Jonny P

I think your basic understanding is correct. Direction is changed by moving the valve gear through half a cycle relative to the piston and thereby reversing the high pressure/low pressure sequence around the piston. JP ETA - removed bit about Bizzard’s post because I now understand what he meant by 8 cylinders.

There’s a difference in what we are describing as the flange. That model demonstrates that the steering comes from the equilibrium of forces between the head of rail and the profile of the wheel tread and not by the side of the rail exerting a lateral force on the flange - by which I mean a predominately vertical down stand of the wheel tread which is present on real wheels but entirely absent on those models. Note also I did say the flange is redundant in theory; the reality of vehicle steering doesn’t quite work as per the theory. No real vehicle consists of a single wheelset with freedom of movement and in reality no wheel in a bogie or fixed wheelbase vehicle is truly square to the rails in a curve. This is why sharp curves may exhibit wear to the gauge face. Most of the squealing noise you hear on sharp curves is wheel squeal rather than flange squeal. At extremes the principle of the conicity of the wheels allowing the two wheelsets to travel different distances around the curve despite being on a fixed axle doesn’t work - particularly with worn wheel and rail profiles - and the outside wheelset exhibits a combination of rotation and slippage as it’s dragged along the head of the rail by the inside wheel and axle. Flange squeal is often heard from the back (inside) edge of the wheelset in check rails in pointwork - or on very sharp curves - which are designed to give positive control of the wheel position. This is one scenario where the extended flange of the wheel is advantageous. JP

A popular myth busted ? The wheel profile and rail head are curved in a complementary way and the wheel steers itself along the rail by the natural correction of out of balance forces. The flange should indeed never touch the side of the rail and in theory it’s redundant. JP

Probably in a couple of ways. The main driving wheels are held in the frames of the locomotive so all three have to point in the same direction and coupled with being very big means they don’t fit well between the rails on curves. The leading driving wheels will not be square to the rails so high forces will be applied to the outer rail. Through the front truck (which I think was the terminology used rather than bogie) a turning force can be applied to the locomotive to lessen the angle of attack of the leading driving wheels. The front truck wasn’t rigidly held laterally because again that would just make the whole thing too long and rigid. The other advantage is that the leading truck wheels being undriven will steer more naturally than the driving wheels which due to the way drive forces are asymmetrically applied to each side in turn (notwithstanding this is a four cylinder loco) would have a tendency to shuffle which would be detrimental to curving at speed. JP

Both, and it’s a bogie. A bogey is something else ?. It assists with the steering of the locomotive and the weight distribution. Otherwise there would be huge mass overhanging the driving wheels and excessive axle loads. JP

Missing the wood for the trees there. As in independent state Spain chooses to be a member of the EU - because it has the power to form a relationship with 27 other states. The fact that imposes a restriction on other deals is immaterial. No one forces them to be a member of the EU. JP

Take away and a four pack of BrewDog each.

Change things up a bit and go to the Italian. I remember it as being pretty good. Then maybe to one of the pubs in the village. Something like 15-20 minutes walk to the other end of the village from the moorings. JP

Yes. Official visitor moorings below the lock.

Anything burns if the temperature gets high enough. Aluminium is used as the fuel in solid fuel rocket boosters but you’d do well to burn it domestically. JP

Very simply;- If you aren’t particularly budget constrained buy a boat that isn’t and doesn’t need overplating. If you are budget constrained don’t let overplating be a barrier between you and what is otherwise the boat you want. I own a 50 year old boat with 32 year old overplating. My genuine expectation is that it will outlast me and I’d like to think I’ve got at least 25 more years boating to do. Most steel boats last for many decades and there is no general expectation that any one boat should ever need overplating. JP

The structural principles of the hulls of historic and modern narrow boats are pretty much the same. I wouldn’t want to rely on the integrity of the cabin as part of the structure of the boat so in that sense the internal members of the hull are very much more than glorified floor bearers. The chines (and that little tab which featured in the Brentford sinking thread) carry an external weld at the foot of the side plates (or stem post in the case of the tab). They are oversized to protect that weld rather than the side plates directly. Hence there is good reason they are not cut or ground flush so they aren’t truly sacrificial. As someone pointed they are vestiges of the fabrication process in the sense that the surplus baseplate is cut from around the hull but they are necessary ones. JP

OK, so GRP will be quicker than a narrow boat I suspect. Certainly quicker than my NB in any case. If you are confident you can do the Shroppie and Staffs & Worcs sections in those times then I’d think the rest is feasible. Day 4 has no locks and if you leave Birmingham no later than 0900 you’ll be at Hockley Heath by 1600 and probably earlier in your boat. Wilmcote to Evesham seems like a long day given the amount of locks just to get to Stratford. As stated if Tewkesbury lock is restricted your plan will probably have to change. Upton to Wolverley should be fine in one day. JP Edited due to quoting wrong post initially.

