In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

It was pretty graphic way to remind us WHY coal powered steamers were
ditched. Frequent stops for water mandatory, unless you count the
water troughs systems..unreliable and needed very frequent servicing,
and a filthy dirty backbreaking job to stoke them.

Modern steam engines do not have to stop for water. They can be oil
fuelled http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...:Steam_Engines

A steam hybrid car:
http://www.cleanpowertech.co.uk/cont...y/vehicles.asp

How many more looney sites have you found?

Maglev trains are the answer.

That's the kiss of death, then if you think it's any good.

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:31:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It was pretty graphic way to remind us WHY coal powered steamers were
ditched. Frequent stops for water mandatory, unless you count the water
troughs systems..unreliable and needed very frequent servicing, and a
filthy dirty backbreaking job to stoke them.

Hmm, I thought some of the larger ones had automatic stokers - I'm sure
that could be adapted for smaller engines, too these days.

I rad somewhere recently that even modern electric trains are ot very
carbon efficient: the trains are, but the amount of track servicing
signalling and so on is a huge overhead of goods materials and people
that need to be shipped around to keep it all going.

The curse of a small crowded island, I suppose - over here it seems to be
a very efficient way of getting goods from A to B. It's not uncommon to
see trains with three engines and over 200 wagons (and there are no
overhead bridges on a lot of routes, so shipping containers stacked one
atop the other are a frequent sight).

Some of the fuel consumption figures claimed by the freight companies are
pretty impressive - presumably because steel-on-steel is low friction, and
these are from routes with no stop-starting and flat gradient all the way.

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:

I should maybe have phrased my question better as "can we build a
[reciprocating] steam engine any more with the uptime* and longevity of
the originals?"

And the answer is "of course we bloody can" not only possible, but
possible to do much better than it was in the past. We don't because 7%
thermal efficiency is a joke.

On 26 June, 10:17, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Water requires more thought but why couldn't it be condensed and reused?

A cursory look at the numbers shows just how much energy goes into
boiling water into steam, vs. heating the steam afterwards. So
although a higher superheat temperature makes for a more efficient
steam plant, there's simply no way to be really efficient without a
condensor in the cycle.

Condensors are big and heavy. They're universal in stationary steam
turbines and with marine engines (piston or turbine), but just too
clumsy for locomotives. There have been almost no condensing steam
locomotives (a couple of large US locos) where this was done for
efficiency rather than for recycling water use in arid climates, or
reducing exhaust in tunnels.

A little-known steam engine was the Cornish cycle engine: a slow-
moving beam engine that was the final evolution of Newcomen's design
and still being built into the 20th century (Dorothea Quarry).
Examples, such as the Bull engine at Kew, can still be seen working.
Although "obviously" an "obsolete" concept, because these were
condensing engines and very carefully thought out thermodynamically,
they're surprisingly efficient.

Preheating the water being boiled would save fuel

Indeed. Which is why so many steam locomotives did do this, in later
years - particularly the French (paired steam-heated feedwater heaters
as visible drums behind the chimney) and the Italians (Franco-Crosti
system, with a flue-gas fired preheater).

British locomotive design tried this too, with the Crosti boilered
9Fs. However efficiency implies extracting heat from the flue gases
right down to low temperatures, where these gases start to produce an
acidic condensate. The 9Fs showed useful efficiency improvments and
fuel savings, but the maintenance costs from corrosion couldn't be
justified.


Fluidised bed combustion, high-pressure water tube boilers, trip
valvegear etc. would all improve efficiency. In the '70s there was a
study by Queen Mary College, London, into just such a locomotive
design. But without condensing, it still can't make enough difference
- just too much energy went into boiling that water.

There just wasn't any reason to do it before steam was dumped so it was
never done.

If you care about this stuff, Semmens' "How Steam Locomotives Really
Work" is an excellent guide, both as an approachable read and also
because they aren't scared to use numbers.

Jules wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:07:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It was pretty graphic way to remind us WHY coal powered steamers were
ditched. Frequent stops for water mandatory, unless you count the water
troughs systems..unreliable and needed very frequent servicing, and a
filthy dirty backbreaking job to stoke them.
I'm sure a modern design could overcome a lot of those problems.

