On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:46:49 +0100, James Heaton put finger to keyboard and
typed:

"Andy Breen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

+3.

I'm of the mindset that I don't throw out items that work and meet my needs.
Current living room telly second hand from a relative, getting on for 20
years old. Bedroom telly bought with a month's overtime in 1998. And still
got an old and working Hitachi set which was a Christmas present in I think
1988 - no remote but works fine. Was my monitor for the Commodore 64 for a
good while!

We have two TVs in the house. One in the living room, and one in my study.
Both were, until just over a year ago, CRTs. The one in my study started
flickering and losing colour, and it was clear that it wasn't going to last
much longer. So I bought a new LCD TV for the living room, with the
intention of transferring the previous main TV to the study and throwing
mine out.

I got it as far as the bottom of the stairs (my study, at the time, being
at the top of a three-story house), and realised that I'd never get it all
the way up on my own. After pondering for a while, and seeing just how much
better the picture was on the new set in the living room, I went out and
bought another LCD set (although a bit smaller) for the study.

Sometimes, being suitable for a purpose is about more than just the primary
function. Anyone who has ever had to carry a large CRT set around, and seen
how much space it takes up, will be aware that replacing it with a flat
panel for that reason alone is often entirely justifiable.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Even more recently, CRTs were still commonplace, but these days they are
already starting to look dated.

My last CRT monitors went a couple of years ago, but my first LCD was as
relatively recent as 2001 (and I'm still using it, albeit on a server
where the small screen size isn't an issue).

Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

We still have a CRT TV - for the amount that it gets used, and the
quality of what's on anyway, it's not worth buying a new one.

I still use CRT monitors; I find the picture on good* ones much more
pleasing on the eye (particularly for extended periods) than an LCD. I
just picked up a couple more last week - one to use on the kids' PC, with
the second being kept as a source of spares.

* it's hard to find really good ones around here, though - most of it's
Gateway junk and they never were up to much even when new. With them
being so heavy, it's not viable to have them shipped from anywhere.

I really, really hate 'upgrading' things because someone declares what I
have to be obsolete. It's only obsolete when it no longer does a useful
job or I can no longer repair it when it breaks, and no sooner!

cheers

Jules

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Even more recently, CRTs were still commonplace, but these days they are
already starting to look dated.
My last CRT monitors went a couple of years ago, but my first LCD was as
relatively recent as 2001 (and I'm still using it, albeit on a server
where the small screen size isn't an issue).

Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

We still have a CRT TV - for the amount that it gets used, and the
quality of what's on anyway, it's not worth buying a new one.

I still use CRT monitors; I find the picture on good* ones much more
pleasing on the eye (particularly for extended periods) than an LCD. I
just picked up a couple more last week - one to use on the kids' PC, with
the second being kept as a source of spares.

* it's hard to find really good ones around here, though - most of it's
Gateway junk and they never were up to much even when new. With them
being so heavy, it's not viable to have them shipped from anywhere.

I really, really hate 'upgrading' things because someone declares what I
have to be obsolete. It's only obsolete when it no longer does a useful
job or I can no longer repair it when it breaks, and no sooner!

cheers

Jules

OK Jules, want a pair of G4 macs then? :-)


Were working last time I switched em on..

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:19:42 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:
I still use CRT monitors; I find the picture on good* ones much
more
pleasing on the eye (particularly for extended periods) than an
LCD.

I don't unless the refresh rate is very high - 90Hz or better. I'm
quite sensitive to the flicker - gives me headaches.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

In article ,
Clive wrote:

In message
, Sam
Wilson writes
I remember being told about a fusible plug coming away on a preserved
Black 5 on the S&C some years ago. IIRC correctly the plug had been
cross-threaded and no one noticed. The loco wasn't fitted with a
rocking grate and I was told the crew had to shovel the fire out through
the cab rather than just being able to drop it.
The usual way to drop a fire is by removing about six bars of the grate
and scraping the entire fire into it. Fire-droppers had a special
hooked fire iron to whip out the bars with and could drop a complete
fire in a matter of minutes. You couldn't shovel out a fire as a fire
iron is of no use towards the firehole doors and a standard shovel would
just catch fire if you attempted to remove burning coals with it.

Interesting. I'm only reporting what I heard from a colleague who knew
the crew. I can't find a report of the incident.

