text:
Talk:Cruise missile

Definition
What is the definition of a cruise missile? All missiles have a guidance system, motor, and payload, so such a definition is too broad. Missiles without a guidance system are typically rockets. What's being described as supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles seem more like regular missiles to me, even if they are air-breathing.

Cruise missiles need to have a high degree of autonomy, so all such missiles should be, by definition, stand-off, over-the-horizon type weapons. This implies a minimum range of some 400km at the least. This eliminates all but a handful of weapons from the list of so-called cruise missiles. Moreover, some of the remaining cruise missiles are rocket powered, so should these still be classified as "cruise" type missiles? Again, how does the ability to fly level distinguish a cruise "rocket" from any other type of guided missile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I was wondering if radio-controlled planes (like the Torpedogleiter) are considered cruise missiles or drones? My impression is that a cruise missile has an auto pilot, not a remote human pilot.  DonPMitchell (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question. Here on the German WP someone asked the same question, but the answer doesn't seem to hold water. Yours seems to be more applicable even now, 8½ years later. ◅ Sebastian 16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Jet??
Do cruise missiles use jets or do they use rockets? You'd be hard pressed to get a functioning jet engine on a cruise missile, much less want to spare the expen se of developing and equipping them with one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.180.87 (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

However, jets are almost always the choice. This is because cruise missiles are fairly big, modern turbojets are very small, and jets give increased range per weight compared to rockets. Rockets are usually reserved for short or very high performance missiles, like SAMs and AAMs, or missiles that exit the atmosphere or fly where there is to little oxygen to support a jet, like an ICBM. --71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DIY
This section is pretty useless. The only way this guy can prove he's credible is by having a flight test, so I say delete this section until then. Wsacul 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CMs vs unmanned aircraft
Good article, but there is an apparent problem with definition:

Cruise missiles are, in essence, unmanned aircraft.

Japanese kamikaze aircraft could be viewed as manned cruise missiles.

Logically, doesn’t this just mean that kamikaze aircraft are manned aircraft? --Smallbone10

 * Heh, good point. I guess the contributor based his/her definition on an implicit assumption of a cruise missile being a targeted airborne explosive device. --Wernher 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I made an edit that I think should help clean this up. Japan, in an effort to gain a tactical advantage against the allied forces resorted to kamikaze aircraft, another early predecessor to the super-accurate cruise missiles of today.  Hope it helps. - Chairboy 22:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there should be additional clairfication. The IJN used many types of aircraft for kamikaze missions that were for other purposes, such as the Zero fighter and various torpedo bombers. However, there was one aircraft that they designed specifically designed for kamikaze attacks, the Ohka, which was a rocket-propelled and, later, jet-propelled manned flying bomb. The tactics used and developed for the Ohka even mirror modern cruise missiles, such as the Betty bomber-carried type and plans for submarine and carrier-based launchers. --YoungFreud 20:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a list of nations that currently possess cruise missile technology. Also it would be historically interesting to know when and how each nation developed the technology. I would think a concise table would serve.

Stealth CMs
Does anyone know anything about the the newer "stealth" cruise missiles? Something about those would be great. --Commking 5 Aug 2005

See AGM 129 for a stealth cruise missile, though most recently developed cruise missiles are stealthy. --71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"CRUSE" an acronym?
I remember that back in the late 60s "cruise" was spelled "cruse" and it was an acronym. Now has my ageing brain fabricated a recollection of something that never was? Or is "cruse" indeed an acronym for something, and if so what? A quick Google on the internet shows that "cruse" is an alternate spelling, but no more. Jm546 02:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The only thing I could find was this: "ALCM - Air Launch Cruse Missile". I found it at Fresheneesz 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Babur
Should not the large part on this page about Pakistan's Babur cruise missile better be moved to Babur missile? - Andre Engels 13:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Done --Deepak|वार्ता 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Babur Missile is the Chinese developed export version of the YJ-62 (C-602) anti-ship cruise missile and is supposed to have a range of 280km to adhere to the MTCR guidelines. http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/yj623.asp

Chanakyathegreat 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Babur missile has nothing to do with Chinese YJ62 as it is exclusively prepared by Pakistani scientist in NESCOM and has a range of 700 Km capable of being armed with nuclear warheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirfaheem22 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Models and specifications
What models of cruise missiles are there? What fuel do they use? What different explosives are usually used? These would be useful things to have on this page. Fresheneesz 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, jeez, there are tons of them. See the link for a list of missiles at the bottom of the page, though it doesn't specify type of missile in that list. That information is really article specific, and you will need to find most of that yourself. Sorry. --71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing much about Soviet Cruise Missile Program??
There is too less info about Soviet Cruise Missiles. I saw a Tomahawk pictures, ok its justified as it is best cruise missile. I think we should add atleast one Point abt Soviet Cruise Missile program. Cruise Missiles should characterized by 1. warheads-Nuclear/Conventional, Already done 2. Targets-Land Attack/Anti-Ship 3. Launch Platforms- Ship, Submarine, Aircraft and Land.

we can also write about Supersonic missiles.

Air-to-air cruise missiles
The paragraph about China's and Taiwan's cruise missiles mentioned air-to-air cruise missiles. I am deleting it unless someone can give an example of an air-to-air cruise missile. Profhobby 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Wouldn't an air to air cruise missile really just be an air to air missile?--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
The Tomahawk and ALCM were the product of a joint USN and USAF acquisition program. The Tomahawk was NOT originally a competing design for the USAF.
 * There was a competition between the Tomahawk air-launched version and the Boeing ALCM, won by Boeing. 84.9.44.47 13:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, but, Tomahawk was originally designed for the U.S. Navy as the BGM-109. Later, a modified version of the Tomahawk, the AGM-109, was competed against the AGM-86 for the USAF contract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oarsman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

POV
The reference to USA "assasination" is clearly not NPOV.

V-1
"However, the V-1 did not have the level of accuracy of a modern tactical cruise missile." - Isn't this a bit stating the obvious?

Not if you are stupid - it could be helpful and informing.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The nickname 'Doodlebug' is used for the V-1; the only nickname I've ever heard is 'Buzz Bomb'.LorenzoB (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That may depend on where you live. In England, which was the main target of the V1, 'Doodlebug' was the usual slang term for the thing.  I don't know how it originated, but the term 'doodlebug' for a type of insect larva seems to be American, so maybe its use for the V1 was coined by American GI's in England at the time. 2A00:23C8:7906:1301:A8FB:46D7:4268:4C70 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating from UAVs
As the UAV project progresses in organizing the scope of articles on UAVs on Wikipedia, the project naturally bumps up against the fuzzy line seperating UAVs from cruise missles. For the purposes of keeping things organized, I've added a differentiating statment in the intro paragraph, and will be adding a similar one at UAV. Akradecki 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cruisers?
I'm inclined to think that the similarity in names between cruise missiles and cruisers is simply a coincidence. Cruise missiles can be fired from land, from submarines, from aircraft, and from many different classes of ship. Cruisers have also been around longer than cruise missiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SHCGRA Max (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Cruisers are ships that are larger than destroyers and smaller than carriers, and cruise missiles are missiles that fly for the duration of their flight at a cruising speed and altitude.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cruisers?
I'm inclined to think that the similarity in names between cruise missiles and cruisers is simply a coincidence. Cruise missiles are fired from land, from submarines, from aircraft, and from many different classes of ship. Cruisers have also been around longer than cruise missiles, and so are hardly speciallised to carry them, beyond the fact that they are among the largest ships currently in service and cruise missiles tend to be quite large. I've removed the offending sentence.--SHCGRA Max 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Babur .....small missile??
Babur is not a small cruise missile, it is roughly of the same size as the tomahawk........and what is the meaning of mentioning babur in large cruise missiles and again mentiong it in small missiles???--Mm11 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there are two version First 500km extended to 700 & the under development extended range missile. There is a missile that is being inducted and developed, reports state its range to be extended as far as 1500km then why not it be placed long range mssile section. while people have only vague ideas as to what sagarika or nirbay looks like, no video or international defence mag coverage, only indian news papers requoted elsewhere if another source. [Dm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danishmmh (talk • contribs) 14:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Brahmos-2 Hypersonic?!
The article states that the Brahmos-2 is hypersonic, but the Brahmos-2 article states that it flys between mach 2.5 and 2.8, while hypersonic is mach 5 or above. I am moving it down to supersonic.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see my mistake. Brahmos-1 is mach 2.5-2.8, but Brahmos-2 directs you to the article for Brahmos-1. However, Brahmos-2 is not currently deployed, and wont be developed fully until 2013. I am changing that.--71.242.29.26 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It makes sense if its in supersonic but why is it moved further down to subsonic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cparthas (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * If Brahmos-2 will be developed after 2013 how can it be here in the hypersonic list. Add it to hypersonic list after 2013. Right now it should not be on the page because it is not developed yet.

