It's that time of year again

We've got lots of wooden French-style windows, some with 6 panes in each
side and some with 8 (plus a big one in the lounge that's got 24).

Most of them need repainting. Most of them new putty. Any tips and
tricks involved in sorting them out?

I've been just completely stripping them right down (taking all the glass
out), then attacking the faces / edges with a sanding disc - but I've not
been able to do a lot with the decorative edges alongside the glass;
sometimes the years of paint is pretty thick there, and paint stripper
seems to do not very much. Will some kind of sand/grit blasting likely do
much for them without damaging the wood underneath?

Priming + painting frames both sides with the glass out seems to work
well, then putting the glass and new glazing points in, then adding new
putty.

Masking off the glass with tape a few weeks later after the putty's cured
to prime + paint that seems to take a long time, though - I was wondering
if there's any kind of masking film or something else which might speed
that step up a bit? My painting's too crap to just do it by eye and steady
hand :-) (but at least by painting the frames before the glass goes back
in, I'm only having to mask one side)

They'll all get replaced some day with modern windows, but we'd like to
keep the same style with multiple panes and those seem to cost major money!

cheers

Jules
(who *hates* painting anything)

Jules wrote:

I've been just completely stripping them right down (taking all the glass
out), then attacking the faces / edges with a sanding disc - but I've not
been able to do a lot with the decorative edges alongside the glass;
sometimes the years of paint is pretty thick there, and paint stripper
seems to do not very much. Will some kind of sand/grit blasting likely do
much for them without damaging the wood underneath?

I've used a heat gun and shaped scraper for our french windows, then
smoothed off with a sanding sponge.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:51:19 -0400, S Viemeister wrote:
I've used a heat gun and shaped scraper for our french windows, then
smoothed off with a sanding sponge.

Hmm, that's a good idea - I'll have some scrap metal and could make
something which matched the countour pretty easily. Ta!

Gives me a good excuse to bugger about making a tool rather than
painting, too

(I think technically 'French' just applies to the opening style, does it
not; I've never found out if there's a correct name for any windows
with multiple panes...)

cheers

Jules

"Jules" wrote in message
news

It's that time of year again

We've got lots of wooden French-style windows, some with 6 panes in each
side and some with 8 (plus a big one in the lounge that's got 24).

Most of them need repainting. Most of them new putty. Any tips and
tricks involved in sorting them out?

I've been just completely stripping them right down (taking all the glass
out), then attacking the faces / edges with a sanding disc - but I've not
been able to do a lot with the decorative edges alongside the glass;
sometimes the years of paint is pretty thick there, and paint stripper
seems to do not very much. Will some kind of sand/grit blasting likely do
much for them without damaging the wood underneath?

Priming + painting frames both sides with the glass out seems to work
well, then putting the glass and new glazing points in, then adding new
putty.

Masking off the glass with tape a few weeks later after the putty's cured
to prime + paint that seems to take a long time, though - I was wondering
if there's any kind of masking film or something else which might speed
that step up a bit? My painting's too crap to just do it by eye and steady
hand :-) (but at least by painting the frames before the glass goes back
in, I'm only having to mask one side)

They'll all get replaced some day with modern windows, but we'd like to
keep the same style with multiple panes and those seem to cost major
money!

If you intend re-puttying the glass anyway and can stand them being missing
for a few days strip out the panes then take them in for proper stripping at
a door strippers. Mostly around £10 ish a door.
Cleaned back to bare wood leaving a great surface for a re-prime and paint
then putty or sealing in with mastic etc.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:27:19 +0100, R wrote:
If you intend re-puttying the glass anyway and can stand them being missing
for a few days strip out the panes then take them in for proper stripping at
a door strippers. Mostly around £10 ish a door.

Yes, I forgot to mention that - we have outer storm windows for the bad
weather (and mozzie screens for the good), so last Summer I was just
taking the French-style windows down and temporarily putting the storm
windows up whilst I was working on them.

Cleaned back to bare wood leaving a great surface for a re-prime and
paint then putty or sealing in with mastic etc.

I tried some mastic tube-based stuff and it was horrible to work with
(yet I'm happy sealing round baths etc.) - on the window I tried it on, I
ended up dumping it and going back to the putty (which takes ages, but I
found it possible to get a much neater line with it)

cheers

Jules

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:27:19 +0100, R wrote:
If you intend re-puttying the glass anyway and can stand them being
missing
for a few days strip out the panes then take them in for proper stripping
at
a door strippers. Mostly around £10 ish a door.

