User talk:GRAHAMUK

Thanks for the nice comment on my talk page. Re connection and maps, I can guarantee that there was *never* a connection, for two reasons. One was the inter-company rivalries (Midland -v- L&NW), the other was the geography. The main town station in Midland Road was already raised up from what later became Marlowes and the line stayed at around that height along the side of the hill and then on the viaduct to Heath Park Halt, which was itself well above ground level. The route that would have been needed for a connection to Boxmoor would have been a substantial drop as well as the lower end being boggy land and having to cross low over the main road and the grand union canal (then still a main freight artery). In regards to the OS maps, I am sorry to let you know that they are *frequently* wrong imho, indeed I have advised them on a number of occasions of errors in their maps (which, to be fair, they then correct in a subsequent edition). The pre-grouping railway atlas though is also a mess. Hemel is on the edge of a map, and in the version on page 10 (fifth edition) the line is shown as terminating at Heath Park Halt, but on page 11 the line is shown extending past that halt (but still no interconnect). My biggest puzzle, in fact, is that I'd never heard it referred to as the 'Nicky line' until I read the WP article! --Vamp:Willow 12:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser! You seem pretty certain of your conviction, and for me it's harder to be sure, even though I lived in Hemel for many years. Of course neither of us were around in 1880, so there's no possibility of a direct yes or no eyewitness account, though I suppose there may be the small possibility of photographic evidence. I agree about map inaccuracies, but this, if it is an error, is one of staggeringly gross proportions. The map in question ([1] (http://www.old-maps.co.uk/), enter grid ref 504974,205994 and click "enlarged view") shows not only a connection, but a series of bridges (over the canal, river Bulbourne and the London Road), embankments and the actual layout of the trackbed between Heath Park and the main line. Even individual trees are depicted. Given that the depiction of the remainder of the line seems accurate, and includes tiny details such as signal posts, etc, it seems hard to believe that they would simply make this up. Of course being an old map the data on which it was based would be very hard to track down, and in the end it doesn't matter except as a curiosity. However, later maps (as late the 1970s) still show at least part of the connection, especially the curve off the main line that goes past the old gas works to the A41 London Road, though with the track removed. Now there is probably no trace on the ground at all as this area was redeveloped as an industrial area at some point, and still more recently the works for the road link to the new A41 bypass further moved land around. However, there must exist records of bridges being constructed and/or demolished, and other archive material that would prove it one way or another. Unfortunately I live in Australia these days so popping down to the Hemel public records office isn't really feasible, but the more this mystery deepens, the more I want to solve it! Graham 22:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