SLAM grammar
"SLAM (not to be confused with the SLAM cruise missile)" this is in my opinion truly strange grammar. You wouldn't say the "AK-47" (not to be confused with the "AK-47" assault rifle.) in an article about assault rifles would you? I think this needs to be restructured, and personally, I think since the acronyms are the same, they should be done away with or at least include the full name of the weapon, i.e. "Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (SLAM)" instead of just "SLAM". I changed it slightly to avoid confusion, but I am no English major. 63.197.134.209 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I checked this section while making my edit but the wording as of 01:29, 22 October 2009 was already clear and understandable so it looks like it's already been edited for readability. --Antoin 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoin (talk • contribs)

Cruise for Italy
Even Italy has 200 Storm Shadow cruise missiles and it's very interested in Scalp Naval —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.197.162 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Engine for the Tomahawk from jet pack?
When the cruise missile firest made its appearance, I recall on black and white BBC tv documentary the guy saying that the engine was a turbo fan specicially from a jet pack engined developed for the human jet pack. Any confirmation for this?

Prithvi and Agni are ballistic missiles!
Prithvi and Agni are not cruise missiles so they should be removed out of this page.

The X-51 is not a cruise missile.
It's even stated on it's Wikipage. "The Boeing X-51 is an unmanned scramjet demonstration aircraft for hypersonic flight testing". It's an aircraft, a flight demonstrator too. As far as I know, it's not designed to carry a payload, explosive or not. As of today, I have removed it from the list. Victory in Germany (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shaurya is cruise missile?!!
Every indication shows Shaurya is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile. For it to be qualify to be a cruise missile, it has to have a air-breathing engine (turbojet/ ramjet/ scramjet). From the photo Shaurya, has no opening for an air-intake, therefore it is logical to assume it uses onboard oxidizer from the rocket fuel instead of having an air-breathing engine. Therefore Shaurya should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spunking (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cruise missiles vs. antiship missiles
Antiship missiles are not all cruise missiles, not all cruise missiles are antiship missiles. Where did the fable get started that ships just need to defend themselves against cruise missiles: e.g. the Tomahawk antiship missile (TASM), which is a cruise missile? Ships need to defend themselves against ballistic missiles, or course, even shorter-range ones like the Scud. Also, the Maverick missile can be used as an antiship missile, and it is not a cruise missile. It is a high-speed air-to-surface missile In fact, the P-3 Orion carries Mavericks specifically as antiship missiles, and the F/A-18 Hornet, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, Panavia Tornado, and F-4 Phantom II  can carry Mavericks as antiship missiles. There are Russian, French, Norwegian, and other antiship missiles that are not cruise missiles, and warships need to be able to defend themselves against these, too, with short-range missile (e.g. Sea Sparrow) and rapid-fire cannon (e.g Phalanx) systems. It doesn't always take something like the Standard Missile SM-3. 98.67.108.12 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like War Porn
Why are there no pictures of the destruction these weapons cause? If you are just talking about the technological aspects of a weapon you are not providing the full life cycle of a weapon and it comes off as weapon fetishism. 76.114.18.123 (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A cruise missile is merely a delivery vehicle. The destruction is caused by the warhead carried, which can one of any number of types, and is no different than warheads delivered by other types of delivery vehicles. The destruction also depends very much on the type of target: city, warship, hardened aircraft shelter, etc. Wikkileaker (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

BrahMos is fastest cruise missile in world.
Is this good english? 194.174.73.33 (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cruise missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722191257/http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA162646 to http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA162646

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 1 day
Due to persistent edit warring adding in a missile which Andy has a good argument is not a cruise missile, I have protected the article for 24 hours.

Please DISCUSS here on the talk page before re-adding the information. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cruise missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628163208/http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-experts-commentary/from-the-paris-air-show-enter-perseus/ to http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-experts-commentary/from-the-paris-air-show-enter-perseus/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220061518/http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123299303 to http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123299303

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cruise missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212050609/http://brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=102 to http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=102
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113133922/http://home.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2011/sections/daily/day1/perseus-mbdas-missile-of-.shtml to http://home.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2011/sections/daily/day1/perseus-mbdas-missile-of-.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714202014/http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.112/pub_detail.asp to http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.112/pub_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cruise missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512144417/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/cvs401-perseus-_datasheet-1315926538.pdf to http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/cvs401-perseus-_datasheet-1315926538.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.kirpihaber.com/teknoloji-bilim/yerli-seyir-fuzesi-180-kilometreden-hedefinin-vuracak.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Guided missile
Cruise missile doesn't have to be a guided missile. Not at all. The basic principles of expendable cruise missile are use of aerodynamic force to overcome force of gravity and use of its own engine (any kind) to move on the entire path of flight. Older models of cruise missiles a Kettering Bug (1918) wasn't a guided missile, as well as V-1 flying bomb. Maneuverability and guidance is only a matter of technology development, not a matter of main principles of this kind of munition. Matrek (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was taught that the definition of "cruise missile" is one that is powered constantly throughout its flight, from launch to target impact. In contrast to "ballistic missile", which boosts at launch and then coasts all the way to its target, its trajectory determined only by gravity and aerodynamic forces. It's the fact of being powered constantly that is the defining trait of cruise missiles. This concept is lacking in the opening; I think this should be revised.Wikkileaker (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

China's "hypersonic missile"
The recently tested Chinese weapon was referred to as "hypersonic missile" in the media:
 * Demetri Sevastopulo, Kathrin Hille, "China tests new space capability with hypersonic missile Financial Times, 16 October 2021. Abridged version: "China's leap in hypersonic missile technology shakes US intelligence", Financial Times, 18 October 2021.
 * Demetri Sevastopulo, Chinese hypersonic weapon fired missile over South China Sea, Financial Times, 21 November 2021.

Hypersonic missile curretly redirects here. Is this the right place for this kind of a "glide vehicle"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ranges With No Citations
Many of the listed missiles include range estimates next to them, but hardly any are cited. Even worse, when you click on the links and go to the actual page for the missiles the ranges are vastly different (Usually less than listed). Lastly, many of the missiles have variants which change the corresponding range.

It says this is a smart article but I don't see how that can be with so many missing citations. At the very least this page should have a warning about missing citations until it is fixed. Mjfa (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 * A smart article? Can you clarify? — kashmīrī  TALK  21:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cruise missile


text:
User talk:Smallbone10

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

AB Row
You might not have noticed, but I have significantly expanded AB Row, an article you created. As a result of boosting it up above the 1000 byte mark, I have put it in as a nomination to appear on Did You Know... which appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia. If successful, it should appear there! - Erebus555 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And in a sudden twist, it was deleted, despite being expanded again by another user to a state which complies with WP:N. Ah well, sorry mate. - Erebus555 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Historic Coventry edit-a-thon at Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of GLAM/HAGAM at 20:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of File:Smallbone10-001.jpg

The file File:Smallbone10-001.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Unused, unclear use/purpose"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Smallbone10


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyle Cassidy High School

High school, stub, and orphan. Salasks 17:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 19:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No evidence of notability. delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'll join you in the stocks, then.  If it's not notable, it's not in, and I don't care if it's a high school, kindergarten, or Wikipedia social club. Geogre 01:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Ianb 01:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * keep. There is enough room for this type of information in Wikipedia. Arevich 18:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a real school, with hundreds of students. Web site. How does this hurt Wikipedia? Ex1le 04:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. RickK 04:49, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. JAHS. (BTW, Arevich, servers cost money. Are you ponying up some cash so every highschool in the US can have an article?) Denni ☯ 23:57, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dmn 00:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
1946 Dutch general election

General elections were held in the Netherlands on 17 May 1946, the first after World War II. The Catholic People's Party, a continuation of the pre-war Roman Catholic State Party, remained the largest party in the House of Representatives, winning 32 of the 100 seats.

Following the elections, the Catholic People's Party formed a grand coalition government with the Labour Party.

Results
Indicated changes in seats are compared to the Schermerhorn-Drees cabinet appointed by Queen Wilhelmina after World War II.

title: 1946 Dutch general election


text:
User:Professor~enwiki

I'm a retired Professor of Finance, most recently at Stephen F. Austin State University, previously at the University of North Texas.

title: User:Professor~enwiki


text:
East Midlands Conference Centre

The De Vere East Midlands Conference Centre is a commercially run conference facility on the University Park Campus of the University of Nottingham in England.

title: East Midlands Conference Centre


text: Category:Regions of France

title: Category:Regions of France


text:
Talk:Katharine O'Shea

Untitled
Do you have an authority for this change in the spelling of her name? PatGallacher 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Her name was definitely Katharine O'Shea. She has written a couple of books by that name and uses the spelling Katharine throughout. One of the books is 'Charles Stewart Parnell' published by Cassell in 1914. Callum Peterson

That's quite an important point, I wasn't previously aware that she wrote anything herself (another case of women's voices not being heard?) Although, if she wrote it in 1914, wouldn't she have used her then legal name of Katharine Parnell? PatGallacher 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. However, the book was first published in 2 vols. in 1914 by Cassell and later,in 1921, they published it as a single volume.In both editions the author is rendered as Katharine O'Shea with Mrs Charles Stewart Parnell below in brackets.I don't know when she actually wrote the books. Callum Peterson

I must add that it is amazing how many respected historians spell her name incorrectly. F.S.L. Lyons is the exception.

