Done very quickly, and trying to make the Cadillacs as small as is reasonable, and it is based on a lubrication chart which is not going to be 100% to begin with, gives this. So, Maybe? if you don't mind a really tight fit?
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
The NSW Government Railways did have a desert run that was dieselised pre-war: the 680km section from Parkes to Broken Hill in the state’s far west. In 1937, the NSWGR introduced the ‘Silver City Comet’, the first fully air-conditioned train in the British Empire, powered by two 330 hp "Harlandic" 8-cylinder, 2-stroke diesel engines, built under licence from the Danish shipbuilding firm of Burmeister and Wain by the Belfast firm Harland and Wolff. They were the first real foray into diesel power on Australian railways and lasted in service for over 50 years, being re=powered in the mid-1950s with with four 250hp GM Detroit Diesel 110 Series 6-cylinder 2-stroke engines which greatly improved their performance.
Photo: TramwayJohn on Flickr.
Last edited:
allanpcameron
Donor
Regarding DUKE, hadn't heard of it before now, and certainly can see the need to have an acronym which covers all three, but for me personally, it would need to be UKED in terms of numbers: in terms of Divisions, the Dominions (Aus, NZ and SA) were very much outnumbered by Indian Army. But DUKE is at least a word, whereas UKED looks like something the Ukrainians are doing to the Russians. (Sorry for bringing current affairs in, please don't get off track with that.)
Allan.
Allan.
We have been discussing loading gauge of different railways on an off for a while. Talking about it brings mulitple gauges into the discussion depending who's RR we are discussing.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
We use terms such as Wallies and Long Lance that were not used at the time. Why should acronyms be exempt?
well if you want to go period - you can use the NUKE acronym - because it doesn't have use (yet)
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
While they could, it would have to be a very complex set of reasoning to find a way to blame the British. Mac refused to travel on ether of the two British submarines available, and he chose to order the submarine he was on to divert from its intended destination, to another against the advice of the boat’s captain. Yes boat is the right term, submarines for some strange reason are referred to as boats not ships. So as things stand other than trying to stick the blame on the boats crew, very bad optics, and how to royally piss of the navy. The only one to blame, other than the Japanese for doing their job, is the big cheese himself MacArthur, who without doubt is responsible for his and his wife , along with the other passengers and the submarine crews death.
RR.
Not strange at all. Its just due to the earliest submarines being small and carried by ships. Hence they were classed as boats and although later submarines are technically ships, due to both size and usage, tradition meant the common usage never changed.
I'm supposed to be doing other stuff right now, but was catching up on this thread, and I believe that Allan has revised the post in question, and that the submarine was now simply depth charged and forced to surface without the captain having had his route dictated to him by MacArthur.
It could be worse. Using your UKED, (UK,Dutch, Empire) could be PUKED, the same with Pacific added. I think I should lay off the coffee.
Investing an acronym that is entirely unnecessary, doesn't fit with the vernacular of the time, and 88 years or so after the period in question? I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous.
From an Australian perspective, the word "dominion" is basically unknown to us. The fact is we were often included in what were commonly referred to as British Empire or British Commonwealth forces. Of course, we would prefer and it is more common to simply talk of our forces specifically.
The term used for the combined allied forces west of Australia was ABDA, there is no need to change it. The British, Dutch and Australia forces are stronger ITTL than in OTL and the US will continue its military build-up in the region.
If the acronym came from Al Murray’s work and some posters have adopted it, then it amounts to little more than a bit of group slang here and a strange bit of linguistic flourish on his behalf. Further, it isn’t particularly accurate to the era, when as has been said, it was not used whatsoever.
The Dominions under the 1920s evolution of the Empire were Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, NZ and Australia. Of those, the term ‘Dominion’ is most closely associated with Canada, with the others employing it in a technical manner when referring to specific relationships with Britain.
I would further note that the terms ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ were used quite more often than ‘UK’ and ‘United Kingdom’ in popular discourse and press usage, official documentation and both primary and secondary sources of the era. Whilst the declarations of war refer to ‘His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom’, this was more of the exception which we might see as being the formal/diplomatic full name rather than what would actually be used by the likes of Mr. Churchill.
The use of ‘British Empire’ and ‘Imperial’ was not quite as prevalent as in WW1, but wasn’t completely unheard of. The middle position of ‘British Commonwealth’ did see a lot more use in WW2 era documents and discourse, reflecting both a bit of successful spin and the differing ‘weight’ of the Commonwealth Dominions as compared to Round 1.
Rather than Mr Murray’s little segue into creativity of the idiolect, a simpler, more historically accurate and, dare I suggest it, neutral term can be found in ‘British Commonwealth’ forces. Within that category, all chaps and chappesses who have done any reading in the area will understand that there are the Indian, British, Commonwealth (read Australian) and Empire/Colonial subcategories. Need an acronym for that? CW.
There have been other cases in Internet history of one chap’s terminology taking on an artificial veneer of accuracy simply through enough repetition, but that doesn’t make it authentic.
Gavins.
The Dominions under the 1920s evolution of the Empire were Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, NZ and Australia. Of those, the term ‘Dominion’ is most closely associated with Canada, with the others employing it in a technical manner when referring to specific relationships with Britain.
I would further note that the terms ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ were used quite more often than ‘UK’ and ‘United Kingdom’ in popular discourse and press usage, official documentation and both primary and secondary sources of the era. Whilst the declarations of war refer to ‘His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom’, this was more of the exception which we might see as being the formal/diplomatic full name rather than what would actually be used by the likes of Mr. Churchill.
The use of ‘British Empire’ and ‘Imperial’ was not quite as prevalent as in WW1, but wasn’t completely unheard of. The middle position of ‘British Commonwealth’ did see a lot more use in WW2 era documents and discourse, reflecting both a bit of successful spin and the differing ‘weight’ of the Commonwealth Dominions as compared to Round 1.
Rather than Mr Murray’s little segue into creativity of the idiolect, a simpler, more historically accurate and, dare I suggest it, neutral term can be found in ‘British Commonwealth’ forces. Within that category, all chaps and chappesses who have done any reading in the area will understand that there are the Indian, British, Commonwealth (read Australian) and Empire/Colonial subcategories. Need an acronym for that? CW.
There have been other cases in Internet history of one chap’s terminology taking on an artificial veneer of accuracy simply through enough repetition, but that doesn’t make it authentic.
Gavins.