eep! My childhood is under attack! ;-P I'm looking at the map at the moment and it definitely shows a connection. However it also shows a "Harpenden Junction" where it passes over Marlowes (but no junction) and - to me and given the limitations of mapping - the line looks to cross Marlowes a little north of where it actually did. Also there appears to be a railway embankment (sans railway) north of the Heath Park Hotel, but otherwise it does appear to indicate a single track line. Looking at my 1974 OS map there appears to be a footpath marked too. One thing I do notice about the 1883 map though is that there is no Heath Park Halt station marked and the line in the Marlowes area is shown as an embankment not as the viaduct that it actually needed, thus leaving me with a few doubts still about that map. I am starting to worry though about whether all the history I was told of the line as a kid (HH born and bred in the 50s!) was as accurate as it should be. :: delay of ten minutes ::. F***. Looking at an aerial shot of the area [2] (http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=505250&Y=206000&width=700&height=410&gride=507184.043323525&gridn=207205.1982241&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&pc=&zm=0&out.x=3&out.y=7&scale=5000) you can clearly see the path of *something* following the route. Whether there was an actual connection I'll take the other info that says there wasn't (and if you look carefully at the 1883 map it doesn't show one either), but I'm now (annoyingly!) feeling more inclined to think that the line *was* extended down to the Boxmoor area (location now called Standring Rise). (Trees, btw, are always shown conventionally on maps of this era but are rarely accurately positioned ime). --Vamp:Willow 12:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For me that aerial photo is quite convincing (and fascinating!). Note especially the area just north and south of the canal - clearly whatever this feature is or was it had a broad width, much wider than is necessary for a mere footpath. This could be the base of a removed embankment, bridge abutments or something similar - even unraised railway track might leave behind something like this. There is also an intrusion into the bank of the canal at this point on the non-towpath side, which would suggest that something was here - this part of the canal was widened in the 1920s or 30s as part of the Grand Union scheme, whatever stood here must have been around BEFORE the canal was widened (widening the span of a bridge for example would have been considered not worthwhile given that barges could easily give way if necessary to pass here). After it was removed, the intrusion remains which shows where the original unwidened canal bank was. Also, and much less reliably, I seem to recall seeing a photo somewhere showing the bridge across London Road (though I have just now tried to search it out again to no avail; and it may be that the photo I saw was of the main line bridge further along which still exists). As for your other observations about the 1883 map - it's hard to be sure about the positioning of the Marlowes viaduct, I personally never saw it. Given the possibly less accurate surveying in those days, you could well be right, though also bear in mind that the modern "funny" roundabout occupies much more space than the old Moor End crossroads, and so may appear to "move" the viaduct's apparent position closer to the junction. Unfortunately the resolution available on the online scan of the map makes it hard to pick out detail here, though the line of the Gade appears to also be crossed by the viaduct at that point, which would definitely make it a bridge rather than an embankment. The only photo I can find of it online [3] (http://www.hemelhempsteadtoday.co.uk/mk4custompages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=4092) unfortunately doesn't really throw much light, showing it from the north. This page does however, also show a photo of a bridge across Station Road, which would be beyond Heath Park... If the line stopped at Heath Park why would there be an expensive bridge here? From what I can gather there were some sidings at Heath Park halt which may explain the additional embankment extending behind the halt - this would make sense on the basis that they would have needed a way to put an engine on either end of the train. Also, the 1883 map definitely does show a track connection to the main line - it's hard to see it but if you download the image and blow it up in Photoshop it can be made out. None of this necessarily conflicts with your childhood memories - it's quite possible that this whole section got dismantled much earlier than the 1950s, especially given the closure of the line altogether in 1947. I'm fairly convinced about the link existing, but there just isn't enough evidence online to settle it. I'm visiting the UK in the summer - I may try and find time to find out more about this. The Gazette should have lots of pics in its archives - I'm going to contact them and see if I can get hold of copies. I guess reading the recent new book would help too! It just goes to show how easily facts about our past are lost, though of course it doesn't really matter one jot in this case! However, I just want to KNOW! On a mission.... Graham 22:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(ten minutes later) looking again at the viaduct photo, I think it actually shows the structure from the south, not the north. Note the way the street appears to curve to the right beyond the viaduct - this is consistent with the 1883 map, which also appears to show a row of terraced houses on the left of the road going north but not on the right (the photo shows trees barely visible on the right????). This is really pushing the detail discernable on the map and photo however. This means the river would be behind the houses on the left, which is consistent with descriptions I've read of the watercress growers' cottages. So, comparing with the modern layout of Moor End, this places the viaduct very close to the "funny" roundabout - in fact only a few tens of metres north of the most northerly mini-roundabout, which is actually slightly south of the later BP building which I recall from MY childhood. Thus the old Plough crossroads is actually situated at the southern extreme of where the funny roundabout is today. What does this prove? Nothing, except that I believe it shows that the 1883 map's positioning of the viaduct is probably correct. One other thing comes to mind. If the Nicky Line as a whole was opened in 1877, and this map is from 1883, that's not long after it was built. Could it be that the old map shows the PROJECTED route of the line? While that's entirely possible, it doesn't explain the on-the-ground evidence visible in the aerial photo.Graham 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Hemeloverlay.jpg

(1 hour later) You may find this interesting. I took the aerial photo and the map and fitted the map to the photo with a transparent overlay. In Photoshop I can vary the transparency of the layers which is cool - you can basically morph from one to the other. If you'd like the original layered Photoshop file (6.6MB), mail me (grahamDOTcoxATbigNOSPAMpondDOTcom) and I'll send it. This is a jpeg taken off it. If nothing else it shows that the 1883 map was actually pretty accurate - where it doesn't quite line up it's probably more to do with differences in the projection and my ability to manually adjust the scale than any surveying error. Graham 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Induced Drag.jpg

I was just looking around and found the Lift-induced drag page, which was meant to display the image you uploaded, titled Image:Induced Drag.jpg. There seems to be an error with it, and it is only appearing as:

I've removed it from the article for the time being, just put it back if you manage to get it fixed.

