User talk:John of Paris

/Archive 1

Correspondence with EdJogg
Just cleaned up a short paper on Blasco de Garay and can send you a Word copy if you want it - but how do I get it to you? All the Rochester articles I mentioned the other day are very interesting but most are infuriating to try to read as they look as though they were copied by bored students using a pen scanner. The are blocks of text mixed up an uncorrected scanner errors; I am currently working on cleaning up Oliver Evans' "Abortion of Young Engineer's Guide" and Thurston's book on Fulton, so no need to duplicate the work. Best wishes, John Wright --John of Paris 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Seeing how you have offered, yes, a copy of the paper would be interesting, thank you. However, I must confess that I hadn't a clue what you were talking about until I re-visited the Paddle steamer article!
 * Being a WikiGnome I tend to wander about and rarely concentrate on any one article for long (for example, just recently was the turn of crane (machine), which was in an appalling state, and still needs much work – the (exceptionally well-written) history section starts with the Ancient Greeks and continues to the mid 13th century, but then stops; the article then describes every configuration of modern crane! Aaargh!).
 * I have been a railway enthusiast for many years, and my love of steam comes from that direction. Since last July, I have also become intensely interested in traction engines, a direct result of discovering the scant coverage given to these wonderful machines on WP (check the article from last July, it's much better now, but there's loads still to do) and determined to do something about it. From there I have expanded my watchlist to cover the majority of steamy topics, and contribute (and defend!) where I can (some article sections had a distinctly anti-steam bias – the intro to Paddle steamer being one of them!). However, my knowledge of the historical development of steam is virtually non-existent, and, although I am learning all the time, I don't think I can help you much. The books I have on traction engines can provide most of the history of steam road transport I need, but I need to buckle down and find some time to concentrate on writing it up!
 * As for how to send the document, look in the 'toolbox' on the left and you'll see 'E-mail this user'. If you send me a message, I should get your email address and we can progress from there... I've never tried it myself, but I got a message from a chap in Hungary yesterday, so it must work! EdJogg 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi John
 * What a fascinating document.
 * So it would seem that the technology might have been sufficiently advanced
 * for a steam-powered boat to be possible, but the document does seem to leave
 * it to the reader to make up his own mind whether it really existed.


 * As the paragraph in the Wikipedia Paddle Steamer article states that de
 * Garay demonstrated an _experimental_ human-powered paddle-boat in the same
 * year as this steam experiment, I am not convinced that there wasn't a good
 * deal of showmanship going on in the steam demonstration. I guess we'll never
 * know for sure.


 * As for who invented the steam engine or the paddle steamer, to go any
 * further we start talking about _definitions_: what do we mean by 'invent'? -
 * does the inventor have to build one that works, or just have the idea?
 * (Papin comes to mind here); what do we mean by 'steam engine'? if an
 * aeolipile is not really a steam engine, then how complicated does a device
 * have to be before it is classed as one. I don't think I'm looking for a
 * serious discussion here, as I don't have the knowledge to back it up, but I
 * am certainly finding this early history very interesting, if rather
 * perplexing (as you may have gathered from my WP comments!)


 * Out of interest, what was the source of the document? The commentary
 * section provides no date or author. Cheers(EdJogg)

EdJogg,

The sources are given in the article, but I should have separated the paragraph:

"This account is derived from the documents and original registers kept in the Royal Archives of Simuncas, among the commercial papers of Catalonia, and from those of the military and naval departments for the said year, 1543.

Thomas Gonzales Simuncas, August 27, 1825."

Amazing what you can find in archives and manuscripts.

You say you are not looking for serious discussion, Why ever not? Since I started doing edits in Wickipedia last November I've found your contributions more interesting and encouraging than most. And encouragement is what I need. There are a lot of factual errors in the articles and a lot of futile polemic in the talk pages and often I don't know where to start. The problem is to give real information whilst sticking to the WP guidelines which is particularly hard when your fundamental approach is not what you'll find in the textbooks.

Like you I have a main centre of interest which in my case is the technological history of the steam railway locomotive, both ancient and modern, including the work of L.D. Porta up to his death in 2003. Over the last couple of years I have been working on the English translation of a paper Porta wrote in French. This has given me new insight into the writings of James Watt and D.K. Clark, writing in the 1850s and 60s, and of course Chapelon - and very recently (thanks to what I can decipher in those awful Rochester scans) Oliver Evans, who was certainly a big influence on Trevithick (or they were on parallel routes). Last November, I only had hazy knowledge on Newcomen's, Watt's and Trevithick's engines and am still trying to remedy that, but have found solid information hard to root out, especially on the web. Throughout the 19th Century, they were endlessly squabbling about "who invented what". I see this as not far removed from sensational journalism where everyone is after a scoop.; I see no reason to keep this up in the 21st Century - it will get us nowhere. Far more interesting is to try to determine what people were actaully doing at different periods - and what they thought they were doing, - not always the same thing. Incidentally I am convinced that steam technology in all transport applications has better long-term future than IC, because it has the potential to be developed further, which is why the huge steam knowledge-base should not be allowed to deteriorate.

I long hesitated before contributing to WP; on the other hand, when I see the stuff students are daily downloading, I do wonder what they will be able to make of the "information" they've got the day any of them do decide to take an interest in it. I find that very worrying.--John of Paris 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Early engines - a few facts and figures
(I have also put this in talk: steam engine) I am just back from a spell in the U.K. where I managed to pull in visits to the Black Country Museum replica at Dudley, to the "investigative modeller", David Hulse and to the Crofton steam pumps. I spent a whole steam day watching the Dudley engine working and talking to the plug-man Mike Dunn who has considerable practical experience and enthusiasm for the engine. Mike introduced me to a leading figure in the design of the replica engine, Allan Carter who was also present. The outcome of all this is that it confirms what I have long suspected: that the key to understanding all these very early engines is the pump itself and it is on this point that right from the very beginning in the 18th Century there has been the least amount of solid information, attention always having being focussed on the engine side - as it still is. Anyway I have gleaned a few facts and figures that were lacking in WP up to now and I will try to incorporate them in the various relevant articles. Regarding the Newcomen engine, and continuing the discussion with Chenab, it is an indisputable fact that gravity plays a major role in its workings, as the power stroke of engine side does not drive the pump; this is a “pole” or “dead-weight pump” i.e. a force pump relying on its own weight and thus gravity for the downward pumping force (this is the first bit of information they give to all visitors at Dudley) The atmospheric engine produces only enough power to assure the return stroke and lift the weight of the gang of pumps, which could be quite considerable depending on the height of lift; to this you would have to add the resistance of drawing the water into the pump body by vacuum. In the Dudley replica, which for demonstration purposes has only a short lift, considerable weight had to be added to the pump rods. The Watt engine on the other hand, is powered a lift pump. This was no doubt made possible by the relatively constant low steam pressure (about 3 psi) above the power piston combined with the vacuum below, making a pressure differential of about 15 psi (?). The power of a Newcomen engine was of course dependent on the weather and the barometer reading. Why the lift pump should have been adopted by Watt is still a mystery to me; even so his first production engine of 1779 working the Smethwick pump could manage almost 160 gallons per stroke, compared with the early Newcomen’s 10. This gives a rough idea of the progress the Watt engine represented for a comparable steam pressure - it did not just save coal. The updated Watt engine still in working order at Crofton, modified to the Cornish system, reportedly manages the same as its 1846 fellow by Harvey of Hayle - about a ton of water (224 gallons) per stroke. The latter, for reasons of ease of maintenance, works a force pump as did the Newcomen; originally both the pump and engine were double-acting, being later converted to single force-pump action in 1903. The two pumping systems can be seen at working side by side at Crofton with both engines working at 20 psi and appear to be about equal in output, but I would like more info on that. All the engines mentioned here, Newcomen’s, Watt’s and Harvey’s, had about the same stroke rate of about 11.5 - 12 per minute; It would seem however that the early Newcomen engines were not able to work continuously, but required occasional pauses to make steam so this would affect their overall pumping rate; even this was automated very early on (no later than 1719) by means of a “buoy” that rose and fell in a tube projecting from the boiler according to steam pressure causing the engine to stop and start automatically. The descriptions at the excellent Crofton web site 5 are well worth close study and they have also published a very informative brochure. For the moment at Dudley, there is only a large fact sheet available, otherwise I am adding new references to the relevant WP articles. David Hulse’s little books are particularly well researched, and a mine of information.--John of Paris 09:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Steam engine
(transferred from EdJogg talk page).

Hello again, I have put this cri de coeur on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team assessment page where for the moment it seems to be buried God knows where. In the meantime I would be interested in your reactions...

''I have been trying edit this article over the last six months and quite frankly it is a tangled mess. I have come up against such intractable fundamental problems that all that I have been able to do so far is to add some factual input to the early historical material. Even the subject "steam engine" itself is ill-defined: for instance I am at present trying to clarify the initial statement, presumably intended as some sort of "disambiguation": "the term steam engine may also refer to an entire railroad steam locomotive". Well this does not just apply to locomotives: in many cases the term can signify a whole steam unit, including the steam generator and motor or as in this article, specifically to the steam "motor" (or "engine part"). The problem is that the many different types of boilers can be combined with many different types of "motor". The implication of this is that when we talk of "efficiency" we can be referring to any one of three things: the boiler, the engine part, or the two combined into a unit. In each case we have to approach the problem differently: in the first case we are dealing with combustion, and heat transfer, in the second with fluid dynamics - in the third with work obtained from a given heat input. Confusion between the three distinct aspects leads to ludicrous statements like the following in the "efficiency" section. "One source of inefficiency is that the condenser causes losses by being somewhat hotter than the outside world. Thus any closed-cycle engine will always be somewhat less efficient than any open-cycle engine, because of condenser losses." This does not stand close scrutiny, as any steam engineer will stress the importance of maintaining feedwater temperature above a certain level. Warm condensate is most often recycled back to the boiler – and this in the interest of economy! - because it is perfectly obvious that less heat energy is needed to return warm water to working temperature than cold - so how do we square this circle? As I say the subject of this article is limited to the steam engine viewed as an expander unit. It is not about the whole integrated system, so I would question whether in this context it is valid to discuss overall thermal efficiency at all. Anyway, where do we go from here?--John of Paris 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (edit)''


 * Well, the first important thing is that the text is 'buried' at Talk:Steam engine/Comments (note the '(edit)' link at the end of your contribution above).


