basis. 

I do not believe that to be correct.

Unlike much legislation, the 1925 Order does not provide for a transitional period, but instead a single date on which the new regime comes into force. Put differently, the legislative scheme does not provide for a change-over period during which either method of disinfection (i.e., with limewash or the disinfectant prescribed by the 1925 Order) was permissible. That is in my view clear from the words “… shall, after the commencement of this Order have effect as if, for the requirement of the use of limewash … there were substituted a requirement of the use of….”

Thus until the 1925 Order came into operation (i.e., until 1 February 1926), the legislation required disinfection with limewash; after it, it required disinfection with the disinfectant prescribed by the 1925 Order.

Doubtless there was much discussion about matters, but that would presumably have been directed to ensuring (a) that excessive limewash was not left on hand after 1 February 1926 and (b) that adequate supplies of the disinfectant prescribed by the 1925 Order were available.

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I believe limewash went out of use as a consequence of the Transit of Animals Order 1927, made under powers derived from the Diseases of Animals Act 1925 and its precursors, though i confess that in reading through, the prohibition is by inference that limewash was not an "approved disinfectant".

I have long been irritated by the rather imprecise investigation of historical facts by the writers of books on railway history.

The date of the change can be pin-pointed, if one is prepared to do a little research.

The change away from limewash was made by The Diseases of Animals (Disinfection) Order 1925 (SR&O 1925/1348). The key provisions are these:

The Schedule then goes on to list, among other provisions, the Animals (Transit and General) Amendment Order 1924, which made provision for disinfection of cattle wagons.

Thus one can say with certainty after 1 February 1926, limewash ceased to be used for the disinfection of cattle wagons.

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Good point; I suppose the nearest comparison would be the great wooden rooves (roofs?) of public buildings from the later Middle Ages onwards.

 

 

The best example of this is the roof of the mid-nineteenth century (former) Bristol Pro-Cathedral, designed along the lines of a ship's hull by the remarkable Bishop Ullathorne, who had gone to sea before the mast as a boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Cathedral_of_the_Holy_Apostles

On 26/04/2022 at 21:37, KeithMacdonald said:

 

 

289 : For all the saints, who from their labours rest

69 : Every Time I Feel the Spirit

106 : Eternal Father, Strong to Save

124 : Praise Him! praise Him!

 

 

Is this guess the hymnal?

289: Jesu, the very thought of thee

69: Break forth into joy, oh my soul

106: Come, O divine Messiah

124:Do you know that the Lord walks on earth

It is an interesting set-up.

At Campbletown (where, thinking about it, the ferry may also be involved) the old gasworks is used to unload the tankers and store gas; whereas at Thurso there is a purpose-built operation at Janetstown (there is nothing left of the old gasworks in town).

It is a bit more complex than that.

Stornoway, Campbeltown, Oban, Thurso, and Wick all used to be supplied with town gas. When North Sea gas was introduced, they were too remote to be supplied by pipeline and are supplied with bulk LNG which is injected into the local networks. I am not sure of the date when the local gasworks closed, but would hazard a guess at the early 1970s.

For many years, they were supplied with LNG from Avonmouth.

The current arrangement is that they are supplied from the Isle of Grain. I believe that the loaded specialised tankers are taken by road transport to Daventry, and from there to Coatbridge and Inverness, where they go back to road transport (and ferry in the case of Stornoway) -- and obviously the discharged tanks do the reverse journey.

There seem to me to be a number of flaws in the points in the first paragraph above:

1. It assumes that an ECS turn will not be signal-checked, and so the loco will not have to restart its train.

2. Once the loco reaches Paddington or OOC carriage sidings, it will turn round for another working. The questions really is, in a given day's operation, how does the work compare; not in a particular end-to-end journey how does it compare?

3. The carriage flyover had significant gradients. I am not sure off hand what they were, but they were a reason for the use of the 15XX class.  From recollection, nowhere on the SVR is steeper than 1 in 100.

I am interested in the point about the SVR.

Is it really right that a Pannier works harder on a 7/8 coach train on the SVR than (say) one used to be worked on ECS turns in and out of Paddington? Was the issue perhaps more about water capacity, which would be much less of an issue with an 0-6-0 tender locomotive? Is the problem a shortage of small tender locomotives, such that once a railway decides it really needs a tender locomotive, it ends up with a Hall rather than a Dean Goods (or a Mogul, Dukedog, etc)?

Sorry to pose lots of questions.   

On 11/04/2022 at 12:08, The Stationmaster said:

Some years back I was doing a lot of safety and operational efficiency assessment work (i.e how to keep down their operating and staff training costs)  for what many would class as 'a heritage line'.  The General Manager made it perfectly clear that as far as he was concerned the railway is a commercial business in the leisure industry (which was one reason why he had got rid of volunteer preservationists from the site because they couldn't appreciate that his interest was in running a business and not in cluttering the place with things undergoing or awaiting 'restoration').

 

Anyway more pertinently to the points made above he knew that his customers basically wanted a train ride hauled by a steam engine, the opportunity to buy gifts,  and some good quality homemade refreshments and that was it.   The railway in fact had more people involved in selling gifts and making and selling refreshments than it did in running trains on its most frequently used timetable. The punters - many of whom arrived on road coach tours - didn't care what the steam engine was, or how big it was, but there was a liking for the pale blue one because 'it looks like Thomas' .  So he ran all his normal services using industrials which were cheaper to run than even the railway's ex BR large tank engines because they used less coal and oil which helped keep the business solvent.  Using industrials, or small ex-mainline tank engines, is the ideal answer for shorter railways although generally industrials tend to be very unsuitable for longer runs because they weren't designed for such work.

That is a very interesting insight.

I think I would be inclined to go further. I rather think that even the larger preserved railways could operate their services more economically (once one has properly accounted for matters such as additional PWay maintenance required by heavier locomotives, etc, etc) with a straightforward un-superheated, slide-valve Victorian 0-6-0 (say a Dean Goods) than the large locomotives they actually use.  

On 08/04/2022 at 17:08, eastglosmog said:

GWRS is only £25 for an all day rover.  Bit more than it was a few years ago, but still well worth it.

A point worth noting with the GWSR is that a comparatively small shareholding (£100, I think) gives three adult rovers per year (in fact, vouchers which the bearer can swap for a day rover at the booking office). At £25 each, that represents a better return on investment than any other shareholding I can think of.