But not the efficiency, which, even using superheated steam in a
turbine, is at best about 15%, as you simply cant slap a massive final
stage and condensers on it.

Its far beter to burn the coal in a power statin where you CAN get
efficiencies up to 45% or more

Is that due to the use of turbines over a reciprocating engine - or just
the sheer scale (efficiency goes up as the size of the plant does)?


Mostly the fact that you can superheat te steam to get teh working
temperautre up and use maissive condensers to get it down again.

The max efficiency of a heat cycle engine is IIRC - and its a long tome
ago - something like T2 -T1 all over T0, where T1 is peak heat, T2 is
exhaust heat, and T0 is either absolute zero, or the temperature you
started with.Which is why IC engines beat steam. Air gets up to several
thousand at combustion, although it comes out pretty hot too.


grunt: the motors are far better suited to moving trains, not least
because you can have multiple power cars..one goes down, the rest carry
on, and the traction from multiple drive wheels is infinitely better.

That doesn't seem significantly different from steam or diesel, though,
where multiple power units and driven wheels can still be employed. The
advantage of electric I suppose is that the driving gear can be very
compact - so you can make the power units do other useful things, too.

Indeed.

And low C of G.

cheers

Jules

tony sayer wrote:
Sometimes railways are it seems, more expensive that what you'd think
they ought be;!..sometimes of the way they go about things..

It really is an argument for doing away with all local services and
using them as high speed intracontinental links.


So I take it the Philosopher hasn't seen the amount of traffic through
Cambridge station for quite some while then?..
That isn't a local service.

What do you call local?, bury to dullingham..

:-)

Abersystwtyth to Porthcrawl :-)


Its a high speed commuter link.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you ever seen the number of people 'local' trains shift round
London? Put all those in cars and there'd be total gridlock. Even
before they started looking for somewhere to park.

Sorry, I dint mean local in the sense of 'intra urban'. I meant in the
sense of rural.

Still not quite sure what you mean. Doubt there are many uneconomic rural
railway lines left.

Oh? think again.

The WHOLE of wales is heavily subsidised..

Its only makes money because of it.

That's probably the grossest case.


Whereas the main lines are paying the government as are the commuter
services for the privilege of running them.

The whole franchise business is a complete and utter mess: Viz
stagecoaches complaint to DofT reported in yesterdays telegraph.

I happen to know a director of a major train company. He said that if
you buy in one away a ticket from York t oLondon with the east coast
mainline lot, it will cost tyou around £200. OTOH there is a company -
North East Trains? opereating out of somewhere else who are a subsidised
local north eastern LOCAL servive, so they run trains from somewhere
else VIA York and charge 30 quid, basically to process the ticket. They
don't need passengers - they are paid to run trains, not carry passengers.

Its typical Nu Laber ********.

some trains are profitable, so sell them to the highests bidder..
Some are not, so define them as a social service, and subsidize them
heavily. But dont prevent them competing directly with core mainline
business.



And anyway pretty well all the services I'm talking
about start in rural areas and feed into London. Solely intra intra urban
trains are rare if you exclude the underground.

I was thinking mainly of those. Underground.

As far as I am concerned London stops about at Chelmsford, Harlow
Stevenage St Albans, Slough, Guildford, Crawley and Maidstone anyway..so
you can define intra urban as the whole london suburbia bit.;-)