Yes, I forgot to mention that - we have outer storm windows for the bad
weather (and mozzie screens for the good), so last Summer I was just
taking the French-style windows down and temporarily putting the storm
windows up whilst I was working on them.

Cleaned back to bare wood leaving a great surface for a re-prime and
paint then putty or sealing in with mastic etc.

I tried some mastic tube-based stuff and it was horrible to work with
(yet I'm happy sealing round baths etc.) - on the window I tried it on, I
ended up dumping it and going back to the putty (which takes ages, but I
found it possible to get a much neater line with it)

Storm windows!...........Are you "exposed"

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:29:13 +0100, R wrote:
Yes, I forgot to mention that - we have outer storm windows for the bad
weather (and mozzie screens for the good), so last Summer I was just
taking the French-style windows down and temporarily putting the storm
windows up whilst I was working on them.

Storm windows!...........Are you "exposed"

I'm in the northern US these days (ex-UK, and I like this group as it's
full of some really clueful folk :-)

We can get some pretty big storms around here, and the winters last for
5-6 months and involve temps of 30 below zero - so it's useful to have an
extra layer of windows on the house. (Summers are nice, though - it's been
up in the 90s the last few days)

cheers

Jules

In article . com, Jules
scribeth thus
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:29:13 +0100, R wrote:
Yes, I forgot to mention that - we have outer storm windows for the bad
weather (and mozzie screens for the good), so last Summer I was just
taking the French-style windows down and temporarily putting the storm
windows up whilst I was working on them.

Storm windows!...........Are you "exposed"

I'm in the northern US these days (ex-UK, and I like this group as it's
full of some really clueful folk :-)

We can get some pretty big storms around here, and the winters last for
5-6 months and involve temps of 30 below zero - so it's useful to have an
extra layer of windows on the house. (Summers are nice, though - it's been
up in the 90s the last few days)


Blimey!, I don't think 90 in the summer is that pleasant, neither is
some 30 below;!..

Quite like old temperate England)..
cheers

Jules



--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:35:50 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
We can get some pretty big storms around here, and the winters last for
5-6 months and involve temps of 30 below zero - so it's useful to have an
extra layer of windows on the house. (Summers are nice, though - it's been
up in the 90s the last few days)

Blimey!, I don't think 90 in the summer is that pleasant, neither is
some 30 below;!..

I don't mind the heat, so long as the humidity's not too bad. I was at a
football (as in soccer, not 'rugby with girly padding') tournament this
weekend so have been outdoors in all that - so I am feeling a little
cooked today.

90's actually a little high for the norm - it's usually somewhere in the
80s (we don't seem to get much of a spring or autumn here; it pretty much
just goes from cold winter to warm summer and back).

The cold's interesting - drop below about 15F (-10C) and I can't really
tell the difference between that and -30. It's just f*cking cold and not
sensible to be out in for long!

Quite like old temperate England)..

I like the consistency here, I think. Proper snowy winters (it's just not
winter without snow!) but then long warm summers where outdoors things
aren't always getting cancelled due to the crappy weather.

Tornado warnings are a pain in the backside, though - not for the
personal risk or inconvenience, but because I hate the thought that I'm
doing all this DIY stuff that could easily get wiped out in an instant ;-)

cheers

Jules

In article . com, Jules
scribeth thus
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:35:50 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
We can get some pretty big storms around here, and the winters last for
5-6 months and involve temps of 30 below zero - so it's useful to have an
extra layer of windows on the house. (Summers are nice, though - it's been
up in the 90s the last few days)

Blimey!, I don't think 90 in the summer is that pleasant, neither is
some 30 below;!..

I don't mind the heat, so long as the humidity's not too bad. I was at a
football (as in soccer, not 'rugby with girly padding') tournament this
weekend so have been outdoors in all that - so I am feeling a little
cooked today.

90's actually a little high for the norm - it's usually somewhere in the
80s (we don't seem to get much of a spring or autumn here; it pretty much
just goes from cold winter to warm summer and back).

The cold's interesting - drop below about 15F (-10C) and I can't really
tell the difference between that and -30. It's just f*cking cold and not
sensible to be out in for long!