 * The next thing I would say is that it is probably too technical for them to get their heads round. As the "Additional information" section starts with: This article is an assessed orphan; it has been assessed by Work via WikiProjects, but should be rated by subject experts in a WikiProject. See the FAQ for more info. I think they would rather expect that subject experts (ie 'you' in this case :o) ) would review the topic for them and refine it as necessary.


 * Thirdly - I'm sure there should be a 'thirdly' but it's been a long day!


 * Hope this helps. If you want more specific opinion, please do say as much. -- EdJogg 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Y'see the problem is that Wickipedia itself is often too "technical" for me because I do not have an IT or mathematical turn of mind. My turn of mind is visual and I have to "see" in my mind's eye how systems work. If I set myself up as an "expert" on the subject, the ensuing debate will soon be be in mathematical terms with hot sources, cold sinks and equations all over the shop and that's all double-Dutch to me. The result is always the same: a dialogue of the deaf which will just compound the problem. This has happened already. I have raised this same fundamental problem on several discussion pages - Steam engine, Steam car, External combustion engine. You only have to visit own my talk page where I have copied various discussions to see where that has led; if you fear that what I have just sent you is "probably too technical", - just take a butcher's at that lot! My whole point is that in writing for Wickipedia, we are generally writing for non-specialists and should be at pains to put the subject matter into accessible language and syntax. This does not mean dumbing down - quite the opposite in fact, especially when presenting a specialist subject it means clearly organising our propositions, which is not happening at the present in this article... As I said, what I sent you is a cri de coeur - or a voice in the wilderness if you like.--John of Paris 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John, I think that "...is not happening...in this article..." is because there are so few of us steamy types active on WP (as we have discussed previously). I suspect that nothing will happen with this article unless we make it happen ourselves, so, scarily (?) you probably have pretty much free reign to mould it however you see fit. I have the understanding, but not the knowledge, to help you, but mainly from a proof-reading perspective (which I find comes fairly naturally to me). In any particular area on WP there are suprisingly few editors working (or certainly in the areas that interest me!) – I have had Traction engine pretty much to myself for the past 8 months or so (which is why it hasn't progressed significantly).


 * Yes I agree that we should make the subjects accessible, and the solution to this (for "efficiency", for example) may be to have an 'accessible' summarised version on the steam engine page with a much more technical/mathematical treatment on a separate sub-page. It is a problem in many areas of WP -- some of the mathematical Featured Articles have quickly gone sailing over my head; and if you look at lightning and/or thunder for a simple expanation you may be sorely disappointed, so the problem is not restricted to steamy stuff.


 * EdJogg 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation you describe seems to be of relatively recent date as far as Steam engine is concerned. When I started visiting the discussions page last November there were quite a few contributions and a fair number of persons involved in the various lively debates. All this now seems to have fizzled out and I'm very much on my own. Now I get the feeling that like you, they are waiting for me to pull a rabbit out of the hat (some with their gun loaded and primed ready for the day I let it loose!) The other side of the coin is that I don't think they are all "steamy types" but that like me, some may feel that steam technology has as much of a future before it  as a past behind it but hesitate to admit that due to the barrage of flak that anyone suggesting that is usually subjected to. I may be just kidding myself about that, but the following kind remark was encouraging: "This user, for one, is glad to see someone trying to get to grips with this. Your good work isn't going unregarded. --Old Moonraker 14:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)," and fired up by that I started jotting odd stuff down and have been doing so on and off ever since. But the task looks more daunting every day as it is not only this article that needs a rewrite because as I have already said we have to find a way of clearly distinduishing between the steam engine, including generator/boiler as a prime mover and the steam engine as a component, a converter of steam working fluid into motion — well when you go to the "prime mover" discussions page as I did yesterday, you see that they've had their own problems, mainly due to the fact that the contributors (very few in this case) seem to be orientated more towards the philosophical side than the technological one and I get the strong impression that they would like to be rid of the latter - so they're no help! --John of Paris 10:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent "gnomework", Pete. I've calmed down a bit since that last mail and have decided not to try to do everything at once and keep hitting my head against a wall, but to concentrate on specific themes along with their related articles, where possible completing factual information and adding appropriate links and references. Rome wasn't built in a day.--John of Paris 16:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan! (Wish I could learn to do that myself -- always getting sidetracked!)
 * From what I've seen of your recent edits, you seem to be on the right track. Please let me know if you need any specific pages proof-read (especially new ones) -- I have most of the steam engine -related articles on my watchlist already (as you'll have noticed!) but there will be many less mainstream pages that are not. -- EdJogg 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

EdJogg, Have you visited these? - Newcomen steam engine; Midland Railway 1000 Class; Talk:Midland Railway 1000 Class; Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot. Can't think of any others. --John of Paris 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The first and last were already on my watchlist. I had a quick look at the 'Compound' page, but it looked like it needs a lot of work and I haven't revisited it since -- been caught-up in the free-use image chaos that's currently going on... EdJogg 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the latest eds, EdJogg. They look alright to me, except - well I always thought a cycle repeated itself by definition, but I had thought this morning before reading your summary that point could be clarified. What do you think of something like: "the complete engine cycle comprises two strokes divided into 4 events"?--John of Paris 08:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for changing that line was to replace the word 'following', as it could either mean that the events followed one another, or simply that they all followed the colon! It seemed necessary to word it thus to be absolutely unambiguous. Having looked at a dictionary, 'cycle' can also mean 'a single complete execution of a periodically repeated phenomenon', for example in 'the life cycle of the flea', each flea only goes through the cycle once... We need to be aware of our audience. For example, you used the word 'stroke' in your suggestion and having looked through the preceding paragraphs there is a little presumed knowledge about what 'stroke' means here. (This is sounding unduly harsh as I am writing quickly and have no time to 'craft' a reply, my apologies!) Perhaps "...two strokes of the piston..."? I think what I'm getting at is that we're so used to the general concepts that it may be difficult to appreciate any kind of language barrier felt by someone coming into the subject cold.
 * Hope that helps. (Now, back to work...) EdJogg 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Superheaters on Steam Locomotives

 * Hullo John of Paris...thanks for your kind remarks at my userpage. I'm the one who fiddled extensively with the superheater bit on the steam locomotives article. You are correct - steam is not merely a less-advanced form of Internal Confusion, erm, Combustion engine, but rather is a vastly differing prospect.


 * As to references, well, I have so many they are going to be difficult to get down to an acceptable size; the problem being that they need to be readily available to those who are looking for information and want to find the references. To use, say, the 1941 locomotive cyclopedia (an American Publication, hence the spelling) as a reference is unfair- this book is glorious in it's detail, but I have only seen one copy, I do not own it, and am unlikely to own a copy, since it is now well out of print. It is even less likely that any student of the subject would have access to a copy. That is one thing. The other reference is a book I'd consider as an essential to all steam enthusiasts: "Steam Locomotive Design: Data and Formulae", published in 1936 and republished recently by Camden Miniature Services, I have one of the last copies. Once again, the problem is that most of the references will be pre-1950 and therefore really difficult to obtain. I am open to suggestions.


 * The other book (which is a reference to both past practice, and future development, is "The Red Devil and Other tales From The Age Of Steam" by David Wardale. This is, once again, a limited run and I do not own a copy (though I'd like to!).


 * References are available online at the following places:


 * https://steamindex.com/people/fowler.htm#superheating (section under superheating, about ⅔ the way down the page.

Also have a good look here:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozsteamtrain (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there...been thinking about "references" and so forth...how much does this involve? for example, I say (because it's true, but I have no reference for it) that the reason for the need for more powerful steam locomotives was due to greater loads needing to be hauled. Um, I know this to be true, but I have no reference for it. Although this is a VERY minor point, I ask it simply because I am a little confused as to the need to reference things that appear screamingly obvious; in this case that the loads on trains have increased over the years. Question, how much referencing is needed?--Ozsteamtrain (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hero of Alexandria and the early history of steam
Jagged 85’s recent contributions are welcome as I for one was not sure what to do about the previous edits by 80.60.82.167. For some time I had been thinking of looking for a broader approach of Heron’s treatise and including the devices referred to in the edits for opening and closing temple doors etc, but the question is: do these qualify as steam engines any more than a coffee percolator does? Whilst we can say that they did “useful” work, that work was done by gravity, water being transferred into or evacuated from a bucket by heating or cooling, varying its weight. One of Hero’s main concerns was the study of siphons and communicating vases and it is surely that side of his work that is most relevant to the develoment of the steam engine. The aeolipile seems to have served no useful purpose other than to rotate itself and create pretty vapour effects and I have always thought it a bit of an exaggeration to hype it up as the “first steam engine” as many authors have done in the past. Many have also called it a “toy” which I think is a mistake, as it does not take into account the context of the ‘’Musaeum” of Alexandria, the intitution for which the treatise was apparently written; the same applies to a lesser degree to “mechanical curiosity” in the WP article. Going back to the “coffee percolator question”: is the Worcester/Savery device strictly speaking an engine? Dictionary definitions of “engine” generally refer to “mechanisms” or “moving parts” of which these devices have none. Rather than race to claim which nation invented the steam engine - which is a bore, it would surely be better to get things into perspective as to the way steam technology developed. In this context, recent references to Taqi al-Din are certainly of interest and can perhaps be related to Branca's device of 1629.--John of Paris 09:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More on very early sources
Took out text about Gerbert and Jacques Besson. Both these sources need more detailed research. Gerbert died in 1003; the 1120 date seems to come from Thurston : ‘’“Malmesbury states that, in the year A. D. 1120, there existed at Rheims, in the church of that town, a clock designed or constructed by Gerbert, a professor in the schools there, and an organ blown by air escaping from a vessel in which it was compressed " by heated water."’’ Until somebody takes the trouble to go further into this, for the time being I think we are scraping the barrel and should “include them out”. The same goes for Jacques Besson. Here is a translation of a paragraph in the French book “L’Aventure de la Vapeur” published by the CNRS in 1986 - ‘’“A professor of mathematics at Orleans, Jacques Besson, published from 1571- 1578 various works on mathematics and machines. Arago attributes to Besson a attempt to determine the relative volumes of water and steam. This affirmation seems rather rash and needs verification through deeper research.”’’’ (I think it is well worth following up). On the other hand I am for reinstating the recent reference to Taqi al-Din (reverted by user: 89.155.102.86 ) as the source is adequately researched. It should be noted that Taqi al-Din does not claim to have invented a steam engine; all he does is to describe what “people do”. The same is true of many of these early sources, including probably Hero of Alexandria. One thing is sure: it was long ago established that motive power could be obtained from steam pressure, also that condensing steam in a sealed container created a vacuum that could also be exploited. Whether Taqi al-Din or Branca’s apparatus merits the term steam turbine is a moot point to be discussed, but I think attaching the term “prime mover” to the former is going a bit over the top.--John of Paris 09:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image goldmine found!
Hi John. You will have seen the new photo at Boulton and Watt (I think it is a B&W -- another picture of it said as much).