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jun 26, 9:31 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bob Mannix wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Jules wrote:
That's the 'new' one, isn't it? I was having this discussion with some
folk a few months ago as to whether
anyone could even build a steam engine any more (albeit stationary
stuff, not locos) simply because a lot of the information from the era
(in
particular the "tricks of the trade" which would have been handed down
by
word-of-mouth) has simply vanished.
I'm not convinced that this loco quite counts as proof - weren't all
sorts
of compromises made in the design and construction both on cost grounds
and to overcome various 'red tape' hurdles? (not that I'm in any way
saying it isn't a spectacular achievement! :-)
You might want to pull down the latest "Top Gear" from iPlayer. The race
was really a bit silly - all three vehicles were limited by speed limits,
not by capabilities - but they matched Tornado, an XK120, and a Vincent
Black Shadow from Kings Cross to Edinburgh...
It was a bit unfair..
it was supposed to be a race as it would have been in the past..
They let the car and bike use the dual carriageways which wouldn't have
been there..
but made the train stop to fill with water which it wouldn't have had to
do in the past.
Also the train would not have had a 75 mph limit on it then.
Cracking sight though. Best bit was the awe on JC's face when the loco
lurched suddenly at 70mph and he said "what the hell was that" and they said
"wheel spin" - instant conversion!
It was pretty graphic way to remind us WHY coal powered steamers were
ditched. Frequent stops for water mandatory, unless you count the water
troughs systems..unreliable and needed very frequent servicing, and a
filthy dirty backbreaking job to stoke them.

I rad somewhere recently that even modern electric trains are ot very
carbon efficient: the trains are, but the amount of track servicing
signalling and so on is a huge overhead of goods materials and people
that need to be shipped around to keep it all going.

It really is an argument for doing away with all local services and
using them as high speed intracontinental links.

What would you replace them with? Have you done the comparative costs
against building, maintenance, policing, etc., required for road
transport, plus all the infrastructure to keep it goiong such as fuel
distribution?

If the services show up as cheaper than by car, then they are ipso facto
cost effective. But heavily subsidised services should be given a very
hard look at. Running a tow car diesel rail car 4 times a day up and
down a single track line is utter crap really.

Same as many bus services. The average rural bus is worse than a 2 up
car, and a lot worse than a full taxi.

There is an extent to which the roads are heavily subsidised, but its a
lot less per passenger mile than rural branch lines.


MBQ

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:08:42 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:
Err well, let me see.

Steam engineering isn't difficult.
Tolerances are not particularly high.
There's a real danger that a modern steam train would be better designed
and built than what has gone before.

Yes, I suppose I was thinking along the lines of building to original spec
- not changing things like bearings to some uber-modern equivalent.

Enthusiasts working at the weekend perform every trade necessary.

I suspect all of those examples are ones that have far less hours of run
time than would have originally been the case, surely? (Hmm, although
aren't there still steam trains still in daily use in India?)


Labour is cheap, and a railwaymans job is still better than starvation.
Railway economics threw out steam largely because of the huge
maintenance costs involved. Plus the need for vast turntables (the
Roundhouse) and a lot of marshalling yards for freight (trains of coal
from wales to where it was needed) in prime areas for development.

Its the same reason they threw out piston engined aircraft: Jet's dont
need so much servicing.

Someone will have figures on e.g. a Wright radial versus a modern turbofan.

Just to clean the fire tubes in a boiler usually meant opening the loco
front, letting it cool down for several hours, and then pushing things
down the boiler tubes..then recoal, refire and wait a couple of hours
for the kettle to boil..get stuck at signals just before a big pull, and
off goes the safety valves..

Nope. Steam is the best way to run a big static engine with a
predictable power draw. Its a nightmare for mobile plant.

I'm not sure how well plans have survived - or how much was really
documented in steam's heyday (there seems to be a wealth of knowledge all
but forgotten about '60s and earlier IC engines, little tricks and tips
for repair and servicing that the modern generation simply don't know - is
that not the case with steam power?)


Its all buried in archives. I've still got manuals for many 60's cars.

My experience of other technologies is that the theory survives pretty
well - but the practice just dies out for anything that's not in
widespread and frequent use.

modern steam engine has been built.

Indeed, but at enormous cost and with all sorts of modifications.
It'd be interesting to know how its price tag and build duration
stack up against its original counterparts - but that's just too much of
a vague question (counterparts would have been done with pre-existing
tooling in some cases, or from parts that had already been fabricated
etc., and steam power was once such an evolutionary process that I doubt
such thing as a "from-scratch build" has existed since the early 1900's)

Well its like these repro WWI and WWII fighters that are coming out..do
you REALLY want an airframe that was lucky to survive 4 hours in combat?
And was built with that in mind? engines that probably had an MTBF of
less than 2 hours..No, not really. And teh temptation to bolster the
known weaknesses is vast..lets balance the engine, use forged conrods,
better seals, modern oils, kevlar cables etc etc.




