More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Northroader]

Actually, one of those was done in living memory, using a brake van, sorry, no pictures. We put a frame like the GWR one in the cigarette card picture round the van, but with folding down extensions like small goalposts done in welding rod. It was needed because the Civil Engineers did their track maintenance by covering it with ballast, then going along with a tamper which set a new level and packed the ballast under the sleepers to get it.  All very well, but it meant the height gradually crept up over the years. This was demonstrated by a stone bridge near St.Devereux on the Hereford - Newport line, which had stayed the same since it was built.  The highest piece of rolling stock turned out to be the spindle on the safety valves of No.6000 “King George V”, out on a special working. Fairly soon after that there was the gee-whiz laser measuring thingy turned out by Derby.

[Andy Vincent]

On 02/11/2023 at 22:01, sir douglas said:

While we're on terminology, lately ive been hearing people use "buffer guides" when ive always only known them as "buffer stocks" and ive only started hearing the use of guide very recently

 

Following on from recent discussions, currently on eBay is a 1937 copy of the RCH Regulations for the Repairing and Rebuilding of Wagons. The auction ends later today and is currently failing to attract any interest. Whilst this edition may be a little late for this topic, it isn't much changed from earlier editions (I have several) and gives a wealth of fascinating info of the details of wagon engineering and acceptable tolerances when in traffic. 

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/355136530020?hash=item52afc96664:g:3bIAAOSwgfllOWAS&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA0DN6S1IFrp4Y5Y7kwsn3YxPRqI5LqJ4pIJO6pMRPW5wbpiZByUEradijbQ%2BvoaP3Iy6S2mmY2fJu7BaQg7q7W2YE6fMNg%2FB3o2%2F8c0z5CYmG2ugXfPnM84TdaqPeVRms9COH2PzqLtv3dVX7lvuETLesoAgF2xtv8BLV26hW7JSGAS%2ByqKPVbIgI5cgA0JTUSeZDLhiLZkLkVIk65poHPwImy3o8Gl4%2FOQ8Ju26hAg2k6CR8gu5xUO7lAZCSMmvj4%2FNZxNlbz4HySOIh1Z3Ls4M%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR4zly_rzYg

 

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Andy Vincent said:

currently on eBay

 

Up from £8.50 to £9.50, with two bidders and two hours to go. Looks like you may have triggered a bidding war...

 

(Not me.)

[Andy Vincent]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

(Not me.)

Ah, a man who likes to keep his powder dry ;-)

Edited November 5, 2023 by Andy Vincent
Typo - you would have thought that spelling 'ah' was pretty straightforward . . .

[Chas Levin]

On 04/11/2023 at 19:24, Mikkel said:

I like this photo, maybe others do too. 

 

Caption: "6th November 1930. A van used for cleaning railway tunnel walls". Source, Getty Images, embedding allowed.

 

I don't know about the date. But quite plausible, I suppose, that noone saw a need to paint it after grouping. Anyway, I hope the "GC" justifies its appearance in this thread.

 

 

Now that's a nice modelling project...

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Up from £8.50 to £9.50, with two bidders and two hours to go. Looks like you may have triggered a bidding war...

 

(Not me.)

 

I see it got pretty intense with seventeen bids - those two bidders at work before a third leapt in with six seconds to go with a bid above the others' maximum - £13.22.

 

(Not me.)

[corneliuslundie]

People are paying a lot more than that for photos. 

Jonathan

[Nick Lawson]

On 04/11/2023 at 10:40, Compound2632 said:

being married to a lexicographer

Oooh, can we hope that some of these old terms will one day appear in a future dictionary edition? Counterbalancing the crop of yoof neologisms.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Nick Lawson said:

Oooh, can we hope that some of these old terms will one day appear in a future dictionary edition? Counterbalancing the crop of yoof neologisms.

 

I'm afraid you will be disappointed, on two grounds:

1. Dictionaries, as I said, report usage. If a word starts being widely used, it makes its way into the dictionary; if it falls out of general use, it will be quietly dropped, to keep the dictionary the same commercially-viable size.
2. Lexi (as I will denominate her in this context) edits dictionaries for learners of English. The probability of such learners needing or wanting to understand the technicalities of 19th century railway wagon construction is sufficiently low for the relevant technical vocabulary to fail to cut the mustard.  