Quite like old temperate England)..

I like the consistency here, I think. Proper snowy winters (it's just not
winter without snow!) but then long warm summers where outdoors things
aren't always getting cancelled due to the crappy weather.

Tornado warnings are a pain in the backside, though - not for the
personal risk or inconvenience, but because I hate the thought that I'm
doing all this DIY stuff that could easily get wiped out in an instant ;-)

cheers

Jules


Jeezz ... where is here in the USofA Jules?..
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:35:13 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Jeezz ... where is here in the USofA Jules?..

Middle of Minnesota, more or less. I believe the weather patterns are such
that we get a lot of the cold stuff coming down from Canada over winter,
which is why the winters are so harsh - but it tends to work the other way
in Summer, with warm air coming up from the south and giving us long, hot
periods.

Tornado activity's generally much further south, but that doesn't seem to
stop the odd stray coming up this way (none so far this year, but we had a
few warnings and one touch down about 15 miles away last year)

cheers

Jules

In article . com, Jules
scribeth thus
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:35:13 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Jeezz ... where is here in the USofA Jules?..

Middle of Minnesota, more or less. I believe the weather patterns are such
that we get a lot of the cold stuff coming down from Canada over winter,
which is why the winters are so harsh - but it tends to work the other way
in Summer, with warm air coming up from the south and giving us long, hot
periods.

Tornado activity's generally much further south, but that doesn't seem to
stop the odd stray coming up this way (none so far this year, but we had a
few warnings and one touch down about 15 miles away last year)

cheers

Jules


Well if you come back to the UK anytime you can leave them there, after
all they weren't invented here...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:58:54 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Well if you come back to the UK anytime you can leave them there, after
all they weren't invented here...

I like extreme weather - just not extreme weather that trashes my stuff! :-)

J.

In article , scribeth
thus
On 24 Jun,
tony sayer wrote:

Well if you come back to the UK anytime you can leave them there, after
all they weren't invented here...

The UK has one of the highest densities of tornados (not the steam train
variety) in the world.


Whirlwinds or dust devils not prapper ones..

And anyone see her on Sunday nite?, surely the most beautiful mechanical
sight ever)))
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:47:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Whirlwinds or dust devils not prapper ones..

And anyone see her on Sunday nite?, surely the most beautiful mechanical
sight ever)))

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! :-)

cheers

Jules

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:47:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Whirlwinds or dust devils not prapper ones..

And anyone see her on Sunday nite?, surely the most beautiful mechanical
sight ever)))

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! :-)

All sorts of "short cuts" were made in the original steam engines too.
They are still steam engines, as is Tornado.

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...

Jeremy was tired and filthy

Andy

"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.


Jeremy was tired and filthy

Andy

In article . com, Jules
scribeth thus
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:47:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
Whirlwinds or dust devils not prapper ones..

And anyone see her on Sunday nite?, surely the most beautiful mechanical
sight ever)))

That's the 'new' one, isn't it?

Yep:!..


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! :-)

Well time shave changed of course but shes running on the mainline
so..

cheers

Jules


--
Tony Sayer

Jules wrote:

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.

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.
Enthusiasts working at the weekend perform every trade necessary.
A modern steam engine has been built.

How wrong are you determined to be? Do you spend time outside Heathrow
screaming that the aeroplanes can't possibly fly?

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.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
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!

Yes)



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.

Indeed, 'ho there never seemed to be a shortage of people willing to do
the job..

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.

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?..
--
Tony Sayer

"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.

All of which could be fixed if someone wanted to.
A fluidised bed fire with auto feed would work fine.
Water requires more thought but why couldn't it be condensed and reused?
Preheating the water being boiled would save fuel and save water.
There just wasn't any reason to do it before steam was dumped so it was
never done.


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 depends on where they get the electricity.
If its from nuclear they are quite carbon efficient, maybe even as good as
cars.


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

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 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.

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.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

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.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

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

On 25 June, 22:08, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Jules wrote:
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.

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.
Enthusiasts working at the weekend perform every trade necessary.
A modern steam engine has been built.

How wrong are you determined to be? Do you spend time outside Heathrow
screaming that the aeroplanes can't possibly fly?

And, might one add, there must be shelf miles of surviving printed
matter, storing much useful material on steam engineering (including
even some of the "tricks of the trade").

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
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!