How wrong are you determined to be?

Not determined at all; I'm not sure where you got that from :-)

But Tornado's the only example of a recent 'new' build I can think of; all
the rest have been restorations and are treated with very low running
hours (aside from the unconfirmed India cases).

I should maybe have phrased my question better as "can we build a
[reciprocating] steam engine any more with the uptime* and longevity of
the originals?"

* I wanted to say 'reliability', but that's not quite the same thing - I
expect the originals broke down all the time, but some oily worker
would just dive in and have everything running again very quickly.
These days it doubtless needs a huge committee, risk assessments, orders
put in for parts fabrication etc. :-)

Do you spend time outside Heathrow screaming that the aeroplanes
can't possibly fly?

Have you ever stood at the end of a major runway? Screaming anything
wouldn't get you very far

cheers

Jules

Steve Firth wrote:
Jules wrote:

I should maybe have phrased my question better as "can we build a
[reciprocating] steam engine any more with the uptime* and longevity of
the originals?"

And the answer is "of course we bloody can" not only possible, but
possible to do much better than it was in the past. We don't because 7%
thermal efficiency is a joke.
And 100 hours between major overhauls ;-)

On 26 June, 16:52, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The WHOLE of wales is heavily subsidised..

The hell it is - the money pipe stops dead at Cardiff, about two
blocks past the Welsh Office.

On 26 June, 16:33, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The max efficiency of a heat cycle engine is IIRC - and its a long tome
ago - something like T2 -T1 all over T0, where T1 is peak heat, T2 is
exhaust heat, and T0 is either absolute zero, or the temperature you
started with.

A simplification that only works if there isn't a phase change. So for
water / steam cycles, it doesn't really mean much, other than an upper
limit you can't possibly reach.

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:55:13 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
You might want to pull down the latest "Top Gear" from iPlayer.

Hmm, not sure that I can from this side of the Pond - I'll give it a go in
a bit, though (I believe there's a Linux version of iPlayer, finally)

No there isn't.. they have replaced the original iplayer with something that
isn't as good just so they can keep a very noisy minority quite!

The new iplayer doesn't have as much high quality stuff to download and
needs far more CPU power to run it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Maglev trains are the answer.

That's the kiss of death, then if you think it's any good.

He must have read a good site for a change.. maglev is the obvious solution
if superconductors are available.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Maglev trains are the answer.

That's the kiss of death, then if you think it's any good.

He must have read a good site for a change.. maglev is the obvious
solution if superconductors are available.

Pretty well everything he recommends involves lots of 'ifs'.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

It was pretty graphic way to remind us WHY coal powered steamers were
ditched. Frequent stops for water mandatory, unless you count the
water troughs systems..unreliable and needed very frequent servicing,
and a filthy dirty backbreaking job to stoke them.

Modern steam engines do not have to stop for water. They can be oil
fuelled http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...:Steam_Engines

A steam hybrid car:
http://www.cleanpowertech.co.uk/cont...y/vehicles.asp

How

Please eff off you are a plantpot.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Maglev trains are the answer.

That's the kiss of death, then if you think it's any good.

He must have read a good site for a change.. maglev is the obvious
solution if superconductors are available.

Pretty

Please eff off you are a plantpot.

"Jules" wrote in message
news
The curse of a small crowded island,

The UK is not crowded. Only 7.5% of the land mass is settled. The UK has
land surplus.

dennis@home wrote:


"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:55:13 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
You might want to pull down the latest "Top Gear" from iPlayer.

Hmm, not sure that I can from this side of the Pond - I'll give it a
go in
a bit, though (I believe there's a Linux version of iPlayer, finally)

No there isn't.. they have replaced the original iplayer with something
that isn't as good just so they can keep a very noisy minority quite!