Just thought I'd let you know. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The image appears just fine right here, and on the page. Try it again - perhaps there were some issues given that WP had a major shutdown of its systems over the last few days - it might just be that you looked at images as just the wrong moment...? Graham 21:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Brent

Does it really add anything to the article by quoting the character of Brent as saying "M.C. Hammer shit"? I pulled the word because it distracts from the point of his delusionally inflated sense of his own ability. The Office contains a lot more casual vulgarity than many American viewers are accustomed to in their workplaces, & while it may be an accurate representation of UK practices, quoting that word alone & out of context of what the rest of the characters say (e.g. people are told to fuck off, sex toys are exchanged in the office as presents, Dawn calls David a wanker, Tim calls Gareth a cock & worse -- about the only obsenity I missed in the series is the British "bloody") makes him sound to the non-UK readers as if he were no more than a foul-mouthed & uneducated person: more like Dawn's boyfriend than David himself. I hope you take this point under consideration, rather than push for "freedom of speech". -- llywrch 04:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand it shows another side of his personality - the way he tries to pass off what he clearly believes are talents as just something he does in passing; another string to his multi-dimensional bow. By off-handedly dismissing M.C.Hammer as "shit", he's trying to appear cool, casually dropping it in as if he hasn't in fact tried so very hard to study the moves in question. The irony is of course, that what he then does is indeed shit of the worst kind, and not even slightly cool. While I doubt this will come across from the quote to those who haven't seen this scene for themselves, for those who have it's an amusing reminder. Ask yourself what does adding it take away from the article? I'd say nothing, so where's the harm? Graham 05:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Careless use of vulgarity erodes credibility; & David Brent, for all of his faults is not vulgar by nature as Brick Top Polford in Guy Richie's Snatch was. Including vulgarity in a quote from that character -- or from a passage from Hunter S. Thompson's writings or the tapes of Richard Nixon -- properly help to define those individuals. And including vulgarity in a quotation is like adding a pungent herb (like fennel or licorice) to a dish: a little goes a very long way at best, & should be avoided unless you can defend its use.

But I'm conceding this argument. Partly because someone else agrees with you about the article, but mostly because I watched the scene tonight, & it's clear from the camera shot of his speechless audience that his inappropriate language was intended as an important part of the scene. It's one of many things in this series that only become obvious after repeated viewings. -- llywrch 05:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Can you please provide some proof that the image Image:Austinmaestro.jpg is "copyright free"? Does that mean that it's in the public domain? Thank you. --Ellmist 01:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also: Image:Austinmaxi.jpg, Image:Austinmontego.jpg, Image:Austinprincess.jpg --Ellmist 01:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The images are press release images issued at the cars' various launches to the press. Each image in its original form explicitly includes the words "copyright free", though for the sake of presenting the images nicely and reducing their memory footprint I cropped these out. The originals can be found at one of the external links on the pages where they're used. Graham 01:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dihedral

The more I think about it the more merit the sideslip theory has, in my mind. I don't want to go into a long-winded explanation here but I'm going to write something on the discussion page for dihedral.

I have one major problem with the sideslip theory. It is going to take some time for the aircraft to accelerate into the sideslip so there will be some delay before the aircraft rights itself. This means that by the time the aircraft rights itself it will have lost some altitude and changed heading. Maybe this is what actually happens. However, the fact that dihedral raises the center of lift means the aircraft is more stable in the first place. This will moderate the onset of the bank and accelerate the recovery.

BTW, I've found at least five different explanations of how dihedral works. I can't tell you where now because someone cleared the cache on my computer and I'm having trouble retracing my steps. I found one explanation similar to your explanation (but not exactly). Another sideslip theory says the sideslip acts on the raised wing. One explanation says the bank changes the wing area (???). The most common explanation says that the lowered wing produces more lift because it is more horizontal (which makes no sense to me whatsoever).

I'll give you some references when I can find them again. Rsduhamel 17:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll copy this discussion to your talk page - it's easier to follow a thread if it's all in on place.Graham 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whitley Bay - rm not do famous residents - let's TRY to keep it real

If we're going to go down that route, I'd remove virtually all the entries, as none are substantiated or backed up with references. - Jon Dowland 13:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Older stuff from this page can be read at User talk:GRAHAMUK/Archive.