Sam

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:20:35 +0100, Sam Wilson wrote:

In article ,
Clive wrote:

The usual way to drop a fire is by removing about six bars of the grate
and scraping the entire fire into it. Fire-droppers had a special
hooked fire iron to whip out the bars with and could drop a complete
fire in a matter of minutes. You couldn't shovel out a fire as a fire
iron is of no use towards the firehole doors and a standard shovel
would just catch fire if you attempted to remove burning coals with it.


Reading this prompts another thought, regarding the development of
locomotives in the earlies. I've not seen it listed before, but surely
one of the major advantages of a separate firebox (as adopted by
Stephenson's works from Rocket onwards, though not by some other builders
until much later [1]) is that it would allow the fire to be dumped
reasonably easily (as above), whereas with a flue-type grate the whole
fire would have to be raked out through the back of the box across the
footplate. Not idea, if the feed-pump has packed in, you're miles
from help and the water level is dropping...


[1] The Albion locomotive in Nova Scotia, built (or at least purchased
from) Raine and Burn in 1856, lacks a separate firebox.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

"Andy Breen" wrote

Reading this prompts another thought, regarding the development of
locomotives in the earlies. I've not seen it listed before, but surely
one of the major advantages of a separate firebox (as adopted by
Stephenson's works from Rocket onwards, though not by some other builders
until much later [1]) is that it would allow the fire to be dumped
reasonably easily (as above), whereas with a flue-type grate the whole
fire would have to be raked out through the back of the box across the
footplate. Not idea, if the feed-pump has packed in, you're miles
from help and the water level is dropping...

It also depends on the crew knowing what to look for, and what to do if
something goes wrong.
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/...3_Kirklees.cfm

Whist the fusible plug did its job, the delay by the crew in dumping the
fire may well have caused damage to the boiler.

Peter

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:07:42 +0100, Peter Masson wrote:

"Andy Breen" wrote

Reading this prompts another thought, regarding the development of
locomotives in the earlies. I've not seen it listed before, but surely
one of the major advantages of a separate firebox (as adopted by
Stephenson's works from Rocket onwards, though not by some other
builders until much later [1]) is that it would allow the fire to be
dumped reasonably easily (as above), whereas with a flue-type grate the
whole fire would have to be raked out through the back of the box
across the footplate. Not idea, if the feed-pump has packed in, you're
miles from help and the water level is dropping...

It also depends on the crew knowing what to look for, and what to do if
something goes wrong.
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/
current_investigations_register/110703_Kirklees.cfm

Whist the fusible plug did its job, the delay by the crew in dumping the
fire may well have caused damage to the boiler.


I'm pretty sure the (main-line) use of flue-type fireboxes went out
before fusible plugs were introduced (the only case of the two
coming together on main-line locomotives that I can think of is that batch
of L&Y 0-8-0s which had the corrugated marine-type "fireboxes"). They
didn't last long like that.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Jul 27, 7:14*pm, harry wrote:

Whether you could tell the difference as to whether steam or water was
present on opening the cock is an experiment I've never tried. *

This is basic operating practice for steam locos, as a backup for a
failed gauge glass.

On Jul 29, 12:21*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

I'm pretty sure the (main-line) use of flue-type fireboxes

What's a "flue type firebox" ? If you mean a flued boiler, then they
went out very early on, as they had so little heating area. They were
only practical for Lancashire boilers because they could be much
longer and were followed by economiser chambers too. Even the
Lancashire was usually a Galloway boiler in later years, with cross-
tubes.

The later multi-tubular version is generally called a "launch-type" or
gunboat boiler. These had some use for small ships, and for small
narrow gauge locos - Arthur Heywood in particular used them. They have
the same cylindrical furnace with only a small ashpan beneath the
grate, but as they have firetubes similar to a conventional loco
boiler, they also have plenty of convective heating area.

Wikipedia has articles on both of these types, neither of which are as
bad as usual.

Launch boilers were never used on mainline locomotives, as they have
too little radiative heating area (i.e. firebox surface) and so their
power output is low, even if they're reasonably efficient overall.
They were used in later years by both the LNWR for a class of small
shunters and also by the L&Y for the 0-8-0s you mention. Neither of
these were long-haul locomotives, but rather shunting within a yard
and with pauses between moves to recover. The L&Y locos had reasonable
tractive effort (cylinder size and pressure), but couldn't sustain
this for any long period, owing to the lack of firebox evaporative
capacity. There's also a suspicion that they were more the result of
lobbying at Horwich by local makers of corrugated furnaces for the
mill engine trade. Certainly not a sucessful or repeated experiment.

