User:Tony May/A1

Comment from Tony May

Preface

Thank you for your attention I really apologise for the length of this piece, but there are several points that I would like to discuss. I am still in the process of updating comments, as appropriate. I think this is often easier than responding to them directly which has not worked in the past, and also allows me to clear up any misconceptions.

I will now explain the importance of a historical approach, MacNee's flawed arguments and point out other secondary arguments which could also be considered. I think MacNee has misunderstood or misrepresented my views here, so please allow me to explain them properly.

Introduction

Schematic of how the article should flow chronologically (red arrows). I think nothing better illustrates the historical gulf between the original 49 engines and the new build.

This dispute is primarily about how to deal with two separate productions of the Peppercorn A1s - should they be treated together as MacNee wants (producing IMVHO a mess), or separately which is the more logical (and professional) way of doing it, and one which reflects all sources? IMVHO, this dispute is primarily about article structure, and I think we should concentrate on that and not be distracted by side issues.

I believe that the summary of the articles should be as follows: This article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should primarily be about the LNER Peppercorn Class A1s, i.e. the original engines. The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado should be mostly about the new build engine. Both should be cross-linked however and appropriately mentioned in both. In particular:

1. Tornado should not be listed with the original engines in the stock list - doing so is absurd.
2. Technical information about Tornado should be removed from the infobox as unnecessary clutter. If appropriate, a technical comparisons section can be made in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado article instead and the basic differences noted in the text. Tornado is not sufficiently different to warrant the extra clutter. (this has largely been done now)
3. Tornado should be mentioned in the A1 article, in its own section, equivalent to a preservation section on other articles. This should be done in two places and in two places only; briefly in the lead section, and then a short dedicated section under the name #Tornado or similar. This should go chronologically, below the "#Withdrawal" section and above the "#Models" section.
4. Whenever the original 49 engines in the class are discussed, this should absolutely be made explicit to avoid any potential confusions.

I believe Biscuittin (talk · contribs), Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) and I are in general agreement of those four points, but MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is not.

Please some time to familiarise yourself with these articles.

The historical approach

An historical approach is of paramount importance:

• This article contains two main elements: history and engineering. The engineering cannot be understood without reference to the history, whereas the history can be understood with only an elementary understanding of engineering. Hence the history is far more important, and this is primarily a historical article. This is about the history of engineering; one cannot have an article on the engineering of history.

• Tornado was never a BR engine, i.e. it never entered BR stock - there was no BR engine with the number 60163. This is, from a historical point of view, of the highest importance, and I really cannot emphasise this enough.

We will come back to this historical approach later, but first I wish to examine what Tornado is and what she isn't:

What exactly is Tornado?

How Tornado is defined is not a black and white issue; like the engine itself, it is grey.

Biscuittin (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are concentrating on whether Tornado is actually an A1. I will say two things about this. Firstly, both seem to think that this is a black-and-white issue; I consider it to be a grey area. Secondly, I do not believe that this debate is of more wider significance than the particular relevance to this article. I also believe that this debate is holding back the progress of the article by causing a distraction. This largely revolves around how we define what Tornado is.

• Firstly, regarding classification: In one way certainly, "60163" is not an A1. The LNER, classified its locomotives using a letter + number system, and this approach was continued by British Railways (BR) for ex-LNER locomotives. BR was obviously only able to classify locomotives it owned (or hired), which were taken into stock. This therefore, is essentially a subset of the historical point above. Indeed, the modern day classification used is not "A1", but Tornado is classified by Network Rail as Class 98, TOPS No. 98863.

• Secondly, regarding engineering. It is impossible to create an exact replica of any locomotive for various reasons. Firstly, a working locomotive must be fit for the 21st century railway, so Tornado is necessarily slightly shorter to avoid fouling OHLE, and also the coal/water capacity is different and she has no water scoop as there are no water troughs from which to pick up water en route. Secondly, construction is necessarily different, as for example you can't use asbestos any more, and Tornado has a steel firebox rather than a copper one because of the German experience with steel fireboxes. Thirdly, it may be considered a good idea, purely for engineering reasons, to add slight improvements to the design, (e.g. rebalancing the bogie). An exact replica is therefore impossible.

MacNee is right of course that, from a purely engineering point of view, Tornado is an A1. If it had been a BR engine, it would have been classified with the others, despite the detail differences. But the point we again come back to is the historical one because the engineering cannot be understood without reference to the history.

• Furthermore, Tornado is also different from the original 49 engines in other ways. In addition to the historical difference;
  • It is operationally different, as Tornado will principally be used to haul occasional railtours over the national network, whereas the original engines were used in everyday mainline service.
  • The name Tornado does not reflect the LNER's naming policy. Tornado is named after an aircraft that first flew almost ten years after the last A1 was scrapped. The original 49 were named after racehorses, houses, people. The LNER absolutely had a naming policy for its locomotives; racehorse names in particular were applied to many pacifics.