This came from the Geograph project, and the photographer is very much into industrial archaeology. If you click on the beam engine pic, and then click on the author's name (Chris Allen) you'll get to his Geograph page. Currently he has added over 620 pictures (mixture of B&W and colour) including loads of different steam engines, plus mills, mines, pumping stations, etc. Thoroughly recommend a browse -- and you may well find a few that can be copied to Commons and used here...

EdJogg 13:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydraulic engineer
HI John speak French by any chance -I have a request that you translate Louis Dominique Girard from french wikipedia. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"   Contribs 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Been and had a look. Already knew about the "squirt railway", but nothing else about the guy. Looks interesting so I'll try to get round to doing a translation but don't be in too much hurry.--John of Paris 07:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sandboxes"
Hi John. Have fixed a couple of 'gross' errors, but I haven't looked at the text yet.

As I mentioned on my talk page, it is usual to work on these as sub-pages. The two immediate benefits for you are that the two articles will have their own ToC and set of references. EdJogg 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the latest edit on your user page. EdJogg 15:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Don't forget you need to open the edit window and copy from there rather than directly off the displayed page. Saves losing all of the Wiki-syntax... EdJogg 16:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes
I noticed that you are a member of the Locomotives Taskforce, and that you are in correpondence with EdJogg, someone who seems to share an interest in our hobby. I am wondering whether you would care to comment/support/oppose the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes article, which is currently up for FA status. Any constructive criticism would be of great help. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help!
Pleasure to work with you, and I hope that a continued effort can help get it to FA status. Have a look at the FA candidates' page here: Featured article candidates/SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes. If there is anything you need help with, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A good idea, but...
I fully see what you mean, and that it would mean a lot of work to undertake on the Merchant Navy Class article, not to mention trying to integrate it with that of the Light Pacifics. However, will this have an effect on the FA attempt regarding the Light Pacifics? If it does, then I'll have to say no until after the final decision, but keep your sandbox version handy, as more than likely I'll have a look at how it can be done at a future stage.

I must admit, I did think about merging them at one point, but at the same time, I thought it would create an unmanageable article due to the detail differences between the two (various issues regarding cab widths, lengths and steam treadle etc., as well as merging livery details). Although I personally think that one should wait for the time being, I am not against the idea in principle. Cheers for the idea, --Bulleid Pacific 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

--Bulleid Pacific 16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Second comment: By the looks of things, it is very difficult to plan a way forward regarding splitting the articles in that way.  A better solution would probably entail an article entitled 'Bulleid Pacifics', and add the Merchant Navy Class to what is on the Light Pacifics article, which would mean that everything one needs is on one page.  That would mean that only a new header would be needed, as well as bringing the MN article up to standard.  What do you think about that idea?


 * That sounds more or less like what I did in the first place, but it was not so systematic. I started by merging them into one, picking out what seemed best — Then split them up again as it just seemed to me that that one article would be a bit long. Anyway I'll be away till the end of the month and we can look at it again in three weeks. In any case the articles are very good as they stand - much better than most WP offerings I've seen on steam and steam locomotives.--John of Paris 11:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind message. I'm sure User:EdJogg (who's probably on holiday, too) is also grateful for your input, as he's done the menial task of checking grammar, a task that I do not envy!  I know tha it should be done, but I think that possibly there is too much information to cut and paste for one person  do successfully.  Anyway, if you want to review the article as regards the FA status drive, then by all means, do so.  Enjoy the holiday! Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maunsell Z Class
Shame that none of them survive, I think I've missed out on those! Anyway, you wouldn't happen to know where one could find a photograph of a 'Z' that has an easily attributable copyright? Thanks. And please continue with your good work on gettingideas for the SR WC/BB article. --Bulleid Pacific 10:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to download this pic for what it's worth, taken with my dad's awful old camera. Sorry, it's all I can offer, but it might just stimulate somebody to send something better.--John of Paris 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, I'd like your views on my comments re chain-stretch at Talk:Bulleid chain-driven valve gear.


 * That will do excellently! It's a difficult one to find pictures for, but at least it gives people an idea of what they looked like.  At the risk of taking advantage of your evident interest, there are a few classes that do not have any photographs at all (H15, N15x etc., and some that are incomplete (ie. an Unrebuilt Merchant Navy from the 1950s).  Have a look, and I'll read yor comments re: chain stretch as regards Bulleid valve gear.  Once again, thanks for taking the time to upload the image...--Bulleid Pacific 11:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

I had bit of an aversion to the H15 at the time - at least the original Urie version - so never made any effort. The only N15X I remember seeing was 32333 in pieces in Brighton works in August 1956 (I don't think it was ever put back together again as they were all withdrawn at that time). Two more are underlined in my Ian Allan ABC, but that was probably during a week in Bournemouth when I was 8 (my only distinct memory is seeing hordes of Spam Cans and reading the nameplate "Channel Packet" and wondering if that was the name of the engine or the class). My dad (not a railway enthusiast, I hasten to add) bought me a Southern Region locospotter's book later in the week and I started mindlessly taking down numbers, as many continued to do. The photo of the Z comes from a two-week tour of the West Country and the South in 1960. I took a few photos, but was generally disappointed with the results. That old camera's shutter had a kickback like a Howitzer and I had to steady it against fixed objects (tripod? what's a tripod?) Anyway the lens was not bad and I still have the negs, some of which are quite good so I'll go through them again (I've still got the camera somewhere!). Tell me what else is missing.--John of Paris 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're on the scrounge for old photos, I don't suppose you have one of an "Ilfracombe Goods" (0-6-0 tender loco) secreted away somewhere? :o)
 * EdJogg 23:14h, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ilfracombe Goods! — why not a Gooch single? Wish I could help you, but I'm not that old!--John of Paris 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry! :o) Wasn't meaning to imply anything such!! (Just checked, and the last survivor was scrapped in 1940). It's just there's a bit of a hole in the middle of the Ilfracombe Branch Line article. (Started it a year ago, must stop getting side-tracked...)
 * EdJogg 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Only pulling your leg - the chance was too good to miss!...--John of Paris 06:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Boiling
My edit was a reaction to describing all the work done before Savery as toys. That would have included Papin's long, hard and (personally tragic) scientific labours - that contributed so much to the beginning of the steam age and is so inexcusably left out of many popular accounts - for obvious nationalistic reasons. I think Papin should always have pride of place among steam power age pioneers and should be one of the first names mentioned in an article like this. Hero's device was not really an engine - as it was not for powering anything else, but it should be mentioned because it shows the inklings of the potential of steam power in a genius of very long ago. I hope my modifications satisfy your concerns. Cheers Provocateur (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bulleid Chain-Driven Valve Gear
As I am not an engineer myself (being a historian), I can only comment on what is my understanding of what you are trying to say. From what I am reading, I seem to get the impression that you are advocating that the SETTLEMENT of the chain upon the chain wheel driving the three-row jockey shaft, is a factor in the variations regarding valve events, due to the differences in proportion between the top chain wheel (driving the chain connected to the wheel on the main driving axle) and bottom chain wheel, rather than the oft-reported STRETCHING of the chain in service.

If this is what you are getting at, then I agree with you that settlement of the chain upon the wheel is a factor in causing the unpredictability of valve events on the inside valve gear, with its proportional effect on the outside, a factor highlighted by Kevin Robertson in his book The Leader Project: Fiasco or Triumph? As the chain was of industrial strength, with up to four rows of meshing plates, it would be difficult to believe that such a thing could 'stretch' in service. So therefore, a more feasable reason for the problems relating to Bulleid's valve ear lies with this settlement. As regards the workings of the reverser utilised by Bulleid on his pacifics, I am no expert, so a bit of reading on my part is required.--Bulleid Pacific 12:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that’s not at all what I was getting at. Please go to and take a look at the side view of the gear in the lower drawing. Don’t worry about the chains for the moment except to note that there were not one but two chain sets in series driving the three sets of valve gear. First look at those tiny cranks on the 3-throw crank shaft driving the valve gears. Imagine the little movement they would impart. Now look at the vertical rocker driving the inside piston valve. This rocker "rocks" around a pin that divides the said rocker at a ratio of 3:8; the short end driving the long end to which is attached by way of an angular union link driving the heavy assembly consisting of a girder joining the two valve heads. The rocker is in effect an “anti lever” that would increase the wear on all the pin joints and considerably magnify any resulting play in the pin joints, also put strain on the rocker itself (remember one has recently snapped on Blackmoor Vale). Moreover that angular thrust of the union link between the long end of the rocker and the piston valve assembly would certainly give rise to some strange accelerations and hence the weird valve events. These strange proportions are to be found in all three valve gear layouts but are easier to see for the inside cylinder.