The new iplayer doesn't have as much high quality stuff to download and
needs far more CPU power to run it.
Oh do shut up.

Yes, they are using Flash, Jules.

Yes, Flash needs a bit of CPU.

If you are using gnome/iceweasel/totem here is a list of plugins you
need. Some are best got from nonfree repository if using debian..


For all Beeb audio /video
==========================
DivX web player
Helix DNA plugin:Realplayer G2 compatible plugin
Java plugin
MozPlugger 1.10.2 handles quicktime and windows media.
Quick-time plugin 7.20.2 From Totem.
Shockwave Flash

Leastways thats whats in mine, and it works. Full screen is not good
tho. Needs more CUPU /graphics card than I have.

One of the Helix plugins that come as normal needs to be removed..just
leave the one above.

Be aware that much content is UK only.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:36:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Jules" wrote in message
news
The curse of a small crowded island,

The UK is not crowded. Only 7.5% of the land mass is settled. The UK has
land surplus.

Land surplus that's at all useful / practical for rail use?

Yes, 'crowded' is very much a local thing indeed - but given the UK's
existing land use, infrastructure and geology there's not a lot of
space for a sensible* rail network.

* I very much liked the network, TBH - but it's hardly the best model if
you need to get something from A to B in a hurry and at low cost

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:36:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Jules" wrote in message
news
The curse of a small crowded island,
The UK is not crowded. Only 7.5% of the land mass is settled. The UK has
land surplus.

Land surplus that's at all useful / practical for rail use?

Yes, 'crowded' is very much a local thing indeed - but given the UK's
existing land use, infrastructure and geology there's not a lot of
space for a sensible* rail network.

* I very much liked the network, TBH - but it's hardly the best model if
you need to get something from A to B in a hurry and at low cost

cheers

Jules


Well juts compare overall population density of ENGLAND rather than the
UK with almost anywhere in the world..its VERY high.

Drivel likes his stats, but a quick look at google earth will tell you
that most of scotland is empty, and why.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:36:23 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Jules" wrote in message
news
The curse of a small crowded island,
The UK is not crowded. Only 7.5% of the land mass is settled. The UK
has land surplus.

Land surplus that's at all useful / practical for rail use?

Yes, 'crowded' is very much a local thing indeed - but given the UK's
existing land use, infrastructure and geology there's not a lot of
space for a sensible* rail network.

You are confused indeed.

* I very much liked the network, TBH - but it's hardly the best model if
you need to get something from A to B in a hurry and at low cost

cheers

Jules

Well juts compare overall population density of ENGLAND rather than the UK
with almost anywhere in the world..its VERY high.

Again.............The UK is not crowded. Only 7.5% of the land mass is
settled. The UK has land surplus. Not only that 5% of that is gardens and
parks and open spaces inside the urban footprint. So only 2/5% is paved.
England is not overcrowded at all. The Home counties are underpopulated.
England is not a separate entity as the country is the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It says on your passport.

That is pretty clear. That means the UK is not crowded. Of course it is
not crowded to Mars.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There is an extent to which the roads are heavily subsidised, but its a
lot less per passenger mile than rural branch lines.

This turns out not to be the case.

Taxes on private motorists cover more than the entire transport network.
Not just the roads.

Andy

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

I'm not sure how well plans have survived - or how much was really
documented in steam's heyday (there seems to be a wealth of knowledge all
but forgotten about '60s and earlier IC engines, little tricks and tips
for repair and servicing that the modern generation simply don't know - is
that not the case with steam power?)


Its all buried in archives. I've still got manuals for many 60's cars.

This is ********.
The manuals won't contain the unofficial servicing tricks that many
maintenance men knew from the day they started the job, because they
were clued in by others who'd been doing it for years.
Certainly doesn't apply only to cars, either.

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
The manuals won't contain the unofficial servicing tricks that many
maintenance men knew from the day they started the job, because they
were clued in by others who'd been doing it for years.