I assume that she wrote it not long before it was published then. We ought to move this article to "Katharine O'Shea", unless anyone objects soon I will do so. It's interesting to note that this is the name by which she preferred to be known towards the end of her life. PatGallacher 10:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Katharine O'Shea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616104340/http://www.womenofbrighton.co.uk/katieoshea.htm to http://www.womenofbrighton.co.uk/katieoshea.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502024238/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Charles_Stewart_Parnell to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Charles_Stewart_Parnell

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The revelations
Apparently both Katharine and Parnell's bodyguard Captain Henry Harrison MP, wrote books that radically overturned the standard version of the fateful relationship. Could we have some idea of what the revelations were about? Valetude (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Katharine O'Shea


text:
Atmospheric railway

An atmospheric railway uses differential air pressure to provide power for propulsion of a railway vehicle. A static power source can transmit motive power to the vehicle in this way, avoiding the necessity of carrying mobile power generating equipment. The air pressure, or partial vacuum (i.e., negative relative pressure) can be conveyed to the vehicle in a continuous pipe, where the vehicle carries a piston running in the tube. Some form of re-sealable slot is required to enable the piston to be attached to the vehicle. Alternatively the entire vehicle may act as the piston in a large tube or be coupled electromagnetically to the piston.

Several variants of the principle were proposed in the early 19th century, and a number of practical forms were implemented, but all were overcome by unforeseen disadvantages and discontinued within a few years.

A modern proprietary system has been developed and is in use for short-distance applications. Porto Alegre Metro airport connection in Porto Alegre, Brazil, is one of them.

History
In the early days of railways, single vehicles or groups were propelled by men or horses. As mechanical power came to be understood, locomotive engines were developed; the iron horse. These had serious limitations; in particular, being much heavier than the wagons in use, they frequently broke the rails. Also, lack of adhesion (i.e. slip) at the iron-to-iron wheel-rail interface was a limitation, for example in trials on the Kilmarnock and Troon Railway.

Many engineers turned their attention to transmitting power from a static power source, a stationary engine, to a moving train. Such an engine could be more robust and with more available space, potentially more powerful. The solution to transmitting the power, before the days of practical electricity, was the use of either a cable system or air pressure.

Medhurst
In 1799, George Medhurst of London discussed the idea of moving goods pneumatically through cast iron pipes, and in 1812, he proposed blowing passenger carriages through a tunnel.

Medhurst proposed two alternative systems: either the vehicle itself was the piston, or the tube was relatively small with a separate piston. He never patented his ideas and they were not taken further by him.

Vallance
In 1824, a man called Vallance took out a patent and built a short demonstration line; his system consisted of a 6 ft diameter cast iron tube with rails cast in to the lower part; the vehicle was the full size of the tube and bear skin was used to seal the annular space. Braking was accomplished by opening doors at each end of the vehicle. Vallance's system worked, but was not adopted commercially.

Pinkus
In 1835, Henry Pinkus patented a system with a 9 sqft square section tube with a low degree of vacuum, limiting leakage loss. He later changed to a small-bore vacuum tube. He proposed to seal the slot that enabled the piston to connect with the vehicle with a continuous rope; rollers on the vehicle lifted the rope in front of the piston connection and returned it afterwards.

He built a demonstration line alongside the Kensington Canal, and issued a prospectus for his National Pneumatic Railway Association. He was unable to interest investors, and his system failed when the rope stretched. However, his concept, a small bore pipe with a resealable slot was the prototype for many successor systems.

Developing a practical scheme
Jacob and Joseph Samuda were shipbuilders and engineers, and owned the Southwark Ironworks; they were both members of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Samuel Clegg was a gas engineer and they worked in collaboration on their atmospheric system. About 1835, they read Medhurst's writings, and developed a small bore vacuum pipe system. Clegg worked on a longitudinal flap valve, for sealing the slot in the pipe.

In 1838, they took out a patent "for a new improvement in valves" and built a full-scale model at Southwark. In 1840, Jacob Samuda and Clegg leased half a mile of railway line on the West London Railway at Wormholt Scrubs (later renamed Wormwood Scrubs), where the railway had not yet been opened to the public. In that year Clegg left for Portugal, where he was pursuing his career in the gas industry.

Samuda's system involved a continuous (jointed) cast iron pipe laid between the rails of a railway track; the pipe had a slot in the top. The leading vehicle in a train was a piston carriage, which carried a piston inserted in the tube. It was held by a bracket system that passed through the slot, and the actual piston was on a pole ahead of the point at which the bracket left the slot. The slot was sealed from the atmosphere by a continuous leather flap that was opened immediately in advance of the piston bracket and closed again immediately behind it. A pumping station ahead of the train would pump air from the tube, and atmospheric pressure behind the piston would push it forward.

The Wormwood Scrubs demonstration ran for two years. The traction pipe was of 9 inches diameter, and a 16 hp stationary engine was used for power. The gradient on the line was a steady 1 in 115. In his treatise, described below, Samuda implies that the pipe would be used in one direction only, and the fact that only one pumping station was erected suggests that trains were gravitated back to the lower end of the run after the atmospheric ascent, as was later done on the Dalkey line (below). Many of the runs were public. Samuda quotes the loads and degree of vacuum and speed of some of the runs; there seems to be little correlation; for example:

 * 11 June 1840: 11 tons 10 cwt; maximum speed 22.5 mph; 15 inches of vacuum
 * 10 August 1840: 5 tons 0 cwt; maximum speed 30 mph; 20 inches of vacuum.

Competing solutions
There was enormous public interest in the ideas surrounding atmospheric railways, and at the same time as Samuda was developing his scheme, others put other ideas forward.

 * Nickels and Keane propelled trains by pumping air into a continuous canvas tube. The trains had a pair of pinch rollers squeezing the outside of the tube, and the air pressure forced the vehicles forward. The effect was the converse of squeezing a toothpaste tube. They claimed a successful demonstration in a timber yard in Waterloo Road.
 * James Pilbrow proposed a loose piston fitted with a toothed rack. Cog wheels would be turned by it, and they were on spindle passing through glands to the outside of the tube. The leading carriage of the train would have a corresponding rack and be impelled forward by the rotation of the cog wheels. Thus the vehicle would keep pace with the piston exactly, without any direct connection to it.
 * Henry Lacey conceived a wooden tube, made by coopers as a long, continuous barrel with the opening slot and a timber flap retained by an india-rubber hinge.
 * Clarke and Varley proposed sheet iron tubes with a continuous longitudinal slit. If the tubes were made to precision standards, the vacuum would keep the slit closed, but the piston bracket on the train would spring the slit open enough to pass The elasticity of the tube would close it again behind the piston carriage.
 * Joseph Shuttleworth suggested a hydraulic tube where water pressure rather than a partial atmospheric vacuum would propel the train. In mountainous areas where plentiful water was available, a pumping station would be unnecessary: the water would be used directly. Instead of the flap to seal the slot in the tube, a continuous shaped sealing rope, made of cloth impregnated with india-rubber would be within the pipe. Guides on the piston would lift it into position and the water pressure would hold it in place behind the train. Use of a positive pressure enabled a greater pressure differential than a vacuum system. However, the water in the pipe would have to be drained manually by staff along the pipe after every train.

Samuda's treatise

In 1841, Joseph Samuda published A Treatise on the Adaptation of Atmospheric Pressure to the Purposes of Locomotion on Railways.

It ran to 50 pages, and Samuda described his system; first the traction pipe: "The moving power is communicated to the train through a continuous pipe or main, laid between the rails, which is exhausted by air pumps worked by stationary steam engines, fixed on the road side, the distance between them varying from one to three miles, according to the nature and traffic of the road. A piston, which is introduced into this pipe, is attached to the leading carriage in each train, through a lateral opening, and is made to travel forward by means of the exhaustion created in front of it. The continuous pipe is fixed between the rails and bolted to the sleepers which carry them; the inside of the tube is unbored, but lined or coated with tallow 1/10th of an inch thick, to equalize the surface and prevent any unnecessary friction from the passage of the travelling piston through it."