 * Now I know that Wickipedia is not the place for personal research which is why I have kept my comments for the discussion pages. I am not an engineer either; the trouble is that this has all been screaming at me in the face for a number years and I would love to get some feedback. As I implied in the talk page, Bulleid’s engineering policy was brilliant in many ways and the only valid way forward for steam; but the way it was put into practice was catastrophic. Moreover it is a great pity the locomotives were not built as 2-8-2s with “bogie-bissel” according to the initial scheme (N.B. I am leaving the Leaders well and truly out of this discussion).--John of Paris 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again using my limited knowledge, even after reading up a bit on the subject, there was a problem regarding the 3:8 ratio of the rocker shaft, which restricted some of the movement within the valve gear. This caused excessive wear to the pins, which further compromised the accuracy of an already complex system, leading to the aformentioned unusual valve events. Furthermore, this was not helped by a fast-moving Bulleid reverser... You'll probably be banging your head against the screen, now at my ignorance (!), though I write this with reference to a diagram of the valve gear. Anyway, interesting all the same. --Bulleid Pacific 11:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't see how it would have restricted the movement. That long arm was there to augment the movement. The effect of the fast-moving reverser would have been magnified by proportions too — of the bell-crank plus the very short expansion link. All in all it seems a very unmechanical setup. How the drawing office could have got away with flouting such basic mechanics beats me. Anyway, thanks for your patience. I'm not banging my head against the screen, far from it - anyway it's a laptop. By the way, what did you read up on the subject? Wonder if anyone has ever made a model of the gear - computer or physical; if so, I think a lot of folk would be in for some big shocks.--John of Paris 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more than the usual arguments, although an interesting fact lies in the argument that the chain-driven valve gear was not Bulleid's first choice, that was to be a gear-driven locomotive. However, the lack of materials compounded by the Second World War meant that he had to settle for second best, and ultimately, the chain-driven valve gear was essentially an elaborate compromise in order to gain a similar capability to his intended gears. Quite interesting, again.--Bulleid Pacific 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I keep trying to point out, I really don't think the chain drive is a serious issue. The elaborate arrangement you refer to was mainly the result of wanting to use Walschaerts gear and piston valves. That was not a bad idea in itself; the problem was that to fit it in, he had to miniaturise the gear and then retrieve the necessary the valve travel by means of this famous 3:8 rocker (as you will have gathered by now, I believe that was the main culprit). As for geared drive, Bulleid was for a short time in contact with Caprotti to see if he could adapt his gear. I dont know if his rejection of Caprotti's scheme was due to wartime lack of materials; I suspect there were other problems and enough time had been wasted already. My own pet scheme for what it's worth would be to maintain the chain-driven Walschaerts gear and use oscillating cams; they should be adaptable to a short final travel giving proper events whilst eliminating at one fell swoop that rocker — plus eventually Cossart valves rather than poppets for good measure, if the former could be adapted.--John of Paris 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just found something interesting on the chain drive in Carpenter’s translation of Chapelon’s Locomotive à Vapeur, (page 72) where he points that it is a version of the Fidler gear (whatever that is), and that the reason for the two chains was “(...) to avoid disturbances to the steam distribution which would result from the movement of the axle if the eccentric shaft which drives the expansion links was connected with it”. So the setup would be something like this: — i) driving axle-to-idler = variable distance; ii) idler-to-crankshaft = fixed distance, the former probably compensated by small amount of chain slack, or else there may have been a spring-operated automatic tensioner, as with on a bicycle derailleur (unlikely, but desirable).  — I'll put something to that effect into the article if you like

SR Class W
Going completely off-topic, you wouldn't happen to have a photo of the SR Class W, as I believe that was also a banker at Exeter at one stage. Also, I have been working on the BR standard class 6 article (I may move the article to capitals at some point). Fancy a look?--Bulleid Pacific 11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not any more, you're not! Sorry,I can't help there. Don't remember seeing one at Exeter and never photographed one anywhere.. Only spent the night there - the Zs made one hell of a racket with their small wheels and 6 beats to the bar. As for the standard class 6, can't help either: Very rarely saw them, except coming home from a trip to Scotland in 1959 when one gave me my only taste of over 90 mph behind steam coming down Beattock in the middle of the night on the return trip. The speed woke me up and I used the time-honoured rule of thumb method of counting the the joints in 41 seconds — about 92, if I remember aright. They seem to have been very free-running locomotives--John of Paris 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Must have been a regular driver doing the honours (possibly a Polmadie locomotive?). As I have researched, regular drivers actually had respect for their abilities, and were able to get a lot out of them. I was reading an article in a 2005 issue of Steam World, of a chap who went on a jaunt behind one between Paddington and Swindon, when Clan Mackenzie (I think it was this one) came down for an enthusiast's special. Recorded poor running to Swindon, but an outstanding run back, frequently reaching 70, and arriving four minutes early. That's better than 5051 Earl Bathurst/Drysllwyn Castle when I was behind her on Past-Time Rail's "St. David's Day Express" between Swansea and Paddington. Clinkered up after the Severn Tunnel and entered Paddington one hour late! Anyway, cheers.--Bulleid Pacific 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was Clan Buchanan, but I was dead-beat that night.--John of Paris 07:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Put my own rather poorly organised comment below yours (it took two redrafts before I could understand what I was trying to say!), really, though, it just restates the obvious, and pretty much backs up what you were trying to say in the first place, that the 4-6-0 5MT was good enough without having to meddle with the design to create a 'Pacific', although there was a use for a 'Pacific' in the next category up (Std. 6).--Bulleid Pacific 14:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Savery steam engine
Hi. How about creating a separate article for the savery steam engine. This would reduce the size of both the Thomas Savery article, which could focus on the man, and the Industrial revolution article, which is way too long and does not need details about the design of the Savery engine. (I liked the edits to the Industrial revolution article.) --kop 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you know about steam locomotive priming?
An editor has made a link on the SR Leader Class cylinder design section regarding Priming. Do you think you could start a bit of an article on this important topic? --Bulleid Pacific 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (I started posting this at Bulleid Pacific's talk page, and realized it really belonged here.) John, if you don't feel able to improve Priming (steam engine) despite what appears to be an impressive amount of knowledge of the subject :-), I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Trains to see if there's help to be had there. --Tkynerd 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have slept on this. - When I think about it, most of my steam locomotive edits have been made with constant reference to the work (articles and technical papers) of authors with whom I am the most familiar, i.e. André Chapelon and L.D. Porta, also earlier important historical figures such as William Adams, Anatole Mallet, D.K. Clark, Timothy Hackworth and his son John Wesley... I am not an engineer, so have little or no practical experience, hence my reticence (not false modesty) to set myself up as an "expert". At the same time I keep constantly in touch with practical engineers; however these unfortunately have little or no available time to be able to contribute to WP. I do have some time at present and where I think I could really be of help (to you and to them) would be if we were to start off three new articles covering wider key topics - what Clark would probably have called "anatomical aspects": i) the steam circuit; ii) boiler feedwater and treatment and preheating; iii) exhaust ejectors (chimneys). For instance, the issue of cylinder condensation would be addressed in article (i), priming in article (ii) etc.--John of Paris 11:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when you think about it, Wikipedia editors are not necessarily supposed to be expert in the subjects we write about, since everything in the encyclopedia is supposed to be reliably sourced. If you have those sources and feel comfortable interpreting them, it would be great if you could start the articles you describe. --Tkynerd 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you do need a minimum of expertise in these fields, if only to be able to judge the reliability of your sources and to go about interpreting them. That is my biggest headache with WP: the sacredness of the printed word. Many articles are little better than Mediaeval scolastics where "authorities" appear to be sourced uncritically — at worst compendia of "library scrapings". This seems especially true of scientific and technological articles and if you try to avoid it, POV and OR loom large even with the best of intentions. Frankly I don't think many of us would be here if we didn't have some sort of point of view. As for original research, have a look at the Early engines - a few facts and figures section on this page. I did this investigation because I was dissatisfied with statements in Wickipedia about the workings of the Newcomen engine. As I could find no sources I considered adequate, the only solution was to do my own investigation and insert a report into the relevant talk pages. But you see the problem: what are the reliable sources for my edits? Little more than my own OR. I foresee similar problems if I start these new pages. Anyway I'll stop there as this is turning into more of a WP policy discussion. I appreciate your encouragement and promise to make a start on the new articles.--John of Paris 10:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
Thanks for yor input as regards the WC/BB article, which is now FA. I'm intending to bring the MNs up to scratch as well, in order to compliment the former. I will be editing intermittently between now and Christmas due to the fact that I am in university at the moment, but now and then, I shall return. Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When filing at WP:RFPP
Hello. When you're filing a request to protect an article at Requests for page protection, it helps us administrators out if you write the request like so:

This sets up the request so that it links to the talk page, history, etc. of the article you want protected and allows them to easier assess if they need to protect a page. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 08:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Strange Edits
Well, I think its just the usual Tomfoolery. Really, its a fact of life on such open access technology. I don't really know what to do about it, as they'll keep coming back. Although once again, I didn't realise Rik Mayall of all people was a railway enthusiast! ;)--Bulleid Pacific 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, he seems fairly keen on railway modelling, don't really know what he's trying to get at, though, I reckon he's trying to match the names of actors with the voices of TTTE characters. Possibly something wrong somewhere?--Bulleid Pacific 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

9F sandbox
On the sandbox regarding the 9F, could you put the page numbers of your references in the article? That would be of great help. Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 15:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Comment 15/10/17, I'm working on the sandbox, which will replace the main article at a later stage, when it has reached its final conclusion. As regards the comment made on 17/10/07, I was merely trying to integrate the edits better into a more fluid text (I can't remember removing anything), but I believe you have changed the titles, which is good (I now remember, I copied and pasted the original article's stuff by mistake). I need to get more references for the article, but as I am in university at the moment, I only have what I have to hand at my digs. --Bulleid Pacific 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we'll wait a little longer until I can gather the energy to do the header, which is the major drawback of the article as it stands, unless you wish to do it...--Bulleid Pacific 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done the header, but I'm still reluctant to release it yet, as we need to get more references. I have a couple on me, which I will duly put into the relevant bits, but there needs to be a few more...--137.44.1.200 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC) *This comment was posted by --Bulleid Pacific 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) *

BR Standard Class 6 discussion
John, despite the fact that I agree with the various failings with the GA process, my heart sank when I read the comment you posted regarding the premature GA pass. There are problems with the article, which can and will be addressed, as GA is only a platform from which the article can advance further through improvement and consensus. If it were to be posted for FAC, then I would think that your concerns should be taken highly seriously (not that I don't take them seriously now!). But until that time, the article has reached the basic requirements for a good article, and the further improvement and honing in of the argument should now take place.