• Finally regarding history (again) - Tornado is herself of tremendous historical importance. But she is history from 2008, not 1948. She is the first mainline steam locomotive built in Britain since 1960, and given other new build projects, probably not the last. By herself she is more historically important than any one of the 49 original engines, and maybe arguably even the whole of the original class. That is one reason why she has her own separate article.

Specifically, is Tornado a replica?

First, let us clear up definitions: Replica can be defined as "any close or exact copy or reproduction". Given the engineering point explained above, an exact replica is impossible, which reasonably leaves the only possibility being the close replica.

Once you appreciate that the A1LST, who built this locomotive, are doing engineering, their quote becomes understandable. They are approaching Tornado from an engineering perspective:

From the very beginning the Trust regarded Tornado not as a replica or copy of any one of its 49 predecessors, but as the fiftieth A1. This simple decision gave the Trust licence to make small changes to the design to better suit modern manufacturing techniques and to fit in with the modern high speed railway, while remaining demonstrably faithful to the greater part of the original design

Now let us consider specifically this quote:

1. Firstly must note the word regard - they are clearly expressing their own opinion. I assume they regard because they are aware of the history outlined above.
2. Please also note the subtle semantics involved: "...regarded Tornado not as a replica of any one of its 49 predecessors...". This is quite different to "Tornado is not a replica". The trust explain why they didn't try to make an exact copy of No. 60126, for example. The question of whether she is a generic replica is not actually addressed.
3. Furthermore, MacNee completely fails to take into consideration why this decision was made, i.e. "This simple decision gave the Trust licence to make small changes to the design to better suit modern manufacturing techniques and to fit in with the modern high speed railway, while remaining demonstrably faithful to the greater part of the original design".

The present misinterpretation means that we have an opinion stated as fact (thus violating both WP:NPOV and maybe WP:NOR), and then Wikipedia completely ignores and fails to explain the reasons why that opinion is held, which in this case is just as important as the opinion itself.

If this quote is used therefore, I would not shorten this it at all as that takes it out of context and opens it up to misinterpretation.

There are other opinions as well; both Michael Binyon of The Times (2008-08-02 & 2008-10-09) and by Graham Tibbetts and Andrew Cave of The Daily Telegraph 2006-05-07 & 2008-08-01 use the word "replica". However, I would prefer to eschew press sources in favour of more academic ones, as the quality of journalism varies.

Regarding self-identification - that the A1LST choose not to use the word "replica", is their prerogative. The A1LST also seem not to use the word "preservation", despite the fact that they are clearly part of the British railway preservation movement. Hence, on reflection, I think that the words "replica" or "preservation" should not be used in the article, out of deference to their views, and to avoid any confusion. However, I think that this means that the wording has to be appropriate. Presently, it is extremely crude and inaccurate. Let's not try to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Article structure

My rather crude chronology diagram again.

Now we have (hopefully) clarified (1) the importance of history, and (2) what Tornado is and what she isn't. The next question is how to structure the article. Structure is of importance because an article needs structure in order to (1) be accurate and (2) in order to meet WP:NPOV standards. I also humbly suggest that structure is necessary to meet relevant professional academic standards, as I will explain.

After the lead section, which summarises the entire article, there should be a chronological flow of the article. First with a #Background section, #Construction, list of locomotives, Service, Withdrawal. All the tables in this section should match each other. Finally there should be a short section on Tornado.

Structuring the article chronologically clearly makes the inclusion of Tornado in the middle of the discussion of the original engines completely anachronistic.

This approach is logical, and follows the general format of what I have read in railway books. Not to be content with just asserting this without evidence however, I asked expert railway historian Dave Hunt this question. Full details of the exchange may be found at (User:Tony May/A1/BDH), but I shall quote the most important part:

Were I to be writing about the A1s, I would mention the building of Tornado in the postscript but omit any reference to it in the main text. I would also consider putting an appendix at the end covering its construction but only briefly.

If I were reviewing a book that included Tornado in the A1s, it would detract from my opinion of it and I would say so in any review.

To repeat then: Tornado should be discussed extremely briefly in the lead (~1 sentence) and then briefly under a separate heading (~1 paragraph).

Specifically regarding the list of locomotives/stock list

The main problem at the moment with regards to the article is the listing of Tornado within the list of locomotives.