Remember overhauling a B-W 35 auto many years ago 'by the book' which
stated you needed a special gauge to set the rear brake band clearance.
Which of course was pricey. I contacted a nearby repair place about hiring
theirs - and the guy said just use a 1/4" drill. I did and it worked just
fine.

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

I'm not sure how well plans have survived - or how much was really
documented in steam's heyday (there seems to be a wealth of knowledge
all
but forgotten about '60s and earlier IC engines, little tricks and tips
for repair and servicing that the modern generation simply don't know -
is
that not the case with steam power?)


Its all buried in archives. I've still got manuals for many 60's cars.

This is ********.
The manuals won't contain the unofficial servicing tricks that many
maintenance men knew from the day they started the job, because they
were clued in by others who'd been doing it for years.
Certainly doesn't apply only to cars, either.

No several unofficial servicing tricks have been used in the airline
industry..
like using forklifts to re attach engines to jets.
Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:53:01 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
The manuals won't contain the unofficial servicing tricks that many
maintenance men knew from the day they started the job, because they
were clued in by others who'd been doing it for years.

Exactly. And as the engineering gets 'coarser' (lower tolerances, bigger
parts etc.) there seems to be more scope for unofficial fixes. The sort
of knowledge about what *can* be done often doesn't get written down
anywhere, but passes amongst those who work with the technology - until
that technology gets replaced.

Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?

The people who have to fix these things daily, often in environments very
different to the factories where they were made, and where assemblies have
been subject to all sorts of wear and tear (less true of airlines - but
I've seen all sorts of tweaks and patches done to steam equipment)

cheers

Jules

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

No several unofficial servicing tricks have been used in the airline
industry..
like using forklifts to re attach engines to jets.
Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?

What makes you equate stupidity (ie, your example) with knowing what to
do correctly, with no risk?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

No several unofficial servicing tricks have been used in the airline
industry..
like using forklifts to re attach engines to jets.
Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?

What makes you equate stupidity (ie, your example) with knowing what to
do correctly, with no risk?

In what was was using a forklift to lift engines to wing pylons
"stupidity"? It was fairly common practice at the time and not obviously
"wrong" other than it not being a method recommended by the
manufacturer. Which sums up the "tricks" that you and others are talking
about, none of them are official techniques and none of you know for
sure if the manufacturer chose not to recommend those "tricks" for the
same reason that usign a forklift to position an engine was not
recommended.

Steve Firth wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

No several unofficial servicing tricks have been used in the airline
industry..
like using forklifts to re attach engines to jets.
Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?
What makes you equate stupidity (ie, your example) with knowing what to
do correctly, with no risk?

In what was was using a forklift to lift engines to wing pylons
"stupidity"? It was fairly common practice at the time and not obviously
"wrong" other than it not being a method recommended by the
manufacturer. Which sums up the "tricks" that you and others are talking
about, none of them are official techniques and none of you know for
sure if the manufacturer chose not to recommend those "tricks" for the
same reason that usign a forklift to position an engine was not
recommended.

Well we WERE the manufacturer..in one case. Marconi Radar

High voltage radar rack, equipped with a cutout to kill the EHT when the
door was opened.

VERY hard to service when you cant hang probes on..and adjust whilst
running.

Fortunately a sixpenny piece and a matchstick served to fool the
interlock, and became 'accepted practice' for setting them up. NEVER was
documented though. Just part of the shop floor folklore..

You have to distinguish between what the manufacturers don't want to
support, or take legal responsibility for if some Muppet makes a hash of
it, and what is actually very wrong and very dangerous. There is a huge
difference between the two.

Which you simply don't seem to appreciate.

I.e. there is that which is specifically proscribed (don't dry your pet
in the microwave), there is that which is officially sanctioned (use
only products marked as suitable for microwave) , and a huge gap in
between where it probably will work, with intelligence and understanding
of the nature of the beast, and considerable care in its
implementation. (Potatoes bake well. Eggs do NOT!!)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Which you simply don't seem to appreciate.

Oh I appreciate that there are always idiots around who think that
jamming interlocks is a really clever trick. You can usually tell who
they are because of the missing gingers, curdled eyeballs[1], etc.