However, my key gripe was the way in which you started the post, involving "putting a dampener" on things, which is not necessarily the best way to start a discussion. Malleus Fatuarum is merely doing a job, he didn't have to review the articles, and considering that he assures us that he is now more knowledgeable on the subject must mean we have done something right. I'm not trying to have an argument over the various uses of good English in starting a statement, but as I have learned from past mistakes, it is always best to be as diplomatic as possible when highlighting reservations. I hope we continue our productive partnership in improving various railway articles, and at the end of the day, we can sit back in the knowledge that we have produced some fine work. Thank you for your understanding, --Bulleid Pacific 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's alright. All's well that ends well.  Incidentally, if you can improve the background section, then by all means, go for it!  Also, could you have another look at the Merchant Navy Class article, it has been expanded a bit since you have last seen it?  And a final question, you wouldn't happen to have have a photograph of an example of the nameplate to put in the relevant section?  Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your research looks pretty good to me. Fancy referencing it and editing the relevant bit?  I do not have a copy of that book at the moment, although I have borrowed it.  --Bulleid Pacific 11:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, a few sentences were a bit jarring for the uninitiated, but I think I have smoothed them over.--Bulleid Pacific 11:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Steam locomotive weight
I put this post in the Template talk page last September and now in in the trains Wickiproject talk page, but have had no reply. If none materialises then I shall just correct the error whenever I come across it. In any case, it should be done for the reasons stated here — "I find in some steam locomotive articles that the definition of "weight" as "The locomotive's total weight" is a source of confusion. In some cases this has been taken to mean the total weight of the locomotive and tender (already covered by the rubric "locotenderweight" - the combined locomotive and tender total weight. If I have understood right, "weight" stands for the weight of the locomotive (power unit) alone, presumably in working order. This is a far more useful criterion if we remember that a locomotive can be attached to several different tenders in the course of its career. For instance giving the loco+tender weight for French locomotives would be particularly meaningless as locomotives and tenders were maintained by separate services and had more or less independent careers."--John of Paris 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: LNER A1/A3
You may wish to create a separate page for the locomotive details (names, build dates etc.) in order to de-clutter the article. Just remember to state that the page was created as per WC/BB, which was up for deletion in April, but remained due to no consensus. This was a valuable precedent, as it allows the tidying up of several classes of named express passenger locomotive. I need a bit more of a read at the moment to find other points of note, so bear with me... Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would also be nice (only out of personal preference, although you played your fair part!) if you could set a standard for livery and numbering as per standard pacifics and SR pacifics. There is no need to mention "a fairly accurate drawing of St. Hugo", change it to a stylised drawing of St. Hugo instead, as it seems to sound better, not so wishy-washy.  Also, I do recall Thompson's rather unwarranted, even vindictive, rebuild of Great Northern, which is a key part of the history of the class.  Other than that, you have the makings of a decent article, and I can add a couple of references to a few parts when I have the time. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit of editing on your project, I hope its not too drastic! Would it be good if there was a background section setting the scene on why there was a requirement for such a design?  And maybe create a construction history section to cover the batches produced?  Any operational details within the design section should really be placed in their own section to reduce 'drag' as it were (I think you know where I'm heading..!).  It is a matter of personal taste, but it is an opinion that I stick to.  Anyway, must dash, I have a reaserch proposal to finish regarding the nationalisation of British Railway for my dissertation!  Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I've had a bit of time on my hands, I've mulled over the work undertaken so far, and have taken the liberty of giving the entire article a bit of an overhaul. Content is still there, but the flow was in dire need of improvement.  I think the article is now at a stage where we can discuss things in a bit more detail, such as operation under BR etc.  I hope you like what has been done, and are not offended by anything.  Any errors can be rectified, though I've actually enjoyed not being in the driving seat for a bit!.  --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about adding a section on the experiments regarding smoke deflection with numbers 2747 and 2751? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
The Merchant Navy Class article has also been promoted to FA status. Once again, excellent job. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dictionary style digression" in Flying Scotsman article
Certainly it’s inappropriate to refer to a locomotive as a train, outside of the specialised cases of railway law where a locomotive alone is considered a train. However, the distinction is not the most important thing in the article about the Flying Scotsman locomotive. It’s one thing to ensure that the article uses correct terminology, but quite another to use the disambiguation link (whose well-established purpose is to help people find the page they want) to respond to an incorrect usage that is only peripherally related to the article. David Arthur (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Little problem
Doesn't matter. I mean I am a Southerner after all ;). It would be a bit embarrassing that I am seen helping an 'enemy' railway company! No, I did not really add that much, but no doubt I'll find other things that needs to be done.  Just keep helping us churn out more GAs and FAs, and I'll reciprocate, as it is through teamwork that things get done.  Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A1/A3
Are you going to create another appendix page with details of individual class members? You cold get quite a bit of info in there. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 16:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How is the A1/A3 article progressing?
Just to ask you the above, and whether you wish to have a go at improving the N15 article? Work has precluded me from doing much recently, but a whipround of references would be good for this article. What do you think? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Steam Power?
In case you were interested...

I have gathered together a list of the steam-related articles into a new category hierarchy. This has been a long-term project, started over a year ago, but events before Christmas forced it forward a little. (Hence you will now find and its parent .)

If you look at User:EdJogg/Steam Portal (grand title, eh?, sorry the page is not very 'friendly'!), you will see I am intending that all the steamy cats are to be held by the super-category. This seemed to be a more all-encompassing, and WP-oriented name than "Steam power", which I did consider. I mention this here in case (a) you wish to add anything appropriate to the page (just in case it becomes the basis for a real portal or project in the future, or just if you'd find it useful to refer to), and (b) in case your "Steam power" article would fit better with the title "steam technology", to match the super-cat, although I don't mind if you stay with the title "Steam power".

EdJogg (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox 6
Hi John, thanks for the message on my talk page. I found your sandbox 6 page while browsing Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives. Because you had that category tagged on the page it was appearing in the category list. By adding a ":" in front of the link I removed the page from the category. You are welcome to request speedy deletion of any sandbox page you no longer need. To do so, just add and an administrator will delete it, usually quite quickly. I have gone ahead and done that for the sandbox 6 page. All the best, Gwernol 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for A1/A3 article.
Yes, I believe that there would be no harm in getting a peer review, but there are still some expansive areas of text that MAY require referencing, but we'll see after a review. I shall not be on Wikipedia for the next couple of weeks, but I'll set things in motion if you want to upon my return. Oh, and congratulations on the MN article reaching front page, which is projected for 18 January... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Railway barnstar
Hi John, I've been admiring your excellent work on a variety of railway-related articles recently. Please enjoy this barnstar as a thank you for all your hard work.



A1/A3
Well, edit it, as it definitely needs a preservation section. If the class had several locomotives preserved, then maintaining perspective would have been easier, such as with the Bulleids. It is hard not to go over the top regarding Scotsman. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Herring is a textbook on the subject rather than a monograph, but it is a pretty useful reference...
... due to the fact that it covers a fair amount of the relevant details. I have personally not found many books like it without getting too inaccessible to the novice, nor in breadth of coverage. It has been a good companion of mine in terms of statistics, and as long as it is used in conjunction with other works, it is fine.

As for the referencing system, it is what has been used on several other articles, whilst at this particular moment in time, such appendages as "OP. CIT." are a bit old-fashioned (according to two of my history lecturers anyway), and has been replaced with "Ibid.". Otherwise I do not see a major problem with the referencing as it stands, providing it is accepted as a compromise. One of the many things I have learned during my time with Wikipedia is that nothing is anywhere near perfect, and 'the next best thing' invariably tends to be adopted.

Cheers,

--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I see the problem. That sentence should not only be re-written, but should be relocated to the pre-war section regarding the fitting of the new regulator that improved operation.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas, not at the moment. I'll look into it...--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution article: Spelling
Hey, sorry if I made a mistake. I just thought someone didn't know how to spell. Thanks for letting me know about it. By the way, about my user page: I don't spend much time on here. And I definitely don't have enough time to make it all fancy unlike a lot of people on here who spend hours on it. I don't understand how people profit from contributing to this website.

DLM AG
Thanks for your support. I think somebody regarded my article as an advertisement for DLM but I don't know why because there are numerous other articles about companies. I still have the article at User:Biscuittin/DLM AG. What is the procedure for re-instating it? Biscuittin (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Could you give me links to the independent sources please? Biscuittin (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have enough additional material to re-introduce the article yet. However, if you'd like to copy the article to a user page of your own, and expand it, please do. Biscuittin (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found your attempts at the DLM article. I had done updating and expansion work on the German Dampflok- und Maschinenfabrik DLM version before, have started an English draft some time ago Draft:Dampflok- und Maschinenfabrik DLM. Someone moved it from my sandbox to offical draft state on en:wikipedia. I hope we will have a worthwile English article in due course. Teeschmid (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Steam Engine article split
(Replying here as it seemed more like starting a new thread...)

Much busyness has so far prevented me spending long proof-reading your (steam engine) sandboxes. I did read the first one, and it seems a good start. Two observations though: (1) you do not define what 'steam power' actual is, and (2) the references to modern-day use in power generation, while valid, appeared slightly repetitious -- ie the second/third instance of reading about it I remembered reading about it earlier. More work would be required in due course as your rich writing style occasionally needs diluting for the benefit of non-steam-educated readers (and I know we're in trouble if it takes me several goes to know exactly what you mean, which is one of the important facets of proof-reading!). Anyway, I haven't tried to tackle that yet as I started mulling over the general article structure...

Fundamentally, your concerns are sound. Boiler needs splitting, as there are too many disparate elements within, and steam engine is becoming unmanageably large. However, I am not convinced by your proposed article names. If you look at WP's Naming Conventions, you'll see right at the start that the article names should relect common usage, and permit easy linking from within articles. Considering your wishes, and the naming conventions, I reckon we could get away with the following: ...and since at least one of the steam-generating 'boilers' states that it does not actually boil water to create steam (and is threfore not a 'boiler'), there is scope for an even higher-level article on steam generating plant or heating water, etc, which can encompass everything from a kettle to a power station (at a high level).
 * Boiler -- becomes a (DAB page), or a top-level page linking elsewhere
 * Boiler (hot water)
 * Boiler (steam)

As for steam engines, creation of steam power, or steam technology will allow much general information to be extracted from steam engine. Your concern over the confusion/mis-terminology with steam locomotive is valid, but I think you are going to cause headaches for yourself, and possibly confusion for others, if you try to do much about it. I am sure it is sufficient to place a suitable 'dab link' at the top of the page, to redirect anyone misrouted: ''This article describes steam engines in general. For the railway engine, see steam locomotive.'', or similar. Changing the title from steam engine will be a huge headache for all concerned, as in the majority of cases the existing link will be correct.

It will be a big job, but steam engine can be condensed down (will that make it a water engine??, sorry :o) ). The major sections describing the Newcomen, Watt and Cornish engines (etc) can be simplified considerably, keeping only the most essential points and moving the bulk of the details and history to the relevant articles. The article requires a 'History' section, linking-off to the other engine articles, and one (or more) 'how it works' sections. We probably need to keep it as generic as possible, since each major engine type will have plenty of info to sustain an article of its own, which can encomapass the history, operating and usage details for that type.

I know this is rather different from your thinking, but I present it as an alternative for your perusal.

