Indeed, welcome! Regarding the Tornado, I was in the cab, or "on the footplate" a few years ago. The cab is full of electronic equipment and the headlights are LEDs. It's an amazing thing!
Ah yes, Cole Palen. I met him around 35 years ago when I first got out of the Navy and was lookng for a job. He was doping a wing of something, I don't recall what. But they weren't hiring. They did have one of my all time favourite cars sitting in a hangar, a Morgan three wheeler barrel-back with a Matchless engine. Damn. I would have liked to work there.
I saw myself, their Fokker D-7 take off in about 200 feet on grass and it went straight up like an elevator. Then, it hung on the propellor! Hovering vertically in midair. My father told me it could do that and I saw it with my own eyes. What's this got to do with the trains of Britain? Not much. But last time I was there and visiting steam railways, I saw several Tiger Moths flying around. Cripes, those Limeys!
One thing I've found to quite interesting. Except for MODERN excursion videos, the "vintage" footage indicates that in the old days, the locomotives had NO HEADLIGHTS! They used the little oil lamps that just sort of perched on little brackets on the front, or rear of the loco (depending on the loco's direction). Also, it's my understanding the POSITION of these lamps indicated the consist of status of the train. Why did these guys not need to see where they were going? AT NIGHT??? In the vintage videos, before the train would depart the station, the "driver" (engineer), or the fireman would be handed the necessary "lanterns" to hang on his engine. I've also noticed not one single model (OO scale) of a steam loco comes with any form of lighting! Don't that seem strange? Would YOU like to "drive" a high-speed passenger train, at night, with less than the equivalent of a COLEMAN LANTERN to light your way?
Mike C.
The train just follows the tracks.
And as I understand it, railways in Britain have pretty much always been grade separated. That's more so what it's used for in North America. A warning for us, rather than to light the way for the locomotive crew to see where they're going.
By the time your headlight has lit some unexpected obstable up in your way, it's going to be too late to do much of anything about it anyways.
That may be true, but might give you time to JUMP!
Mostly white oak - Quercus alba.
It grows straighter than live oak, thus able to have longer pieces for side planking. Live oak was preferred for the knee braces and other, curved structural members.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
wobblinwheelWould YOU like to "drive" a high-speed passenger train, at night, with less than the equivalent of a COLEMAN LANTERN to light your way?
Even in this country, at higher speeds (running on signal indication or track warrant) the headlight isn't doing much but allowing you to be seen.
It's more for operations where restricted speed is required.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Main line trains when moving on Clear signal indications or proper track authority are NOT LINE of SIGHT Vehicles. At the maximum permitted speeds, trains cannot be stopped within their range of vision.
Range of vision only comes into play when operating at Restricted Speed, as most, if no all, definations of Restricted Speed require being able to stop the train within 1/2 the range of vision for train or obstruction ahead.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This reminds me: Back in 1963, riding west from Minneapolis and into South Dakota on NP, I was in the dome at night and noticed that they seemed to be running with the headlights off except at crossings. I've wondered ever since if this was the case or if it was just the difference between high and low beam. There was such a tremendous difference that it seemed like off and on to me. Was it common practice to run with headlights off in sparsely populated areas?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I never heard of an automotive "high" and "low" beam on a railroad locomotive, but there is a requirment to "dim" the headlight in yards and to approaching trains. I believe it is also a rule to turn the headlight off when the locomotive is not in service.
I also remember a rotating red MARS light that was popular on western railroads in the USA!
It looked kind of "weird" and "creepy" coming down the track the "red rotating orbiting" beam next to a white headlight. Also when the train was running you could see this red orbit shining down the track from the train cab. I guess it was suposed to really attract attention. I don't know why they quit using it but you see it on some historic steam and diesel engines such as Burlington and Milwaukee RR.
Doc
I remember the rotating lights back in the '50's, but I only remember them being white, and some rotated in a circular motion while others moved in a "lazy 8" pattern. They were very attention-getting, much more than the alternate flashing ditch lights. As I recall, they were discussed some time ago on these fora, and the consensus was that they were discontinued because of maintenance issues.
