Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[Michael Martin]

The version I have heard attributes the saying to English bar-keeping practice
of centuries ago. In this version, Ps and Qs refer to pints and quarts.  Patrons
needed to pay close attention to their tab because the unscrupulous barkeep
might pad it after the patron had a few...

Michael Martin

http://www.panyo.com/steamups

(SF Bay Area Steamup Images and Model Engineering) 

RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Geoff Spenceley]

Dear Arthur and Steve,

With your following comments--well, shouldn't we also scale down the
molecules and atoms--there's a whole new ball game, and it aint cricket!

I'll just accept that BIG kiss from Luz and return it!!

Geoff.   er-  Let me see; X (m squared) + k/X A3 divided by 7*32 X P&Q=
hic! =  That formula proves the Flying Scotsman can answer Arthur's
following question:  "Was there ever a steam locomotive that was supposed
to run 7.5 hours without stopping for some reason or another and the
engineer did not say "filler up"." The most important factor in the
equation being the P and Q!!

Fellows,  I wasn't going to get involved you your scaling discussions as I
don't feel up to your capacities.  But why scale water?  If the scale is
22.5 to 1 and a little locomotive will run 20 minutes on one watering and
fueling, which is 1/3 of and hour, that times 22.5 is 7.5 hours of running
without stopping.  Was there ever a steam locomotive that was supposed to
run 7.5 hours without stopping for some reason or another and the engineer
did not say "filler up"?

Hi Geoff.  Luz sends you a big kiss.


Geoff
>And I seem to remember from model yacht design that the specific gravity,
>density, and surface tension of water don't scale at all, which I am sure
>has implications for our steamers, too.
>
>But I am too muddled after a long day in harness to think about it much. I
>guess I'll head for the barn and pretend to tinker with the latest loco
>project.
>
>Take care.
>
>Steve
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Geoff Spenceley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:26 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
>Subject: RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight
>
>
>Right "Arry and Steve!
>
>It works both ways!  but Steve,  we are only scaling down from the
>prototype, not scaling up from the model.--Ugh--the prototype would sink
>thru the ballast!!  However boiler pressure could  be a couple of thousand
>PSI!
>
>With the model cab sides 004 matl as Harry rightly writes--I wouldn't need
>a wreck--just picking it up would crush the cab!
>
>How did we get into this? Was it me--I forget!
>
>Back to Walt's  and Jim's P and Qs, yes and Gs too--in a Brit pub, of
>course.
>
>Gallon Gulping Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>And from the other direction:  a simple 1/32 boiler made from copper pipe
>>would be 2" thick at full scale. That would be a heavy boiler.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Harry Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:35 PM
>>To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
>>Subject: Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight
>>
>>
>>At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
>>>wrecks would be more prototypical!!
>>
>>Geoff old bean,
>>  I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES
>>were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical.  1/8" cab plate
>>for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of prototypical
>>buckling.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Harry
>>
>
>
>


 

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[Michael Denning]

p's and q's comes from typesetters.
Imagine setting type in mirror image letters and trying to keep your small
p's and q's straight.
Whet yer whistle sounds obvious, can't whistle with dry lips, but I do not
know the origin.

Cheers
Michael the Iron Nut
Florida
USA

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)


> He's at it again:
> Talking at great LENGTH about subjects of immense BREADTH, but with little
> DEPTH. That's not a cube, it's a pancake!
> Does he know the origin of the advisory "Mind yer P's and Q's"? Of course
he
> is capable of "Wetting his whistle", but what does that expression really
> mean?
> Keep your steam up!
> Mr. Lunkenheimer's ASSOCIATE (abbreviate that me bucco!)
 

Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Arthur Cohen]

Fellows,  I wasn't going to get involved you your scaling discussions as I
don't feel up to your capacities.  But why scale water?  If the scale is
22.5 to 1 and a little locomotive will run 20 minutes on one watering and
fueling, which is 1/3 of and hour, that times 22.5 is 7.5 hours of running
without stopping.  Was there ever a steam locomotive that was supposed to
run 7.5 hours without stopping for some reason or another and the engineer
did not say "filler up"?

Hi Geoff.  Luz sends you a big kiss.

Arthur--Mexico
- Original Message -
From: "Shyvers, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of sslivesteam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight


> Geoff,
>
> And I seem to remember from model yacht design that the specific gravity,
> density, and surface tension of water don't scale at all, which I am sure
> has implications for our steamers, too.
>
> But I am too muddled after a long day in harness to think about it much. I
> guess I'll head for the barn and pretend to tinker with the latest loco
> project.
>
> Take care.
>
> Steve
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Spenceley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:26 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
> Subject: RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight
>
>
> Right "Arry and Steve!
>
> It works both ways!  but Steve,  we are only scaling down from the
> prototype, not scaling up from the model.--Ugh--the prototype would sink
> thru the ballast!!  However boiler pressure could  be a couple of thousand
> PSI!
>
> With the model cab sides 004 matl as Harry rightly writes--I wouldn't need
> a wreck--just picking it up would crush the cab!
>
> How did we get into this? Was it me--I forget!
>
> Back to Walt's  and Jim's P and Qs, yes and Gs too--in a Brit pub, of
> course.
>
> Gallon Gulping Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And from the other direction:  a simple 1/32 boiler made from copper pipe
> >would be 2" thick at full scale. That would be a heavy boiler.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Harry Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:35 PM
> >To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
> >Subject: Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight
> >
> >
> >At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
> >>wrecks would be more prototypical!!
> >
> >Geoff old bean,
> >  I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES
> >were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical.  1/8" cab
plate
> >for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of
prototypical
> >buckling.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Harry
> >
>
>
>

 

RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Shyvers, Steve]

Geoff,

And I seem to remember from model yacht design that the specific gravity,
density, and surface tension of water don't scale at all, which I am sure
has implications for our steamers, too. 

But I am too muddled after a long day in harness to think about it much. I
guess I'll head for the barn and pretend to tinker with the latest loco
project.

Take care.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Geoff Spenceley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:26 PM
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
Subject: RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight


Right "Arry and Steve!

It works both ways!  but Steve,  we are only scaling down from the
prototype, not scaling up from the model.--Ugh--the prototype would sink
thru the ballast!!  However boiler pressure could  be a couple of thousand
PSI!

With the model cab sides 004 matl as Harry rightly writes--I wouldn't need
a wreck--just picking it up would crush the cab!

How did we get into this? Was it me--I forget!

Back to Walt's  and Jim's P and Qs, yes and Gs too--in a Brit pub, of
course.

Gallon Gulping Geoff.






And from the other direction:  a simple 1/32 boiler made from copper pipe
>would be 2" thick at full scale. That would be a heavy boiler.
>
>Steve
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Harry Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:35 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
>Subject: Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight
>
>
>At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
>>wrecks would be more prototypical!!
>
>Geoff old bean,
>  I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES
>were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical.  1/8" cab plate
>for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of prototypical
>buckling.
>
>Regards,
>Harry
>


  

RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Geoff Spenceley]

Right "Arry and Steve!

It works both ways!  but Steve,  we are only scaling down from the
prototype, not scaling up from the model.--Ugh--the prototype would sink
thru the ballast!!  However boiler pressure could  be a couple of thousand
PSI!

With the model cab sides 004 matl as Harry rightly writes--I wouldn't need
a wreck--just picking it up would crush the cab!

How did we get into this? Was it me--I forget!

Back to Walt's  and Jim's P and Qs, yes and Gs too--in a Brit pub, of course.

Gallon Gulping Geoff.






And from the other direction:  a simple 1/32 boiler made from copper pipe
>would be 2" thick at full scale. That would be a heavy boiler.
>
>Steve
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Harry Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:35 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
>Subject: Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight
>
>
>At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
>>wrecks would be more prototypical!!
>
>Geoff old bean,
>  I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES
>were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical.  1/8" cab plate
>for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of prototypical
>buckling.
>
>Regards,
>Harry
>


 

RE: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Shyvers, Steve]

And from the other direction:  a simple 1/32 boiler made from copper pipe
would be 2" thick at full scale. That would be a heavy boiler.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Harry Wade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
Subject: Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight


At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
>wrecks would be more prototypical!!

Geoff old bean,
  I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES
were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical.  1/8" cab plate
for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of prototypical
buckling.

Regards,
Harry
  

Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Harry Wade]

At 12:22 PM 9/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>If our model weights were more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
>wrecks would be more prototypical!!

Geoff old bean,
  I would venture to suggest that if our model material THICKNESSES
were to scale then your wrecks might be more prototypical.  1/8" cab plate
for instance would become .004" material, much more capable of prototypical
buckling.

Regards,
Harry
 

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[SALTYCRABB]

In a message dated 09/19/02 2:12:14 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< "Mind yer P's and Q's"? >>
Something about "pints" and "quarts" in an English Bar

Jim Crabb 

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[Geoff Spenceley]

Thanks Walt,

So well said by Mr Lunkenheimer's ASSociate. Whoops, dropped the caps--the
key fell off.  i can't wet my whistle anymore, just my croak.

Keep steaming and cubing.

geoff.



He's at it again:
>Talking at great LENGTH about subjects of immense BREADTH, but with little
>DEPTH. That's not a cube, it's a pancake!
>Does he know the origin of the advisory "Mind yer P's and Q's"? Of course he
>is capable of "Wetting his whistle", but what does that expression really
>mean?
>Keep your steam up!
>Mr. Lunkenheimer's ASSOCIATE (abbreviate that me bucco!)


 

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[WaltSwartz]

He's at it again:
Talking at great LENGTH about subjects of immense BREADTH, but with little 
DEPTH. That's not a cube, it's a pancake!
Does he know the origin of the advisory "Mind yer P's and Q's"? Of course he 
is capable of "Wetting his whistle", but what does that expression really 
mean?
Keep your steam up!
Mr. Lunkenheimer's ASSOCIATE (abbreviate that me bucco!) 

Re: Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Geoff Spenceley]

Hello Steve and Tony,

Thanks for the input, I think Steve, that you are correct in your surmisal,
particularly #2 which is why the model  of the KGV is  actually heavier
that the scaling down  from the prototype would indicate..

Tony, old man,  I wrote KGV!!-  (NOTE! ;-) the approx weight is 78 tons
(with water and coal in the firebox) and comes from a very comprehensive
manual I have on Great Western 4 cyl 4-6-0s; Loco Profile 3.

Now with Tony's info on the prototype Flying Scotsman;  weight of the
engine only: 96 X 2240 plus 5 X112=   215600 hefty pounds. The cube is
6.58lbs  while the The model engine weighs 4.1KG or  9lbs. Much the same
ratio  as the King--actually a little closer to the prototype, I believe
tho I have not weighed the King.

If our model weights were  more to scale and therefore flimsier, my train
wrecks would be more prototypical!! : dented boilers , smashed smoke boxes,
collapsed cabs and a very dented wallet. As it is however, I just pick 'em
up, back on the track and off they steam!

Well???

Geoff.

Geoff,
>
>You are correct as always. The volumes and weights should scale by the cube
>(or cube root).
>
>How heavy is your 1/32 Flying Scotsman?
>
>Possible causes of being heavier:
>
>1. Denser materials in model than in prototype
>2. Proportionately thicker sections in model than in prototype for
>durability and to make fabrication possible
>
>Steve

Tony wrote:  According to my Ian Allan "British Railways Locospotters
Handbook" 1955
Edition.
All the A3s, (Including the Flying Scostman) introduced in 1927, weighed in
at 96 tons 5 cwt for the engine, plus 56 Tons 6 cwt for the tender = 152
Tons 11 cwt. Total, genuine English tons or 341, 712 lbs, as opposed to
lightweight USA Tons.
Where did your 78 tons reference originate from?.
>

>
>Now I am trying to figure scale weights relative to the prototypes--I
>believe we take the cube, in that case my KGV  should weigh  just over 5#,
>but of course it weighs more. The prototype was approx 78 tons--English
>tons--2240# as I recall. Any thoughts, anyone We need a topic! We
>should avoid Einsteins theory of relativity if possible, simple arithmetic
>(my style) is in order. Get out yer calculator, Harry W!
>
>Geoff.



 

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[Anthony Dixon]

Hi Geoff,
According to my Ian Allan "British Railways Locospotters Handbook" 1955 
Edition.
All the A3s, (Including the Flying Scostman) introduced in 1927, weighed in 
at 96 tons 5 cwt for the engine, plus 56 Tons 6 cwt for the tender = 152 
Tons 11 cwt. Total, genuine English tons or 341, 712 lbs, as opposed to 
lightweight USA Tons.
Where did your 78 tons reference originate from?.
Tony D.





At 09:46 AM 9/19/02 -0700, Geoff Spenceley wrote:
>Graham,
>
>Thanks for your kind, generous offer on the swap but my wife says no!!  By
>the bye, 'tis the Flying Scotsman, not the Royal Scott!!
>
>It's running very well indeed, 'tho I did have to do some work on the valve
>settings, especially on the center cylinder as it  was  way off. A  slight
>factory slip, that's all--they did reimburse me for my pains!  No it wasn't
>a  "free"  Ruby! I tried to negotiate for a free Allegheney but I couldn't
>quite spring it!!
>
>Aster service here-- and  in Japan is absolutely excellent.- from before
>Gary White even--and that is really ancient history!
>
>Talking of wrapping, it does come in a box that is the same shape  (and
>weight!!) with the same method of opening as the leather briefcase I used
>for catalogues in my early  days selling air tools.!   Ancient history too,
>as old as Lunkheimer's Asst--whoops, I nearly missed the "t" on that last
>word!
>
>Now I am trying to figure scale weights relative to the prototypes--I
>believe we take the cube, in that case my KGV  should weigh  just over 5#,
>but of course it weighs more. The prototype was approx 78 tons--English
>tons--2240# as I recall. Any thoughts, anyone We need a topic! We
>should avoid Einsteins theory of relativity if possible, simple arithmetic
>(my style) is in order. Get out yer calculator, Harry W!
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>Hi Geoff
> >
> >   See you like Rubies  ;; tell you what I will swop my Ruby for your
> >Royal Scot I would not do thie for everyone.
> > How is your Scot working now ( or is it still in itys
> >wrapping )
> >
> > Graham S
>
>
>
>
 

Flying Scotsman scale weight

[Shyvers, Steve]

Geoff,

You are correct as always. The volumes and weights should scale by the cube
(or cube root).

How heavy is your 1/32 Flying Scotsman?

Possible causes of being heavier:

1. Denser materials in model than in prototype
2. Proportionately thicker sections in model than in prototype for
durability and to make fabrication possible

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Geoff Spenceley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:47 AM
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)


Graham,

Thanks for your kind, generous offer on the swap but my wife says no!!  By
the bye, 'tis the Flying Scotsman, not the Royal Scott!!

It's running very well indeed, 'tho I did have to do some work on the valve
settings, especially on the center cylinder as it  was  way off. A  slight
factory slip, that's all--they did reimburse me for my pains!  No it wasn't
a  "free"  Ruby! I tried to negotiate for a free Allegheney but I couldn't
quite spring it!!