EdJogg (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pete, we can carry on here if you like, whatever is most convenient.
 * First reaction. Not that different from my thinking. One of the things that worries me about WP technology articles in general is that too often they are excuses for authors to air their knowledge whereas it seem to me that readers come for information on things they may not be fully informed about. If I sometimes get bit obscure it is precisely because I am neither engineer nor scientist, but a musician whose main interest outside of the field (and main source of relaxation) happen to be steam technology. Although railway locomotives are my main focus, I am not a train fan, and for me famous locomotives and famous designers or particular railway companies are not celebrities to be unconditionally adored. This just to say that if you find my writings sometimes obscure, that is absolutely contrary to my intentions and I welcome your criticisms on that side of things.


 * When did you last read the first article? It has been considerably updated - even yesterday. I think you will find a little less repetition than before, as already existing paragraphs had just been cobbled together in order to have something to work on.


 * Now as for defining what steam power "is" let's look at the introductory sentences as they stand in the current WP version -


 * "The term steam engine may also refer to an entire railroad steam locomotive."
 * Not only! In some contexts it can refer to a whole unit, stationary or mobile including boiler (railway engine, traction engine, table engine mill engine, portable engine), whereas in others it just refers to the motor unit regardless of the boiler (beam engine, steeple engine, oscillating engine. So we can conclude this very first disambiguation statement is woefully inadequate and misleading to the lay person (This is not POV, it is fact).


 * "The engineering definition of a steam engine is an external-combustion heat engine that converts heat energy in steam to mechanical work."
 * What is the source of this "engineering definition"? Until someone cites a reliable source that clearly classifies the steam engine as an external combustion engine, the definition has to be invalid. And look up external combustion in any dictionary: you will likely draw a blank (if not, please let me know); — you will find internal combustion, yes - but external combustion...? Again it is of no relevance here that John of Paris does not agree with the definition as long as no reliable source has been cited to support it; therefore there is no case for including the term in the WP definition i.e. the text that comes up in a Google search.


 * So how then do we define steam engine? — well a steam engine - is a steam engine - is a steam engine, i.e. an engine that transforms water into its gaseous state in order to produce mechanical work. Steam is the essence, the constant. Saying this does not exonerate you from studying the aspect of thermodynamic efficiency, but in order to get a full grasp of the particular case of steam power you have to take into account the ingredients of overall efficiency: combustion, heat transfer, fluid flow dynamics, materials resistance, tribology, control of timing, commercial considerations, accountancy... Since Newcomen and Watt such has always been the case - at whatever level of development and this is what makes study of the steam engine so fascinating.


 * The reason I settled on the title Steam power is that we already have a Timeline of steam power, but as far as I am concerned, it is not written in stone and have just modified the names of my sandboxes.


 * Just one more thing - if I have understood right the super-critical generator certainly does create steam but at such high temperature/pressure level that the process is modified. So it is well and truly within the range of our articles.


 * Dealing with the aside first, I do not dispute that the super-critical generator falls within our remit, I was just highlighting the point (as emphasised in the article!) that it doesn't actually boil water, and hence it cannot be classed as a boiler. (I really don't know anything more about it, I was just highlighting this!)


 * 'Sandbox 5', sorry, don't remember when it was. Will need to have another look - I'll make sure I edit it at least a little bit, so you know I've read it! If I remember, I will also try to drop comments where I find your writing 'difficult', or 'non-FA', or whatever. Writing for WP requires you to think from a slightly different direction (as I discovered when working on the MN article) and you may not yet be used to spotting when you are not doing that. (That is not intended to sound rude, but it is awkward trying to find the right words at a distance.)


 * OK, back to the main task: What is a steam engine? First, from your discussions above, I think we can dispense with the DAB link. I suspect that the whole first paragraph of the steam engine article needs to address this point. How about this?:
 * A steam engine, from an engineering point-of-view, is a heat engine that converts heat energy stored in steam into mechanical work. In general usage, the term 'steam engine' may refer to the engine itself (as in beam engine, stationary steam engine), or may refer to a composite machine (for example, steam locomotive, portable engine) that comprises both the engine (the bit that does the work) and a source of steam to power it, typically a boiler.
 * This avoids the tricky word 'definition', and I also avoided 'colloquially' (not just because it is difficult to spell!) as the usage I describe is not limited to speech.


 * I have had another very quick look at the 'Steam power' (Sbox5) article, but I cannot do more at present, as lunchtime is 'up'. I think that my problem with that article, as it stands, is that I am still reading it as a replacement for steam engine, rather than as a new page (its parent). This seems to be a bit of a mental block, which I don't understand, but I have quite a lot on my mind at present, which isn't helping.


 * Hope this has moved us a bit further forward...
 * EdJogg (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Steam power
Finally got round to it...

Category:Steam power has now been created and populated with the articles I have found to date (worth a look!). Proposed additional sub-categories include 'Preserved steam' and 'Steam engine technologies', but these will wait for now. I thought this new parent cat was long overdue, and allows the association of many articles that could not possibly fit under the steam engines cat. This latter, incidentally, has now been pruned accordingly.

This name was chosen over "Steam technology" since it is in keeping with the categories for Wind power and Water power (which pages could be used for ideas for the "Steam power" page).

EdJogg (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Chain wear
Firstly, apologies for my method of communication: I couldn't find information on a different way of communicating with you.

The thing about a chain is that if it's weak enough to stretch, it'll stretch at a certain level of stress (force per unit area). That process reduces the cross-sectional area, thus increasing the stress, leading to a greater tendency to stretch. That way lies rapid chain failure: chains must be specified so they won't stretch.

But chains are observed to get longer in use. What's going on there is wear at the pivots leading to play - put a worn chain under tension, and it gets longer.

I suppose sprocket wear increases slack too to an extent. I've never thought about that before. Thing is, if you expect significant chain wear, and you should, some sort of tensioning mechanism needs to be included. Motorcycle final drive chains are manually adjusted on a periodic basis by moving the rear wheel backwards to take up the slack. Motorcycle cam chains are held at correct tension by cunning spring loaded tensioners with steel reinforced hard rubber guides (called blades) to apply force to the chains - in all modern bikes I know of, these are automatic.

I'd assume in the case of a steam train with `cam chains' fitted in an attempt to reduce servicing, some sort of automatic or semi-automatic chain tensioner would have to be designed in. Semi-automatic? `Slacken off the locking bolt to let the adjustment spring go `spring' to the right tension with the mechanism at the right position in the cycle, and then do it up again'. Older Suzuki bikes had tensioners like that; some older Honda models (e.g., CX500) were famous for their automatic cam chain tensioners that didn't work right - the Suzuki tensioners needed manual intervention, but at least they worked properly.

In the case of motorcycle final drive chains, chains are usually lubricated periodically with special sticky lubricant sprayed from a can. Typically, you can expect 12,000+ miles chain life that way and a need to clean the chain frequently. If you add a chain oiler to drop one or two drops per minute of sticky oil onto the thing, you can get 70,000+ miles out of a normal chain and you never need to clean it (I've got a chain oiler - the one chain I've worn out since fitting it only lasted about 30,000 miles, but that's because the chain oiler was out of action for a long time due to accident damage, and I didn't notice - just a split pipe. My wife's bike has done 30,000 miles since we bought it and fitted it with a chain oiler, and it's still on the decidedly not new chain it had when we got it). If the chain's running in an oil bath, and the oil's changed often enough, chain life can be longer than that. Not many bikes have final drive chains running in an oil bath, but I seem to recall that one of the Norton Wankel engined bikes did, and they reckoned (going by memory) on about 100,000 miles life that way.

The best way to check a motorcycle chain to see if it's still serviceable is to wash out all the lubricant, lay it flat, and measure the difference in length between fully compressed and fully extended - if it exceeds the spec, it's worn out. In practice, this is not done any more because almost all motorcycle chains have o-rings sealing the pivots, which are well-greased by the manufacturer. These chains do benefit greatly from a chain oiler, mind: if the o-rings aren't kept lubricated on the outside, they end up not sealing well sooner rather than later; they won't maintain a seal under dynamic conditions unless the interface between the rubber of the seal and metal they're sealing is lubricated.

FWIW, the way I judge if my chain is still serviceable is by looking at how badly worn the sprocket teeth are, and checking to see if the chain is within spec slack for a 360 degree rotation - sometimes they wear unevenly, and it becomes impossible to adjust it so it never gets too slack or too tight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.61.19 (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Emphatic remark on chain wear
(please understand that I'm not trying to badger you at all - it's just that I think I know what's going on with the authors of the books you've referred to)

Chains are often said to stretch. It's the term that is normally used to describe the extension of a chain in use in my experience - everyone and his dog talks about chain stretch, unless there's an irritable engineer around to put 'em right.

But consider the following physical facts:

The thing about a chain is that if it's weak enough to stretch, it'll stretch at a certain level of stress (force per unit area).

The area in question is the weakest cross-sectional area of the chain which opposes the tension in the chain. The force is the tension in the chain, as applied to the particular chain components that count as `the weakest cross-sectional area'.

But if the chain stretches, that cross-sectional area must decrease as the length of the stretching chain component increases, since volume must be preserved (no material is lost or gained).

Stress is force per unit area (per means `divide by' in such cases): reduce the area, increase the stress. If stretching occurred at a certain chain tension before any initial stretch, afterwards it will occur at a lower chain tension. So once the chain starts to stretch, it will gain a greater tendency to stretch: thus, stretching once begun leads to rapid failure.

Chains must - must! - be specified to not stretch under expected loads - which covers expected overloads, as well as normal service loads.

I've just given you the explanation I was given years ago by an engineer. I did a physics degree once: the mechanics as explained to me are straightforward and correct.

More importantly, all of it can be confirmed in the books (aside from my assertion that `stretching' is what people say that chains do when they wear), given the need for a proper citable source. Any O level physics textbook will do if you can find one, and the better GCSE physics textbooks too but less usefully, damnit (it's true what they say about the decline of exam standards in science and maths at least).

I should mention that there is one possible exception to the model I've presented that I can think of: the possibility of a massive one-off overload. - but I find it hard to imagine how that much tension could be applied to a chain without damaging some other part of the mechanism, and I also find it hard to think of where such an overload might come from. And if one such massive overload occurred and it was just a one-off - well, it'd only affect one engine, right? If they all had the problem, then there was no `one-off' overload condition - perhaps `only occasional' overloads, mind - but still, the chains would soon fail after repeated overloads of the sort I've postulated.

Thinking about what might have led to the reported mis-behaviour due to this chain drive makes me think it was most likely down to uncompensated for play in the mechanism. At least, that's what I'd want to look at first. I'm not suggesting I'm at all sure that's what it was - it's just that if I had the job of trying to work out what was wrong, that'd be where I'd start. If you get a bit of chain slack, and a bit of play *there*, and then *this* part is mildly out of adjustment - that sort of thing.