As for the headlight-dimming, maybe what I saw was the difference between bright and dimmed headlights. I don't know how much difference in illumination there would be, but it looked like nothing or "the whole world lit up" to me.
As yes, the MARS light. They put them on fire engines too in the old days. I got to see one up close at an antique fire apparatus display and so help me it said it right on the light itself: "The Light From Mars."
Could be that's why Dr. D thought MARS lights were weird and creepy. Otherworldly might be a better term.
And you bet, it WAS supposed to attract attention. Looks like it worked, huh?
As Jerry Pinkepank pointed out years ago in a letter in RPO in TRAINS, Mars is a trade mark for its brand of signal light. Mars and Pyle National were the two major suppliers of signal lights to railroads.
As an aside, after having seen the Mars trade mark on the light bar of a Chicago squad car many years ago, Mars is illustrated in the context of the god of war, not the planet.
More sad evidence that while Britain is an amazing land for rail preservation, the handling of its maritime heritage leaves much to be desired.
http://maritimematters.com/2016/07/londons-hms-president-of-1918-to-the-scrap-yard/
Leo_Ames More sad evidence that while Britian is an amazing land for rail preservation, the handling of its maritime heritage leaves much to be desired. http://maritimematters.com/2016/07/londons-hms-president-of-1918-to-the-scrap-yard/
More sad evidence that while Britian is an amazing land for rail preservation, the handling of its maritime heritage leaves much to be desired.
I think that is a little unfair:
The British have a good record of maritime preservation...
Nelson's Victory from the Battle of Trafalgar
The Cutty Sark, one of the later tea clippers
HMS Warrior, the world's first ocean going ironclad warship
Brunel's Great Britain, the first large iron screw steamer....
These four alone are an amazing insight into the technology of the maritime past. The Great Britain was brought back from the Falkland Islands on a barge.
I recall seeing HMS President in London but I had no idea of its original role. It is somewhat overshadowed by the presence nearby of HMS Belfast, one of the larger WWII warships preserved.
HMS President is not in its original condition, but it has been preserved, and the loss of the hoped for grant only delays its return to London.
If it could be restored as a replica of its original condition as a Q ship, it would be a reminder of the seriousness of the German U-boat campaigns of both World Wars and the ingenuity used to counter the threat.
The Q ships were disguised as freighters, but carried concealed guns and depth charges for use against submarines. The were built with a shallow draft so that a torpedo set to strike the hull of a heavily loaded freighter would pass beneath the keel, giving the Q ship the ability to strike the U boat after it had revealed itself. They were also faster than freighters to give chase if required.
But you can't complain that the British have ignored their maritime history.
M636C
M636CBut you can't complain that the British have ignored their maritime history.
That isn't the message that I ever intended to communicate.
But can you imagine if the Duke of Gloucester for an example, the sole member of her class on British Railways, was to have her very survival threatened in 2016?
That such a thing is unthinkable where British rail preservation at this point is concerned, yet is quite possibly going to be the fate of one of the gems of Britain's maritime history after so many years, rather attests to the disparty there in attention and public funding.
Britain ruled the waves for centuries and the sea was a part of British culture more so than any other nation, yet much of that heritage is poorly represented with gaping holes for significant types that survived into recent times.
Worst, the future is anything but secure for some of the gems that do exist like this vessel.
The President was built in 1918 and is thus 98 years old.
It has spent 92 of those years moored in London as a floating office.
It isn't representative of Royal Navy ships of the WWI period.
It could probably remain in Chatham until a new mooring in the Thames could be arranged, even if this year's grant is declined.
While Duke of Gloucester is safe, and new steam locomotives are being assembled, not all of Britain's locomotives are that secure.
Preservation of other items of rolling stock is still carried out "on the smell of an oily rag".
The Heritage grants pay for much of Britain's historic framework aside from transport, and I assume they have their priorities in a time of recession.
You can't really go by that though. If anything, I'd argue that such a short life indeed was typical rather than atypical. Or look at that steam locomotive that I cited which was one of a kind and gave troublesome service during her less than 10 years of service. Yet very few would consider her unworthy of preservation in 2016.