If you’re an employed land dwelling boat owner who wants to see the system there isn’t a whole lot of choice. It’s either this or move the boat sequentially which can result in additional mooring and transport costs and possibly less secure mooring for your boat. At the end of the day it’s not like you are passing any particular place faster than you would if you took more days. JP

If Stratford to Hawford has become Wilmcote to Stourport in the same time then forget it. It was a gamble as it was. You are now touching the bounds of what’s possible in three long days and being river navigations you have to factor in that you might get nowhere. Starting at Wilmcote I don’t think it’s realistic to plan on being past Tewkesbury after two days. A couple of years ago I cruised single handed from Chealybeate bridge (bottom of Wilmcote flight) to Evesham in one day and on to Tewkesbury the next. I arrived at about the time the Avon lock was closing. It has shorter hours than the Severn locks. As for the Severn upstream that depends on the boat and the conditions but your problem is that the last lock is only a mile short of Stourport. Some info on the boat would be helpful. I would struggle to do Tewkesbury to Stourport in a day because my engine doesn’t have the cooling capability to cruise quickly enough upstream. Is this a hire boat? The Avon Ring is a challenging one week hire even from bases on it’s route so to contemplate it from Stourport is unrealistic and I would suggest unfair to the hire base and the next prospective hirer who will suffer the consequences should you fail. JP

The river route is quickest at three full standard days cruising. If you are up for two days of up to twelve hours cruising you just might make it in two days but I would plan it as three even if just trying to transit quickly. It’s about 16 hours down the Avon and then a day up the Severn to Hawford. Going via the canal route is over 100 locks. It’s at least three 12 hour days via that route. I could possibly do Droitwich to Stratford in 3 x 12 hours but it’s another three hours plus to Hawford from Droitwich. JP

http://www.jim-shead.com/waterways/mwp.php?wpage=CT001.html

I doubt anyone volunteers other than primarily for their own benefit. It’s just that any volunteer must also to recognise that to gain that benefit you have to fulfil some form of commitment to others. Do people really volunteer for an outdoor activity in the UK from April to October with the expectation they can avoid inclement weather? JP

I think there’s a flaw in this logic. The bit that’s voluntary is whether or not you choose to give your time to provide the service in the first place. Once you have made that choice then you have effectively made a commitment to others - be it the trust/society you have volunteered for, the people who are receiving the service concerned or those who fund it since no voluntary scheme is without costs. The majority of people who volunteer their time have to deliver a prescribed output to a defined timescale. I do up to 10 days a year of canal volunteering work outdoors all of which involves fulfilling some form of commitment to someone - half of it will be for paying customers - and if it rains I will get wet. So my answers to your questions are “yes” and “yes”. In the case of the volunteer lock-keeper scheme the approach of “they’re volunteers so they don’t have to do it” means that for all the efforts CRT go to in recruiting, training and equipping the volunteers the level of service they commit as an offer to boaters is nil. While I acknowledge I regularly receive welcome assistance from volunteer lock assistants until such time as CRT can publish dates, times and locations where assistance will be available the scheme can only ever be regarded as being run for the benefit of the volunteer and not the boater. This may of course be part of CRTs wider wellbeing strategy but it means it is entirely legitimate for any boater to regard the scheme with indifference. Anyway when it rains hard most boaters tie up so the volunteers can huddle round in their cabin and drink tea. JP

https://rogerfarnworth.com/2017/09/26/lydney-harbour/ Ray, If you look at the website linked above there are a couple of items that suggest that the photo you have just posted may be reversed. The orientation as presented would have the photographer facing north. A feature of the photo is what appears to be a line of high tension electric pylons in the background. I believe these no longer exist but if you look at the extract from an OS map on the linked website there is an overhead cable route that coincides with what is in the picture to the south of Lydney. There is also an aerial shot of the harbour/canal entrance which shows a line of boats to the south of the railway bridge spanning the outlet. The first of these boats is of a narrower beam than all others. This shot appears to be taken prior to further boats being dumped on the opposite side of the outlet so it can not be absolutely concluded this boat is PLEONE but if indeed your other photo is also reversed the position does correlate well. In the above photograph do you believe PLEONE to be to the left of centre and not particularly obvious because of its small size compared to the other boats and the fact that the view is the back of the cabin listing to the right? Consider also that it appears that there was only ever a concrete wall to the north of the bridge spanning the outlet. This all adds up to both photos being reversed as Mr Barnett insisted. What this would mean is that the visible engine beds in the mud that Laurence Hogg stated were from PLEONE could not be unless they have shifted, which I am not sure is realistic. I did consider that Laurence’s Google Earth capture showed them too far from shore but the eye sees distances differently at ground level than is suggested by a plan view so I didn’t take that as being conclusive evidence. JP

I’d also say the GU is a perfectly decent cruise. From my perspective it’s just that the locks are too big. The stretch from Braunston to Wolverton is rural and has quite a few features of interest. It’s a bit of a drag around MK but the climb up to Marsworth is nice and although I’ve never cruised any further south I know the surroundings well and there are some picturesque locations such as Berkhamsted and Cassiobury Park. I can’t see why it’s blighted to any greater extent by the railway or the motorway than the Oxford (although personally I don’t view any railway as ever blighting a canal). When I last cruised that far south in the summer of 2017 there were a lot of moored boats from MK onwards but probably less than I’d anticipated based upon reports of wall to wall boats I’d read here. Probably not that different to what I might expect cruising the Napton/Braunston pound on a summer’s weekend. JP

I knew that. Honest...

I thought both the Langollen and Montgomery Canal names were recent inventions. The western end of the modern Llangollen has it’s origins in the Ellesmere Canal and the section beyond Frankton was a navigable canal as part of that network until trade ceased and it was retained as a feeder. The connected section of what is now called the Montgomery Canal was merely a branch of the Ellesmere canal and all of it passed into the ownership of the Shropshire Union in 1846. Boat people referred to it as the “Welsh Canal” and I have census records for boat people born along it’s route that claim places that are and always have been in England as being Welsh. It seems there may have been some confusion about where the border actually was (it passes under Chirk aqueduct). The Montgomeryshire Canal was the Welsh section of what is now called the Montgomery Canal but none of it is connected to the network at present. JP