Aster service here-- and  in Japan is absolutely excellent.- from before
Gary White even--and that is really ancient history!

Talking of wrapping, it does come in a box that is the same shape  (and
weight!!) with the same method of opening as the leather briefcase I used
for catalogues in my early  days selling air tools.!   Ancient history too,
as old as Lunkheimer's Asst--whoops, I nearly missed the "t" on that last
word!

Now I am trying to figure scale weights relative to the prototypes--I
believe we take the cube, in that case my KGV  should weigh  just over 5#,
but of course it weighs more. The prototype was approx 78 tons--English
tons--2240# as I recall. Any thoughts, anyone We need a topic! We
should avoid Einsteins theory of relativity if possible, simple arithmetic
(my style) is in order. Get out yer calculator, Harry W!

Geoff.




Hi Geoff
>
>   See you like Rubies  ;; tell you what I will swop my Ruby for your
>Royal Scot I would not do thie for everyone.
> How is your Scot working now ( or is it still in itys
>wrapping )
>
> Graham S



  

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[Geoff Spenceley]

Graham,

Thanks for your kind, generous offer on the swap but my wife says no!!  By
the bye, 'tis the Flying Scotsman, not the Royal Scott!!

It's running very well indeed, 'tho I did have to do some work on the valve
settings, especially on the center cylinder as it  was  way off. A  slight
factory slip, that's all--they did reimburse me for my pains!  No it wasn't
a  "free"  Ruby! I tried to negotiate for a free Allegheney but I couldn't
quite spring it!!

Aster service here-- and  in Japan is absolutely excellent.- from before
Gary White even--and that is really ancient history!

Talking of wrapping, it does come in a box that is the same shape  (and
weight!!) with the same method of opening as the leather briefcase I used
for catalogues in my early  days selling air tools.!   Ancient history too,
as old as Lunkheimer's Asst--whoops, I nearly missed the "t" on that last
word!

Now I am trying to figure scale weights relative to the prototypes--I
believe we take the cube, in that case my KGV  should weigh  just over 5#,
but of course it weighs more. The prototype was approx 78 tons--English
tons--2240# as I recall. Any thoughts, anyone We need a topic! We
should avoid Einsteins theory of relativity if possible, simple arithmetic
(my style) is in order. Get out yer calculator, Harry W!

Geoff.




Hi Geoff
>
>   See you like Rubies  ;; tell you what I will swop my Ruby for your
>Royal Scot I would not do thie for everyone.
> How is your Scot working now ( or is it still in itys
>wrapping )
>
> Graham S



 

Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)

[cgprod]

Hi Geoff

   See you like Rubies  ;; tell you what I will swop my Ruby for your
Royal Scot I would not do thie for everyone.
 How is your Scot working now ( or is it still in itys
wrapping )

 Graham S

- Original Message -
From: Geoff Spenceley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of sslivesteam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Lucinda (was Sammy exhaust tubes)


> Thankyou Tony, Vance and Dave, for your encouragement and  enlightenment.
>
> Now I know who Lucinda is,  a blues guitarist-- I definitely want her. I
> think we should hire her for Diamondhead.
>
> I wonder who bought that  $250 Ruby as advertised on the Sitg message
> board?  I tried!
>
> Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>
> >At 5:04 PM -0700 9/18/02, Geoff Spenceley wrote:
> >>What is all this about Lucinda, or is she famous and I don't know her?
> >
> >lucinda williams is a singer-song writer whose album "car wheels on a
> >gravel road," won a grammy in 1999. some might call her folk; some
> >might say she's rock; she's definitely a blues guitarist.
> >
> >\dmc
> >
> >--
> >^^^
> >Dave Cole
> >Gen'l Sup't:  Grand Teton & Everglades Steam Excursion Co.
> >   Pacifica, Calif. USA 

> >List Mom: sslivesteam, the list of small-scale live steamers
> >   
> >
> >^^^
>
>
>