The operation of the closure valve was to be critical: "Along the upper surface of the pipe is a continuous slit or groove about two inches wide. This groove is covered by a valve, extending the whole length of the railway, formed of a strip of leather riveted between iron plates, the top plates being wider than the groove and serving to prevent the external air forcing the leather into the pipe when the vacuum is formed within it; and the lower plates fitting into the groove when the valve is shut, makes up the circle of the pipe, and prevents the air from passing the piston; one edge of this valve is securely held down by iron bars, fastened by screw bolts to a longitudinal rib cast on the pipe, and allows the leather between the plates and the bar to act as a hinge, similar to a common pump valve; the other edge of the valve falls into a groove which contains a composition of beeswax and tallow: this composition is solid at the temperature of the atmosphere, and becomes fluid when heated a few degrees above it. Over this valve is a protecting cover, which serves to preserve it from snow or rain, formed of thin plates of iron about five feet long hinged with leather, and the end of each plate underlaps the next in the direction of the piston's motion, thus ensuring the lifting of each in succession."

The piston carriage would open and then close the valve: "To the underside of the first carriage in each train is attached the piston and its appurtenances; a rod passing horizontally from the piston is attached to a connecting arm, about six feet behind the piston. This connecting arm passes through the continuous groove in the pipe, and being fixed to the carriage, imparts motion to the train as the tube becomes exhausted; to the piston rod are also attached four steel wheels, (two in advance and two behind the connecting arm,) which serve to lift the valve, and form a space for the passage of the connecting arm, and also for the admission of air to the back of the piston; another steel wheel is attached to the carriage, regulated by a spring, which serves to ensure the perfect closing of the valve, by running over the top plates immediately after the arm has passed. A copper tube or heater, about ten feet long, constantly kept hot by a small stove, also fixed to the underside of the carriage, passes over and melts the surface of the composition (which has been broken by lifting the valve,) which upon cooling becomes solid, and hermetically seals the valve. Thus each train in passing leaves the pipe in a fit state to receive the next train."

Entering and leaving the pipe was described: "The continuous pipe is divided into suitable sections (according to the respective distance of the fixed steam engines) by separating valves, which are opened by the train as it goes along: these valves are so constructed that no stoppage or diminution of speed is necessary in passing from one section to another. The exit separating valve, or that at the end of the section nearest to its steam engine, is opened by the compression of air in front of the piston, which necessarily takes place after it has passed the branch which communicates with the air-pump; the entrance separating valve, (that near the commencement of the next section of pipe,) is an equilibrium or balance valve, and opens immediately the piston has entered the pipe. The main pipe is put together with deep socket joints, in each of which an annular space is left about the middle of the packing, and filled with a semi-fluid: thus any possible leakage of air into the pipe is prevented."

At that time railways were developing rapidly, and solutions to the technical limitations of the day were eagerly sought, and not always rationally evaluated. Samuda's treatise put forward the advantages of his system:

 * transmission of power to trains from static (atmospheric) power stations; the static machinery could be more fuel efficient;
 * the train would be relieved of the necessity of carrying the power source, and fuel, with it;
 * power available to the train would be greater so that steeper gradients could be negotiated; in building new lines this would hugely reduce construction costs by enabling reducing earthworks and tunnels;
 * elimination of a heavy locomotive from the train would enable lighter and cheaper track materials to be used;
 * passengers, and lineside residents, would be spared the nuisance of smoke emission from passing trains; this would be especially useful in tunnels;
 * collisions between trains would be impossible, because only one train at a time could be handled on any section between two pumping stations; collisions were at the forefront of the mind of the general public in those days before modern signalling systems, when a train was permitted to follow a preceding train after a defined time interval, with no means of detecting whether that train had stalled somewhere ahead on the line;
 * the piston travelling in the tube would hold the piston carriage down and, Samuda claimed, prevent derailments, enabling curves to be negotiated safely at high speed;
 * persons on the railway would not be subjected to the risk of steam engine boiler explosions (then a very real possibility ).

Samuda also rebutted criticisms of his system that had become widespread:

 * that if a pumping station failed the whole line would be closed because no train could pass that point; Samuda explained that a pipe arrangement would enable the next pumping station ahead to supply that section; if this was at reduced pressure, the train would nonetheless be able to pass, albeit with a small loss of time;
 * that leakage of air at the flap or the pipe joints would critically weaken the vacuum effect; Samuda pointed to experience and test results on his demonstration line, where this was evidently not a problem;
 * the capital cost of the engine houses was a huge burden; Samuda observed that the capital cost of steam locomotives was eliminated, and running costs for fuel and maintenance could be expected to be lower.

A patent
In April 1844, Jacob and Joseph Samuda took out a patent for their system. Soon after this, Joseph Samuda died and it was left to his brother Jacob to continue the work. The patent was in three parts: the first describing the atmospheric pipe and piston system, the second describing how in areas of plentiful water supply, the vacuum might be created by using tanks of water at differing levels; and the third section dealt with level crossings of an atmospheric railway.

Dalkey Atmospheric Railway
The Dublin and Kingstown Railway opened in 1834 connecting the port of Dún Laoghaire (then called Kingstown) to Dublin; it was a standard gauge line. In 1840, it was desired to extend the line to Dalkey, a distance of about two miles. A horse tramway on the route was acquired and converted: it had been used to bring stone from a quarry for the construction of the harbour. It was steeply graded (at 1 in 115 with a 440-yard stretch of 1 in 57) and heavily curved, the sharpest being 570 yards radius. This presented significant difficulties to the locomotives then in use. The treasurer of the company, James Pim, was visiting London and hearing of Samuda's project he viewed it. He considered it to be perfect for the requirements of his company, and after petitioning government for a loan of £26,000, it was agreed to install it on the Dalkey line. Thus became the Dalkey Atmospheric Railway.

A 15-inch traction pipe was used, with a single pumping station at Dalkey, at the upper end of the 2,400-yard run. The engine created 110 ihp and had a flywheel of 36 feet diameter. Five minutes before the scheduled departure of a train from Kingstown, the pumping engine started work, creating a 15-inch vacuum in two minutes. The train was pushed manually to the position where the piston entered the pipe, and the train was held on the brakes until it was ready to start. When that time came, the brakes were released and the train moved off. (The electric telegraph was later installed, obviating reliance on the timetable for engine operation.)

On 17 August 1843, the tube was exhausted for the first time, and the following day a trial run was made. On Saturday 19 August, the line was opened to the public. In service, a typical speed of 30 mph was attained; return to Kingstown was by gravitation down the gradient, and slower. By March 1844, 35 train movements operated daily, and 4,500 passengers a week travelled on the line, mostly simply for the novelty.

It is recorded that a young man called Frank Elrington was on one occasion on the piston carriage, which was not attached to the train. On releasing the brake, the light vehicle shot off at high speed, covering the distance in 75 seconds, averaging 65 mph.

As this was the first commercially operating atmospheric railway, it attracted the attention of many eminent engineers of the day, including Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Robert Stephenson, and Sir William Cubitt.

The line continued to operate successfully for ten years, outliving the atmospheric system on British lines, although the Paris – Saint Germain line continued until 1860.

When the system was abolished in 1855, a 2-2-2 steam locomotive named Princess was employed, incidentally the first steam engine to be manufactured in Ireland. Although a small machine, it successfully worked the steeply graded line for some years.

Paris – Saint Germain
In 1835, the brothers Pereire obtained a concession from the Compagnie du Chemin de fer de Paris à Saint-Germain. They opened their 19 km line in 1837, but only as far as Le Pecq, a river quay on the left bank of the Seine, as a daunting incline would have been necessary to reach Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and locomotives of the day were considered incapable of climbing the necessary gradient, adhesion being considered the limiting factor.

On hearing of the success of the Dalkey railway, the French minister of public works (M. Teste) and under-secretary of state (M. Le Grande) dispatched M. Mallet, inspecteur général honoraire des Ponts et Chaussées, to Dalkey. He wrote an exhaustive technical evaluation of the system installed there, and its potential, which included the results of measurements made with Joseph Samuda.

It was through his interest that the Pereire brothers to adopt the system for an extension to Saint Germain itself, and construction started in 1845, with a wooden bridge crossing the Seine followed by a twenty-arch masonry viaduct and two tunnels under the castle. The extension was opened on 15 April 1847; it was 1.5 km in length on a gradient of 1 in 28 (35 mm/m).

The traction pipe was laid between the rails; it had a diameter of 63 cm with a slot at the top. The slot was closed by two leather flaps. The pumps were powered by two steam engines with a capacity of 200 hp, located between the two tunnels at Saint-Germain. Train speed on the ascent was 35 km/h. On the descent the train ran by gravity as far as Pecq, where the steam locomotive took over for the run to Paris.

The system was technically successful, but the development of more powerful steam locomotives led to its abandonment from 3 July 1860, when steam locomotive ran throughout from Paris to Saint Germain, being assisted by a pusher locomotive up the gradient. This arrangement continued for more than sixty years until the electrification of the line.