Yes)


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.

Indeed, 'ho there never seemed to be a shortage of people willing to do
the job..
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.

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.

Its a high speed commuter link.

dennis@home 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.

All of which could be fixed if someone wanted to.
A fluidised bed fire with auto feed would work fine.
Water requires more thought but why couldn't it be condensed and reused?
Preheating the water being boiled would save fuel and save water.
There just wasn't any reason to do it before steam was dumped so it was
never done.


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 depends on where they get the electricity.
If its from nuclear they are quite carbon efficient, maybe even as good
as cars.


You entirely miss the point. Their fuel cost is not the main issue, on
te train itself. The main fuel cost is in the maintenance. It takes a
lot of steel to make tracks, and trains, and the only way to make steel
is to burn carbon to reduce the iron oxides to iron metal For example.




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

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 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.

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.

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..

Its a high speed commuter link.

--
Tony Sayer

In article
..com, GutterCyclist scribeth thus
On 25 June, 22:08, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Jules wrote:
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.

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.
Enthusiasts working at the weekend perform every trade necessary.
A modern steam engine has been built.

How wrong are you determined to be? Do you spend time outside Heathrow
screaming that the aeroplanes can't possibly fly?

And, might one add, there must be shelf miles of surviving printed
matter, storing much useful material on steam engineering (including
even some of the "tricks of the trade").

Word is that the plans for Tornado were found in a skip somewhere;!...
--
Tony Sayer

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, and then let electric trains do the
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.

The one advantage steam had over diesel - the ability to operate at
altitude - vanished with the turbocharger. There is no advanatage over
electric in any sense other than the romantic, and businesses don't
survive on romance unless that is what they are selling.

I love steam engines, but as reliable day to day rail transport on a
budget, they are an accountants nightmare.

GutterCyclist wrote:
On 25 June, 22:08, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Jules wrote:
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.
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.
Enthusiasts working at the weekend perform every trade necessary.
A modern steam engine has been built.

How wrong are you determined to be? Do you spend time outside Heathrow
screaming that the aeroplanes can't possibly fly?

And, might one add, there must be shelf miles of surviving printed
matter, storing much useful material on steam engineering (including
even some of the "tricks of the trade").

There are no tricks of the trade. Steam engines survive in power
stations. That is where the boiler design still is well known and
understood.

The physics and theoreteical efficiencies are also well understood and
taught under general heat engine theory.

Reciprocating engines are very well understood from petrol and diesl
engines..lets face it, you only need to take the spark plugs out and
attach a steam pipe to a typical 2-stroke and you have a steam
engine..with slight mods to the timing..

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. 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.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

On Jun 26, 9:31*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bob Mannix wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
t.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?

MBQ

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There are no tricks of the trade. Steam engines survive in power
stations. That is where the boiler design still is well known and
understood.

There is also a considerable body of knowledge around the creation of
flash steam boilers for other uses such as autoclaves and even steam
catapults.

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?)

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?)

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)

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

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)

I'm sure it'll be on youtube eventually anyway - lots of the TG clips are
(or were, not looked recently)

The race was really a bit silly

Well, that sums up Top Gear really - not that it's a bad thing :-)
It's one of the very few progs from the UK that I really miss.

cheers

Jules

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)?

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.

cheers

Jules

"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

Maglev trains are the answer. The maintenance cost are negligible.
Liverpool-Manchester is earmarked as the first inter-city Maglev in the UK.
Historical as it was the world's first passenger railway in 1829.

Differing systems are under test - 3 in the USA alone. The technology has
not settled. Many have all the equipment in the train, others have some in
the track. Many are planned around the world. Once settled, standard track
and cars can be built in bulk lowering costs. In the UK the main problem is
land costs as they require new track. Some can be cheaply elevated on top of
existing tracks.

Maglevs. Here they are. They are used in Germany, China and Japan, and one
was used for 12 years in Birmingham:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_(transport)

There have been rumblings of installing a Maglev train between Manchester
and Liverpool John Lennon airports running on the Manchester Ship Canal
wall. Airport to airport should take 10 minutes or less. This may merge the
two airports, with check-in at any airport and take the Maglev to the
airport the plane takes off. Any runway expansion would be at Liverpool over
the wide estuary with no noise nuisance - new runways can go into the river,
aligned for minimum noise nuisance.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._in_10_minutes