On Jul 29, 11:23*am, Andy Breen wrote:

Reading this prompts another thought, regarding the development of
locomotives in the earlies. I've not seen it listed before, but surely
one of the major advantages of a separate firebox (as adopted by
Stephenson's works from Rocket onwards, though not by some other builders
until much later [1]) is that it would allow the fire to be dumped
reasonably easily

The biggest difference is that a furnace in a flue can burn coal,
unlike Rocket, which had to burn the more expensive coke. It wasn't
for a few decades after Rocket prompted the switch to Stephenson's
more powerful firebox and thus a more compact locomotive, before the
invention of the brick arch allowed a return to coal burning.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:36:14 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 29, 11:23Â*am, Andy Breen wrote:

Reading this prompts another thought, regarding the development of
locomotives in the earlies. I've not seen it listed before, but surely
one of the major advantages of a separate firebox (as adopted by
Stephenson's works from Rocket onwards, though not by some other
builders until much later [1]) is that it would allow the fire to be
dumped reasonably easily

The biggest difference is that a furnace in a flue can burn coal, unlike
Rocket, which had to burn the more expensive coke.

The S&D managed to burn coke for a few years (as a trial) in flue-type
'boxes, and coal in fireboxes. It produced rather a lot of smoke,
but as most of the land around the railway was owned by shareholders in
the company that wasn't an issue (the same, I think, could be said of
the other companies which burned coal - both in flue-type furnaces
and fireboxes - in the same era)

It wasn't for a few
decades after Rocket prompted the switch to Stephenson's more powerful
firebox and thus a more compact locomotive, before the invention of the
brick arch allowed a return to coal burning.

Coke was mandated for smoke reduction, and firebox engines seem to have
been perfectly capable of burning coal (possibly with a different
arrangement of air-holes and firebars), ablet at the cost of a lot of
smoke.

Some railways were burning coal with (relatively) low smoke emission
before the brick arch too. Even neglecting the complex fireboxes of
McConnell, Cudworth and Beattie there was the arrangment of air-holes
in the box developed by Cowan on the GNoS in the middle 1850s that worked
so well that (IIRC) it was only under Pickersgill that they switched to
the brick arch (about 1900, I think...).

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:33:03 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 29, 12:21Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

I'm pretty sure the (main-line) use of flue-type fireboxes

What's a "flue type firebox" ? If you mean a flued boiler, then they
went out very early on, as they had so little heating area. They were
only practical for Lancashire boilers because they could be much longer
and were followed by economiser chambers too. Even the Lancashire was
usually a Galloway boiler in later years, with cross- tubes.

Boilers with a single flue (straight through or return type) lasted in
new-builds through to the early 1840s for main line use (Stockton and
Darlington Railway, Clarence Railway, West Hartlepool Railway..). They
were cheap - and in fact several batches of locomotives with flue-type
boilers were built for the S&D after they'd had a period of building
locomotives with tubular boilers (both straight-through multitube and
return-flow multitube).

The later multi-tubular version is generally called a "launch-type" or
gunboat boiler. These had some use for small ships, and for small narrow

Or, in marine use, a "locomotive boiler".. :-)

gauge locos - Arthur Heywood in particular used them. They have the same
cylindrical furnace with only a small ashpan beneath the grate, but as
they have firetubes similar to a conventional loco boiler, they also
have plenty of convective heating area.

This was what I meant - a cylindrical flue-type firebox, feeding into
either straight-through multitubes (Dodds, Hackworth - both brothers,
Adamson, Heywood..) or a return-flow arrangement (Hackworth). These were
built for main-line use through to the later 1840s on the S&D (observe
Derwent, built 1845 with a flue-type grate feeding a return-flow multitube
arrangment..). Industrial locomotives with this arrangment continued to be
built considerably later, and some of these ran for significant distances
over main lines (the West Hartlepool railway outsourced much of its
mineral traffic to colliery owners using their won engines, for
example..).


Launch boilers were never used on mainline locomotives, as they have too
little radiative heating area (i.e. firebox surface) and so their power
output is low, even if they're reasonably efficient overall.