Please add new stuff to the bottom of the page, where I can find it, thanks!! (Except for extending existing discussions)

Nicky line

Curiouser and curiouser! You seem pretty certain of your conviction, and for me it's harder to be sure, even though I lived in Hemel for many years. Of course neither of us were around in 1880, so there's no possibility of a direct yes or no eyewitness account, though I suppose there may be the small possibility of photographic evidence. I agree about map inaccuracies, but this, if it is an error, is one of staggeringly gross proportions. The map in question ([4] (http://www.old-maps.co.uk/), enter grid ref 504974,205994 and click "enlarged view") shows not only a connection, but a series of bridges (over the canal, river Bulbourne and the London Road), embankments and the actual layout of the trackbed between Heath Park and the main line. Even individual trees are depicted. Given that the depiction of the remainder of the line seems accurate, and includes tiny details such as signal posts, etc, it seems hard to believe that they would simply make this up. Of course being an old map the data on which it was based would be very hard to track down, and in the end it doesn't matter except as a curiosity. However, later maps (as late the 1970s) still show at least part of the connection, especially the curve off the main line that goes past the old gas works to the A41 London Road, though with the track removed. Now there is probably no trace on the ground at all as this area was redeveloped as an industrial area at some point, and still more recently the works for the road link to the new A41 bypass further moved land around. However, there must exist records of bridges being constructed and/or demolished, and other archive material that would prove it one way or another. Unfortunately I live in Australia these days so popping down to the Hemel public records office isn't really feasible, but the more this mystery deepens, the more I want to solve it! Graham 22:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

eep! My childhood is under attack! ;-P I'm looking at the map at the moment and it definitely shows a connection. However it also shows a "Harpenden Junction" where it passes over Marlowes (but no junction) and - to me and given the limitations of mapping - the line looks to cross Marlowes a little north of where it actually did. Also there appears to be a railway embankment (sans railway) north of the Heath Park Hotel, but otherwise it does appear to indicate a single track line. Looking at my 1974 OS map there appears to be a footpath marked too. One thing I do notice about the 1883 map though is that there is no Heath Park Halt station marked and the line in the Marlowes area is shown as an embankment not as the viaduct that it actually needed, thus leaving me with a few doubts still about that map. I am starting to worry though about whether all the history I was told of the line as a kid (HH born and bred in the 50s!) was as accurate as it should be. :: delay of ten minutes ::. F***. Looking at an aerial shot of the area [5] (http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=505250&Y=206000&width=700&height=410&gride=507184.043323525&gridn=207205.1982241&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&pc=&zm=0&out.x=3&out.y=7&scale=5000) you can clearly see the path of *something* following the route. Whether there was an actual connection I'll take the other info that says there wasn't (and if you look carefully at the 1883 map it doesn't show one either), but I'm now (annoyingly!) feeling more inclined to think that the line *was* extended down to the Boxmoor area (location now called Standring Rise). (Trees, btw, are always shown conventionally on maps of this era but are rarely accurately positioned ime). --Vamp:Willow 12:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For me that aerial photo is quite convincing (and fascinating!). Note especially the area just north and south of the canal - clearly whatever this feature is or was it had a broad width, much wider than is necessary for a mere footpath. This could be the base of a removed embankment, bridge abutments or something similar - even unraised railway track might leave behind something like this. There is also an intrusion into the bank of the canal at this point on the non-towpath side, which would suggest that something was here - this part of the canal was widened in the 1920s or 30s as part of the Grand Union scheme, whatever stood here must have been around BEFORE the canal was widened (widening the span of a bridge for example would have been considered not worthwhile given that barges could easily give way if necessary to pass here). After it was removed, the intrusion remains which shows where the original unwidened canal bank was. Also, and much less reliably, I seem to recall seeing a photo somewhere showing the bridge across London Road (though I have just now tried to search it out again to no avail; and it may be that the photo I saw was of the main line bridge further along which still exists). As for your other observations about the 1883 map - it's hard to be sure about the positioning of the Marlowes viaduct, I personally never saw it. Given the possibly less accurate surveying in those days, you could well be right, though also bear in mind that the modern "funny" roundabout occupies much more space than the old Moor End crossroads, and so may appear to "move" the viaduct's apparent position closer to the junction. Unfortunately the resolution available on the online scan of the map makes it hard to pick out detail here, though the line of the Gade appears to also be crossed by the viaduct at that point, which would definitely make it a bridge rather than an embankment. The only photo I can find of it online [6] (http://www.hemelhempsteadtoday.co.uk/mk4custompages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=4092) unfortunately doesn't really throw much light, showing it from the north. This page does however, also show a photo of a bridge across Station Road, which would be beyond Heath Park... If the line stopped at Heath Park why would there be an expensive bridge here? From what I can gather there were some sidings at Heath Park halt which may explain the additional embankment extending behind the halt - this would make sense on the basis that they would have needed a way to put an engine on either end of the train. Also, the 1883 map definitely does show a track connection to the main line - it's hard to see it but if you download the image and blow it up in Photoshop it can be made out. None of this necessarily conflicts with your childhood memories - it's quite possible that this whole section got dismantled much earlier than the 1950s, especially given the closure of the line altogether in 1947. I'm fairly convinced about the link existing, but there just isn't enough evidence online to settle it. I'm visiting the UK in the summer - I may try and find time to find out more about this. The Gazette should have lots of pics in its archives - I'm going to contact them and see if I can get hold of copies. I guess reading the recent new book would help too! It just goes to show how easily facts about our past are lost, though of course it doesn't really matter one jot in this case! However, I just want to KNOW! On a mission.... Graham 22:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Hemeloverlay.jpg