If you've got a long chain with excess slack in it, and some play in other parts of the mechanism - that could wreak havoc, that could. Think about oscillations being set up in the chain run for starters - and what might happen if the frequency of that oscillation hit the resonant frequency of something with a bit too much play itself. Oh, that sort of stuff can really screw things up! You don't even need a slack chain for it to oscillate a bit, mind.

But all this is handwaving and guessing. I point blank don't believe that chain stretch can have been the problem with the valve gear. And I find it hard to believe that it was simply down to chain wear - any even vaguely competent engineer would surely take that into account in his design? I feel sure that the problem must have been caused by a complex combination of factors. That sort of problem often trips up even pretty damned competent engineers - you might well design it by the rule book, but if you're doing something new, the rule book can't be completely trusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.61.19 (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John Urpeth Rastrick
Co-founder of Foster, Rastrick and Company... A recent edit queried the spelling of a former partner of Rastrick, one John Hazledine (apparently "brother of the famous William Hazeldine", according to an external website).

The question is, how do you spell his surname: 'hazeldine' or 'hazledine'?? I have tried my usual Googling technique, but drawn a blank: there seem to be as many of one spelling as another. A similar case was succcessful when I corrected Edward Akroyd, after I found his portrait at the National Portrait Gallery website!! No such definitive source has emerged yet for Mr Hazeldine/Hazeldine.

I know this is not your core field, but you are rather more scholarly than I, and you're more likely to find the required references. Do you think you might be able to determine the correct spelling from your library??

EdJogg (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (For the benefit of anyone reading this subsequently... Further research suggests that the spelling found on a casting on Trevithick's "Hazledine & Co., No.14" stationary engine (in the Science Museum, London: pictures available on-line) is correct. The confusion in spellings appears to have occurred even in respected publications from an early date, no doubt helped by 'hazel' being the well-known spelling of that word. In fact, the Hazledine surname for both John Hazledine and his younger, but more prolific, brother William, is mis-spelled so often that (internet) research requires both spellings to be used! EdJogg (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

LNER A1/A3
You will have seen that I have finished my 'proof-read'. Whether there are any sections missing from the article, I cannot say (as I read it in pieces!) but what is there is probably good enough as a GA candidate.

For Featured status, I think we would need to look at the technical descriptions more closely. While it is fine for a mechanically-minded reader, I suspect that if I tried to do an FA-level proof-read I would find large chunks that needed expanding (or linking) to handle the necessary jargon used. (Having links to other pages would be fine, but often those links are not yet available!)

I hope the 'In Fiction' section is not too large. I have tried to be restrained. It is very easy for such sections to expand organically as fans 'add their bit'. In this case, the character described is nearly as significant as Thomas himself, having appeared from the very first book, and his 'back story' (if that's what you call it) is relevant. The benefit of a concise (referenced) section is that it genuinely does reduce the liklihood of young editors adding more, poor quality, information. In terms of relevance...I reckon that an article about a historical item should include information about preservation, and film/literary appearances, as I expect someone serious about the subject to be interested in finding all sources of relevant information for further research.

I'll keep the article on my watchlist in case you or BP decide to try for GA/FA status.

EdJogg (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you believe the above article should go for GA yet? I think it is certainly good enough for that, providing any technical bits are clarified.  Nice to see that you have 'grasped the nettle' and started a sandbox on the Drummond 'Double Singles'.  I have absolutely no points of reference for those, but I'll help in the usual proof-read way.  Also, cheers for having another look at the LSWR N15 class article, which is up for peer review.  Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll sort it out now. Having re-read the article, I cannot find anything too technical, but we'll soon find out when the article goes through the promotion process. I was in York on Monday, and saw the frames of 4472, freshly painted (no prizes for guessing which livery, but let's not get into that debate!). Went to the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, which is in the middle of an LNER gala, so I got to ride behind Union of South Africa without having to take out a mortgage! The other two A4s were there, as was the B1, K1, Q6, J15 and the now sadly withdrawn V2.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The V2 was withdrawn about three weeks earlier than planned with leaking flue tubes on April 1- the expense of replacing them was not justified by the amount of time left on the boiler certificate extension. Personally, I do tend to be of the BR Brunswick Green fraternity, as although I am a Southern aficionado, I do not really like the Malachite Green that Bulleid seemed to persist with.  It may have been bright during an era of austerity, but it meant the locomotives stood out too much.

Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bulleids certainly began to be turned out in Brunswick Green livery from around 1950 onwards. BR experimented with the Malachite livery(some 'Black 5s' were so treated) to the extent that 34090 Sir Eustace Missenden, Southern Railway was seen in Malachite with the early BR crest and green wheels. BR needed to create a corporate image to make a statement of the change that had occurred in 1948 (there was much debate within the Railway Gazette at this time). Several factors led to the chosing of this as a standard livery for passenger locomotives, not least the residual influence of the GWR within the Railway Executive, whilst the black livery for mixed traffic was a variation of the LNWR livery. The Brunswick was applied after the express passenger blue livery to be found between 1949 and 1952 on the Merchants, and was applied to the 'Lights' as and when they went into the shops for overhaul.

Several sources of mine (including the 1941 issue of Southern Railway Magazine) state that the Malachite was a conscious decision to make the locomotives 'stand out from the crowd', and acted as references to the Southern posters of the 'sunshine' railway. The hard wearing bit would usually be the varnish placed on top, or the wartime black placed upon later members of the class after Channel Packet.

At the end of the day, we both seem to have differing opinions as to what type livery suits the locomotives best. However, Green Arrow is in the fairly unique position in being almost historically accurate in either livery (LNER green or BR Brunswick). I say ALMOST as it has the AWS equipment as applied by BR, and the TPWS even later. It is also up to the owning groups as to what livery they paint it, and I suppose we must be thankful that they are/were in running condition at great expense. In an ideal world, there would be examples of every class of locomotive displaying all livery variations, but as we do not have that luxury, we might as well 'wallow' in a bit of self-indulgence, and paint over that nice SECR livery on the Wainwright D class with Southern plain black, or event early BR black, now and again.

Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has now been passed as GA, so well done! However, apparently there is a problem with 'ibid.' (which I don't really understand, but there we go), and that some of the measurements need converting.  I'll do the former, and congratulations!  When you feel like getting the article onto the FA 'rat race', let me know!  --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of putting the article up for peer review, which is the next stage on seeing the article on the road to FA status. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I vehemently object to my opinions being branded as 'cloud cuckooland' as I am entitled to them, and it is statements such as this that has given the entire heritage sector a bad press (inflexibility such as this is frequently the reason why there are very few young volunteers coming through on the railways, which have much more serious consequences than the provenance of paintwork on a national collection locomotive).

Otherwise, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, as there are cases that can go either way (even though it is not national collection material, I saw General Steam Navigation earlier this year, all rust but for a cabside number, and by reading the comment left on my talk page, I infer that it is better to leave this locomotive rusting, but with original surviving paintwork, than to protect it locomotive with new, but accurately researched paintwork). It all boils down to whether you are an enthusiast (like me) who wants to see a working locomotive, or a historian (which I am also, but in post-1948 and pre-1968 railway developments).

If you liken a steam locomotive to a Medieval castle (can't really see the resemblance!), a castle sees several structural alterations throughout its use as a dwelling, reflecting the architectural tastes of the time. Some steam locomotives are the same, having been improved and repainted several times throughout their careers to the extent that the only historically accurate livery would seriously be BR Brunswick or Black.

I could say a lot more on the subject, but it is such a divisive issue that I do not wish to discuss it further, for things can get pretty nasty in the comics and the various heritage-related forums online where the same debate has been raging for years. I just hope that this doesn't affect our working relationship in improving articles.

Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Steam Engine article restructuring
May I first say (in response to your note on my talk page) how impressed I am that you’ve been working away on this behind the scenes. It’s an important article and, as you point out, in its current state it’s very confusing. The best way to put this to rights is, as you are proposing, by one editor being WP:BOLD, grabbing hold of the page and giving it a structure. It’s also desirable, but hard to achieve given contributions from many editors, that the piece be written in the same register throughout. (By this I mean linguistic register, not musical register!) Again, this can be achieved by a bold edit from a single contributor. This, however, leads me to a very subjective (and for this reason possibly invalid) criticism: Your natural writing style seems to this reader (himself an old moonraker) to be in a somewhat formal register, with more elaborate syntax and higher-range lexicon than seems common on Wikipedia. I believe that the first sentence of the “overview” provides an example: “Considered as a complete entity, a steam engine from a thermodynamic point-of-view, is a heat engine that creates heat energy.” I read somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that Wikipedia is aimed at (in UK terms) a bright sixth-form student and that the writing, vocabulary and sentence structure should reflect this. A musical analogy appears here. The advice at WP:ATE also seems to apply: “reduce sentences to the essentials.” One of the reasons I’m sensitive to this, by the way, is that some of my stuff also can have this tendency.

On a matter of detail: as you have been working on this for some time, some useful changes may have been made to the article since you started, and you will need to integrate your work with its current state. One obvious example (which you would certainly have noticed) is that this image has been discussed on the talk page and deemed unsuitable.

As you are obviously an editor with determination, to take on a task of this size and complexity, I trust that you will not be deterred by my to some extent “off the cuff” criticisms: I certainly hope that this is the case. Please accept that I am not carping here: I respect the amount of effort that you have made and I appreciate being asked for a view, given that your previous edits have fully demonstrated that your knowledge and expertise is very obviously greater than mine. I am looking forward to seeing your changes in the finished work. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The target audience is an interesting thought. A 'bright sixth-form student' would seem like quite a high level to me, there's not much of a leap to 'graduate'. I would have thought that 'just-above-average 14/15-year-old' would give a good balance for accessibility by those of average (and below) abilities without dumbing-down too far for the 'brainy' readers and researchers.


 * Having just written that, I think you've hit the nail on the head. There are similarities between our three writing styles (including lots of words -- and many long ones at that! -- and an emphasis on precise meaning), but I think John's style may tend more towards a 'post-graduate/research' audience, and usually with an assumed higher-than-normal level of understanding in the subject matter. On the other hand, we need people like John to provide the insight and depth of understanding of the topics before we can start playing with the words to suit a particular audience.


