Talk:Sentinel boiler
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
It's dangerous to generalise...
edit- "Sentinel boilers are vertical, as for most steam wagons."
Agreed, Sentinel boilers, as used on Sentinel's undertype waggons, were vertical. The few overtypes the company made (17, primarilly to compete with Foden!) were, presumably, horizontal, as I'm not sure it is physically possible to make an overtype with a vertical boiler (but I'm happy to be proved wrong).
However, "...as for most steam wagons" is an incorrect statement. Overtype steam wagons had a horizontal locomotive-style boiler. Undertypes came in a variety of forms, including some with horizontal boilers. Interestingly, Sentinel and Foden, the chief proponents of undertype and overtype respectively, each made around 6500 wagons. Numerous other manufacturers made overtypes: Allchin (250), Aveling & Porter (~300), Burrell (110), Robey (260), Clayton & Shuttleworth (1300), Garrett (~700), Taskers (120), Wallis & Steevens (130). However, in later days a number of manufacturers changed from producing overtype to undertype, copying the successful Sentinels.
I leave it to another editor to re-write the above sentence :o)
EdJogg (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that Foden made so many wagons. My impression had always been that Sentinel (and thus vertical undertypes) were pre-dominant, simply because Sentinel made more of everything than anyone else did.
- This is the wrong point though anyway, and the wording is wrong. It's not about the issue "most of the wagons made were / weren't vertical undertypes", it's about the frequent choice of vertical boilers as a solution to the problem of tilting water-levels (and see last night's Straker-Squire edits too). Locomotive boilers were a problem on road locomotives - that's why they were so short-barrelled to the point of ineffective tube length, and one reason why the pistol boiler appeared, to avoid the risk of exposing the firebox crown. Also the issues of cab layout, payload / overall length. Any thoughts on better wording, in that sense? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Couple of other points - I know nothing of the Sentinel overtype. Is there anything that can be added, maybe to a brief list-like article on the Sentinel waggon types?
- enough for a short article of their own! (albeit from a single reference) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also I'm trying to clear my Dad's old house out at the moment, which involves wardrobes full of slides from the '70s. There's a lot of early steam rally footage there, if only I can get scanner drivers to behave themselves 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Re: recent edit -- I think that'll do nicely :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)