In principle, the Oxford English Dictionary, intended as a complete historical record of the language, should be the home for such outmoded technical terms. However, it seems to me to be a limitation of that great work that it is based largely upon literary sources and hence fails to capture words or senses of words that are only preserved in specifications and suchlike commercial paperwork. 

 

I believe it is the case that the OED does not include the word lucam, at least not in its architectural sense which I am sure is familiar to readers here. The nearest it gets is lucarne, which it defines as a dormer window.

[Chas Levin]

On 06/11/2023 at 07:11, Compound2632 said:

 

I see it got pretty intense with seventeen bids - those two bidders at work before a third leapt in with six seconds to go with a bid above the others' maximum - £13.22.

 

(Not me.)

 

Sniping, it's called (rather unpleasantly I feel), where you use a third party website to send a in a bid a few seconds before the auction ends, so that other bidders don't have time to respond... unless they're sniping too, but with an even shorter lead time.

[corneliuslundie]

I don't think when was teaching English as a foreign language that the terms for obscure parts of 19th century railway rolling stock would have been a high priority! "Left" and "Right" would have been rather more useful along with phrases as "do not copy", "do not cheat" and "do not chat" in exams (though I usually said those in Albanian.

But it would be sad if they were not officially recorded somewhere. Yes, it should be the OED.

Jonathan

 

[Chas Levin]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm afraid you will be disappointed, on two grounds:

1. Dictionaries, as I said, report usage. If a word starts being widely used, it makes its way into the dictionary; if it falls out of general use, it will be quietly dropped, to keep the dictionary the same commercially-viable size.
2. Lexi (as I will denominate her in this context) edits dictionaries for learners of English. The probability of such learners needing or wanting to understand the technicalities of 19th century railway wagon construction is sufficiently low for the relevant technical vocabulary to fail to cut the mustard.  

In principle, the Oxford English Dictionary, intended as a complete historical record of the language, should be the home for such outmoded technical terms. However, it seems to me to be a limitation of that great work that it is based largely upon literary sources and hence fails to capture words or senses of words that are only preserved in specifications and suchlike commercial paperwork. 

 

I believe it is the case that the OED does not include the word lucam, at least not in its architectural sense which I am sure is familiar to readers here. The nearest it gets is lucarne, which it defines as a dormer window.

 

I have no problem with neologisms - even yoof ones - but I find it frustrating that the internet allows a neologism consisting simply of a word being completely misused and only being so by one or two yoofs to spread around the globe, seemingly in seconds, somehow becoming accepted immediately.

Actually, it's not just yoof: when did 'oversight' change from missing something to supervising something?

[Nick Lawson]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The probability of such learners needing or wanting to understand the technicalities of 19th century railway wagon construction is sufficiently low for the relevant technical vocabulary to fail to cut the mustard. 

True. One can only dream of how this might change if, say, the Life in the UK citizenship test was recrafted by doyens of RMWeb,

[WFPettigrew]

5 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

when did 'oversight' change from missing something to supervising something

 

Is this a metaphor for a wider malaise in society?!

 

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Actually, it's not just yoof: when did 'oversight' change from missing something to supervising something?

 

It's presumably a back-formation from the noun overseer. That itself has unpleasant plantation connotations. Whereas a foreman was a man in charge drawn from the ranks of the labourers, an overseer is one imposed from above to manage the slaves - a change in management structure that will, I think, be familiar to many and says a lot about the attitude of modern management to those actually doing the work.

[Chas Levin]

11 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Is this a metaphor for a wider malaise in society?!

 

 

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It's presumably a back-formation from the noun overseer. That itself has unpleasant plantation connotations. Whereas a foreman was a man in charge drawn from the ranks of the labourers, an overseer is one imposed from above to manage the slaves - a change in management structure that will, I think, be familiar to many and says a lot about the attitude of modern management to those actually doing the work.

 

Highly interesting and thoughtful follow-on thoughts from my question gents: just the way to start the day!