Image:Induced Drag.jpg

I've removed it from the article for the time being, just put it back if you manage to get it fixed.

Just thought I'd let you know. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Brent

Image copyright

Can you please provide some proof that the image Image:Austinmaestro.jpg is "copyright free"? Does that mean that it's in the public domain? Thank you. --Ellmist 01:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also: Image:Austinmaxi.jpg, Image:Austinmontego.jpg, Image:Austinprincess.jpg --Ellmist 01:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dihedral

I'll give you some references when I can find them again. Rsduhamel 17:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll copy this discussion to your talk page - it's easier to follow a thread if it's all in on place.Graham 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whitley Bay - rm not do famous residents - let's TRY to keep it real

If we're going to go down that route, I'd remove virtually all the entries, as none are substantiated or backed up with references. - Jon Dowland 13:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TSR-2

Thanks for the edit - I agree that it duplicates in part the (your?) earlier section - but I think that it does mean that you have removed some important factual information about the remarkable fate of XR220 and XR222 and other information which comes directly from documentary film records from interviews with staff and managers at the factory.--Daedelus 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - if you check the history, the deleted para does not mention the fate of those two aircraft specifically by number, and I added a line to the other para about the wiring damage (albeit summarised - I think too much obsessive detail is unwarranted in a general article of this kind). I don't think there is any information in the deleted para which is not covered elsewhere in the article in one way or another. However, if you do feel like adding anything back in, please note that there is a section dedicated to the cancellation (the deleted info regarding the cancellation was incorrectly added to the "Design" section). Also take care with your spelling - there were a great number of mistakes I also corrected. Graham 00:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Red Arrows

Hi, noticed you edited Imperial War Museum Duxford article that i have been working on (you must have eagle eyes to notice that mistake!) thanks, so i looked at your user page hoping you might have an interest in aviation etc. as i really want to get the Red Arrows article up to featured article quality, and by pure chance you actually mention them on your user page! Anyway, any help would be really great, thanks Bluemoose 11:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed iPod future?

Hello. I'm just wondering why you removed the "Future" part in the iPod article. I think it's a good idea and gives more information to the reader about the future of the iPod. Irdepesca572 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Because this is an encyclopedia, whose job is to record what exists, not to speculate on what might exist. Of course there will be new iPod models, with new features, and so on - and when they are annonced, an encyclopedia such as this one can record that fact. Please do not lose sight of what Wikipedia is for. It's an encyclopedia, and nothing more. It's not a rumours site (god knows there are enough) nor is it a forum for iPod fans to swap wishlists, etc. As it stood the "future" section adds nothing of interest to an already overlong article.Graham 01:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, if for example Apple had already announced that "next year the iPod will do such-and-such" then that would be different, and could be included, but they haven't, so anything added to the page is simply uninformed speculation.Graham 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vx magnum.jpg

Hi, I just wanna inform you that I've put up this image, which you uploaded 2 years ago, up for deletion. Aside from it not being used in any article, it's copyright status is not cleared for commercial use. TheCoffee 17:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:GRAHAMUK"

User talk:GRAHAMUK

Nicky line

Image:Induced Drag.jpg

David Brent

Image copyright

Dihedral

Whitley Bay - rm not do famous residents - let's TRY to keep it real

Nicky line

Image:Induced Drag.jpg

David Brent

Image copyright

Dihedral

Whitley Bay - rm not do famous residents - let's TRY to keep it real

TSR-2

Red Arrows

Removed iPod future?

Image:Vx magnum.jpg

lots of edits, not an admin

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools