On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 11:50:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
Dale Vince company collapsed.
Ecojet Airlines has plunged into liquidation - the Scottish firm had
plans to become the world?s first all-electric airline as part of a
'aviation revolution'
If he even had a passing knowledge of current battery tech and physics he'd never have invested the money in the first place. Not the first time an eco zealot ignored reality and paid the price.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 11:50:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
Dale Vince company collapsed.
Ecojet Airlines has plunged into liquidation - the Scottish firm had
plans to become the world?s first all-electric airline as part of a
'aviation revolution'
If he even had a passing knowledge of current battery tech and physics he'd >> never have invested the money in the first place. Not the first time an eco >> zealot ignored reality and paid the price.
Yes, he should have taken note of this news from 2024:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2024-11-07/rolls-royce-confirms-closure-electric-propulsion-unit
On 07/03/2026 12:17, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 11:50:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
Dale Vince company collapsed.
Ecojet Airlines has plunged into liquidation - the Scottish firm had
plans to become the world?s first all-electric airline as part of a
'aviation revolution'
If he even had a passing knowledge of current battery tech and physics he'd >>> never have invested the money in the first place. Not the first time an eco >>> zealot ignored reality and paid the price.
Yes, he should have taken note of this news from 2024:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2024-11-07/rolls-royce-confirms-closure-electric-propulsion-unit
It seems that hybrid power is the greenest way forward at present: https://www.loganair.co.uk/news/loganair-confirms-exclusive-partnership-with-heart-aerospace-to-develop-sustainable-regional-air-travel/
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 11:50:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
Dale Vince company collapsed.
Ecojet Airlines has plunged into liquidation - the Scottish firm had
plans to become the world?s first all-electric airline as part of a
'aviation revolution'
If he even had a passing knowledge of current battery tech and physics he'd >> never have invested the money in the first place. Not the first time an eco >> zealot ignored reality and paid the price.
Yes, he should have taken note of this news from 2024:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2024-11-07/rolls-royce-confir
ms-closure-electric-propulsion-unit
On Sat, 07 Mar 2026 12:17:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 11:50:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
Dale Vince company collapsed.
Ecojet Airlines has plunged into liquidation - the Scottish firm had
plans to become the world?s first all-electric airline as part of a
'aviation revolution'
If he even had a passing knowledge of current battery tech and physics he'd >>> never have invested the money in the first place. Not the first time an eco >>> zealot ignored reality and paid the price.
Yes, he should have taken note of this news from 2024:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2024-11-07/rolls-royce-confir
ms-closure-electric-propulsion-unit
I don't understand why the even opened it in the first place unless it was just PR greenwash. The physics was staring them in the face - LiOn batteries are too heavy and arn't anywhere near the energy density to be viable for commercial aviation. Plus something that doesn't get mentioned is that as planes burn kerosene they get lighter - not the case for batteries (yes, energy does have weight before any pedants kick off but its borderline unmeasurable in this use case).
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't understand why the even opened it in the first place unless it was >> just PR greenwash. The physics was staring them in the face - LiOn batteries >> are too heavy and arn't anywhere near the energy density to be viable for
commercial aviation. Plus something that doesn't get mentioned is that as
planes burn kerosene they get lighter - not the case for batteries (yes,
energy does have weight before any pedants kick off but its borderline
unmeasurable in this use case).
Energy density per kg in Watt hours:
Jet fuel 12000
Li ion battery 300
No contest really.
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 17:14:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't understand why the even opened it in the first place unless it was >>> just PR greenwash. The physics was staring them in the face - LiOn batteries
are too heavy and arn't anywhere near the energy density to be viable for >>> commercial aviation. Plus something that doesn't get mentioned is that as >>> planes burn kerosene they get lighter - not the case for batteries (yes, >>> energy does have weight before any pedants kick off but its borderline
unmeasurable in this use case).
Energy density per kg in Watt hours:
Jet fuel 12000
Li ion battery 300
No contest really.
Didn't realise the contrast was that stark. But short of some incredible battery breakthrough electric planes are for the birds. So to speak.
On 2026-03-08 14:31, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 17:14:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't understand why the even opened it in the first place unless it was >>>> just PR greenwash. The physics was staring them in the face - LiOn batteries
are too heavy and arn't anywhere near the energy density to be viable for >>>> commercial aviation. Plus something that doesn't get mentioned is that as >>>> planes burn kerosene they get lighter - not the case for batteries (yes, >>>> energy does have weight before any pedants kick off but its borderline >>>> unmeasurable in this use case).
Energy density per kg in Watt hours:
Jet fuel 12000
Li ion battery 300
No contest really.
Didn't realise the contrast was that stark. But short of some incredible
battery breakthrough electric planes are for the birds. So to speak.
Difference is still stark, but that doesn't allow for the battery having >ready energy but the fuel needing to be converted at heat engine
efficiency, maybe 40..50%.
On Sun, 8 Mar 2026 14:38:01 +0000, nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
On 2026-03-08 14:31, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 17:14:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't understand why the even opened it in the first place unless it was
just PR greenwash. The physics was staring them in the face - LiOn batteries
are too heavy and arn't anywhere near the energy density to be viable for >>>>> commercial aviation. Plus something that doesn't get mentioned is that as >>>>> planes burn kerosene they get lighter - not the case for batteries (yes, >>>>> energy does have weight before any pedants kick off but its borderline >>>>> unmeasurable in this use case).
Energy density per kg in Watt hours:
Jet fuel 12000
Li ion battery 300
No contest really.
Didn't realise the contrast was that stark. But short of some incredible >>> battery breakthrough electric planes are for the birds. So to speak.
Difference is still stark, but that doesn't allow for the battery having
ready energy but the fuel needing to be converted at heat engine
efficiency, maybe 40..50%.
What the aviation industry is now pursuing is 'sustainable aviation
fuel'. It exists, but is currently much too
expensive, and produced in minute quantities, for mass use. At best,
planes consume a small percentage of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
What the aviation industry is now pursuing is 'sustainable aviation
fuel'. It exists, but is currently much too
expensive, and produced in minute quantities, for mass use. At best,
planes consume a small percentage of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
You also need a source of green electricity to charge these electric
planes. So even assuming you have a battery that approaches the performance >of jet fuel you have only solved part of the problem. We are nowhere near >having a large surplus of green electricity.
If nuclear fusion ever becomes a commercially viable thing then perhaps.
And if you have limitless green electricity you can make carbon neutral >synthetic jet fuel.
On Sun, 8 Mar 2026 15:07:16 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
What the aviation industry is now pursuing is 'sustainable aviation
fuel'. It exists, but is currently much too
expensive, and produced in minute quantities, for mass use. At best,
planes consume a small percentage of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
You also need a source of green electricity to charge these electric
planes. So even assuming you have a battery that approaches the performance >> of jet fuel you have only solved part of the problem. We are nowhere near
having a large surplus of green electricity.
If nuclear fusion ever becomes a commercially viable thing then perhaps.
And if you have limitless green electricity you can make carbon neutral
synthetic jet fuel.
If you've got all that free leccy then you might as well just create
hydrogen and burn that instead as it'll be way more efficient than creating complicated hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O (though still much less efficient than charging a battery).
But none of them are anywhere close to be being viable. I strongly suspect that while ground transport including HGVs can be fully electrified within the next couple of decades, aircraft will continue to burn avgas or kerosene for the foreseable future.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2026 15:07:16 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
What the aviation industry is now pursuing is 'sustainable aviation
fuel'. It exists, but is currently much too
expensive, and produced in minute quantities, for mass use. At best,
planes consume a small percentage of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
You also need a source of green electricity to charge these electric
planes. So even assuming you have a battery that approaches the performance >>> of jet fuel you have only solved part of the problem. We are nowhere near >>> having a large surplus of green electricity.
If nuclear fusion ever becomes a commercially viable thing then perhaps. >>> And if you have limitless green electricity you can make carbon neutral
synthetic jet fuel.
If you've got all that free leccy then you might as well just create
hydrogen and burn that instead as it'll be way more efficient than creating >> complicated hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O (though still much less efficient >> than charging a battery).
But none of them are anywhere close to be being viable. I strongly suspect >> that while ground transport including HGVs can be fully electrified within >> the next couple of decades, aircraft will continue to burn avgas or kerosene >> for the foreseable future.
Hydrogen is a lot more tricky to handle than a liquid fuel. The pressure vessels on an aeroplane would be an interesting engineering problem.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Hydrogen is a lot more tricky to handle than a liquid fuel. The pressure
vessels on an aeroplane would be an interesting engineering problem.
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid >fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily >more efficient.
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Hydrogen is a lot more tricky to handle than a liquid fuel. The pressure >>> vessels on an aeroplane would be an interesting engineering problem.
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid >> fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily >> more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid >>> fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily >>> more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time >> however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is
physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much
energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
On 10/03/2026 16:57, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid
fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily >>>> more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time
however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is >>> physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much >>> energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not
convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re >> continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you >> say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting
quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/03/2026 16:57, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid
fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily
more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time
however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is >>>> physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much >>>> energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not
convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re >>> continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you >>> say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting
quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >>> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/03/2026 16:57, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid
fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily
more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time
however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is >>> physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much >>> energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not
convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re
continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you
say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting
quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 10/03/2026 16:57, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid
fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily
more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time
however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is >>>>> physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much >>>>> energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not
convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re
continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you
say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient >>>> than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting >>>> quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >>>> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >>> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Concrete production contributes 8%, yet we hear very little about reducing that.