Universal until the very end of the 1840s for mineral traffic on the S&D
(and used for several fast passenger engines) - these engines lasted past
the 1870s in main line use.. Also used on several other companies main
lines (Llanelly Railway, West Cornwall Railway, West Hartlepool Railway,
Clarence Railway..). So certainly not "never used"..

They were
used in later years by both the LNWR for a class of small shunters and
also by the L&Y for the 0-8-0s you mention. Neither of these were
long-haul locomotives, but rather shunting within a yard and with pauses
between moves to recover. The L&Y locos had reasonable tractive effort
(cylinder size and pressure), but couldn't sustain this for any long
period, owing to the lack of firebox evaporative capacity. There's also
a suspicion that they were more the result of lobbying at Horwich by
local makers of corrugated furnaces for the mill engine trade. Certainly
not a sucessful or repeated experiment.

Agreed - though their building also followed a couple of very nasty
firebox collapses traced to problems with staying. They were an attempt
to do away with staying altogether.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

This is proving an expensive thread: just ordered a reprint of Wood's
"Practical treatise on railways" and a copy of Warren's centenary history
of Stephenson's..

Oh well, good excuse to buy more books :-)

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On Jul 29, 1:25*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:14*pm, harry wrote:

Whether you could tell the difference as to whether steam or water was
present on opening the cock is an experiment I've never tried. *

This is basic operating practice for steam locos, as a backup for a
failed gauge glass.

There are two guage glasses. I have never known one to fail. They are
changed regularly, they get wire drawn from being blown down.
They are surrounded by a thick glass safety box to prevent accidental
damage and to protect the operator if the glass fails.
I have known a steam arm to block. We never found the reason for it
either.

In message
,
harry writes
There are two guage glasses.
Not on Western Locomotives. They have only one with two small cocks at
the levels of the top and bottom of the gauge glass to make sure the
boiler is somewhere in between.
--
Clive

On 30/07/2011 01:21, Clive wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
There are two guage glasses.
Not on Western Locomotives. They have only one with two small cocks at
the levels of the top and bottom of the gauge glass to make sure the
boiler is somewhere in between.

I would have thought that if the boiler was missing, you might notice it
without the need for small cocks top and bottom!

:-)

Cheers

Puffernutter

In message , puffernutter
writes
On 30/07/2011 01:21, Clive wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
There are two guage glasses.
Not on Western Locomotives. They have only one with two small cocks at
the levels of the top and bottom of the gauge glass to make sure the
boiler is somewhere in between.
I would have thought that if the boiler was missing, you might notice
it without the need for small cocks top and bottom!
:-)
Cheers
I had to read it about three times before I spotted my mistake, proves
I'm human, I hope? ;-)
--
Clive

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 01:32:05 +0100, Clive wrote:

In message , puffernutter
writes
On 30/07/2011 01:21, Clive wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
There are two guage glasses.
Not on Western Locomotives. They have only one with two small cocks at
the levels of the top and bottom of the gauge glass to make sure the
boiler is somewhere in between.
I would have thought that if the boiler was missing, you might notice it
without the need for small cocks top and bottom! :-)
Cheers
I had to read it about three times before I spotted my mistake, proves
I'm human, I hope? ;-)

:-)

I've always assumed so...

Coming back to the however-did-they-manage-before-gauge-glasses angle,
I hope to have some more info on that in the next few days, having
just ordered a copy of Wood's 'Practical treatise on railways' (the
bookseller didn't say whether it was the 1825 or 1831 edition, but
either might be able to cast some light on the subject)..

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On Jul 29, 4:15*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The later multi-tubular version is generally called a "launch-type" or
gunboat boiler. These had some use for small ships, and for small narrow

Or, in marine use, a "locomotive boiler".. :-)

You have to be careful with that - some naval "locomotive boilers" had
Belpaire fireboxes.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:00:20 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 29, 4:15Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The later multi-tubular version is generally called a "launch-type"
or gunboat boiler. These had some use for small ships, and for small
narrow

Or, in marine use, a "locomotive boiler".. :-)

You have to be careful with that - some naval "locomotive boilers" had
Belpaire fireboxes.

Examples? Genuinely - I'm interested, as I wasn't aware of that..

Now where's my copy of the Admiralty Manual of Engineering gone? It
was on the shelf above this computer last time I saw it...

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On 28/07/2011 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OK Jules, want a pair of G4 macs then? :-)

Suggest post this to uk.comp.vintage.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/07/2011 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OK Jules, want a pair of G4 macs then? :-)

Suggest post this to uk.comp.vintage.