The life of a steel hulled naval vessel was short during this era. Very few had service lives that lasted decades and most of those that did like late war British and American battleships only had their lives extended several decades due first to budgetary restraints after WWI, naval treaties restricting newbuilds, and then the Great Depression and the war clouds looming over the Pacific and Atlantic.
HMS Caroline which is the last survivor of the Battle of Jutland and the last prewar light or heavy cruiser anywhere, only saw around 8 years of service as a cruiser for the Royal Navy.
Yet despite an uncomfortably long time of 5 years or so before a preservation plan and funding was established to turn her into a museum ship, few familiar with this subject would argue that her historical importance was marred by such a short, albeit typical lifespan for a working vessel of the type for that era.
While there's certainly a fair list of well ran museum ships in the UK, I still don't view it as commensurate with the importance of the seas throughout the nation's history or to the level given to the field of rail preservation.
Leo_Ames You can't really go by that though. If anything, I'd argue that such a short life indeed was typical rather than atypical. Or look at that steam locomotive that I cited which was one of a kind and gave troublesome service during her less than 10 years of service. Yet very few would consider her unworthy of preservation in 2016. The life of a steel hulled naval vessel was short during this era. Very few had service lives that lasted decades and most of those that did like late war British and American battleships only had their lives extended several decades due first to budgetary restraints after WWI, naval treaties restricting newbuilds, and then the Great Depression and the war clouds looming over the Pacific and Atlantic. HMS Caroline which is the last survivor of the Battle of Jutland and the last prewar light or heavy cruiser anywhere, only saw around 8 years of service as a cruiser for the Royal Navy. Yet despite an uncomfortably long time of 5 years or so before a preservation plan and funding was established to turn her into a museum ship, few familiar with this subject would argue that her historical importance was marred by such a short, albeit typical lifespan for a working vessel of the type for that era. While there's certainly a fair list of well ran museum ships in the UK, I still don't view it as commensurate with the importance of the seas throughout the nation's history or to the level given to the field of rail preservation.
We all have our pet projects and this has led to the founding and eventual collapse of quite a few organisations.
I am 70 yrs old now when i left school at 14 i joined British Railways as an engine cleaner (steam/diesel) and became a fireman on my 16th birthday.
Why did i get such a dirty job? because i loved Trains!still do, i have been a member of two preservation societies for a goodly number of years now,one a Welsh narrow guage and the other my local standard guage branchline.
My local line i visit every few weeks to get a top up of the sounds and smells,mmm hot oil and coal,wonderfull !!!
And as was commented on by a previous contributor, yes we now have several preserved diesel units as well.I worked on both but its all about steam for me.But of course there are those who have only known diesels.
There are about 8 new build steam locos under construction in the UK, these are a mixture of types but mainly medium to large.
The funding that some receive comes from an application to the Lottery commisioners for money from the Heritage Fund,and it takes a lot of hard work to apply for and hopefully be considered for by the funding commitee,and it is usualy "match funding" ie.we give you half, you have to fund raise the other half.
This has enabled a lot our industrial heritage to be restored/stabalised.
I would like to see more businesses involved in donating and supporting preservation of all sorts but they get more out of a F1 car add. or an overpaid footballers shirt .
We have the excellent aviation (flying )museum at RAF Duxford,lots of Spitfires, Hurricanes,Mustangs etc,
The excellent RAF museum (static) Hendon, in North west London.
The RAF Cold War museum at Cosford in the Midlands.
The Tank museum at Bovingdon in Hampshire.
AHA. but whats missing?ships!boats!
I think that unless donated or owned by the government they are out of the reach of the preservationist.
After the Falklands War millions of us wanted to see the Ark Royal turned into a floating museum,but the MOD desk jockeys got their way and it was flogged off.
So unless it is a government owned vessel it apears to be very difficult to keep one on a private basis.
Earlier this year i visited the Greenwich Naval Museum,although i am from London i had never visited this museum,it was very dissapointing (to me) as the deducationalists and the PC'ers have had their fingers in the pie and now boats are almost irrelevant,its all interactive and PC correct!
But with railways i have 3 of the largest players and 3 smaller players and i narrow guage railway all within 25 miles of my home here in West Yorkshire.
For you stateside to get a handle on the start of the preservation movement here you may be able to find one of the excellent programmes made by the BBC some years back,(ON YOUTUBE?)one about the narrow guage,two about standard guage and one about the canals.
I have just watched a programme by Michael Portillo, an ex Member of parliament
who has done a very successful series over the last few years of Great British Train journeys using the 1888 Bradshaws Timetable guide,he is now doing a similar series which will cover the historical aspects of your railways and towns an cities.
The USA series he uses an Appletons Timetable/guide,it if it proves as popular as over here your tourism numbers will go up and train travel will be in demand.!!!!
Could replace coal! if marketed correctly!!!
Don.
Long post ahead...
Not only was Ark Royal not saved just like the last time over 30 years ago when the last Ark Royal went to the scrapyard despite hopes otherwise from many, but I'm hearing rumblings that Illustrious, which would've been the nation's first carrier museum and the government's pick to represent these three Harrier carriers despite this one not participating in the Falklands, is facing a different fate now.
I think when this country has 8 battleships alone preserved, it makes it frusturating to see the world's predominant maritime power until the 1940's let every last one escape when so much other history has been saved over there.
Hard to be too critical in that specific instance where their older and most historic battleships like HMS Warspite are concerned. Heck, we let the survivors of Pearl Harbor all be scuttled or scrapped even though something like the USS Nevada would've made for a heck of a museum in Honolulu, despite examples like the West Virginia surviving in mothballs for years.
Obsolete at the end of WWII with most of the WWI era hulls already out of active serve before the war ended for the Royal Navy, it's difficult to envision much being saved with the financial situation at war's end. But letting Vanguard and the surviving King George V's escape over a decade later without saving even one is frusturating, and keeps on happening.
Where's the obligatory British built trans-Atlantic liner from the golden age of passenger travel docked somewhere like Southampton, for example? When you think of British dominance of the sea, this area isn't too far behind yet none have been saved there.
There are some amazing museum ships in Britain. But so many gaping holes of significance for every major accomplishment they've made, and strange decisions even when something is preserved. Why not HMS Conqueror, perhaps the last submarine to ever torpedo and sink an enemy warship, to represent the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine force? Instead it's her sister ship, the Courageous, with no particular claim to fame that I'm aware of. Is the Royal Navy now ashamed to have attacked and sunk an enemy cruiser in wartime?
For the country that ruled the waves for so long, I'd of hoped for far more. Not that we don't have our own shames like allowing the most decorated vessel of WWII go to scrap 15 years or so after the end of the war or sending the last T2 tanker off to scrap recently, despite their even greater importance than the well represented Liberty and Victory ships. Tanks, airplanes, and jeeps don't mean much if their fuel tanks are empty...
It would have been great if the RMS Mauretania could have been saved but it was the depression and scrapping ships provided work for people who did not have a lot of options.
Mauretania and Olympic would have been worth their weight in gold as troopships during World War Two, but in the mid-Thirties, who knew?
Hmmm, HMS Warspite. the grand old battleship that broke the towline and threw herself on the rocks rather than go to the breaker's yard. She didn't die without a fight, that's for certain.
USS Nevada is a poor example of a ship that was not saved. Preservation was not possible after the damage incurred at Operation Crossroads.
Preserving all these large ships would be nice in an ideal world, but unfortunately economics and feasibility have to be considered. Think of the challenges many locations have, just maintaining a displayed steam locomotive and finding the funding to keep the beast looking presentable. That cost for a locomotive amounts to little more than a rounding error in a budget that will be required for a large ship. The difference is an order of magnitude, maybe several.
Maintenance will become far easier if the item, locomotive or ship, can be kept protected from the weather and other elements that continually attack it. But imagine the size of the boathouse you would need to build, just for one vessel.
I am surprised, yet heartened, that even a few large ships are surviving. It may not be as many as we would like, and indeed some very historic items are gone forever. I look at it as a glass half full.
John
CSSHEGEWISCH USS Nevada is a poor example of a ship that was not saved. Preservation was not possible after the damage incurred at Operation Crossroads.