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid
fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily
more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time
however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is >>>> physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much >>>> energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not
convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re >>> continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you >>> say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting
quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >>> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >>>> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >>> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Concrete production contributes 8%, yet we hear very little about reducing >that.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Hydrogen is a lot more tricky to handle than a liquid fuel. The pressure >>>> vessels on an aeroplane would be an interesting engineering problem.
Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid >>> fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily >>> more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time >> however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is
physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much
energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not >convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re >continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you >say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting >quieter.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> posted:
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Could increase when everyone wants to fly to Bali
and can pay, let's say, 1000 USD for the trip. Or
almost everyone....
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >>> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional. Agriculture, >construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:39:51 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> posted:
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Could increase when everyone wants to fly to Bali
and can pay, let's say, 1000 USD for the trip. Or
almost everyone....
I like what the french have done - banned any flights that could be achieved >using rail up to something like 5 hours. We could do that in the UK - there's >zero reason to have flights to edinburgh, glasgow and newquay. I don't care >if people want to save 2 hours, tough, suck it up.
In message <10orfce$10hju$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:42 on Wed, 11 Mar
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly
affect
the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional.
Agriculture,
construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
Home heating with oil is optional. I note lots people who have made lifestyle choices to live places where only oil-fired heating is
available are now crawling out of the woodwork.
<topic convergence> Mildenhall is a town with not much gas, so new
builds tend to be forced to use oil. I'm not sure the grid is ready yet
to supply them instead with enough electricity for air-sourced heat
pumps. And just down the road the locals have been running a massive campaign against a solar farm, while nearby there's a campaign not to
have new pylons delivering the power from East Anglia's new off-shore
wind farms.
They are building Sizewell C (late 2030's) 60 miles to the east, but
that'll need pylons too.
On 11/03/2026 10:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10orfce$10hju$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:42 on Wed, 11 Mar 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly >>>> affect
the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional.
Agriculture,
construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
Home heating with oil is optional. I note lots people who have made lifestyle choices to live places where only oil-fired heating is
available are now crawling out of the woodwork.
<topic convergence> Mildenhall is a town with not much gas, so new
builds tend to be forced to use oil. I'm not sure the grid is ready yet
to supply them instead with enough electricity for air-sourced heat
pumps. And just down the road the locals have been running a massive campaign against a solar farm, while nearby there's a campaign not to
have new pylons delivering the power from East Anglia's new off-shore
wind farms.
They are building Sizewell C (late 2030's) 60 miles to the east, but that'll need pylons too.
I would have thought that the pylon infrastructure would already be in
place from the old Sizewell power stations. Even if time expired, new
pylons would replace old so not a totally new installation, just an upgrade?
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:57:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:46:34 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Hydrogen is a lot more tricky to handle than a liquid fuel. The pressure >>>>> vessels on an aeroplane would be an interesting engineering problem. >>>>Yes, I agree, using the cheap electricity to create clean, synthetic liquid
fuel is the best long-term solution. In the mean time, planes get steadily >>>> more efficient.
The law of dimishing returns has been applying xxitoon that for a long time
however. Jet engines are probably within 90-something percent of what is >>> physically achievable already wrt fuel consumption. There's only so much >>> energy you can extract from expanding air turning a turbine.
You might say that, and probably forecast it, but it seems you?ve not
convinced the people working in the industry. So, in their naivety, they?re >> continuing to deliver significant engine and airframe improvements that you >> say are impossible: the A320neo family is about 20% more fuel efficient
than the ceo, and the same is true of the 737MAX. They?re also getting
quieter.
That 20% certainly won't have come from the engines:
https://www.global-aero.com/beyond-the-horizon-innovations-in-aviation-engine-te
chnology/
A 45% improvement in 53 years up to 2014 according to that graph so the chances of a sudden 20% improvement in a single generation I would say is zero and obviously manufacturers never massage their figures.
What?s more, both manufacturers say their next generation planes will have >> the same or even better improvement. But what do they know?
They could have a huge jump in fuel efficiency if they ditched the jets and just installed turboprops instead but I doubt the passengers would appreciate almost the doubling of journey times.
On 11/03/2026 10:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10orfce$10hju$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:42 on Wed, 11 Mar
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly >>>>> affect
the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional.
Agriculture,
construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
Home heating with oil is optional. I note lots people who have made
lifestyle choices to live places where only oil-fired heating is
available are now crawling out of the woodwork.
<topic convergence> Mildenhall is a town with not much gas, so new
builds tend to be forced to use oil. I'm not sure the grid is ready yet
to supply them instead with enough electricity for air-sourced heat
pumps. And just down the road the locals have been running a massive
campaign against a solar farm, while nearby there's a campaign not to
have new pylons delivering the power from East Anglia's new off-shore
wind farms.
They are building Sizewell C (late 2030's) 60 miles to the east, but
that'll need pylons too.
I would have thought that the pylon infrastructure would already be in
place from the old Sizewell power stations. Even if time expired, new
pylons would replace old so not a totally new installation, just an upgrade?
On 11/03/2026 10:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10orfce$10hju$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:42 on Wed, 11
Mar 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMTHome heating with oil is optional. I note lots people who have made >>lifestyle choices to live places where only oil-fired heating is
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not
significantly affect
the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional. >>>Agriculture,
construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
available are now crawling out of the woodwork.
<topic convergence> Mildenhall is a town with not much gas, so new >>builds tend to be forced to use oil. I'm not sure the grid is ready
yet to supply them instead with enough electricity for air-sourced
heat pumps. And just down the road the locals have been running a
massive campaign against a solar farm, while nearby there's a
campaign not to have new pylons delivering the power from East
Anglia's new off-shore wind farms.
They are building Sizewell C (late 2030's) 60 miles to the east, but >>that'll need pylons too.
I would have thought that the pylon infrastructure would already be in
place from the old Sizewell power stations. Even if time expired, new
pylons would replace old so not a totally new installation, just an
upgrade?
In message <10orfce$10hju$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:42 on Wed, 11 Mar
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect >>>> the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional. Agriculture, >>construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
Home heating with oil is optional. I note lots people who have made >lifestyle choices to live places where only oil-fired heating is
available are now crawling out of the woodwork.
<topic convergence> Mildenhall is a town with not much gas, so new
builds tend to be forced to use oil. I'm not sure the grid is ready yet
to supply them instead with enough electricity for air-sourced heat
pumps. And just down the road the locals have been running a massive >campaign against a solar farm, while nearby there's a campaign not to
have new pylons delivering the power from East Anglia's new off-shore
wind farms.
In message <10orfg9$10imd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:45 on Wed, 11 Mar
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:39:51 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> posted:
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Could increase when everyone wants to fly to Bali
and can pay, let's say, 1000 USD for the trip. Or
almost everyone....
I like what the french have done - banned any flights that could be achieved >>using rail up to something like 5 hours. We could do that in the UK - there's >>zero reason to have flights to edinburgh, glasgow and newquay. I don't care >>if people want to save 2 hours, tough, suck it up.
Good luck getting from Stansted to Newquay in 5hrs.
When I went to Inverness a few years ago I did go by train, but only
because getting to Stansted and checking in etc from 45 miles north
would have needed to allow 3hrs. But the journey was still most of the
day, 10-11hrs.
In the past year I've been to both Edinburgh and Glasgow by train from >Cambridge, which are right on the cusp at 5-6hrs. But I had to stand all
the way to Edinburgh, which wasn't very comfortable.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
That 20% certainly won't have come from the engines:
It?s about 15% from the engines and 5% from the airframe.
They could have a huge jump in fuel efficiency if they ditched the jets and >> just installed turboprops instead but I doubt the passengers would appreciate
almost the doubling of journey times.
In effect, that?s what?s happening: the fans are getting bigger and slower,
and may be unducted in the future (eg, CFM RISE). Speeds will stay the
same.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 10:58:36 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10orfg9$10imd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:45 on Wed, 11 Mar >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:39:51 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> posted:
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Could increase when everyone wants to fly to Bali
and can pay, let's say, 1000 USD for the trip. Or
almost everyone....
I like what the french have done - banned any flights that could be achieved >>>using rail up to something like 5 hours. We could do that in the UK - there's
zero reason to have flights to edinburgh, glasgow and newquay. I don't care >>>if people want to save 2 hours, tough, suck it up.
Good luck getting from Stansted to Newquay in 5hrs.
When I went to Inverness a few years ago I did go by train, but only >>because getting to Stansted and checking in etc from 45 miles north
would have needed to allow 3hrs. But the journey was still most of the >>day, 10-11hrs.
I specifically didn't mention inverness or aberdeen precisely because the >trains slow to a snails pace north of edinburgh.
In the past year I've been to both Edinburgh and Glasgow by train from >>Cambridge, which are right on the cusp at 5-6hrs. But I had to stand all >>the way to Edinburgh, which wasn't very comfortable.
Well look on the bright side - HS2 might shave 20 mins off that trip! 100bn >well spent.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:49:49 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
That 20% certainly won't have come from the engines:
It?s about 15% from the engines and 5% from the airframe.
15% overall? Either they've made some incredible breakthrough or that only >applies to a very narrow envelope of speed and altitude.
They could have a huge jump in fuel efficiency if they ditched the jets and >>> just installed turboprops instead but I doubt the passengers would appreciate
almost the doubling of journey times.
In effect, that?s what?s happening: the fans are getting bigger and slower, >>
and may be unducted in the future (eg, CFM RISE). Speeds will stay the >>same.
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >happening is far lower.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:49:49 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
That 20% certainly won't have come from the engines:
It?s about 15% from the engines and 5% from the airframe.
15% overall? Either they've made some incredible breakthrough or that only >>applies to a very narrow envelope of speed and altitude.
No, 15% overall.
They could have a huge jump in fuel efficiency if they ditched the jets and
slower,just installed turboprops instead but I doubt the passengers would >appreciate
almost the doubling of journey times.
In effect, that?s what?s happening: the fans are getting bigger and
and may be unducted in the future (eg, CFM RISE). Speeds will stay the >>>same.
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >>far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>happening is far lower.
I'm sure we all enjoy reading your learned engineering appraisals.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:20:12 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:49:49 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
That 20% certainly won't have come from the engines:
It?s about 15% from the engines and 5% from the airframe.
15% overall? Either they've made some incredible breakthrough or that only >>>applies to a very narrow envelope of speed and altitude.
No, 15% overall.
They could have a huge jump in fuel efficiency if they ditched the jets and
just installed turboprops instead but I doubt the passengers would >>appreciate
almost the doubling of journey times.
In effect, that?s what?s happening: the fans are getting bigger and >>slower,
and may be unducted in the future (eg, CFM RISE). Speeds will stay the >>>>same.
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>>decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >>>far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>happening is far lower.
I'm sure we all enjoy reading your learned engineering appraisals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan
"Propfans first started prototype testing in the 1970s,"
"One of the major problems with the propfan is noise. The propfan research in >the 1980s discovered ways to reduce noise, but at the cost of reduced fuel >efficiency, "
In the past year I've been to both Edinburgh and Glasgow by train from >>Cambridge, which are right on the cusp at 5-6hrs. But I had to stand
all the way to Edinburgh, which wasn't very comfortable.
Well look on the bright side - HS2 might shave 20 mins off that trip! 100bn >well spent.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 10:49:37 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10orfce$10hju$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:42 on Wed, 11 Mar >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:40:31 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
Those are small, incremental improvements that do not significantly affect
the carbon cost of flying. Big number is still a big number.
Yes, a whopping 2.5% of the world?s carbon emissions.
You have to take the gains where you can. Flying is optional. Agriculture, >>>construction, home heating and a lot of road transport is not.
Home heating with oil is optional. I note lots people who have made >>lifestyle choices to live places where only oil-fired heating is
available are now crawling out of the woodwork.
<topic convergence> Mildenhall is a town with not much gas, so new
builds tend to be forced to use oil. I'm not sure the grid is ready
yet to supply them instead with enough electricity for air-sourced
heat pumps. And just down the road the locals have been running a
massive campaign against a solar farm, while nearby there's a campaign
not to have new pylons delivering the power from East Anglia's new >>off-shore wind farms.
Given there's one of the UKs largest US airbases right next to the town I'd >have thought the leccy grid would have been in pretty good nick there.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:49:49 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
That 20% certainly won't have come from the engines:
It?s about 15% from the engines and 5% from the airframe.
15% overall? Either they've made some incredible breakthrough or that only >applies to a very narrow envelope of speed and altitude.
They could have a huge jump in fuel efficiency if they ditched the jets and >>> just installed turboprops instead but I doubt the passengers would appreciate
almost the doubling of journey times.
In effect, that?s what?s happening: the fans are getting bigger and slower, >>
and may be unducted in the future (eg, CFM RISE). Speeds will stay the >>same.
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >happening is far lower.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:27:50 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan
"Propfans first started prototype testing in the 1970s,"
"One of the major problems with the propfan is noise. The propfan research in
the 1980s discovered ways to reduce noise, but at the cost of reduced fuel >>efficiency, "
I'm sure GE and Safran have a lot to learn from you about aero engine design. >After all, unlike you, they only make the
most widely used, successful airliner engines. How could they possibly know >as much as a freelance bug breeder?
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >>far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>> decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >>> far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how
many blades it has or their shape.
On 12/03/2026 16:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a
few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half.
Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the
marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no
matter how
many blades it has or their shape.
Unless it is a water jet.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>> decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >>> far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how
many blades it has or their shape.
On 12/03/2026 22:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/03/2026 16:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a >>>>> few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half.
Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the
marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no
matter how
many blades it has or their shape.
Unless it is a water jet.
Which uses an impellor - a fourth term for almost the same thing!
On 12/03/2026 22:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/03/2026 16:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a >>>>> few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half.
Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the
marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no
matter how
many blades it has or their shape.
Unless it is a water jet.
Which uses an impellor - a fourth term for almost the same thing!
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>>> decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have >>>> far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine >> world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter >how
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Just because you only know one term doesn?t mean there is only one term.
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>>>> decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
ships - boats. Same thing.
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>>>>> decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine.
You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
On 13/03/2026 11:39, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and
produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine.
You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
I tend to lean towards Boltar's view - a bow thrust is the complete
unit, motor, gearing, tunnel and propellor. This was done to
differentiate between a bow thruster and a bow propellor which was
fitted on a few ships.
Could not find an easier cite but the official report into the Herald of >Free Enterprise disaster includes in the ship's description (para 4.1) >"Shaft driven alternators provided power for bow thrusters and a
feathering bow propeller used in the docking mode"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few >>>>>> decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMTmarine
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the
matterworld something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no
how
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and
produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMTmarine
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the
matterworld something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no
how
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and
produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >>> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>> marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>>> marine
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >>>> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>> their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
Yes, and I don?t think they?d be called twin-prop ships.
On 13/03/2026 21:25, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMThave
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons: >>>>>>>>>> 1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops
howQuite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>>>> marinefar fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>>>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>>> their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
Yes, and I don?t think they?d be called twin-prop ships.
TSS - Twin Screw Ships. Mmmm, TSS - Triple Screw Ships. Rare these days
but they did exist. I do not recall any mariner using the abbreviation
TSS, always use the full terminology!
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/03/2026 21:25, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMThave
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons: >>>>>>>>>>> 1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops
howQuite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>>>>> marinefar fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>>>>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>>>> their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
Yes, and I don?t think they?d be called twin-prop ships.
TSS - Twin Screw Ships. Mmmm, TSS - Triple Screw Ships. Rare these days
but they did exist. I do not recall any mariner using the abbreviation
TSS, always use the full terminology!
What surprises me is how some giant ships have just one engine and one
screw.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMTmarine
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the
matterworld something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no
how
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have
multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and
produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
On 13/03/2026 18:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMThave
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some
demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half.
Turboprops
howfar fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk >>>>>>>> of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>> marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many
ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Actors in a certain vintage of prison drama?
On 14/03/2026 13:03, Clank wrote:
On 13/03/2026 18:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMThave
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some >>>>>>>>> demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half.
Turboprops
howQuite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>>> marinefar fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk >>>>>>>>> of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many >>>>>> ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>> their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Actors in a certain vintage of prison drama?
Participants in the Repair Shop?
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a >few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >>> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>> marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:21:26 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMTfew
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some >>>>>>>>> demos a
havedecades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half.
Turboprops
marineQuite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusingfar fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk >>>>>>>>> of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>
how in
aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In >>>>>>> the
matterworld something that spins and produces thrust is just a
propeller no
how
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many >>>>>> ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins
and
produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>> their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
Presumably except for the ones that have 1 or 3 or just thrusters.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:21:26 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 13/03/2026 16:34, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:39:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the >>>> marine
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a >> few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops >>>> have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no >>>> matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>> their shape?.
Who actually says "screws" other than actors in navy action films?
Ships are often referred to as being eg TSS - Twin Screw Ships.
Presumably except for the ones that have 1 or 3 or just thrusters.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:42:04 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/03/2026 11:39, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>> wrote:
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK
Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or
their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine.
You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
I tend to lean towards Boltar's view - a bow thrust is the complete
unit, motor, gearing, tunnel and propellor. This was done to
differentiate between a bow thruster and a bow propellor which was
fitted on a few ships.
Could not find an easier cite but the official report into the Herald of >>Free Enterprise disaster includes in the ship's description (para 4.1) >>"Shaft driven alternators provided power for bow thrusters and a >>feathering bow propeller used in the docking mode"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:42:04 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
On 13/03/2026 11:39, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>> their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine. >>>>You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
I tend to lean towards Boltar's view - a bow thrust is the complete
unit, motor, gearing, tunnel and propellor. This was done to
differentiate between a bow thruster and a bow propellor which was
fitted on a few ships.
Could not find an easier cite but the official report into the Herald of >>> Free Enterprise disaster includes in the ship's description (para 4.1)
"Shaft driven alternators provided power for bow thrusters and a
feathering bow propeller used in the docking mode"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:42:04 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
On 13/03/2026 11:39, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>> wrote:Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons: >>>>>>>>>> 1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>>> their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine. >>>>>You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
I tend to lean towards Boltar's view - a bow thrust is the complete
unit, motor, gearing, tunnel and propellor. This was done to
differentiate between a bow thruster and a bow propellor which was
fitted on a few ships.