A correspondent of the Ohio State Journal described some details; there seem to have been two tube sections:

"An iron tube is laid down in the centre of the track, which is sunk about one-third of its diameter in the bed of the road. For a distance of 5,500 yards the tube has a diameter of only 1¾ feet [i.e. 21 inches], the ascent here being so slight as not to require the same amount of force as is required on the steep grade to Saint Germain, where the pipe, for a distance of 3,800 yards, is 2 feet 1 inch [i.e. 25 inches] in diameter."

The steam engines had accumulators:

"To each engine is adapted two large cylinders, which exhaust fourteen cubic feet of air per second. The pressure in the air cauldron (claudieres) attached to the exhausting machines is equal to six absolute atmospheres."

He described the valve:

"Throughout the entire length of the tube, a section is made in the top, leaving an open space of about five inches. In each cut edge of the section there is an offset, to catch the edges of a valve which fits down upon it. The valve is made of a piece of sole leather half an inch thick, having plates of iron attached to it on both the upper and corresponding under side to give it strength ... which are perhaps one-fourth of an inch in thickness ... The plates are about nine inches long, and their ends, above and below, are placed three quarters of an inch apart, forming joints, so as to give the leather valve pliability, and at the same time firmness."

Clayton records the name of the engineer, Mallet, who had been Inspector general of Public Works, and gives a slightly different account: Clayton says that Mallet used a plaited rope to seal the slot. He also says that vacuum was created by condensing steam in a vacuum chamber between runs, but that may have been a misunderstanding of the pressure accumulators.

A steam railway at first
The London and Croydon Railway (L&CR) obtained its authorising Act of Parliament in 1835, to build its line from a junction with the London and Greenwich Railway (L&GR) to Croydon. At that time the L&GR line was under construction, and Parliament resisted the building of two railway termini in the same quarter of London, so that the L&CR would have to share the L&GR's London Bridge station. The line was built for ordinary locomotive operation. A third company, the London and Brighton Railway (L&BR) was promoted and it too had to share the route into London by running over the L&CR.

When the lines opened in 1839, it was found that congestion arose due to the frequent stopping services on the local Croydon line; this was particularly a problem on the 1 in 100 ascent from New Cross to Dartmouth Arms. The L&CR engineer, William Cubitt proposed a solution to the problem: a third track would be laid on the east side of the existing double track main line, and all the local trains in both directions would use it. The faster Brighton trains would be freed of the delay following a stopping train. Cubitt had been impressed during his visit to the Dalkey line, and the new L&CR third track would use atmospheric power. The local line would also be extended to Epsom, also as a single track atmospheric line. These arrangements were adopted and Parliamentary powers obtained on 4 July 1843, also authorising a line to a terminal at Bricklayers Arms. Arrangements were also made with the L&GR for them to add an extra track on the common section of their route. On 1 May 1844, the Bricklayers Arms terminus opened, and a frequent service was run from it, additional to the London Bridge trains.

Now atmospheric as well
The L&CR line diverged to the south-west at Norwood Junction (then called Jolly Sailor, after an inn), and needed to cross the L&BR line. The atmospheric pipe made this impossible on the flat, and a flyover was constructed to enable the crossing: this was the first example in the railway world. This was in the form of a wooden viaduct with approach gradients of 1 in 50. A similar flyover was to be built at Corbetts Lane Junction, where the L&CR additional line was to be on the north-east side of the existing line, but this was never made.

A 15-inch diameter traction pipe was installed between Forest Hill (then called Dartmouth Arms, also after a local inn) and West Croydon. Although Samuda supervised the installation of the atmospheric apparatus, a weather flap, a hinged iron plate that covered the leather slot valve in the Dalkey installation, was omitted. The L&CR had an Atmospheric Engineer, James Pearson. Maudslay, Son and Field supplied the three 100 hp steam engines and pumps at Dartmouth Arms, Jolly Sailor and Croydon (later West Croydon), and elaborate engine houses had been erected for them. They were designed in a gothic style by W H Brakespear, and had tall chimneys which also exhausted the evacuated air at high level.

A two-needle electric telegraph system was installed on the line, enabling station staff to indicate to the remote engine house that a train was ready to start.

This section, from Dartmouth Arms to Croydon started operation on the atmospheric system in January 1846.

The traction pipe slot and the piston bracket were handed; that is the slot closure flap was continuously hinged on one side, and the piston support bracket was cranked to minimise the necessary opening of the flap. This meant that the piston carriage could not simply be turned on a turntable at the end of a trip. Instead it was double ended, but the piston was manually transferred to the new leading end. The piston carriage itself had to be moved manually (or by horse power) to the leading end of the train. At Dartmouth Arms the station platform was an island between the two steam operated lines. Cubitt designed a special system of pointwork that enabled the atmospheric piston carriage to enter the ordinary track.

The Board of Trade inspector, General Pasley, visited the line on 1 November 1845 to approve it for opening of the whole line. The Times newspaper reported the event; a special train left London Bridge hauled by a steam locomotive; at Forest Hill the locomotive was detached and:

"the piston carriage substituted and the train thence became actuated by atmospheric pressure. The train consisted of ten carriages (including that to which the piston is attached) and its weight was upward of fifty tons. At seven and a half minutes past two the train left the point of rest at the Dartmouth Arms, and at eight and three-quarter minutes past, the piston entered the valve, when it immediately occurred to us that one striking advantage of the system was the gentle, the almost imperceptible, motion on starting. On quitting the station on locomotive lines we have frequently experienced a 'jerk' amounting at times to an absolute 'shock' and sufficient to alarm the nervous and timid passenger. Nothing of the sort, however, was experienced here. Within a minute and a quarter of the piston entering the pipe, the speed attained against a strong headwind was at the rate of twelve miles an hour; in the next minute, viz. at eleven minutes past two, twenty-five miles an hour; at thirteen minutes past two, thirty-four miles an hour; fourteen minutes past two, forty miles an hour; and fifteen minutes past two, fifty-two miles an hour, which was maintained until sixteen minutes past two, when the speed began to diminish, and at seventeen and a half minutes past two, the train reached the Croydon terminus, thus performing the journey from Dartmouth Arms, five miles, in eight minutes and three-quarters. The barometer in the piston carriage indicated a vacuum of 25 inches and that in the engine house a vacuum of 28 inches."

The successful official public run was widely reported and immediately new schemes for long-distance railways on the atmospheric system were being promoted; the South Devon Railway's shares appreciated overnight.

Opening
Pasley's report of 8 November was favourable, and the line was clear to open. The directors hesitated, desiring to gain a little more experience beforehand. On 19 December 1845 the crankshaft of the Forest Hill stationary engine fractured, and the engine was unusable. However, the part was quickly replaced and on 16 January 1846, the line opened.

At 11:00 that morning the crankshaft of one of the Croydon engines broke. Two engines had been provided, so traffic was able to continue using the other, until at 7:20 p.m. that engine suffered the same fate. Again repairs were made until 10 February 1846, when both of the Croydon engines failed.

This was a bitter blow for the adherents of the atmospheric system; shortcomings in the manufacture of the stationary engines procured from a reputable engine-maker said nothing about the practicality of the atmospheric system itself, but as Samuda said to the Board:

"The public cannot discriminate (because it cannot know) the cause of the interruptions, and every irregularity is attributed to the atmospheric system."

Two months later, the beam of one of the Forest Hill engines fractured. At this time the directors were making plans for the Epsom extension; they quickly revised their intended purchase of engines from Maudslay, and invited tenders; Boulton and Watt of Birmingham were awarded the contract, their price having been considerably less than their competitors'.

Amalgamation
The London and Brighton Railway amalgamated with the L&CR on 6 July 1846, forming the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR). For the time being the directors of the larger company continued with the L&CR's intentions to use the atmospheric system.

Technical difficulties
The summer of 1846 was exceptionally hot and dry, and serious difficulties with the traction pipe flap valve started to show themselves. It was essential to make a good seal when the leather flap was closed, and the weather conditions made the leather stiff. As for the tallow and beeswax compound that was supposed to seal the joint after every train, Samuda had originally said "this composition is solid at the temperature of the atmosphere, and becomes fluid when heated a few degrees above it" and the hot weather had that effect. Samuda's original description of his system had included a metal weather valve that closed over the flap, but this had been omitted on the L&CR, exposing the valve to the weather, and also encouraging the ingestion of debris, including, an observer reported, a handkerchief dropped by a lady on to the track. Any debris lodging in the seating of the flap could only have reduced its effectiveness.

Moreover the tallow – that is, rendered animal fat – was attractive to the rat population. An 1859 source reports rats entering the iron tube overnight to eat the tallow, and "hundreds" being killed each morning when the pump was activated for the first train. Delays became frequent, due to inability to create enough vacuum to move the trains, and stoppages on the steep approach inclines at the flyover were commonplace, and widely reported in the press.

