Re: Tait Trains

["Grime" <grime@NOSPAM.tpg.com.au>]

Grime <grime@tpg.com.au> wrote in message 37590383@dnews.tpgi.com.au">news:37590383@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> David Langley <del@ancc.com.au> wrote in message
> 3758EB91.71E692C5@ancc.com.au">news:3758EB91.71E692C5@ancc.com.au...
> > David Langley wrote:
> >
> > > Grime wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Langley <del@ancc.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:3757D7D5.D3A6F3E0@ancc.com.au...
> > > > > Grime wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Having been accused of being pedantic, I'm not touching that one.
> > > > >
> > > > > But David you have a sworn duty to uphold, you must give us the
> correct
> > > > answer ,at least for Historical correctness.
> > >
> > > You're right so here is the answer.......................
> >
> > And the trouble with history is that it happened and it happened only in
> one
> > manner or event. Not like the future for which speculation about the
many
> ways
> > it could unfold is endless. Thus you see that when you record or discuss
> > history you have absolutely no choice but to be pedantic.
> >
> > Pedantly yours
> >
> > David.
> >
> > And the answer is???????????????
> 5-12G,35 and36G
> 18M,and 44M,where rebuilt following  serious accidents.
18M re-emerged from the workshops as 442M .44M as443M
They were so badly damaged that it was decided to rebuild them to the Tait
design, with an arch roof.
(S.E Dornan)
There was considerable overhang of the body relative to the former swing
door motor underframe.