Oh yeah? You didn't need electric power for illuminated pathway signs!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
cx500That cost for a locomotive amounts to little more than a rounding error in a budget that will be required for a large ship. The difference is an order of magnitude, maybe several.
Yep. The estimated cost to restore and put the 800 ton, 252 ft. long U-505 into a weather-protected underground exhibition building in 2004 was "only" $35 mil.
Getting back to restoration of steam engines did you know that there are 8 S160s in the UK, 2 of which are running? Lima 7208, Baldwin 6046 and will be joined at the end of the year by Lima 5197. 3 others are under restoration and the final 2 are for spares.
samoht Getting back to restoration of steam engines did you know that there are 8 S160s in the UK, 2 of which are running? Lima 7208, Baldwin 6046 and will be joined at the end of the year by Lima 5197. 3 others are under restoration and the final 2 are for spares.
Just a comment....
There is no such thing as an "S-160".
The USATC did not apply classifications of that type to any locomotive.
The description first appeared in various books written by Tourrett which are otherwise quite good with a few strange points.
The number is an abbreviation of 280-S-160 which was an Alco shorthand description of its locomotives, applied to all units. 280 (not surprisingly) for 2-8-0 , S for superheated and 160 for 160 000 pounds (80 tons) the weight of the locomotive without tender.
Logically, in its entirety, this descrption only applies to Alco built locomotives.
However, it appears in Alco builder's lists as a description.
Those who support the description should try to get it adopted for other Alco locomotives. If my memory is correct, the Union Pacific 4000 class were:
4884-S-500
See if you can supersede the name "Big Boy" by "S-500"
I hope that you're kidding with this one, since obviously if she was to be preserved, she wouldn't of been used as a target ship off Bikini Island in July 1946 in the first place. What I said about her having been an excellent candidate only applies if the decision had been made prior, not afterwards.
I think it's a given that preservation after surviving a nuclear blast is highly unlikely and would've never been considered. That's why you don't anchor a ship slated to become a museum at ground zero in the first place.
That said, there is a preserved British tank that not only survived a nuclear blast with its engine only stopping when the fuel tank ran out of fuel, but went on to several more decades of operational use afterwards before becoming a museum display.
cx500Preserving all these large ships would be nice in an ideal world, but unfortunately economics and feasibility have to be considered.
That's why for instance I don't hold it against the UK for not saving HMS Warspite. Short of the Royal Navy holding on to her for years rather than seeking to dispose of an asset with no further military value, it's hard to imagine any other fate for her.
The practicalities of an early postwar Britain that never really had a chance to recover from the last world war, was in fiscal stress, and was facing a new threat emerging out of the Soviet Union obviously made the environment to save a major relic like a battleship a difficult proposition at a time when the nation was looking ahead and wanted to forget.
But I'm less understanding 10+ years later at what happened with their surviving fast battleships. Can't save them all, but modern Royal Navy heritage and several other key areas of the UK's maritime past are very underrepresented in a nation steeped in history that has many preservation triumphs to its credit.
The UK often seems well ahead of us where maximizing their heritage resources are considered, but I think what we've done with our maritime heritage is one spot that America leads the race in.
Don't know about any proposed preservation efforts for the USS Nevada, which as a proud strong ship AND a Pearl Harbor survivor deserved a better fate, but there were plans to preserve the USS New York. Presentation to the state of New York was proposed after the navy was through using it as another Bikini bomb test ship. New York was anchored at the periphery of the target zone, and DID survive both shots intact, but was so hot with radiation after the second test donating it for preservation was out of the question. Several years later it was sunk as a target ship with conventional weapons, as was Nevada.
Ol' Nevada had the last laugh, though. During it's post-Pearl Harbor repairs the early-war copper shortage caused the navy to install some buss bars in the ships electrical system that were made of a metal with the same conductivity as copper. Silver. A half-million dollars worth. Nevada took the silver to the bottom with her, everyone forgot those buss bars were still in there!
One last thing, poster samoht has been graciously giving us updates about the Churnet Valley's S160's on a separate thread. Look in when he's got something to say, it's interesting.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.