The Directors now began to feel uneasy about the atmospheric system, and in particular the Epsom extension, which was to have three engines. In December 1846, they asked Boulton and Watt about cancelling the project, and were told that suspending the supply contract for a year would cost £2,300. The Directors agreed to this.

The winter of 1846/7 brought new meteorological difficulties: unusually cold weather made the leather flap stiff, and snow got into the tube resulting in more cancellations of the atmospheric service. A track worker was killed in February 1847 while steam substitution was in operation. This was tragically unfortunate, but it had the effect of widespread reporting that the atmospheric was, yet again, non-operational.

Sudden end
Through this long period, the Directors must have become less and less committed to pressing on with the atmospheric system, even as money was being spent on extending it towards London Bridge. (It opened from Dartmouth Arms to New Cross in January 1847, using gravitation northbound and the Dartmouth Arms pumping station southbound.) In a situation in which public confidence was important, the Directors could not express their doubts publicly, at least until a final decision had been taken. On 4 May 1847, the directors announced "that the Croydon Atmospheric pipes were pulled up and the plan abandoned".

The reason seems not to have been made public at once, but the trigger seems to have been the insistence of the Board of trade inspector on a second junction at the divergence of the Brighton and Epsom lines. It is not clear what this refers to, and may simply have been a rationalisation of the timing of a painful decision. Whatever the reason, there was to be no more atmospheric work on the LB&SCR.

Getting authorisation
The Great Western Railway (GWR) and the Bristol and Exeter Railway working collaboratively had reached Exeter on 1 May 1844, with a broad gauge railway connecting the city to London. Interested parties in Devonshire considered it important to extend the connection to Plymouth, but the terrain posed considerable difficulties: there was high ground with no easy route through.

After considerable controversy, the South Devon Railway Company (SDR) obtained its Act of Parliament authorising a line, on 4 July 1844.

Determining the route
The Company's engineer was the innovative engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel. He had visited the Dalkey line and he had been impressed with the capabilities of the atmospheric system on that line. Samuda had always put forward the advantages of his system, which (he claimed) included much better hill climbing abilities and lighter weight on the track. This would enable a line in hilly terrain to be planned with steeper than usual gradients, saving substantial cost of construction.

If Brunel had decided definitely to use the atmospheric system at the planning stage, it would have allowed him to strike a route that would have been impossible with the locomotive technology of the day. The route of the South Devon Railway, still in use today, has steep gradients and is generally considered "difficult". Commentators often blame this on it being designed for atmospheric traction; for example:

Sekon, describing the topography of the line, says that beyond Newton Abbot,

"the conformation of the country is very unsuitable for the purpose of constructing a railway with good gradients. This drawback did not at the time trouble Mr. Brunel, the engineer to the South Devon Railway Company, since he proposed to work the line on the atmospheric principle, and one of the advantages claimed for the system being that steep banks were as easy to work as a level."

 * The line "was left with a legacy of a line built for atmospheric working with the consequent heavy gradients and sharp curves".
 * Brunel "seriously doubted the ability of any engine to tackle the kind of gradients which would be necessary on the South Devon".

In fact the decision to consider the adoption of the atmospheric system came after Parliamentary authorisation, and the route must have been finalised before submission to Parliament.

Eight weeks after passage of the Act, the shareholders heard that "Since the passing of the Act, a proposal has been received ... from Messrs. Samuda Brothers ... to apply their system of traction to the South Devon Line." Brunel and a deputation of the directors had been asked to visit the Dalkey line. The report went on that as a result,

"In view of the fact that at many points of the line both the gradients and curves will render the application of this principle particularly advantageous, your directors have resolved that the atmospheric system, including an electric telegraph, should be adopted on the whole line of the South Devon Railway."

Construction and opening

Construction started at once on the section from Exeter to Newton Abbot (at first called Newton); this first part is broadly level: it was the section onwards from Newton that was hilly. Contracts for the supply of the 45 hp pumping engines and machinery were concluded on 18 January 1845, to be delivered by 1 July in the same year. Manufacture of the traction pipes ran into difficulties: they were to be cast with the slot formed, and distortion was a serious problem at first.

Delivery of the machinery and laying of the pipes was much delayed, but on 11 August 1846, with that work still in progress, a contract was let for the engines required over the hilly section beyond Newton. These were to be more powerful, at 64 hp, and 82 hp in one case, and the traction pipe was to be of a larger diameter.

The train service started between Exeter and Teignmouth on 30 May 1846, but this was operated by steam engines, hired in from the GWR. At length, on 13 September 1847 the first passenger trains started operating on the atmospheric system. Atmospheric goods trains may have operated a few days previously.

Four atmospheric trains ran daily in addition to the advertised steam service, but after a time they replaced the steam trains. At first the atmospheric system was used as far as Teignmouth only, from where a steam engine hauled the train including the piston carriage to Newton, where the piston carriage was removed, and the train continued on its journey. From 9 November some atmospheric working to Newton took place, and from 2 March 1848, all trains on the section were atmospheric.

Through that winter of 1847-8 a regular service was maintained to Teignmouth. The highest speed recorded was an average of 64 mph over 4 miles hauling 28 long ton, and 35 mph when hauling 100 long ton.

Two significant limitations of the atmospheric system were overcome at this period. The first was an auxiliary traction pipe was provided at stations; it was laid outside the track, therefore not obstructing pointwork. The piston carriage connected to it by a rope—the pipe must have had its own piston—and the train could be hauled into a station and on to the start of the onward main pipe. The second development was a level crossing arrangement for the pipe: a hinged cover plate lay across the pipe for road usage, but when the traction pipe was exhausted, a branch pipe actuated a small piston which raised the cover, enabling the piston carriage to pass safely, and acting as a warning to road users. Contemporary technical drawings show the traction pipe considerably lower than normal, with its top about level with the rail heads, and with its centre at the level of the centre of the transoms. No indication is shown as to how track gauge was maintained.

Underpowered traction system
Although the trains were running ostensibly satisfactorily, there had been technical miscalculations. It seems that Brunel originally specified 12 in for the level section to Newton and 15 in pipes for the hilly part of the route, and in specifying the stationary engine power and vacuum pumps, he considerably underpowered them. The 12 in pipes seem to have been scrapped, and 15 in pipes installed in their place, and 22 in pipes started to be installed on the hilly sections. Changes to the engine control governors were made to uprate them to run 50% faster than designed. It was reported that coal consumption was much heavier than forecast, at 3s 1½d per train mile instead of 1s 0d (and instead of 2s 6d which was the hire charge for the leased GWR steam locomotives). This may have been partly due to the electric telegraph not yet having been installed, necessitating pumping according to the timetable, even though a train might be running late. When the telegraph was ready, on 2 August, coal consumption in the following weeks fell by 25%.

Problems with the slot closure
During the winter of 1847–1848, the leather flap valve that sealed the traction pipe slot began to give trouble. During the cold days of winter, the leather froze hard in frost after saturation in rain. This resulted in its failing to seat properly after the passage of a train, allowing air into the pipe and reducing the effectiveness of pumping. In the following spring and summer, there was hot and dry weather and the leather valve dried out, with pretty much the same outcome. Brunel had the leather treated with whale oil in an attempt to maintain flexibility. There was said to be a chemical reaction between the tannin in the leather and iron oxide on the pipe. There were also difficulties with the leather cup seal on the pistons.

Commentators observe that the South Devon system omitted the iron weather flap that was used on the Dalkey line to cover the flap valve. On that line iron plates were turned away immediately ahead of the piston bracket. It is not recorded why this was omitted in South Devon, but at speed that arrangement must have involved considerable mechanical force, and generated environmental noise.

In May and June, even more serious trouble was experienced when sections of the flap tore away from its fixing, and sections had to be quickly replaced. Samuda had a contract with the company to maintain the system, and he advised installation of a weather cover, but this was not adopted. This would not have rectified the immediate problem, and complete replacement of the leather flap was required; this was estimated to cost £32,000—a very large sum of money then—and Samuda declined to act.

Abandonment
With a contractual impasse during struggles to keep a flawed system in operation, it was inevitable that the end was near. At a shareholders' meeting on 29 August 1848, the directors were obliged to report all the difficulties, and that Brunel had advised abandonment of the atmospheric system; arrangements were being made with the Great Western Railway to provide steam locomotives, and the atmospheric system would be abandoned from 9 September 1848.