 * A 'constant register' will be difficult to maintain over time. Initially, an article is usually the creation of one author, yet others will chip-in in turn and some consistency is lost. It is interesting for me to read through the SR Merchant Navy Class, for example, as I spot something written by me, then a sentence by JofP, and a paragraph by BulleidPacific, etc... But how apparent this is to others, I could not say!
 * EdJogg (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern steam - again
Hi John. You'll see I have revised modern steam further -- see my comments on its talk page.

In addition I modified both "Potential solutions..." and "History..." sections, but I am not entirely happy with either edit: EdJogg (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "History..." change is a matter of factual accuracy. Could you check my amendment is correct?
 * The "Potential solutions..." section is more problematic. The first sentence is (was) unbelievably long, and my little edit has only tweaked it slightly. Could you please have a look at that paragraph to see if you can break it into more, shorter, sentences?

Water tube fireboxes
I have replied on my own talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gresley gear
Re your edit on LNER Class V1/V3, you're right - calling it "Gresley valve gear" is a typical enthusiast's misnomer - guilty as charged. The article's actually at Gresley conjugated valve gear which should probably be renamed as well. There are also those that believe that Holcroft should be credited as well, leaving a possible article title of Gresley-Holcroft derived valve motion or something like that. What do you think? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: deleted "Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD I8), was an image available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons. using TW)
Hi. I'm sorry; I think there's been some confusion here. Commons images can be used directly on Wikipedia, such that we don't need to have a copy at both locations: just having a copy at the Commons is sufficient. You can still access the image at Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg, and can still include it in articles (as demonstrated on the right). There are no issues with the copyright of the image, which is in fact why it was moved to the Commons in the first place. You can find out more information about the Commons, and how it is used on Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Commons. Please let me know if you have any questions about the process. You may want to think about contributing images directly to the Commons, then making using them here on Wikiedia, as this helps with the overall aims of Wikipedia: it means that the images can be used on the other language wikipedias as well.

... and also, thanks for uploading the image! One thing I'm aware of, as a photographer of images for the Commons/Wikipedia, is that it's very easy to get a photo of something as it looks today for Wikipedia, but very difficult to get historical pictures that are still covered by copyright. So, thank you again for uploading this older image: I hope that you continue to contribute such images, and that many other people do the same. Mike Peel (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Putting images on Commons is reasonably straight forward, provided you know what form of licence to select, and remember that you almost invariably have to edit the image description details immediately, as the uploading process rarely formats them as you would like.
 * I have an account at Commons (there's a link on my user page here) and only ever put images there. Since the same filename can be used in both locations, adding direct to Commons should be no more effort than you are used to.
 * Feel free to ask me if you have other queries (although I cannot guarantee I'll be able to answer them!)
 * EdJogg (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. First off, please remain civil: I'm sure you can understand that I don't like being called "some idiot". I apologise for not replying to your earlier comment, but when I saw EdJogg's response here I thought the matter resolved.

To be honest, I think you are seeing problems where they don't exist. You said to User:Nv8200p that "I now have to go through the hassle once again of downloading and refitting it into the text"; you don't have to do this as the image is still on the page where you placed it, see LNER Class A1/A3. It is also still accessible at Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg, and you can include it in any other pages in exactly the same way as before. The only difference is that the image is stored in a different place, where it can be grouped with other images of the same type and found more easily by other people. That means that the image can then be used more easily by other people.

As an example of why having images on Commons is advantageous, holds photos about the A3 class Flying Scotsman, photos from which are used on the Japanese and German versions of the article. Those images can also be used on the English version of the article by using the image name that is given on their Commons page (for example, "Image:Flying Scotsman in Doncaster.JPG", which gives the image on the right when surrounded by the code to include an image in a page).

As I inferred above, I respect your contributions to Wikipedia, and I don't want to exasperate you. I hope that my explanation above makes sense: please let me know if any part doesn't, and I'll endeavour to clarify it. Thanks for your patience. Mike Peel (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of photo of which I am the author
The original image can stay where it is even if the image is copied to Commons. I am assuming the original is deleted because it is really not needed and uses up disk space or otherwise slows performance of the system but maybe it is just an unnecessary tradition. I don't know who could answer that question for you.

By Wikipedia policy, you cannot use a license to restrict an image to its specific use. The goal of Wikipedia is unrestricted use of text and images.

An image on the Commons should work on Wikipedia just like an image on Wikipedia with the advantage that the image can be used across all Wikimedia projects from a common source. So, I apologize, but I don't quite understand. Can you please describe what the process of downloading and refitting it into the text is so maybe I can understand the issue and why the image being on the Commons makes it more difficult for you. -Regards Nv8200p talk 13:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Aeolipile
Butting into your discussion with EdJogg on the use of the the Aeolipile for opening and closing temple doors, I am dumbfounded that you could imagine such a device being used for such uses. I suggest that you access this|, read the drawings Hero gives, and exercise your engineering judgement as to what's going on. The door-opening device consists of communicating vases filling and emptying buckets in order to counterbalance weights. You will see that the reference I have just reverted is simply wrong; it doesn't come from the gods. Whilst I agree with you that we are not talking about "toys", for reverts, I am with EdJogg on all the way on this.--John of Paris (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." --Mikiemike (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW
I removed, not inserted, a vandalisation of the steam engine article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake--John of Paris (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Steam engine rewrite
Hi John. Noticed the rewrite. Have answered at talk page. This was just to flash up an alert for you. Currently one of the headings in the revised article is mal-formatted, and needs attention. Could you take a look please? (Didn't want to second-guess your intentions.)

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Boiler articles
Hi John. Noticed the changes to steam engine and steam locomotive to reflect move from boiler to boiler or steam generator. Have not managed to proof-read the new article yet, although there are a few minor formatting issues to resolve (and it is uncategorised).

Reason for dropping you a line is regarding the new article title and the old article. The present title is accurate but doesn't really fit in with WP's naming conventions, so I checked-out boiler to see how best to rename it. The old article still contains most of the 'steam generator' information, so I presume you haven't got round to removing it yet.

Having 'taken a step back', I'd like to propose the following to bring your article into correct alignment with the others:
 * 1) Rename new article as 'Boiler (steam generator)', since that is essentially what you're discussing, I think
 * 2) Update Steam generator (which is a DAB page) to suit
 * 3) Move Boiler to 'Boiler (hydronics)' or 'Boiler (hot water systems)', removing text specifically related to steam generation, and providing appropriate cross-links
 * 4) Create a new 'Boiler' DAB page
 * 5) (This is the hard part!) Update boiler links accordingly!

Having looked at hydronics, I can see that the term 'boiler' for central heating systems obviously arose from the earliest versions that pumped steam to radiators (somewhat before my time!) and the term has stuck, even though current systems should not actually boil the water (if they're working properly).

Does this seem like an appropriate course of action? Do you think we need to raise comments on any other page first? (It could be a controversial action, maybe?) Had you planned further work on any of these articles?

EdJogg (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you,Pete--John of Paris (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks complicated. Yes I too had thought of taking a step back, especially as Mickiemike has done some quite good edits to Newcomen. Cyclone boiler looks like a hydronic affair. Sorry if I am copping out on this and leaving it to you. Not got round to removing old article either yet, but don't know how to do it.--John of Paris (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so I presume you are largely in agreement with my proposals. I will start to apply the changes as appropriate, starting with the least (potentially) controversial changes and if other editors are watching and 'take issue' they can jolly well help fix them!
 * EdJogg (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:15A Huntingdon V2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:15A Huntingdon V2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I heard your cry!
 * Basic question first: who took the picture?
 * If it's not your photo, you need to be able to prove it has been released to the public domain (or that you have suitable permission from the photographer).
 * Once we know that, we can do the next stage...
 * EdJogg (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, as they're your photos it's very easy, provided that you are willing to release the copyright, of course. All we need to do is apply the appropriate licence template and everyone will stop complaining! (I'll have a look at lunchtime.)
 * I can apply the licence to the WP image, which will resolve the immediate crisis. However, it is greatly preferred for images to be uploaded to Commons rather than locally at en:WP, since they are then available to all the other language versions too. I could upload it in my Commons account, but for the long term it would be quicker if you have your own account there. (I am presuming you do not, yet.) -- EdJogg (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Next stage...
 * Image:15A Huntingdon V2.jpg has now been modified to include a licence. You may select a different licence if you wish, from the selection available (see Image copyright tags).
 * Now, I've just had a look at the Commons file for Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg, which may be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:17AHuntingdon_60059TraceryR.jpg . This file would appear to contain everything you're likely to want to show in an image description. So, as a next stage, I suggest you create yourself a Commons account (which is a similar process to WP) -- I used a variant of my real name, to make image attribution a little more obvious. Thereafter you only need to upload your photos to Commons, copying the file description and licencing from 60059, above, and make use of the images directly in WP using the Commons filename.
 * And that's it. The only thing that's a little more tricky is that you have to use an interwiki syntax for wikilinks from Commons files to directly access WP articles, but I have a note of how to do it on my Commons account user page here.
 * Is that OK now, or are there other areas you are unclear about?
 * EdJogg (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
I just removed your edit that added material about the Doble steam car from the steam engine article. It appeared to be a large verbatim copy from a recent copyrighted work. Do you know if there is a license that would permit us to use this much material (you can normally get a way with using a few sentences, but this is too much without a license.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
Would you like to peer review the Newcomen steam engine article? This has been considerably updated over the last year or so.--John of Paris (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to peer review for a review.  miranda   16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Newcomen Figuier.jpg
File:Newcomen Figuier.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Newcomen Figuier.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 00:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Draft talk:Dampflok- und Maschinenfabrik DLM
Please see my comment on this page Draft talk:Dampflok- und Maschinenfabrik DLM. Biscuittin (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephenson gear Variable lead, an intrinsic advantage only when the eccentric rods are crossed
The static drawing of the gear in this article shows the gear in neutral (mid-gear). The crank is back dead center (fully left). The expansion link is vertical. If the expansion link were dropped to employ the top eccentric rod exclusively, the valve stem would move very slightly to the right, adding to the lead (not retarding). This is due to the fact that the top eccentric rod big end pivot point is closer, in elevation, to the crank center horizontal plane, than its small end pivot point elevation on the expansion link (14 pixels to the crank plane and 18 pixels to the expansion link pivot horizontal plane). This would be very slightly more lead steam in full gear, than in neutral gear.

Would it be too complicated to write a disclaimer in the Stephenson gear article, that the rods have to be crossed for the lead to diminished in full gear? Douglas Nelson Turner (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)