Talk:Aveling and Porter

message: Shouldn't this article be moved to Aveling & Porter? -- Arwel  14:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, then. I see Strood also now links there. I'll just fix Fred's article... -- Arwel  21:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed a few fact tags. I haven't the ref books at hand myself just local knowledge.Glad to talk. 
ClemRutter (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Proposal

message: * Does anyone have any biographical notes on Richard Thomas Porter?
* Does anyone know if Rosita Marion Porter who married Thomas Lake Porter Aveling was related to Richard Porter?  It seems a bit co-incidental otherwise, but I have no references to hand.
Thanks Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porter Family 

message: I'm doing some research on this and will shortly be adding citations from multiple pages of the same book.  This gets pretty ugly if the same information ahs to be repeated time and time again.  It also spoils the flow when editing.  Can I have concensus to change the citations in this article in line with WP:CITESHORT please?  See St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Rochester for an example.  If there are no objections by the beginning of next week I'll try to work through the page then. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As to where the references are placed, I don't much care between leaving them inline, placing them with the , or by extracting them to a separate section. Here I'd do one of the first two, as it's only a short list. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the bulk of the moving, expanding references to books and websites where I could.  I have adopted your suggestion for the use of .  There are three or four websites referenced in the table that I may move for uniformity, but I think the page is rather more stable now.  I'm having a bit of a break, but will try to add a final bit of detail on Major Aveling and the whole Porter clan when I return.  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Yeatman starts by saying: "The story of the Lodge Hill & Upnor Railway begins in 1873 when a Manning Wardle 1ft 6in gauge locomotive named BURGOYNE was sent to the Royal Engineers at Upnor to assist in the construction of a light railway, which was to be known as the Chattenden & Upnor Railway. Some of the line must have been laid to 4ft 8½in gauge as we hear that six Aveling & Porter engines of 2−2−0 design were also supplied. These 5−ton "Steam Sappers" had two sets of wheels, one for road work and a flanged set for use on rails".
Yeatman's editor however notes: "The author is certain that there were six, and thinks there could possibly have been nine, ‘Steam Sappers’ in use on the railway. One such machine, STEAM SAPPER No.5, is featured elsewhere in this issue, and we can be reasonably certain that this locomotive did work on rails at Chattenden. Messrs. Aveling & Barford state, however: "We were not under the impression that the Steam Sapper was intended as a road-rail conversion machine. It was specially designed as a traction engine for Military Service. They were light machines specially constructed so that the weight did not exceed that of the heaviest siege gun and so ensured that pontoon bridges were not overloaded." The Club records show that there were six Aveling and Porter locomotives in the area at this time, although they are thought to have been at Chatham Dockyard. These, and the six Steam Sappers, are listed above but we have no evidence that any (other than STEAM SAPPER No.5) were used here".
Mullett states: "STEAM SAPPER No.5, however, seems to have been something of an exception. It was no. 830 of 1872 for the School of Military Engineering at Brompton (now known as Old Brompton), Gillingham, Kent, and from our illustration it appears to have been supplied as a convertible road to rail locomotive. The flywheel was 4' 6" in diameter, and the axles - 6' 4" long with a diameter of 4⅜" - were fitted with compensating gear and gunmetal axleboxes on both sides. The winding cone was keyed to the crankshaft which had a diameter of 2⅞". Double steam domes were fitted, and the wrought iron chimney had a cast iron base.
"This little engine, of 6 nominal horsepower, in common with most others of its class, was fitted with a single road speed and was put in or out of gear by sliding a pinion along the crankshaft and holding it in the required position by means of a leather strap buckled round the shaft. In its rail form a wooden beam seems to be inserted longitudinally beneath the boiler and ending in a simple buffer - and in our illustration the steering gear still seems to be connected! It should perhaps be mentioned that in the case of the engine at the Oxford Show a patent slip eccentric was used and link motion dispensed with, but in those examples the writer has been lucky enough to see - including the one preserved in the Science Museum at South Kensington and STEAM SAPPER No.5 - conventional link motion was used. The four slide bars, big ball governors, short smokebox and Salter safety valves are all very typical of the Aveling of this period.
"Messrs. Aveling-Barford Ltd., who have very kindly checked their records for me, seem unaware that any "Steam Sappers" were built other than as road machines, and it would be interesting to know why this one was so turned out".
According to Nowers the five engines ordered in 1872 were as the result of a trial of Sapper 2 which drove from Chatham to Blanford for manoeuvers during which it drove a pump for water supply.  Nowers does state that number 9 was fitted with flanged wheels for a trial as a result of which number 12 was supplied with a set.  However some tests were arried out on the Chatendon & Upnor line in 1874 according to a report by the then Commandant SME.  The table in appendix I of Nowers only mentions number 5 as being "illustrated with flanged railway wheels".  A picture of number 4 at the works (page 11) clearly shows road wheels.
In passing it should be noted that there is frequent use of the word "train" to describe several road wagons coupled to each other for example a "seige train" or a "balloon train".  These are not railway trains.
I think therefore that the situation was:
* Number 5 was fitted with railway wheels for at least part of its life.
* Number 9 was so fitted for a trial.
* Number 12 was convertable.
Therefore I will shortly modify the table of locomotives accordingly.  In the short term I'll leave the original information commented out in case anyone disputes this and can point to better evidence. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented out information removed as per the above. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam sappers as locomotives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aveling and Porter. 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/20120917151443/http://www.longshopmuseum.co.uk:80/page/sirapite to http://www.longshopmuseum.co.uk/page/sirapite
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) 11:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No, A&P were also an exporter,  unless you define the Raj et al as part of the UK. They exported to the US, and were a large part of the early history in North America before local manufacturers expanded. What they were not is a company that made 70 percent of the world market. While You can find cites that make this sort of claim, they fail the giggle test. The dominant North American firm, Buffalo-Springfield (and its predecessors) alone made about as many steamrollers. Qwirkle (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the word "predominantly" in what I wrote. I never claimed they did not export outside the UK, so your argument is a strawman. I've update the claim you marked as "dubious" to make it accurate. The sources do not fail some sort of 'giggle test", whatever that might be. They are accurately cited in the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A “giggle test”. Even has its own wikistub.Adding a cherrypicked cite off a tendentious search, and one which stovepipes into another...no, really that is two which stovepipe into a third, is unlikely to improve the accuracy of anything. “Accurately cited” =/= “accurate.” Qwirkle (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalization 

message: Were the article not making world-wide claims, , that might be a valid point.Qwirkle (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your statement "This article seems too dependent on localized sources" but the information in the globalization box is largely irrelevant. Certainly too irrelevant to be put at the head of the article. (Maybe placed at the end might be more suitable?) --Roly (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Better still, as a steam-conscious kind of fellow, would you have any cites handy that might address this from a less parochial viewpoint? Qwirkle (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't; sorry. --Roly (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is globalization {{Tq|Mainly irrelevant to this article.}}?