Brunel's report to the Directors, now shown the meeting, was comprehensive, and he was also mindful of his own delicate position, and of the contractual obligations of Samuda. He described the stationary engines, obtained from three suppliers: "These engines have not, on the whole, proved successful; none of them have as yet worked very economically, and some are very extravagant in the use of fuel." As to the difficulties with the leather valve in extremes of weather, heat, frost and heavy rain,

"The same remedies apply to all three, keeping the leather of the valve oiled and varnished, and rendering it impervious to the water, which otherwise soaks through it in wet weather, or which freezes it in cold, rendering it too stiff to shut down; and the same precaution prevents the leather being dried up and shrivelled by the heat; for this, and not the melting of the composition, is the principal inconvenience resulting from heat. A little water spread on the valve from a tank in the piston carriage has also been found to be useful in very dry weather, showing that the dryness, and not the heat, was the cause of the leakage."

But there was a much more serious problem: "A considerable extent of longitudinal valve failed by the tearing of the leather at the joints between the plates. The leather first partially cracked at these points, which caused a considerable leakage, particularly in dry weather. After a time it tears completely through."

Maintenance of the traction pipe and the valve was Samuda's contractual responsibility, but Brunel indicated that he was blaming the company for careless storage, and for the fact that the valve had been installed for some time before being used by trains; Brunel declined to go into the liability question, alluding to possible palliative measures, but concluded:

"The cost of construction has far exceeded our expectations, and the difficulty of working a system so totally different from that to which everybody—traveller as well as workmen—is accustomed, have (sic) proved too great; and therefore, although, no doubt, after some further trial, great reductions may be made in the cost of working the portion now laid, I cannot anticipate the possibility of any inducement to continue the system beyond Newton."

Huge hostility was generated among some shareholders, and Samuda, and Brunel in particular were heavily criticised, but the atmospheric system on the line was finished.

Retention recommended
Thomas Gill had been Chairman of the South Devon board and wished to continue with the atmospheric system. In order to press for this he resigned his position, and in November 1848, he published a pamphlet urging retention of the system. He created enough support for this that an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company was held on 6 January 1849. Lengthy technical discussion took place, in which Gill stated that Clark and Varley were prepared to contract to complete the atmospheric system and maintain it over a section of the line. There were, Gill said, twenty-five other inventors anxious to have their creations tried out on the line. The meeting lasted for eight hours, but finally a vote was taken: a majority of shareholders present were in favour of continuing with the system, 645 to 567 shares. However, a large block of proxies were held by shareholders who did not wish to attend the meeting, and with their votes abandonment was confirmed by 5,324 to 1,230.

That was the end of the atmospheric system on the South Devon Railway.

Rats
It is often asserted among enthusiasts' groups that one factor in the failure of the leather flap was rats, attracted to the tallow, gnawing at it. Although rats are said to have been drawn into the traction pipe in the early days, there was no reference to this at the crisis meeting described above. Historian Colin Divall believes there to be "no documentary evidence whatsoever" for rats causing such problems on the railway.

Wormwood Scrubs demonstration line
The piston carriage on the demonstration line was an open four-wheeled track. No controls of any kind are shown on a drawing. The beam that carried the piston was called the "perch", and it was attached directly to the axles, and pivoted at its centre point; it had a counterweight to the rear of the attachment bracket (called a "coulter").

Dalkey line
The customary train consist was two coaches, the piston carriage, which included a guard's compartment and third class accommodation, and a second class carriage, with end observation windows at the rear. There was no first class carriage. The guard had a screw brake, but no other control. Returning (descending) was done under gravity, and the guard had a lever which enabled him to swing the piston assembly to one side, so that the descent was made with the piston outside the tube.

Saint Germain line
The section put into service, Le Pecq to Saint Germain, was almost exactly the same length as the Dalkey line, and was operated in a similar way except that the descent by gravity was made with the piston in the tube so that air pressure helped retard speed. The upper terminal had sidings, with switching managed by ropes.

London and Croydon
The piston carriages were six-wheeled vans, with a driver's platform at each end, as they were double ended. The driver's position was within the carriage, not in the open. The centre axle was unsprung, and the piston assembly was directly connected to it. The driver had a vacuum gauge (a mercury manometer, connected by a metal tube to the head of the piston. Some vehicles were fitted with speedometers, an invention of Moses Ricardo. As well as a brake, the driver had a by-pass valve which admitted air to the partially exhausted traction tube ahead of the piston, reducing the tractive force exerted. This seems to have been used on the 1 in 50 descent from the flyover. The lever and valve arrangement are shown in a diagram in Samuda's Treatise.

Variable size piston
Part of Samuda's patent included the variable diameter piston, enabling the same piston carriage to negotiate route sections with different traction tube sizes. Clayton describes it: the change could be controlled by the driver while in motion; a lever operated a device rather like an umbrella at the rear of the piston head; it had hinged steel ribs. To accommodate the bracket for the piston, the traction tube slot, and therefore the top of the tube, had to be at the same level whatever the diameter of the tube, so that all of the additional space to be sealed was downwards and sideways; the "umbrella" arrangement was asymmetrical. In fact this was never used on the South Devon Railway as the 22 inch tubes there were never opened; and the change at Forest Hill only lasted four months before the end of the atmospheric system there. A variable diameter piston was also intended to be used on the Saint-Germain railway, where a 15 inch pipe was to be used from Nanterre to Le Pecq, and then a 25 inch pipe on the three and half per cent grade up to Saint-Germain. Only the 25 inch section was completed, so a simple piston was used.

Engine house locations, South Devon Railway

 * Exeter; south end of St Davids station, up side of the line
 * Countess Wear; south of Turnpike bridge, at 197m 22c, down side
 * Turf; south of Turf level crossing, down side
 * Starcross; south of station, up side
 * Dawlish; east of station, up side
 * Teignmouth; adjacent to station, up side
 * Summer House; at 212m 38c, down side
 * Newton; east of station, down side
 * Dainton; west of tunnel, down side
 * Totnes; adjacent to station, up side
 * Rattery; 50.43156,-3.78313; building never completed
 * Torquay; 1 mile north of Torre station (the original terminal, called Torquay), up side

In the Dainton engine house, a vacuum receiver was to be installed in the inlet pipe to the pumps. This was apparently an interceptor for debris that might be ingested into the traction pipe; it had an openable door for staff to clear the debris from time to time.

Displays of atmospheric railway tube

 * Didcot Railway Centre, Didcot, Oxfordshire: three full lengths of unused South Devon 22 inch pipe, found under the sand in 1993 at Goodrington Sands, near Paignton, displayed since 2000 with GWR rails recovered from another source.
 * "Being Brunel" exhibit, opened in 2018 at Brunel's SS Great Britain, Bristol: one full length of unused South Devon 22 inch pipe.
 * STEAM – Museum of the Great Western Railway, Swindon: a very short portion of unused South Devon 22 inch pipe, probably the portion described in 1912 as on view at a Great Western Railway company museum at Paddington.
 * Newton Abbot Town and GWR Museum, Newton Abbot, Devon: another very short portion of unused South Devon 22 inch pipe.
 * Museum of Croydon, Croydon: one full length of London and Croydon 15 inch pipe, found in the ground in 1933 at West Croydon station.

Other early applications
Two demonstration railways were built with the entire car inside the tube rather than only a piston. In both cases the cars were pushed by atmospheric pressure in one direction and increased pressure in the other, and in both cases the object was to run cars underground without the smoke and gas of steam locomotives.

 * Rammell's Crystal Palace atmospheric railway of 1864 was intended to raise interest in his proposed Waterloo and Whitehall Railway which would have run under the Thames from Waterloo Station to Great Scotland Yard. Construction on the latter started in 1865 and 1866 but did not continue.
 * Alfred E. Beach's Beach Pneumatic Transit, running for one block under Broadway in New York City from 1870 to 1873, demonstrated both pneumatic operation and also a method of tunnelling that would not disturb the street surface. Air pressure was controlled by a large impeller, the Roots blower, rather than the disk fans used in all previous installations. Nothing further was ever constructed.

Aeromovel

The nineteenth century attempts to make a practical atmospheric system (described above) were defeated by technological shortcomings. In the present day, modern materials have enabled a practical system to be implemented.

Towards the end of the twentieth century the Aeromovel Corporation of Brazil developed an automated people mover that is atmospherically powered. Lightweight trains ride on rails mounted on an elevated hollow concrete box girder that forms the air duct. Each car is attached to a square plate—the piston—within the duct, connected by a mast running through a longitudinal slot that is sealed with rubber flaps. Stationary electric air pumps are located along the line to either blow air into the duct to create positive pressure or to exhaust air from the duct to create a partial vacuum. The pressure differential acting on the piston plate causes the vehicle to move.

Electric power for lighting and braking is supplied to the train by a low voltage (50 V) current through the track the vehicles run on; this is used to charge onboard batteries. The trains have conventional brakes for accurate stopping at stations; these brakes are automatically applied if there is no pressure differential acting on the plate. Fully loaded vehicles have a ratio of payload to dead-weight of about 1:1, which is up to three times better than conventional alternatives. The vehicles are driverless with motion determined by lineside controls. Aeromovel was designed in the late 1970s by Brazilian.