Andy
Christ they aren't THAT old!

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/07/2011 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OK Jules, want a pair of G4 macs then? :-)

Suggest post this to uk.comp.vintage.

Andy
Christ they aren't THAT old!

Introduced in 1999?

That makes them antiques in computerland. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

harry wrote:

If you look at a guage glass it has diagonal stripes behind it.

If the glass is full of water they are refracted to the horizontal as
seen through te sight glass.
If the glass is full of steam, they remain diagonal.
So you know whether the water level is above or below the glass.

When the first main transformer to be built for the Class 357
stock was delivered, we noticed that, unlike previous UK
practice, the oil level sight glass was plain, rather than
prismatic, and the oil was almost clear, so the level was
difficult to see.

I suggested diagonal stripes behind the tube, an idea that was
initially regarded as, at best, strange. I persevered, and
quickly produced a suitably marked piece of card. The result was
as I had anticipated, much to the amazement of all around.

Sometimes steam can help electrics!

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:10:59 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

harry wrote:

If you look at a guage glass it has diagonal stripes behind it.

Just got my copy of the `825 edition of Wood's "Practical treatise..".
I'll have a work through it and see if what he has to say about
water levels in boilers and how they were judged.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Aug 2, 3:04*pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:00:20 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 29, 4:15*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The later multi-tubular version is generally called a "launch-type"
or gunboat boiler. These had some use for small ships, and for small
narrow

Or, in marine use, a "locomotive boiler".. :-)

You have to be careful with that - some naval "locomotive boilers" had
Belpaire fireboxes.

Examples? Genuinely - I'm interested, as I wasn't aware of that..

Early TBDs (torpedo boat destroyers) of the early 1890s. This is
difficult, as there were several building yards and a vast array of
boiler designs at this time, often obscure water-tube inventions.
There seems to be little written distinction between the launch-type
and the locomotive-type "locomotive" boilers - you have to look at the
builder's plans. Havock (Yarrows) was one with a dual-firedoor
Belpaire, I think Fervent, Charger, Dasher, Hasty & Zephyr might have
been too. Lyon's "The First Destroyers" is a very good read on the
development of turbine propulsion around this time, although it
doesn't go into as much detail on boilers as you or I might like.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:08:31 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Aug 2, 3:04Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:00:20 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 29, 4:15Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The later multi-tubular version is generally called a
"launch-type" or gunboat boiler. These had some use for small
ships, and for small narrow

Or, in marine use, a "locomotive boiler".. :-)

You have to be careful with that - some naval "locomotive boilers"
had Belpaire fireboxes.

Examples? Genuinely - I'm interested, as I wasn't aware of that..

Early TBDs (torpedo boat destroyers) of the early 1890s. This is
difficult, as there were several building yards and a vast array of
boiler designs at this time, often obscure water-tube inventions. There
seems to be little written distinction between the launch-type and the
locomotive-type "locomotive" boilers - you have to look at the builder's
plans. Havock (Yarrows) was one with a dual-firedoor Belpaire, I think
Fervent, Charger, Dasher, Hasty & Zephyr might have been too. Lyon's
"The First Destroyers" is a very good read on the development of turbine
propulsion around this time, although it doesn't go into as much detail
on boilers as you or I might like.

You're entirely right. I can't believe that I missed that one, given that
(a) it's a period/area that interests me and (b) I have a copy of Lyon
on my shelf. A quick inspection of the drawings revealed that Yarrow
did, indeed, use a true locomotive-type boiler in their early TBDs. I
must now start checking to see whether they'd done the same in their
later, larger TBs or in any of the TGBs they'd been responsible for.

Thanks for that. I most heartily apologise for my unforgivable mistake.
feels chastened

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Jul 29, 12:21*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

I'm pretty sure the (main-line) use of flue-type fireboxes went out
before fusible plugs were introduced (the only case of the two
coming together on main-line locomotives that I can think of is that batch
of L&Y 0-8-0s which had the corrugated marine-type "fireboxes"). They
didn't last long like that.

Henry Hoy's batch of the L&YR Class 30.

I've done some wiki stuff about them, under the Hoy article. Ahrons'
''Development of British Loco Design'' has some photos, if I get time
to scan them. Strange thing is that they were a response to a firebox
problem that he'd caused himself, by specifying a new, and brittle,
alloy for the firebox rod stays.