Could not find an easier cite but the official report into the Herald of >>>> Free Enterprise disaster includes in the ship's description (para 4.1) >>>> "Shaft driven alternators provided power for bow thrusters and a
feathering bow propeller used in the docking mode"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I think they?re used interchangeably today.
The same is true of unducted fans ? they?re essentially propellers.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:42:04 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
On 13/03/2026 11:39, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons:
1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it >>>>>>>>> happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships >>>>>> have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>> their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine. >>>>You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
I tend to lean towards Boltar's view - a bow thrust is the complete
unit, motor, gearing, tunnel and propellor. This was done to
differentiate between a bow thruster and a bow propellor which was
fitted on a few ships.
Could not find an easier cite but the official report into the Herald of >>> Free Enterprise disaster includes in the ship's description (para 4.1)
"Shaft driven alternators provided power for bow thrusters and a
feathering bow propeller used in the docking mode"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but >are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:08:33 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft. Calling
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it.
On 15/03/2026 09:35, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:08:33 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft. Calling
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it.
The original propulsion system fwas a form of Archimedes screw in a tube attached to the bottom of the boat and driven by a crank over the stern.
It was quickly realised that you only needed a section of the screw and
the tube could be removed, simplifying the construction and allowing all
the mechanics to be inside the hull. So calling it a screw acknowledges
its antecedents.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but >> are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load of
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience.
On 15/03/2026 09:35, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:08:33 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft. >Calling
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it.
The original propulsion system fwas a form of Archimedes screw in a tube >attached to the bottom of the boat and driven by a crank over the stern.
It was quickly realised that you only needed a section of the screw and
the tube could be removed, simplifying the construction and allowing all
the mechanics to be inside the hull. So calling it a screw acknowledges
its antecedents.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but >>> are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of >cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >>> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I >>Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load >of
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single >> holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >way when going in reverse.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTcameras
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >>>> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load >> of
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single >>> holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >> way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 09:35, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:08:33 +0000Calling
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft.
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it.
The original propulsion system fwas a form of Archimedes screw in a tube
attached to the bottom of the boat and driven by a crank over the stern.
It was quickly realised that you only needed a section of the screw and
the tube could be removed, simplifying the construction and allowing all
the mechanics to be inside the hull. So calling it a screw acknowledges
its antecedents.
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTof
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of >>> cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single >>>> holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >>> way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
I?m inclined to agree with you, even with a posh hire boat.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTcameras
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >>>> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load >> of
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single >>> holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >> way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
r.
CallingA screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft.
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it.
The original propulsion system fwas a form of Archimedes screw in a tube
attached to the bottom of the boat and driven by a crank over the stern.
It was quickly realised that you only needed a section of the screw and
the tube could be removed, simplifying the construction and allowing all
the mechanics to be inside the hull. So calling it a screw acknowledges
its antecedents.
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTof
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of >>>> cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single >>>>> holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience. >>>>>
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >>>> way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
I?m inclined to agree with you, even with a posh hire boat.
I used to do few canal holidays back in the 70?s early 80?s until the
natural grouping of friends moved on to things like mortgages, marriage and for some misery.
From an industrial archaeology point of view there was still a lot of the past to be observed with factory?s etc still canal side in towns.
Courtaulds on the Coventry arm for instance had a small steam loco sitting
on tracks that had been out of use for awhile . Now everything has been prettied up and a bit twee or demolished and replaced by expensive residential and what hasn?t has been ruined by graffiti vandals. The countryside is still nice which for a town dweller must make a change but living
in the country I don?t need to spend a few hundred pounds to do that.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTof
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of >>> cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single >>>> holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >>> way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
Yes, it?s never appealed to me either. British canals are just too narrow. Continental river and canal craft are large enough for luxury and comfort, but not British ones.
On 15/03/2026 11:47, Marland wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTof
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of >>>>> cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single
holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience. >>>>>>
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful
way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
I?m inclined to agree with you, even with a posh hire boat.
I used to do few canal holidays back in the 70?s early 80?s until the
natural grouping of friends moved on to things like mortgages, marriage and >> for some misery.
From an industrial archaeology point of view there was still a lot of the >> past to be observed with factory?s etc still canal side in towns.
Courtaulds on the Coventry arm for instance had a small steam loco sitting >> on tracks that had been out of use for awhile . Now everything has been
prettied up and a bit twee or demolished and replaced by expensive
residential and what hasn?t has been ruined by graffiti vandals. The
countryside is still nice which for a town dweller must make a change but
living
in the country I don?t need to spend a few hundred pounds to do that.
The Coutaulds loco is now at Quainton Road IIRC.
On 15/03/2026 02:28, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:42:04 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
On 13/03/2026 11:39, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:57:26 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:15:56 +0000how
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:14:40 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Quite long, have bookmarked it for another time. It is amusing how in >>>>>>>>> aerospace there's this distincion between fans and propellers. In the marine
Unducted fans have been around of years , they even did some demos a few
decades back but they'll never gain traction for 2 reasons: >>>>>>>>>>> 1) The immense amount of noise
2) If a blade is thrown it could cut the fuselage in half. Turboprops have
far fewer blades and they're under much less stress so the risk of it
happening is far lower.
Take a look at https://youtu.be/fT7Zi_xF8Ts?si=f6zVsa-FD0rCiuzK >>>>>>>>>
world something that spins and produces thrust is just a propeller no matter
many blades it has or their shape.
Nope, marine versions are usually called thrusters or screws. Many ships
have twin screws and one or more thrusters. Some big ships just have >>>>>>>> multiple azimuth thrusters.
Propellors - screws,
Except that you just said, ?In the marine world something that spins and >>>>>> produces thrust is just a propeller no matter how many blades it has or >>>>>> their shape?.
ships - boats. Same thing.
I think you?ll not get much support in the marine world for that
observation!
Thrusters meanwhile are describing an entire unit, like a jet engine. >>>>>>You?ve obviously never seen a bow thruster, have you?
I tend to lean towards Boltar's view - a bow thrust is the complete
unit, motor, gearing, tunnel and propellor. This was done to
differentiate between a bow thruster and a bow propellor which was
fitted on a few ships.
Could not find an easier cite but the official report into the Herald of >>>>> Free Enterprise disaster includes in the ship's description (para 4.1) >>>>> "Shaft driven alternators provided power for bow thrusters and a
feathering bow propeller used in the docking mode"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54c1704ce5274a15b6000025/FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but >> are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I >> think they?re used interchangeably today.
The same is true of unducted fans ? they?re essentially propellers.
Any modern aircraft with variable pitch propellers (so, more or less all >commercial turboprops) is typically using them in a push configuration
(aka reverse thrust) at least once every flight, on landing.
In practice they may even be used more than that, because it *is*
possible to use the propellors in reverse-pitch for maneuvering on the >ground (e.g. unassisted pushback.) I think this is somewhat uncommon
for commercial aircraft (for groundcrew safety and not flinging baggage >carts into the terminal,) but more common in military operations.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/03/2026 11:47, Marland wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTof
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of >>>>>> cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single
holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience. >>>>>>>
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful
way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
I?m inclined to agree with you, even with a posh hire boat.
I used to do few canal holidays back in the 70?s early 80?s until the
natural grouping of friends moved on to things like mortgages, marriage and >>> for some misery.
From an industrial archaeology point of view there was still a lot of the >>> past to be observed with factory?s etc still canal side in towns.
Courtaulds on the Coventry arm for instance had a small steam loco sitting >>> on tracks that had been out of use for awhile . Now everything has been
prettied up and a bit twee or demolished and replaced by expensive
residential and what hasn?t has been ruined by graffiti vandals. The
countryside is still nice which for a town dweller must make a change but >>> living
in the country I don?t need to spend a few hundred pounds to do that.
The Coutaulds loco is now at Quainton Road IIRC.
Ta, I wondered if it had survived.
On 15/03/2026 12:24, Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The Coutaulds loco is now at Quainton Road IIRC.
Ta, I wondered if it had survived.
Picture here: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Coutauld_Peckett_0-4-0T.jpg>
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 09:35, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:08:33 +0000Calling
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller.A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft.
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it.
The original propulsion system fwas a form of Archimedes screw in a tube >>> attached to the bottom of the boat and driven by a crank over the stern. >>> It was quickly realised that you only needed a section of the screw and >>> the tube could be removed, simplifying the construction and allowing all >>> the mechanics to be inside the hull. So calling it a screw acknowledges >>> its antecedents.
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an
apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
It screws its way through the water, so, yes it is a short screw.
On 15/03/2026 12:24, Marland wrote:
Ta, I wondered if it had survived.
Picture here: ><https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coutauld_Peckett_0-4-0T.jpg>
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 11:41:23 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 09:35, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:08:33 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:49:24 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The thruster is still a propeller that's not called a propeller. >>>>>>>A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Is there are difference between a screw or a propeller?
A screw is actually a continuous helical blade wrapped around a shaft. >>>> Calling
a propellor a screw just shows the ignorance of the person saying it. >>>>>
The original propulsion system fwas a form of Archimedes screw in a tube >>>> attached to the bottom of the boat and driven by a crank over the stern. >>>> It was quickly realised that you only needed a section of the screw and >>>> the tube could be removed, simplifying the construction and allowing all >>>> the mechanics to be inside the hull. So calling it a screw acknowledges >>>> its antecedents.
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an >>> apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
It screws its way through the water, so, yes it is a short screw.
No it doesn't, you're misunderstanding what a screw does. Try screwing a propellor into some wood.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an
apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Are you saying the use of the term airscrew for an aircraft propellor is >wrong?
I have some aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
On 15 Mar 2026 11:56:47 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an >>> apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Are you saying the use of the term airscrew for an aircraft propellor is
wrong?
Yes, its not a screw.
I have some aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
I suppose you think that because some pretentious car companies have called the drivers seat the "Captains Chair" you think the guy at the wheel has stripes on his shoulder?
On 15/03/2026 15:55, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 15 Mar 2026 11:56:47 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an >>>> apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Are you saying the use of the term airscrew for an aircraft propellor is >>> wrong?
Yes, its not a screw.
I have some aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and >>> to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
I suppose you think that because some pretentious car companies have called >> the drivers seat the "Captains Chair" you think the guy at the wheel has
stripes on his shoulder?
OOI which car companies?
On 15 Mar 2026 11:56:47 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an >>> apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Are you saying the use of the term airscrew for an aircraft propellor is
wrong?
Yes, its not a screw.
I have some aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:58:08 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 15:55, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 15 Mar 2026 11:56:47 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to
call an
apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Are you saying the use of the term airscrew for an aircraft
propellor is
wrong?
Yes, its not a screw.
I have some˙ aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they? >>>
˙ I would think the people who made them knew what they were
building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
I suppose you think that because some pretentious car companies have
called
the drivers seat the "Captains Chair" you think the guy at the wheel has >>> stripes on his shoulder?
OOI which car companies?
Jeep and BMW are the ones I remember.
On 15/03/2026 12:24, Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/03/2026 11:47, Marland wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMTcameras
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way of
at the front.of
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a whole load
water churning and noise and very little motion in my limited to a single
holiday never to be repeated because it was bloody awful experience. >>>>>>>>
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful
way when going in reverse.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
I?m inclined to agree with you, even with a posh hire boat.
I used to do few canal holidays back in the 70?s early 80?s until the
natural grouping of friends moved on to things like mortgages, marriage and
for some misery.
From an industrial archaeology point of view there was still a lot of the >>>> past to be observed with factory?s etc still canal side in towns.
Courtaulds on the Coventry arm for instance had a small steam loco sitting >>>> on tracks that had been out of use for awhile . Now everything has been >>>> prettied up and a bit twee or demolished and replaced by expensive
residential and what hasn?t has been ruined by graffiti vandals. The
countryside is still nice which for a town dweller must make a change but >>>> living
in the country I don?t need to spend a few hundred pounds to do that.
The Coutaulds loco is now at Quainton Road IIRC.
Ta, I wondered if it had survived.
Picture here: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coutauld_Peckett_0-4-0T.jpg>
On 15 Mar 2026 11:56:47 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 09:49:11 +0000
Achimedes screws don't work outside of a tube so if they want to call an >>> apple an orange thats up to them, but a propellor isn't a screw.
Are you saying the use of the term airscrew for an aircraft propellor is
wrong?
Yes, its not a screw.
I have some aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
I suppose you think that because some pretentious car companies have called the drivers seat the "Captains Chair" you think the guy at the wheel has stripes on his shoulder?
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but >>> are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way
of cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >>> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I >>Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of water churning and noise and very little motion in my >>limited to a single holiday never to be repeated because it was
bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >way when going in reverse.
In message <10p5vmv$10clj$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:43 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do
exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way
of cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so
they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different
origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in my
limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was
bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any
meaningful
way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats are
easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills. A bit
like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit of
the "holiday" was the end.
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a >>>>whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in
my limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was >>>>bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any >>>meaningful way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats
are easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills.
A bit like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Canal barges are easy, you just attach the horse to the other end.
I have some aircraft books from the 1940?s which contain adverts from
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
Don?t think there were marketing types in the 1940?s.
The manufactures of the time were using the term which was well understood
in that era .
They would not have been catering for someone born late 1960?s early
1970?s who is unfamiliar with the term .
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
I suppose you think that because some pretentious car companies have called >> the drivers seat the "Captains Chair" you think the guy at the wheel has
stripes on his shoulder?
Never seen that because I don?t follow pretentious car companies.
You are getting more like Roland in fighting against the opinions of others >when the majority are for good reason right.
In message <10p6r6o$18pdi$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:56 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a >>>>whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in
my limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was >>>>bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any >>>meaningful way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats >>are easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills.
A bit like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Canal barges are easy, you just attach the horse to the other end.
I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit
heavy for them.
In message <10p6r6o$18pdi$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:56 on Sun, 15 MarThere were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in
my limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was >>>>> bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any
meaningful way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats
are easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills.
A bit like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Canal barges are easy, you just attach the horse to the other end.
I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit
heavy for them.
although there are still a few of those around, usually trip-boats
rather than holiday boats.
Of course, if you can get someone onto the towpath, then manually
pulling a narrowboat backwards is relatively easy to steer, mindful
that the rope should preferably be attached to the front (bow) if
you are going backwards. So actually the same end as one traditionally attaches the horse.
In message <10p6r6o$18pdi$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:56 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in
my limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was >>>>> bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any
meaningful˙ way when going in reverse.
˙I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats
are˙ easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant
skills. A bit˙ like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Canal barges are easy, you just attach the horse to the other end.
I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit
heavy for them. Nor have I travelled on a horse-drawn narrowboat,
although there are still a few of those around, usually trip-boats
rather than holiday boats.
Of course, if you can get someone onto the towpath, then manually
pulling a narrowboat backwards is relatively easy to steer, mindful
that the rope should preferably be attached to the front (bow) if
you are going backwards. So actually the same end as one traditionally attaches the horse.
Of course, if you can get someone onto the towpath, then manually
pulling a narrowboat backwards is relatively easy to steer, mindful
that the rope should preferably be attached to the front (bow) if
you are going backwards. So actually the same end as one traditionally
attaches the horse.
That?s a bit ambiguous, it might be same end and but when going forward the rope isn?t attached to the bow or it will be pulled in to the bank, the
rope is attached further back to a stud on the top near the middle.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10p6r6o$18pdi$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:56 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in
my limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was >>>>>> bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any
meaningful way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats
are easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills. >>>> A bit like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Canal barges are easy, you just attach the horse to the other end.
I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint
they used horses for barges on them is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around 100 tons >on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one. ><http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >le-4.html>
Of course, if you can get someone onto the towpath, then manually
pulling a narrowboat backwards is relatively easy to steer, mindful
that the rope should preferably be attached to the front (bow) if
you are going backwards. So actually the same end as one traditionally
attaches the horse.
That?s a bit ambiguous, it might be same end and but when going forward the >rope isn?t attached to the bow or it will be pulled in to the bank, the
rope is attached further back to a stud on the top near the middle.
I'll go back to the "train station" vs "railway station" example, where
the former has gained a lot of traction amongst the public (and can sometimes be seen painted on the side of municipal buses), but that
doesn't mean most of us here are likely to go-with-the-flow and start
using it themselves.
In message <10p5vmv$10clj$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:43 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way
of cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can >>>> nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of water churning and noise and very little motion in my
limited to a single holiday never to be repeated because it was
bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >> way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats are
easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills. A bit
like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10p5vmv$10clj$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:43 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:28:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
A screw doesn't inevitably propel rather than pull.
Aircraft propellers normally pull. Pusher aircraft propellers do >>>>>exist, but
are very rare. They?re much more common on drones.
Presumably the reason for that is so the prop doesn't get in the way
of cameras
at the front.
And ship screws and propellers can normally be run in reverse, so they can
nearly always pull as well as propel. The terms had different >>>>>origins but I
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a
whole load of water churning and noise and very little motion in my
limited to a single holiday never to be repeated because it was
bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any meaningful >>> way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats are
easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills. A bit
like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Easy? Maybe, but a completely different technique from that used when
going forwards.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and
to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
As always, you think you know more than everyone in the industry:
too scared to fly?
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
Don?t think there were marketing types in the 1940?s.
You are getting more like Roland in fighting against the opinions of others >when the majority are for good reason right.
On 15/03/2026 10:10, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, >small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit >of
the "holiday" was the end.
I would hardly call the LORD OF THE GLENS cold, small, damp and smelly?
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 18:11:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 10:10, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, >>small,of
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best bit
the "holiday" was the end.
I would hardly call the LORD OF THE GLENS cold, small, damp and smelly?
Huh?
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:23:10 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and >>>> to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
As always, you think you know more than everyone in the industry:
A propeller is not a screw. A screw is a rod with an inclined plane wrapped >around it, not one with blades. I don't give a toss whether marketeers have >used the term incorrectly or not.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:21:20 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 18:11:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 10:10, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, >>>small,of
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best >bit
the "holiday" was the end.
I would hardly call the LORD OF THE GLENS cold, small, damp and smelly?
Huh?
https://lordoftheglens.co.uk/
In message <n1q3pbFsfchU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:19:23 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10p6r6o$18pdi$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:56 on Sun, 15 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Except on canal barges when running in reverse seems to elicit a >>>>>>> whole load of˙ water churning and noise and very little motion in >>>>>>> my limited to a single˙ holiday never to be repeated because it was >>>>>>> bloody awful experience.
They do go backwards easily. What they don?t do is steer in any
meaningful way when going in reverse.
I don't have much experience of canal barges, but canal narrowboats
are easy to steer going backwards, you just need the relevant skills. >>>>> A bit like reversing a trailer attached to your car.
Canal barges are easy, you just attach the horse to the other end.
I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint
they used horses for barges on them is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around 100 tons >> on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
On 15 Mar 2026 17:17:40 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they?
Don?t think there were marketing types in the 1940?s.
Seriously? You don't think there were poster ads and ads in the cinema and in the newspapers in the 1940s?
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say theyI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint
they used horses for barges on them is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around 100 tons >>> on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
would be too heavy without any evidence.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of the >situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a towpath so the >horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest deep along the river >along a sunken path .
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say theyI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit >>>>> heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint >>>> they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around
100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
would be too heavy without any evidence.
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of the
situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a towpath so
the
horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest deep along the river
along a sunken path .
They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say theyI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit >>>>> heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint >>>> they used horses for barges on them is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
would be too heavy without any evidence.
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of the
situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a towpath so the >> horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest deep along the river
along a sunken path .
They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:23:10 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I would think the people who made them knew what they were building and >>>> to take a stand that they were wrong and you are right is a bit
Rolandesque.
As always, you think you know more than everyone in the industry:
A propeller is not a screw. A screw is a rod with an inclined plane wrapped >around it, not one with blades. I don't give a toss whether marketeers have >used the term incorrectly or not.
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit >>>>>> heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint >>>>> they used horses for barges on them? is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they would be too heavy without any evidence.
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they >>weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of
the situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a
towpath so the horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest >>>deep along the river along a sunken path .
They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say theyI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit >>>>>> heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint >>>>> they used horses for barges on them is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
would be too heavy without any evidence.
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of the
situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a towpath so the >>> horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest deep along the river >>> along a sunken path .
They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
It says barges on the 19th century drawings in the link and as the artist
was there to witness them and would have been familiar with the terms used >I?ll take their opinion not yours , and it doesn?t take too long on the WWW >to find on several sites that Fen lighters are described as a type of
barge.
Attempt to start another argument by declaring something without
full knowledge noted .
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a >>>>>>> bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big >>>>>> hint
they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>> 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of
the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a
towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading
chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short distance (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say they
would be too heavy without any evidence.
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
On 16/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16 >>>> Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a >>>>>>>> bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big >>>>>>> hint
they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>>> 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of >>>>> the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a
towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading
chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short distance
(through the City), on the open river they sailed.
There is no definition of the size of a barge. As noted elsewhere, the
Fen lighter is a type of barge.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I'll go back to the "train station" vs "railway station" example, where
the former has gained a lot of traction amongst the public (and can
sometimes be seen painted on the side of municipal buses), but that
doesn't mean most of us here are likely to go-with-the-flow and start
using it themselves.
And on the name boards of [railway] stations in NI: <https://maps.app.goo.gl/e8PijsEFUoTRAPZV7>
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a >>>>>>> bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big >>>>>> hint
they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>> 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-
tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of
the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a
towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading
chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short distance (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:27:05 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:21:20 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 18:11:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 10:10, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:Huh?
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, >>>> small,of
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best >> bit
the "holiday" was the end.
I would hardly call the LORD OF THE GLENS cold, small, damp and smelly? >>>
https://lordoftheglens.co.uk/
I think that might stretching the definition of a canal barge a bit tight.
On 16/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon,
16 Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>they? would be too heavy without any evidence.I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be >>>>>>>>a bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A >>>>>>>big hint
they used horses for barges on them? is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones >>>>>>>around 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
?I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware
of the? situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow
a towpath so? the? horses had to haul the barges past them wading >>>>>chest deep along the river? along a sunken path .
?They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short
distance (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
There is no definition of the size of a barge.
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say
they would be too heavy without any evidence.
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they >>weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though the
more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines from
the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the 1910s/20's. >Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses into
the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know why >you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that can be >pushed by two people, there is little friction with a floating boat.
Third photo down shows the last one. >><http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
..
In message <10p9jhg$2877k$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:52:31 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon,
16 Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be >>>>>>>>> a bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A >>>>>>>> big hint
they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones
around 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware
of the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow >>>>>> a towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading >>>>>> chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short
distance (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
There is no definition of the size of a barge.
Or a "boat".
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
It's also a type of "boat", and a type of "vessel", and in this instance rarely referred to as a "barge".Enough examples of them being called barges by people more involved with
14ft wide (ie twice a 'narrowboat') for that to be an appropriate description.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:27:05 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:21:20 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 18:11:00 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 10:10, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:Huh?
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, >>>>> small,of
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best >>> bit
the "holiday" was the end.
I would hardly call the LORD OF THE GLENS cold, small, damp and smelly? >>>>
https://lordoftheglens.co.uk/
I think that might stretching the definition of a canal barge a bit tight.
https://www.alamy.com/aggregator-api/download/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fc7.alamy.com%2
Fcomp%2FPRT43H%2Flord-of-the-glens-pleasure-cruiser-coming-through-the-narrow-l
ock-on-the-caledonian-canal-at-fort-augustus-scotland-PRT43H.jpg
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:36:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:27:05 +0000https://www.alamy.com/aggregator-api/download/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fc7.alamy.com%2
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:21:20 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>
On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 18:11:00 +0000bit
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 15/03/2026 10:10, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
That too. Quite what the appeal of living or even holidaying on a cold, >>>>>> small,
damp, smelly boat is frankly beats me. 4 days was more than enough. Best
ofHuh?
the "holiday" was the end.
I would hardly call the LORD OF THE GLENS cold, small, damp and smelly? >>>>>
https://lordoftheglens.co.uk/
I think that might stretching the definition of a canal barge a bit tight. >>
Fcomp%2FPRT43H%2Flord-of-the-glens-pleasure-cruiser-coming-through-the-narrow-l
ock-on-the-caledonian-canal-at-fort-augustus-scotland-PRT43H.jpg
Doesn't make it a barge any more than a speedboat going through the lock would be turned into one.
In message <10p9jhg$2877k$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:52:31 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16
Mar˙ 2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon,
16˙ Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be >>>>>>>>> a˙ bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A >>>>>>>> big˙ hint
they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones
around˙ 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they˙ weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware
of˙ the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow >>>>>> a˙ towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading >>>>>> chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
˙Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short
distance˙ (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
There is no definition of the size of a barge.
Or a "boat".
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
It's also a type of "boat", and a type of "vessel", and in this instance rarely referred to as a "barge". Which typically need to be at least
14ft wide (ie twice a 'narrowboat') for that to be an appropriate description.
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though the
more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines from
the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the
1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses into
the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse.
I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two 'barges'.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know
why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that
can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a floating
boat.
On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable
drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
Which is probably why the Lea Navigation could have larger horse-drawn barges because it is deeper. I knew there must be an engineering explanation.
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to
Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though the
more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines from
the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the
1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses into
the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse.
I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two 'barges'.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know
why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that
can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a floating
boat.
On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable
drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
Which is probably why the Lea Navigation could have larger horse-drawn
barges because it is deeper. I knew there must be an engineering
explanation.
Lots of different views, but no authoritative links from anyone. How about: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canal-history/history-features-and-articles/the-evolution-of-the-narrowboat
After all, they are the owners / managers of the canal system so should know. A quote:
QUOTE
While there are no strict definitions, a narrowboat is considered to be
less than seven feet (2.13 metres) wide. Barges or wide beams, on the
other hand, are boats wider than seven feet.
UNQUOTE
No mention of type of propulsion (horses or diseasel), no mention of
sails or not, etc etc.
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they >>weren't going very far.But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a bit >>>>>> heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big hint >>>>> they used horses for barges on them? is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they would be too heavy without any evidence.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware ofThey are Fen Lighters, not barges.
the
situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a towpath
so the
horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest deep along the river >>> along a sunken path .
And the difference is?
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe theyBut you were confident enough despite not having seen one to sayI don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd be a >>>>>>> bit
heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A big >>>>>> hint
they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had tow paths.
Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul ones around >>>>>> 100 tons
on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha >>>>>> le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware of the >>>> situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow a towpath˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
so˙ the
horses had to haul the barges past them wading chest deep along the
river
along a sunken path .
And the difference is?
Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, and as
such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe they
weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though the
more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines from
the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the
1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses into
the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse.
I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two 'barges'.
You do post some shite. You can stand on the bank, push one foot onto aThey are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know
why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that
can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a floating
boat.
On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable
drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, andNot all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on the >Thames:
as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, andNot all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
On 17/03/2026 17:00, Adrian wrote:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, andNot all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
Well that matches?
On 17/03/2026 17:00, Adrian wrote:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel,Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Well that matches?
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/03/2026 17:00, Adrian wrote:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, and >>>>> as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
Well that matches?
Is this thread going to get inflammatory again.
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, andNot all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, andNot all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"?˙ Then all
lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
On 18/03/2026 09:03, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel,Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"?˙ Then all
lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
Some of them are quite heavy!
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>they? would be too heavy without any evidence.
?I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to >>Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though
the more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines >>>from the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the >>>1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horsesI think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two
into the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse.
'barges'.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know
why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that
can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a floating boat.
On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable >>drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
Which is probably why the Lea Navigation could have larger
horse-drawn barges because it is deeper. I knew there must be an >>engineering explanation.
Lots of different views, but no authoritative links from anyone. How about: >https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canal-history/history-featur >es-and-articles/the-evolution-of-the-narrowboat
After all, they are the owners / managers of the canal system so should >know. A quote:
QUOTE
While there are no strict definitions, a narrowboat is considered to be
less than seven feet (2.13 metres) wide.
Barges or wide beams,
on the other hand, are boats wider than seven feet.
UNQUOTE
No mention of type of propulsion (horses or diseasel), no mention of
sails or not, etc etc.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is extraordinarily unlikely.
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>they? would be too heavy without any evidence.
?I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to >>Birmingham.
But is an example of long distance barge use, pulled by horses.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though
the more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines >>>from the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the >>>1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horsesI think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two
into the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse.
'barges'.
No it isnt, the Grand Union is wide beam, so barges were bigger than
7'.
Of course, there were narrowboats doing the same thing, at the same
time, as the narrowboats served the 'narrow' canals, which branched off
the wide beam canals.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont knowwaterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that
can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a floating boat. >> On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable >>drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
You do post some shite.
You can stand on the bank, push one foot onto a 70 foot narrowboat, and >it'll move.
In message <10pbul5$328cb$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:29 on Tue, 17 Mar
2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe >>>>they weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to >>Birmingham.
But is an example of long distance barge use, pulled by horses.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though
the more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines >>>from the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the >>>1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses >>>into the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one horse. >> I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two'barges'.
No it isnt, the Grand Union is wide beam, so barges were bigger than
7'.
I don't think I've ever seen a wide beam boat plus matching wide beam
butty. (Using any form of propulsion).
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn >wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is >extraordinarily unlikely.
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
?Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel,Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on
and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"? Then all
lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On 15 Mar 2026 17:17:40 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Oh right, so advertisers and marketing types have the last word do they? >>>Don?t think there were marketing types in the 1940?s.
Seriously? You don't think there were poster ads and ads in the cinema and in
the newspapers in the 1940s?
?Murder Must Advertise? (1933) is set in an advertising agency. The
author, Dorothy L Sayers, had worked as an advertising copywriter until
1931.
In message <vxAQ4RNSipupFAIQ@perry.uk>, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> writes
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn >wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is >extraordinarily unlikely.
Are - unlikely I would have thought.
In the past - it absolutely did happen.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is extraordinarily unlikely.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is extraordinarily unlikely.
Are or were , now most of them which were tourist trip boats have ceased trading .
<https://kennet-horse-boat.co.uk>
uses a modern boat built for passengers they describe as a barge.
In message <10pdpoq$3h30n$1@dont-email.me>, Rolf Mantel ><news@hartig-mantel.de> writes
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >>><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
?Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, >>>>>and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on >>>>the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"? Then all
lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
Other way around. A barge could be used as a lighter, but a lighter >couldn't be used as a barge as there is no cabin space.
In message <vxAQ4RNSipupFAIQ@perry.uk>, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >writes
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn >>wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is >>extraordinarily unlikely.
Are - unlikely I would have thought.
In the past - it absolutely did happen.
In message <2YvKBPEJbqupFwo1@ku.gro.lloiff>, at 13:21:13 on Wed, 18 Mar >2026, Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> remarked:
In message <10pdpoq$3h30n$1@dont-email.me>, Rolf Mantel >><news@hartig-mantel.de> writes
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >>>><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, >>>>>>and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on >>>>>the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"? Then all >>>lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
Other way around. A barge could be used as a lighter, but a lighter >>couldn't be used as a barge as there is no cabin space.
Since when did a barge have to be devoid of cabin space? That would have >made Boltar's holiday even more miserable.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Doesn't make it a barge any more than a speedboat going through the lock
would be turned into one.
It?s a boat travelling through an inland canal. Nobody said it was a barge; >your description was of a canal boat (?a cold, small, damp, smelly boat?).
In message <2YvKBPEJbqupFwo1@ku.gro.lloiff>, at 13:21:13 on Wed, 18 Mar 2026, Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> remarked:
In message <10pdpoq$3h30n$1@dont-email.me>, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-
mantel.de> writes
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:˙You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
˙Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel,Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on >>>>> the Thames:
and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"?˙ Then all
lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
Other way around.˙ A barge could be used as a lighter, but a lighter
couldn't be used as a barge as there is no cabin space.
Since when did a barge have to be devoid of cabin space? That would have made Boltar's holiday even more miserable.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 13:51:15 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <2YvKBPEJbqupFwo1@ku.gro.lloiff>, at 13:21:13 on Wed, 18 Mar >>2026, Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> remarked:
In message <10pdpoq$3h30n$1@dont-email.me>, Rolf Mantel >>><news@hartig-mantel.de> writes
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >>>>><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
?Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, >>>>>>>and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges on >>>>>>the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"? Then all >>>>lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
Other way around. A barge could be used as a lighter, but a lighter >>>couldn't be used as a barge as there is no cabin space.
Since when did a barge have to be devoid of cabin space? That would have >>made Boltar's holiday even more miserable.
You've completely misunderstood the post you're replying to. Try
reading it first.
On 18/03/2026 13:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <2YvKBPEJbqupFwo1@ku.gro.lloiff>, at 13:21:13 on Wed, 18
Mar 2026, Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> remarked:
In message <10pdpoq$3h30n$1@dont-email.me>, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig- mantel.de> writes
Am 17.03.2026 um 18:00 schrieb Adrian:
In message <10pbtpk$31nj6$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >>>>><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
On 17/03/2026 14:36, Adrian wrote:?You call them barges, I'll call them lighters.
?Traditionally a lighter was used for lightening another vessel, >>>>>>>and as such didn't need to have accommodation for crew.Not all barges had accomodation; Here's a couple of waste barges >>>>>>on the Thames:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resource.jpg>
Can we agree that "lighters" are a subset of "barges"?? Then all >>>>lighters are barges but not all barges are lighters.
Other way around.? A barge could be used as a lighter, but a lighter >>>couldn't be used as a barge as there is no cabin space.
Since when did a barge have to be devoid of cabin space? That would
have made Boltar's holiday even more miserable.
Roland, re-read. Adrian said "a lighter couldn't be used as a barge as
there is no cabin space". In other words the complete opposite of your >comment.
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
It's also a type of "boat", and a type of "vessel", and in this
instance rarely referred to as a "barge". Which typically need to be
at least 14ft wide (ie twice a 'narrowboat') for that to be an >>appropriate description.
As they say in al the best circles, cite?
Lots of different views, but no authoritative links from anyone. How about: >> https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canal-history/history-features-and-articles/the-evolution-of-the-narrowboat
After all, they are the owners / managers of the canal system so should
know. A quote:
QUOTE
While there are no strict definitions, a narrowboat is considered to be
less than seven feet (2.13 metres) wide. Barges or wide beams, on the
other hand, are boats wider than seven feet.
UNQUOTE
No mention of type of propulsion (horses or diseasel), no mention of
sails or not, etc etc.
I?m no expert in this subject, but had always assumed that boats had a
means of propulsion (including engines, oars or sails), whereas barges were >towed or pushed by something else.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10p9jhg$2877k$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:52:31 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, >>>>>> 16 Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>>> they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd >>>>>>>>>> a bit heavy for them.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A >>>>>>>>>big hint they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had >>>>>>>>>paths. Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul >>>>>>>>> around 100 tons on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
le-4.html><http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware >>>>>>> of the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow >>>>>>> a towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading >>>>>>> chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short
distance (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
There is no definition of the size of a barge.
Or a "boat".
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
Enough examples of them being called barges by people more involved with
It's also a type of "boat", and a type of "vessel", and in this instance
rarely referred to as a "barge".
them and their history than you exist to confirm they are a type of barge.
Which typically need to be at least
14ft wide (ie twice a 'narrowboat') for that to be an appropriate
description.
Once again you make a statement that you should really indicate is just
your often inaccurate opinion
rather than presenting it as if you are an expert .
Kennet and Avon Canal barges ,Basingstoke Canal Barges , Wey Navigation >Barges were all under 14?.
as they were on a few other navigations such as the Itchen Navigation, and >the Fen lighters which are definitely a type of barge despite your attempts >to hint they don?t count as such were between 10?and 12?.
Many examples of modern craft built for people who want something larger
than a narrowboat and are content to just cruise or live along the wider >waterways choose vessels that though smaller than the original ones across >the North sea have one called a Dutch Barge ,many are only around 10? to
12? wide.
In message <n1spnfFarhfU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:46:07 on Tue, 17
Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10p9jhg$2877k$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:52:31 on Mon, 16 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9fng$261lb$4@dont-email.me>, at 17:47:28 on Mon, 16
Mar 2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n1qs8nF1n81U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:17:11 on Mon, >>>>>>> 16 Mar 2026, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I've ever seen a horse-drawn canal barge, it'd >>>>>>>>>>> a bit heavy for them.
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>>>> they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
There were plenty of waterways wider than the narrow canals. A >>>>>>>>>> big hint they used horses for barges on them˙ is they had >>>>>>>>>> paths. Barges did vary in size but single horses used to haul >>>>>>>>>> around 100 tons on the Lea navigation
Third photo down shows the last one.
<http://publictransportexperience.blogspot.com/2011/11/hail-tottenham-ha
le-4.html>
1955, which is why I wouldn't have seen it.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they weren't going very far.
And I would have thought you of all people would have been aware >>>>>>>> of the˙ situation at Cambridge where the colleges would not allow >>>>>>>> a towpath so˙ the˙ horses had to haul the barges past them wading >>>>>>>> chest deep along the river˙ along a sunken path .
˙They are Fen Lighters, not barges.
And the difference is?
Size and weight. Also they were only horse-drawn for a short
distance (through the City), on the open river they sailed.
There is no definition of the size of a barge.
Or a "boat".
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
Enough examples of them being called barges by people more involved with
It's also a type of "boat", and a type of "vessel", and in this instance >>> rarely referred to as a "barge".
them and their history than you exist to confirm they are a type of barge. >>
Which typically need to be at least
14ft wide (ie twice a 'narrowboat') for that to be an appropriate
description.
Once again you make a statement that you should really indicate is just
your often inaccurate opinion
rather than presenting it as if you are an expert .
Kennet and Avon Canal barges ,Basingstoke Canal Barges , Wey Navigation
Barges were all under 14?.
as they were on a few other navigations such as the Itchen Navigation, and >> the Fen lighters which are definitely a type of barge despite your attempts >> to hint they don?t count as such were between 10?and 12?.
Many examples of modern craft built for people who want something larger
than a narrowboat and are content to just cruise or live along the wider
waterways choose vessels that though smaller than the original ones across >> the North sea have one called a Dutch Barge ,many are only around 10? to
12? wide.
You continue to completely miss the point, which is that the corre3ct
term for a narrowboat is "narrowboat", not "barge".
In message <10pbhje$2tc07$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:31:42 on Tue, 17 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16
Mar˙ 2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say
they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they˙ weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
˙Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to
Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though
the˙ more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines
from˙ the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the
1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses˙I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two 'barges'.
into˙ the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one
horse.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know
why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that
can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a
floating boat.
˙On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable
drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
˙Which is probably why the Lea Navigation could have larger
horse-drawn˙ barges because it is deeper. I knew there must be an
engineering˙ explanation.
Lots of different views, but no authoritative links from anyone. How
about:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canal-history/history-featur
es-and-articles/the-evolution-of-the-narrowboat
After all, they are the owners / managers of the canal system so
should know. A quote:
QUOTE
While there are no strict definitions, a narrowboat is considered to
be less than seven feet (2.13 metres) wide.
I agree. They are designed to fit into narrow(sic) locks and generally
are six feet ten inches wide.
Barges or wide beams,
Do they mean "Barges aka wide beams...", or "Barges and wide beams..."
on the other hand, are boats wider than seven feet.
I think we've decided that Fen Lighters are a subset of barges, so what would CRT say about a six-foot wide fen lighter?
UNQUOTE
No mention of type of propulsion (horses or diseasel), no mention of
sails or not, etc etc.
Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A few
are exclusively manually propelled.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is extraordinarily unlikely.
In message <10pbfm1$2sjjl$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:57 on Tue, 17 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
As noted elsewhere, the Fen lighter is a type of barge.
˙˙ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
˙It's also a type of "boat", and a type of "vessel", and in this
instance˙ rarely referred to as a "barge". Which typically need to be
at least˙ 14ft wide (ie twice a 'narrowboat') for that to be an
appropriate˙ description.
As they say in al the best circles, cite?
We eagerly await the response of the person who wrote the text
highlighted above.
On 18/03/2026 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10pbhje$2tc07$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:31:42 on Tue, 17 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16
Mar˙ 2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>>> they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe
they˙ weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
˙Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to
Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though
the˙ more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines >>>>> from˙ the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the
1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses˙I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two 'barges'. >>>>
into˙ the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one
horse.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know >>>>> why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that >>>>> can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a
floating boat.
˙On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable >>>> drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
˙Which is probably why the Lea Navigation could have larger
horse-drawn˙ barges because it is deeper. I knew there must be an
engineering˙ explanation.
Lots of different views, but no authoritative links from anyone. How
about:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canal-history/history-featur >>> es-and-articles/the-evolution-of-the-narrowboat
After all, they are the owners / managers of the canal system so
should know. A quote:
QUOTE
While there are no strict definitions, a narrowboat is considered to
be less than seven feet (2.13 metres) wide.
I agree. They are designed to fit into narrow(sic) locks and generally
are six feet ten inches wide.
Barges or wide beams,
Do they mean "Barges aka wide beams...", or "Barges and wide beams..."
on the other hand, are boats wider than seven feet.
I think we've decided that Fen Lighters are a subset of barges, so what
would CRT say about a six-foot wide fen lighter?
UNQUOTE
No mention of type of propulsion (horses or diseasel), no mention of
sails or not, etc etc.
Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A few
are exclusively manually propelled.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn
wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is
extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of mechanical power?
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/03/2026 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10pbhje$2tc07$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:31:42 on Tue, 17 Mar
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 17/03/2026 08:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10p9jj4$280f8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:24 on Mon, 16
Mar˙ 2026, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> remarked:
On 16/03/2026 17:41, Roland Perry wrote:
But you were confident enough despite not having seen one to say >>>>>>>> they˙ would be too heavy without any evidence.
˙I admit I'm surprised that some waterways did have them. Maybe >>>>>>> they˙ weren't going very far.
London to near Birmingham not far enough?
˙Last time I looked, the Lea Navigation didn't get even get close to >>>>> Birmingham.
Horse drawn boats were still not unusual in the late 60's, though
the˙ more commercial carrying Companies had turned to diesel engines >>>>>> from˙ the 20's onward.
Steam was the first mechanical means, diesel engines came in the
1910s/20's.
Just like Steptoes Hercules, there were people still using horses˙I think you'll find that's a narrowboat and a butty, not two 'barges'. >>>>>
into˙ the 70's. And a lot of them used 2 barges pulled by the one
horse.
They are remarkably easy to pull along once started, so I dont know >>>>>> why you'd think they were too heavy to pull. Like a Mk.1 coach that >>>>>> can be pushed by two people, there is little friction with a
floating boat.
˙On the contrary, especially with a loaded boat, there's considerable >>>>> drag due to the displacement of water around it when navigating
waterways which are hardly any deeper than the boat's draught.
˙Which is probably why the Lea Navigation could have larger
horse-drawn˙ barges because it is deeper. I knew there must be an
engineering˙ explanation.
Lots of different views, but no authoritative links from anyone. How
about:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canal-history/history-featur >>>> es-and-articles/the-evolution-of-the-narrowboat
After all, they are the owners / managers of the canal system so
should know. A quote:
QUOTE
While there are no strict definitions, a narrowboat is considered to
be less than seven feet (2.13 metres) wide.
I agree. They are designed to fit into narrow(sic) locks and generally
are six feet ten inches wide.
Barges or wide beams,
Do they mean "Barges aka wide beams...", or "Barges and wide beams..."
on the other hand, are boats wider than seven feet.
I think we've decided that Fen Lighters are a subset of barges, so what
would CRT say about a six-foot wide fen lighter?
UNQUOTE
No mention of type of propulsion (horses or diseasel), no mention of
sails or not, etc etc.
Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A few
are exclusively manually propelled.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn
wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is
extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of mechanical
power?
Hauled surely? :)
Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A
few are exclusively manually propelled.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn >>wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is >>extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of mechanical >power?
In message <10penh1$1gnb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:31:13 on Wed, 18 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
˙Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A
few˙ are exclusively manually propelled.
˙But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn
wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is
extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of
mechanical power?
How many wide inland waterways were there before mechanical power? For example, the Grand Union wasn't widened until the 1930's.
In message <10penh1$1gnb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:31:13 on Wed, 18 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
˙Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A
few˙ are exclusively manually propelled.
˙But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn
wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is
extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of
mechanical power?
How many wide inland waterways were there before mechanical power? For example, the Grand Union wasn't widened until the 1930's.
In message <10penh1$1gnb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:31:13 on Wed, 18 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A
few are exclusively manually propelled.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn
wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is
extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of mechanical
power?
How many wide inland waterways were there before mechanical power? For example, the Grand Union wasn't widened until the 1930's.
In message <10penh1$1gnb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:31:13 on Wed, 18 Mar
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Narrowboats can be diesel, steam, electricity or horse-propelled. A >>>few are exclusively manually propelled.
But this misses the point, which is whether there are horse-drawn >>>wide/barges on inland waterways, which I continue to claim is >>>extraordinarily unlikely.
How do you think they were propelled before the invention of
mechanical power?
How many wide inland waterways were there before mechanical power? For >example, the Grand Union wasn't widened until the 1930's.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 117:55:20 |
| Calls: | 125 |
| Calls today: | 125 |
| Files: | 489 |
| D/L today: |
859 files (365M bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,488 |
| Posted today: | 26 |