 

Yes, Neil, it is - in my opinion and unintentionally on my part - definitely a societal metaphor!

 

Stephen, I hadn't thought of that aspect of the word's derivation also affecting the way the word is being used nowadays; I'd suggest it also directly relates to Neil's question and is part of a wider management malaise.

 

I first came across this latterday usage in reports of government dealings, with phrases such as 'ministerial oversight'. I immediately suspected a joke - sarcastic, perhaps - on the double meaning of the word, intended to convey that what was meant to be ministerial supervision was in fact ministerial omission, but gradually learnt that the change of meaning is apparently free of irony. Who knew?

[Compound2632]

This is perhaps a good point at which to apologise for the continued lack of modelling being posted in this topic, which is in the "kitbuilding and scratchbuilding" sub-forum.

 

In the modern spirit of apportioning blame, I blame myself on the following counts:

1. writing my next wagon article for the Midland Railway Society Journal, deadline end of this week;
2. editing and copy-editing a new modelling magazine for Midland Railway Society members, deadline later this month;
3. being distracted by analysis of S&DJR coaching and wagon stock statistics;*
4. ditto MR PO Registers;
5. the ongoing bank account change of signatories saga of our Scout Group;
6. needing to get a new washing machine before the underwear runs out;
7. ditto printer before the need to print becomes pressing;
8. and last but by no means least, sheer bone-idleness.

*See:

et seq.

[Chas Levin]

Don't be too hard on yourself Stephen! It's your thread so if you're happy, we should be. Personally, I think threads like these work best when they're online meeting and discussion places for people with the same interests, but that doesn't mean discussion can only be about those interests. It's nice to chat about other things sometimes - we still know why we're here 🙂.

 

Oh - and reason number 6 seems the most urgent to me...

[Aire Head]

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

needing to get a new washing machine before the underwear runs out;

 

You can wear underpants in at least 4 different ways prior to washing in order to extend their serviceable usage 😉

[Northroader]

https://harwellscouts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/M4.pdf

[Chas Levin]

45 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

You can wear underpants in at least 4 different ways prior to washing in order to extend their serviceable usage 😉

 

Oh dear, I don't know which discomforts me more: your post, Aire Head, or the fact that Stephen's marked it with 'Craftsmanship/clever' 😐.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

reason number 6 seems the most urgent to me...

 

Four pairs of underpants before I'm reduced to the boxers I don't like - nine days total...

 

58 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

You can wear underpants in at least 4 different ways prior to washing in order to extend their serviceable usage 😉

 

... or maybe five weeks.
 

24 minutes ago, Northroader said:

https://harwellscouts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/M4.pdf

 

No shortage of washing powder, it's the machine that's bust. Handwashing is an option.

 

New machine ordered; delivery a week today.

 

The old one was worn out by having three or four adults and a cat in the house for much of the last three years. I think we're now down to two adults and the cat for most of the time going forward. That's only about 40% of the bed linen and 60% of the towels compared to peak usage.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Four pairs of underpants before I'm reduced to the boxers I don't like - nine days total...

 

 

... or maybe five weeks.
 

 

No shortage of washing powder, it's the machine that's bust. Handwashing is an option.

 

New machine ordered; delivery a week today.

 

The old one was worn out by having three or four adults and a cat in the house for much of the last three years. I think we're now down to two adults and the cat for most of the time going forward. That's only about 40% of the bed linen and 60% of the towels compared to peak usage.

But why do you need to wash the cat... 

 

As to priorities I'll vote for no 4.  I did survive a 3 week cycling tour in the US, when my avatar was taken, with just 4 pairs, however I did hand wash them in my hotel room and dry them overnight. 

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

But why do you need to wash the cat... 

 

The cat is of course self-cleaning. The issue is the quantity of fur she deposits on clothing, duvet covers, cushion covers, etc. We do have a "cat & dog" rated vacuum cleaner. 

[Nick C]

5 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Actually, it's not just yoof: when did 'oversight' change from missing something to supervising something?

1613, according to the OED - compared with ~1400 for the older meaning. So it's been around a fair while, even by the standards of this thread...