The system was first implemented in 1989 at Taman Mini Indonesia Indah, Jakarta, Indonesia. It was constructed to serve a theme park; it is a 2 mi loop with six stations and three trains. In the late 2010s the system was closed. It was subsequently converted to diesel operation with a single train, and re-opened in 2019.

A second installation, the Metro-Airport Connection opened in August 2013. The line connects the Estação Aeroporto (Airport Station) on the Porto Alegre Metro and Terminal 1 of Salgado Filho International Airport. The single line is 0.6 mi long with a travel time of 90 seconds. The first 150-passenger vehicle was delivered in April 2013 with a 300-passenger second vehicle delivered later.

In December 2018 a pneumatic railway research and development centre was unveiled in China, developed by collaboration between Aeromovel and the China Railway Engineering Group (CREG). The firms had been working together on projects since the start of 2017, including a started but stalled system proposed for Canoas.

The proposed Accra Skytrain, a five line, 194 km elevated light rail network in the capital of Ghana will also use the technology. In 2019 the government of Ghana signed a build–operate–transfer concession agreement with a South African consortium to develop the project, at an estimated cost of $2.6 billion dollars. the project has not progressed passed the feasibility study stage.

In December 2020 it was announced that Aerom, which owns the Aeromovel technology, had been selected to install the GRU Airport People Mover at São Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport. The line will be 2.6 km long and have 4 stations.

High speed concept
Flight Rail Corporation. in the United States has developed the concept of a high-speed atmospheric train that uses vacuum and air pressure to move passenger modules along an elevated guideway. Stationary power systems create vacuum (ahead of the piston) and pressure (behind the piston) inside a continuous pneumatic tube located centrally below rails within a truss assembly. The free piston is magnetically coupled to the passenger modules above; this arrangement allows the power tube to be closed, avoiding leakage. The transportation unit operates above the power tube on a pair of parallel steel rails.

The company currently has a 1/6 scale pilot model operating on an outdoor test guideway. The guideway is 2095 ft long and incorporates 2%, 6% and 10% grades. The pilot model operates at speeds up to 25 mph. The corporation says a full-scale implementation would be capable of speeds in excess of 200 mph.

title: Atmospheric railway


text:
User talk:Number 0

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 18:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Olivia Olson
Thanks for fixing my grammer mistakes :) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:01, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll
Hi there. I'm not sure why you added to Lewis Carroll. If you want to add Neil Gaiman to that category, add that to the Neil Gaiman article. —MikeX (talk) 13:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry - was trying to add everyone from the English Fantasy writers to the British fantasy writers also, by copying and pasting that and changing the name to the appropriate author. Number 0 14:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it all makes sense now ;-). Thanks for your cataloguing work! —MikeX (talk) 12:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * What I don't understand is why you felt the need to add everyone from Category:English fantasy writers to Category:British fantasy writers in the first place. --Paul A 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Last time I checked being English makes someone British (whichever definition of British you use), and also something in a subcategory belongs to the parent category. Also if someone wants a list of British fantasy authors a good way to do that is to use the category page, so if you don't include the English authors on that it's incomplete.  Number 0 12:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me put it to you this way: All English fantasy writers are people; should we therefore explicitly declare all the English-fantasy-writer articles to be members of Category:People? --Paul A 03:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, apologies if what I did was wrong. However if I did want a full list of British Fantasy authors how would I get it? Number 0 14:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want a list of British Fantasy authors on a single page, you're probably not going to get it; but you can compile one by looking at the Category:British fantasy writers and then at each of the subcategory pages. It's worth noting, by the way, that if it's important that the list be complete, there are probably better places to look than anywhere on Wikipedia. --Paul A 03:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nabokov's Congeries
Hmmm...I think I got it from here:, so since that seems to have the error in it too, I'd recommend either going with your judgement, or just deleting the reference to the stanazas. --Arcadian 13:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TYPE ZeR0
Hello! Non-notability isn't a ground for speedy delete. if you want to, you can file a VfD. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Number 0! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Walter W. Arndt -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Number 0


text:
User talk:Deák

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 18:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome, Deak! I suggest you talk to Muriel Gottrop, a longtime writer here (and a very good one) who is focusing mostly on the Portuguese edition currently. I think she may be able to help with some of your questions, and almost certainly is fluent in Portuguese, if that is of any help to you. Good luck and have fun! Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiki: Babel?
Thank you for welcome message

Would like to compliment someone for this (Wikipedia) initiative (who?)!

I consider contributing also for the Portuguese edition. But have serious doubts:

-the entries do not seem to bear even a resemblance in e.g, English and Po. Is not this terrible duplication (/multiplication) of efforts?

I understand a language is a culture is a world; still...

Do you have any info (I missed) or suggestion? Yours

Csaba Deák 23:00, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

 * I agree, I think it is foolish to have distinct articles between the the langueages, but the problem is we haven't enough multilingual users with the interest to merge and standardize them. Perhaps you can help? The best is to translate good information from one to the other, back and forth, IMO. Thank you for your kind thoughts, Sam [Spade] 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * We do have a project here at Translation into English that attempts to translate articles from other language Wikipedias. Perhaps you would consider both volunteering to translate articles into English here from your native tongue, and also starting a similar project at the Portuguese Wikipedia?  This is only a suggestion.  I hope it is helpful.  Thanks for your interest in the site, and your desire to contribute -- Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for welcome msg and suggestion. I do plan making occasional intercourse between the two langages, although in a non-sistematic/regular way, as told in more detail in my answer to Sam below. Deák 23:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

 * In some cases articles in the Esperanto Wikipedia seem to have been translated from English articles, or articles in English were translated from Esperanto (e.g. Sidney S. Culbert). In many cases, though, the articles were independently written by people not aware of the other article, not having time to translate the whole of it, or not considering the whole text relevant to the interests of the other language community (e.g. I don't think any of A. E. van Vogt's works have been translated into Esperanto, so I did not think it necessary to translate the whole article about him).  I suppose the same situations apply to all other language-pairs.  I agree that it's a good thing to check the articles in any other languages you can read and use them as sources to improve the articles in any languages you can write competently. --Jim Henry 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, since you did not answer my first Q I assume it is yourself who is to be congratulated for Wikipedia. It is a stupendous idea, which created something like a 'collective brain'. Regardless of how exactly it will work in its maturity, it is certainly worth finding out. Personally I see two major problems: the accomodation of actual conflicts, which you already addressed, and dealing with the multiplicity of languages. A minor problem is that the permanent state of flux of everything contained in Wiki makes difficult (impossible?) its use as a reference, both for external and internal (through internal links) use, except with a date/time tag ('according to Wiki.Entry, on Y/M/D,...').

On the 'languages problem' (Babel) this is what I came to think so far. It is not only a question of having (enough) people to do translation. The various languages are actually verious worlds (that's what I meant with "a language is a culture is a world" above). Maybe an entry like 'Pi' or 'Elton John' is virtually unproblematic (although in the latter case interest in it and therefore level of detail required may vary greatly, as between England and China, for example). But 'local' differences are bound to be more pronounced as the entry touches closer upon specific countries' history, culture, folklore. Thus maybe what we can do is something like what happens really among the cultures: each has its own life, but this includes getting into contact with other cultures at various levels of frequency, intensity and hierarchy. This would translate into multintongued wiki-ers picking occasionally material from one language and transpose (the relevant bit of) it into the other, whether in the form of a new entry or revision of an existing one. But it is only a sort of inoculation; the effect of which will spread further in its new context independently of the evolution of the same info in its original milieu. Until a new (unplannable) contact is made ... Anyway, my plan as of now is to do precisely this: make occasional forays from En to Pt and vice-versa.

I promise not to come back with such long elocubrations in the future. --Csaba Deák 23:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

 * Quite alright, you can feel free to say as much as often as you like :). I am not the site founder, simply a volunteer here, if I misunderstand correctly. The site founder is User:Jimbo Wales, and he is generally too busy for greeting people ;) As far as your thoughts I generally agree, but personally would like more uniformity and less ethnocentrism. Glad to hear you are interested in putting your multilingual abilities to good use. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree
I think it is foolish to have distinct articles between the the langueages, but the problem is we haven't enough multilingual users with the interest to merge and standardize them. Perhaps you can help? The best is to translate good information from one to the other, back and forth, IMO. Thank you for your kind thoughts, Sam [Spade] 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * We do have a project here at Translation into English that attempts to translate articles from other language Wikipedias. Perhaps you would consider both volunteering to translate articles into English here from your native tongue, and also starting a similar project at the Portuguese Wikipedia?  This is only a suggestion.  I hope it is helpful.  Thanks for your interest in the site, and your desire to contribute -- Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Lets talk @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. I have copied some from your talk page, I hope it helps. Sam [Spade] 03:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deák


text:
User talk:BaatZ

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:BaatZ