Talk:Gresley conjugated valve gear

message: Is it possible to get some further documentation on this point? I note that the article previously stated (through several edits) that Gresley 3 cylinder locomotives must have 120 degree spacing of cranks. So was that information factually incorrect for Gresley valve gear equipped locos in general, or merely not true of the UP9000 locomotive which the same user also made reference to in their edit?
My understanding from reading other sources is that the variation in cylinder timing from equal 120 degree spacing relates to the need for the inside cylinder to be angled to clear the leading axle, and the crank spacing will be determined by the angling of the inner cylinder in relation to the outside cylinders for each locomotive, and also the relative size of the inner vs outer cylinders, etc. Because these factors vary by locomotive, so too would the cylinder timing, and as such not all locomotives would share 120 degree spacing, nor would they all share 90/135/135 spacing.
Any comments? Zzrbiker 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't say that the cranks must be spaced at 120-120-120-- it says the cylinders will operate at that equal spacing. If the center cylinder is inclined 8 degrees (and the outside cylinders are horizontal) then the center crank will be shifted accordingly-- the three cranks will be 120-112-128. The three pistons will reach front dead center at equal 120-degree intervals of driver rotation. Tim Zukas (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by 24.4.4.69 regarding cylinder timing and crank angle spacing 

message: It's a basic mechanical analogue computing mechanism, of the type found in linkage-type computers. These were used in the U.S. Navy Mk. 56 Gun Fire Control System and a Librascope sonar fire control computer dating from around 1955 or so. Similar linkages position the typing-element ball's tilt and rotational positions in the IBM Selectric typewriter.
Except for the Corliss valve gear, all valve gears that I'm aware of are mechanical analogue multipliers, although arithmetical accuracy is not critical.
Best regards, Nikevich (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corliss, and Caprotti camboxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanical analogue computer, indeed!

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gresley conjugated valve gear. 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/20070312052631/http://www.watercressline.co.uk/tw/pics/bitn2to1.jpg to http://www.watercressline.co.uk/tw/pics/bitn2to1.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310221102/http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/images/12800/12800-00001-000058-140.asp to http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/images/12800/12800-00001-000058-140.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927142351/http://www.railwaymuseum.org.au/history2.html to http://www.railwaymuseum.org.au/history2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914063717/http://www.trainweb.org/rlhs/collection/UP_locomotives/UP_9000.html to http://www.trainweb.org/rlhs/collection/UP_locomotives/UP_9000.html
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) 02:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. I came here knowing that a Gresley conjugated valve gear was a component used on some steam locomotives, and I left knowing very little more.
The terminology used is highly technical, lacking in links and the drafting is predicated on a high level of engineering knowledge.
None of the three photographs has any on-photo legending, and the NSW and USA photos may significantly underexpose the point being described, making it dark and difficult to discern. I say “may” since I don’t know precisely the point my eye is supposed to be being led to because there is no on-photo legending on the photos. QED.
The section entitled “Operations” seems to have been written to demonstrate the knowledge of its author, rather than any desire to explain to a non-insider. The related article on “Walschaerts valve gear” which I have also read is better than this article for neophytes, although the more opaque elements of it are stylistically very similar to “Operation” here, making me wonder if there is commonality of authorship. The “Walschaerts valve gear” article includes both best practice (animation and a detailed numbered, legended diagram) and poor practice: the first photograph is captioned “A set of Walschaerts valve gear on 60163 Tornado. Note that the radius bar is set to reverse.” The first sentence of the caption could be clearer since I by now believe that the “valve gear” is in fact the apparatus mounted above and between the smaller wheels to the right, rather than the totality of what I see in the photo. The second sentence is totally obscure to a non-railway engineer or enthusiast and is not even clearly relevant to the article (other than, again, the recurring theme of showing off the author’s knowledge).
Since I came here not understanding what Gresley conjugated valve gear is, I am not competent to amend the article. Would someone who is both (a) competent and (b) desirous of explaining to non-engineers, please take a stab at rewriting it?
Sorry if this all sounds a bit harsh, but Wikipedia is so full of technical articles written with an animus of explanation and education that when I come across a rare article such as this one (and parts of its related articles), it really does stick out like a sore thumb.
Thank you
31.52.101.10 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article was written by engineers for engineers which is the very contrary of Wikipedia’s purpose 

message: Is the paragraph 'Operation' WP:OR or is a cite available?
86.142.118.46 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source?