Sara TSo in your language, a 2-10-0 is 100 g of tea or coffee from the pot?
I am not sure how 'deca' comes to be used properly in this context. I confess to being a diehard cgs adherent (which is one reason I grouse about hobgoblin-of-small-minds SI having locomotive blueprints scaled in mm dimensions) but I have never heard of 10-gram units (which, amusingly, would be called decagrams if not deprecated). Presumably there is some coffee sellers' unit of measurement and I'd love to know what it is.
deleted by Sara
Sara TJuni had earlier told me that a proper Mikado has the third coupled axle driven by the main rods because it comes just right.
This British 2-8-2 shiny greenery then is not a proper Mikado.
What you mean by "angularity and overbalance"? It changes while the wheels go round, no?
removed by request
Juniatha
.
Removed by request.
Overmod
Thank you! PM: no, we phone each other whenever we feel like it - I also used to jet over the Atlantic before this new 'Ice Age' but now you can't and if this goes on much longer we all can't anymore because airplanes will not be servicable anymore and we will be back to the times of the Titanic ...
Well, maybe I was overacting, my writing was to everyone, I wanted to protect, maybe it was not perfect, maybe I shouldn't have written what I had - sorry in this case. You know me.
Ok, everything is fine now!
Vaya con Dios
Juniathabecause airplanes will not be servicable anymore and we will be back to the times of the Titanic ...
Wouldn't bother me, as long as they:
1) Keep a good lookout, and post extras on moonless nights.
2) Pay attention to and handle ice warnings properly.
3) Have an officer on the bridge who understands the ship he's driving.
4) Shift the course further south when ice warnings come through.
5) Slow it down a bit too!
Do all the above and you won't need those lifeboats that aren't there but should be anyway.
I think Sara and I might be kindred spirits in a way. I may not understand the engineering of steam design, but I sure understand the poetry in motion!
Sara T But there is a chance gradually the present mess will be overcome.
Of course! Tough times don't last, but tough people do!
The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust Have plans to build the following.
Gresley P2 2.8.2 number 2007 Prince of Wales
Gresley V4 2.6.2 number 3403
Gresley V3 2.6.2 Tank Engine
LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust, is building a George the Fifth Class locomotive to be named Prince George number 2013 (the year Prince George was born.)
More locomotives are being/to be built.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Isn't there another Gresley P2 being built by another group, called Cock of the North?
deleted- duplicate post
Yes.
They have a facebook page and appear to have a set of frames assembled...
(4) Doncaster P2 Locomotive Trust - Cock O'The North | Facebook
Peter
Sara T .. and they all look like simple 1930s tin model trains to me, they shine in polished green but look kind of non-real locomotives. They were outmoded when they first were built and they are more outmoded now. A garden railway in size 1:1. Sara 05003
.. and they all look like simple 1930s tin model trains to me, they shine in polished green but look kind of non-real locomotives. They were outmoded when they first were built and they are more outmoded now. A garden railway in size 1:1.
Sara 05003
I bet you do not say that to my four year old granddaughter.
She is a real 1:1 1930s 'tin model' locomotive fan.
Sara T >>More locomotives are being/to be built.<< .. and they all look like simple 1930s tin model trains to me, they shine in polished green but look kind of non-real locomotives. They were outmoded when they first were built and they are more outmoded now. A garden railway in size 1:1. Sara 05003
>>More locomotives are being/to be built.<<
The only company that built models of the P2s at the time was Maerklin.
These were the most expensive models made by that company at the time, so presumably there were adequate sales in Germany of these models which were regarded as the most modern locomotives of the time. Other models included the French Etat 241-101, later rebuilt by Chapelon as 242 A1 and of course the DR 01.
Perhaps they look like tinplate models because there were tinplate models made in Germany that looked like them...
M636C:
Sorry you got me all wrong.
I didn't write about the models or their relative quality. I wrote about the way the British railway locomotives of the early 1920s - 1930s look like, many with inside cylinders and all with boilers without any pipes and rods and valves. Nothing on the boiler, behind it a scarce hut as a cabin and on the wheels only side rods, a front end devoid most of what makes a real locomotive front end. A tender with six wheels fixed in the frame. This doesn't look like a locomotive to me but like a simple play model of a locomotive. Even if in 1:1 scale.
Do you get what I mean?
I'm trying now to remember who was reportedly looking carefully at the original model of Bulleid's 'austerity' Q1 0-6-0, and when asked said he was trying to see where the key would go...