[1] A friend of my fathers who worked at Marconi who tried a
non-standard "trick" of looking down a waveguide.

What you don't seem to appreciate is that things are proscribed for a
reason. And from the sounds of it, YOU weren't the manufacturer you were
a service tech.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:51:03 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Which you simply don't seem to appreciate.

Oh I appreciate that there are always idiots around who think that
jamming interlocks is a really clever trick. You can usually tell who
they are because of the missing gingers, curdled eyeballs[1], etc.

Some things are just impossible to fault find or set-up without overriding
interlocks and the problem is that intelligence is needed in ascertaining
which interlocks absolutely have to be overriden, which should never be and
how to maintain an acceptable level of safety with the interlock(s)
overriden - the intelligence is often unfortunately lacking!

SteveW

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:15:31 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:
Some things are just impossible to fault find or set-up without overriding
interlocks and the problem is that intelligence is needed in ascertaining
which interlocks absolutely have to be overriden, which should never be and
how to maintain an acceptable level of safety with the interlock(s)
overriden - the intelligence is often unfortunately lacking!

There is a certain amount of natural selection that comes into play when
these problems crop up regularly, though - again, lots of these tricks
and tips spread by word of mouth rather than being written down, and if
they're in daily use then the vast majority of folk carry them out
without problem (but there will always be the odd exception - albeit not
in the majority).

The problem really comes I think years later when the technology is no
longer widespread; nothing's been written down and the 'word of mouth'
aspect has been lost. People then end up reinventing the wheel, failure
and accident rates go up - as do the costs...

cheers

Jules

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

No several unofficial servicing tricks have been used in the airline
industry..
like using forklifts to re attach engines to jets.
Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?

What makes you equate stupidity (ie, your example) with knowing what to
do correctly, with no risk?

I can't see a risk in putting an engine on its mounting using a fork
lift truck. The engine comes in a cradle that is designed to be handled
by a forklift. The main thrust is taken into the wing via a thrust
mounting, connected to the engine pylon and the suspension of the weight
is taken up by adjustable links to the side of the engine. As long as
the engine was not designed to be mounted inside of the envelope of the
structure, there is no reason to use the cranage that is used by the book.

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

In what was was using a forklift to lift engines to wing pylons
"stupidity"? It was fairly common practice at the time and not obviously
"wrong" other than it not being a method recommended by the
manufacturer. Which sums up the "tricks" that you and others are talking
about, none of them are official techniques and none of you know for
sure if the manufacturer chose not to recommend those "tricks" for the
same reason that usign a forklift to position an engine was not
recommended.

I would certainly never have recommended to anyone that using a fork
truck was an ok method of installing an aircraft engine. There's far too
much chance of an undesigned-for load being applied to an anchoring
component, which is exactly what happened, iirc.
When it comes to aircraft, you don't **** around with bodges, and that's
what this is/was. You use the proper kit, except in an emergency.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave
saying something like:

I can't see a risk in putting an engine on its mounting using a fork
lift truck. The engine comes in a cradle that is designed to be handled
by a forklift.

For mechanical handling. ffs.

The main thrust is taken into the wing via a thrust
mounting, connected to the engine pylon and the suspension of the weight
is taken up by adjustable links to the side of the engine. As long as
the engine was not designed to be mounted inside of the envelope of the
structure, there is no reason to use the cranage that is used by the book.

And what happens when somebody inadvertently applies the wrong force to
the engine when it's being mounted, or it isn't perfectly aligned, so it
gets pushed round a bit? "**** it, that'll do", when used in a vehicle
workshop, or even in front-line military service, is perfectly ok most
of the time, but NOT on a civil airliner.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Which you simply don't seem to appreciate.

Oh I appreciate that there are always idiots around who think that
jamming interlocks is a really clever trick. You can usually tell who
they are because of the missing gingers, curdled eyeballs[1], etc.


[1] A friend of my fathers who worked at Marconi who tried a
non-standard "trick" of looking down a waveguide.

What you don't seem to appreciate is that things are proscribed for a
reason. And from the sounds of it, YOU weren't the manufacturer you were
a service tech.