Sara T M636C: Sorry you got me all wrong. I didn't write about the models or their relative quality. I wrote about the way the British railway locomotives of the early 1920s - 1930s look like, many with inside cylinders and all with boilers without any pipes and rods and valves. Nothing on the boiler, behind it a scarce hut as a cabin and on the wheels only side rods, a front end devoid most of what makes a real locomotive front end. A tender with six wheels fixed in the frame. This doesn't look like a locomotive to me but like a simple play model of a locomotive. Even if in 1:1 scale. Do you get what I mean? Sara 05003
But the P2 looks a lot like, say, DR 05 003 as far as the lack of external fittings, except of course that 05 003 ran backwards...
Even 05 001 and 05 002 looked much the same.
But models of all of those were very popular in Germany before 1939.
M636CBut the P2 looks a lot like, say, DR 05 003 as far as the lack of external fittings, except of course that 05 003 ran backwards...
It is difficult for me to look at something like a Great Central Director, for example, and not think of a toy, regardless of how well the engine might have performed as a locomotive. That isn't the case at all for Churchward's and then Collett's four-cylinder 4-6-0s, even though some of the motionwork and much of the piping is likewise concealed and elegant simplicity is a design element.
Streamlined locomotives shouldn't be expected to have exposed piping or motionwork -- this was carefully discussed in the early Thirties and the roller-door access on the 05s and other classes as built is one example. In this country we made 'seeing the drivers' more a design element (to the point of spotlighting them!) and of course got the tinsbips out early and often as 'aerodynamic streamlining' was seldom of actual critical importance (vs. whiz-bang perceived style) when money was being lost somewhere...
M636C: >>But the P2 looks a lot like, say, DR 05 003 as far as the lack of external fittings, except of course that 05 003 ran backwards...<<
Hahahahahaha peeeewww! That is the best joke I've read recently.
One is a 2-8-2 and the other is a 4-6-4, one has often used 1.88 m drivers, the other has unique 2.30 m drivers, one has large smoke wings, the other has these part things in disguise, one has a simple eight wheel tender all wheels fixed in frame, no bogie, the other has a 4-6-0 tender with a proper bogie, one has a .. oh, come on, all steam locos look the same, that's the basic lesson of this.
Ok, if that's so, then of course you have no choice. I'm sorry, I have to apologize!
Overmod,
>>I'm trying now to remember who was reportedly looking carefully at the original model of Bulleid's 'austerity' Q1 0-6-0, and when asked said he was trying to see where the key would go...<<
I believe it was Stanier, Sir William Stanier FRS, of the quite notable and elegant LMS Duchess Pacifics (also 'avoiding' a proper bogie tender, but still an express loco type)
I am representing the regular 05003 1945 - '47 and 1950 - '58, in classic mode, I have explained that several times, you understand that, thank you.
I challenge anyone looking at 05 003 as built to tell me what its wheel arrangement is, purely from its outside appearance.... let alone its wheel diameter.
However, Cock O' The North was recognisably a steam locomotive...
France: 'Cock O' The North', Britain's Most Powerful Locomotive, Makes Stationary Test In France. - British Pathé (britishpathe.com)
And this includes an interview with Oliver Bullied...
It ran so smoothly on the Vitry test stand that the bearings ran hot, something that never happened on the road. Apparently they needed vibration to ensure the oil film stayed in place.
But it looks like a real locomotive to me.
I am advised that the Churchward "County" 4-4-0 has a complete set of frames assembled, although wheels and cylinders are still to come.
The much later Hawkesworth "County" 4-6-0 is more advanced and is awaiting a boiler being rebuilt from a Stanier 8F boiler.
M636C I am advised that the Churchward "County" 4-4-0 has a complete set of frames assembled, although wheels and cylinders are still to come. The much later Hawkesworth "County" 4-6-0 is more advanced and is awaiting a boiler being rebuilt from a Stanier 8F boiler. Peter
It's number will be 3840 and named County of Montgomery.
m636c:
Even though you have such a hard time to swallow the pill I will try to make it easier and very simple for you:
Me not 05001 not 05002. Me 05003! And me not 1937 test model, me only * 1945 and run until 1947, see previous photo, then me 05003 after refurbishing at Maffei 1950 and on till 1958.
All that: no streamline, me conventional classic loco although a little bigger than your British, ehem, 3,8m size toys, me 4,55m tall, 27m long, sorry.
I know, I know, it's hard. Well, read again and again until it sinks into you, this is one of my last postings anyways, so take a deep breath, I hope for the best.
S .. no, I will not make it more complicated.
Sara T m636c: Even though you have such a hard time to swallow the pill I will try to make it easier and very simple for you: Me not 05001 not 05002. Me 05003! And me not 1937 test model, me only * 1945 and run until 1947, see previous photo, then me 05003 after refurbishing at Maffei 1950 and on till 1958. All that: no streamline, me conventional classic loco although a little bigger than your British, ehem, 3,8m size toys, me 4,55m tall, 27m long, sorry. I know, I know, it's hard. Well, read again and again until it sinks into you, this is one of my last postings anyways, so take a deep breath, I hope for the best. S .. no, I will not make it more complicated.
All I said was that AS BUILT 05 003 looked less like a steam locomotive than did LNER 2001 as built. I don't disagree with anything you have said above but it doesn't alter or invalidate anything I have said.
For anyone who doesn't follow this posting, full details are here:
A German Streamlined Cabforward. (douglas-self.com)
This is relevant to the thread on deep and shallow fireboxes, since alone among passenger locomotives of the era in Germany, it had a combustion chamber which allowed it to operate more economically when rebuilt to burn coal shortly before the end of WWII.
Incidentally, the streamlining of LNER 2001 was based on No 10000
The LNER 10000. (douglas-self.com)
That is all.
Mc636
>>Incidentally, the streamlining of LNER 2001 was based on No 10000<<
Aaaaaaahhhhh! wooooow! Is THAT so??? I can't get it
No 10000! this loco was not just #10000, no it was "No-10000!"
What an ingenious trick: they didn't like five digit loco numbers and so they christened this loco: number "No-10000!". If more would have been built, no, that was off limits because of this five digit number, but iiff, there would have been a No-10001, No-10002 and so on.
That's so British! Admiralty! (sorry admirable)
>>All I said was that AS BUILT 05 003 looked less like a steam locomotive than did LNER 2001 as built << and even DURING building! Who could have said this would ever become a steam locomotive. The workers had to be specially selected and sent to a trainings camp before building it! Only because the London-and-No-Eastern-Ranch in 2001 had finally managed to look like a locomotive, but a diesel locomotive then, an odyssee in space!
Oh, British loco naming is a field for itself that dizzy continental Europeans will never understand. However I have heard that today the British don't understand their quasi US-privatised railway system neither anymore and that's why they prefer to go by car.
>>anyone who doesn't follow this posting,<< Ahh, but what do you think? We all fully focussed for following your beloved postings from first to last key! Never kiss, sorry, miss a word.
Although, lately I haven't read a word of it, I have to admit.
>>That's all<< Oh, now I'm sad!
Nooh-five-ohh-ohh-three
I think it's a disgrace that we can't muster the same energy to do this here - the T1 trust looks like it's a decade or more from completion (and IMO has selected a rather obnoxious prototype [which is being new-built for a stupid reason - to break the speed record? Silly], but YMMV, of course), there doesn't seem to be word of any project following, and we even struggle to complete refurbishments (by all counts, 1309 was just barely heaved over the finish line). We have so much money; such a larger population base than Britain, and yet we cannot get our act together on some really obvious projects; even just one project every 10 years... like a Dreyfus J3... or an F7 4-6-4.
The T1 is being rebuilt to establish first to reconstruct a complicated modern engine scrapped for expedient reasons, and to serve as a testbed to re-create lost core technologies and fabrication methods that have become lost or garbled. Only incidentally was a speed record actually involved (regardless of any boasting you may see from overly-enthusiastic folks in the early months of the effort) and in any case a great deal of modeling and multi physics simulation, followed by progressive speed testing at Pueblo, will be conducted before even 'ordinary' high-speed running is undertaken.
For practical speed-record breaking many of the changes recommended by the engineering committee for 'locomotive 5551' would be advisable if not necessary. I will not go into those here, but only a few could be implemented "historically" on the duplex as it is being replicated, and there isn't enough real value in a speed-record stunt (at present or prosoectively!) to justify constructing another complex and comparatively large locomotive just to eliminate the identified faults for a speed range no reciprocating locomotive could (or perhaps should) be operated in for normal service.
The secondary reason for the T1 is that it's wicked cool, and appeals to a very wide range of people in ways that more ordinary steam engines will not. If you follow some of the things Kelly Lynch et al. have been doing in Fort Wayne ... they're facilitated by a true high-speed engine that looks the part.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.