Well steve, I have you the benefit of the doubt, but its plain you have
no clue about which you spout.

I wasn't the service tech, I was actually there designing a very small
bit of Sea Wolf.

The guys who were getting round the interlocks, were tasked with setting
up the transmitters. Once installed in their racks, there was no other
way to do it but 'live'.

Of course they worked on live chassis all the time. They after all
designed and built them.

It was juts that once stuck in ships in Her Majesties Navy, they had to
deal with people of almost as low intelligence as you, so they were put
in racks, and made idiot proof.

So relax, and go with your paranoia. WE didn't look down waveguides, or
laser rangefinders, either, nor did we push airguns up each others arses
to see what happened. We knew pretty well what we were doing, oddly enough.

Now its clear that youy dont, so for you, the important thing is to
stick to the rules, which are for the obedience of fools like you.

WE wrote them, knowing that wiser men than you, would know how to break
them safely without having to have it spelt out in words of one
syllable, using numbers no greater than ten, which we know you find
challenging without taking your bootees off first.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

In what was was using a forklift to lift engines to wing pylons
"stupidity"? It was fairly common practice at the time and not obviously
"wrong" other than it not being a method recommended by the
manufacturer. Which sums up the "tricks" that you and others are talking
about, none of them are official techniques and none of you know for
sure if the manufacturer chose not to recommend those "tricks" for the
same reason that usign a forklift to position an engine was not
recommended.

I would certainly never have recommended to anyone that using a fork
truck was an ok method of installing an aircraft engine. There's far too
much chance of an undesigned-for load being applied to an anchoring
component, which is exactly what happened, iirc.
When it comes to aircraft, you don't **** around with bodges, and that's
what this is/was. You use the proper kit, except in an emergency.

I think the point here is it depends on the quality of the people doing it.

There is always an ideal way using the idiot proof tool. Sometimes you
don't have it though.

I've seen people smash crates with a forklift. Crates that were designed
to be used with forklifts.

Conversely I've seen someone push an earth rod very carefully into the
ground using a 3 ton digger bucket, perfectly, without bending..

When you get a cabne driver in, with a bit of help from a team mate, you
can be better than inch perfect, you can almost be millmeter perfect if
you know what you are doing. Conversely, it only takes an idiot like
Firth with the best equipment in the world to welly something into place
because they cant be arsed to line it up, no matter what is actually
in use.

Its the difference between a skilled fitter and a car mechanic.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
The main thrust is taken into the wing via a thrust
mounting, connected to the engine pylon and the suspension of the weight
is taken up by adjustable links to the side of the engine. As long as
the engine was not designed to be mounted inside of the envelope of the
structure, there is no reason to use the cranage that is used by the book.

And what happens when somebody inadvertently applies the wrong force to
the engine when it's being mounted, or it isn't perfectly aligned, so
it gets pushed round a bit? "**** it, that'll do", when used in a
vehicle workshop, or even in front-line military service, is perfectly
ok most of the time, but NOT on a civil airliner.

Agreed. The main problem with not doing it by the book is that if
something goes wrong, there's no way to admit it without getting into
trouble.

Point of information, please: what is different and special about the
proper engine cranage, and what made it harder or less convenient to
use?


--
Ian White

in 210800 20090630 221926 Dave wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

No several unofficial servicing tricks have been used in the airline
industry..
like using forklifts to re attach engines to jets.
Just who exactly agrees that these unofficial tricks are OK to do?

What makes you equate stupidity (ie, your example) with knowing what to
do correctly, with no risk?

I can't see a risk in putting an engine on its mounting using a fork
lift truck. The engine comes in a cradle that is designed to be handled
by a forklift. The main thrust is taken into the wing via a thrust
mounting, connected to the engine pylon and the suspension of the weight
is taken up by adjustable links to the side of the engine. As long as
the engine was not designed to be mounted inside of the envelope of the
structure, there is no reason to use the cranage that is used by the book.

Dave

I take it you never saw the programme about the DC10 which lost an engine
when taking off from Chicago?