Firstly, I must deal with a side issue regarding the name of this list. This is because MacNee is disingenuously complaining about the use of "stock list", as jargon, which only perhaps indicates his ignorance of railway history. Anyway, either "BR Stock list", or "list of BR locomotives" or similar would be acceptable. MacNee's preferred "list of locomotives" is not acceptable because it is deliberately vague and ambiguous - MacNee wants the table to be vague and ambiguous so that it quite inappropriately and unnecessarily forces Tornado to be listed there. MacNee apparently objects to the word stock as jargon, though I note that it is (a) accurate, and (b) widely used, and (c) that is no more jargon than "firebox" or "Kylchap".

Another point to make is the structure of the stock list itself. Implicitly, the build date column is the date a particular locomotive was taken into stock, and the withdrawal date the date withdrawn from stock. Tornado was never taken into stock by BR, and never withdrawn. Hence the columns (especially the withdrawal column) do not make sense. (I may add disposal details in due course)

A further point to be made is that what is presented to us is a lumpers and splitters problem, in which case it is IMVHO usually better to split rather than to lump. That is why for example, we have a separate LNER Thompson Class A1/1 article, and a separate 60163 Tornado article.

Even worse news for the stock list including Tornado is that it fails to match any sources and is I suggest original research. I will explain this next.

Sources and original research

To meet quality standards, sources must be reliable, NPOV and contain no original research. I will cite the following sources in support of the fact that they deal with the original 49 engines separately from Tornado (which the first three all mention, and the fourth ignores completely but is up-to-date). All of these include a list of locomotives:

• Hugh Longworth - British Railway Steam Locomotives 1948-1968
• Richard Marsden - LNER Encyclopedia
• The A1 Locomotive Steam Trust
• Railuk database

In addition, the above are also consistent with stock lists as available in:

• RCTS LNER Locomotives Vol 2 (often known as green books)
• Yeadon's Register, Vol 2

I also offer the source Classic British Steam Locomotives by Peter Herring which does not include a list of locomotives, but does discuss Tornado as being under construction - at the end of his two page treatise.

Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that MacNee can find similar sources which support Tornado being included in such a list. A list must be considered to be more reliable source than a misinterpretation of a quote. Lumping Tornado together with the originals in a list, without providing sources which themselves are lists, is tantamount to original research, and this is especially true when it goes against accepted academic standards. This should clearly be avoided at all costs.

Let me suggest that you re-read your second reference (* Richard Marsden - LNER Encyclopedia) again:

A total of 49 were built in four batches between 1948 and 1949. A 50th is currently being built by the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust.

Precedent

Using false (usually vacant) numbers is actually quite common in preservation - I can give you half a dozen examples if you wish. It is also fairly common to name preserved locomotives with names they did not carry in service. Again, it is customary to treat these engines, as preserved, differently from the main engines when they were in service. Lumping them together in this case sets a very bad precedent, and is inconsistent with other articles and accepted academic convention (again see User:Tony May/A1/BDH.

MacNee's arguments

I will now deal with MacNee's arguments, and show that it consists of poor reasoning and over-interpretation of a single source.

I have already dealt with the first quote above.

MacNee's second source is apparently the IMechE. Let's have a look at this in more detail. It is actually a lecture given to the IMechE by David Elliott, who is "Director of Engineering, The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust". We do not have the lecture slides however, or a video or full transcript or anything like that. All we have is an extremely short abstract which I shall quote in full:

The last of the renowned Peppercorn class A1 steam locomotives was scrapped in 1966. But, a brand new A1, 60163 Tornado, has been built at the Darlington Locomotive Works by The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust. Tornado was due to move for the first time under its own steam in August 2008 and enter main line service by the end of 2008. This lecture will cover the history of the Peppercorn Class A1s, the design and manufacturing of the 50th A1 Tornado and its first 6 months of operation in main line service.

Firstly, Elliott represents not the IMechE, as MacNee might lead us to believe but again the A1LST, so the source is in effect the same as the above (it is likely that Elliott wrote his own abstract). I have already explained the reasons why it is a non-exact replica, and this does nothing to contradict this. MacNee reads far too much into this extremely short paragraph. Elliot separates the two with a comma, which is reasonable given the shortness of the abstract. He categorically does not for example "...cover the 50 Peppercorn Class A1s" or anything that would be unambiguous. Indeed, I would expect Elliot's lecture to consist of two parts; the first part covering the 49 original engines, and the second part the replica. This is exactly how it should be done because it is the only logical way of dealing with it.

MacNee's assertion that the IMechE would, if they disagreed with Tornado being the "fiftieth A1" issue a note saying so is clearly absurd. I expect that the IMechE's committees have far better things to do than to look into such matters and quarrel over an issue of history with one of its speakers who has been invited to talk about engineering.

If MacNee has any further sources available for examination then I will deal with those as well. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant copy of The Railway Magazine, to which he refers.

MacNee's secondary points

I will now deal with MacNee's secondary points:

• MacNee's point that the reader won't miss that 60163 exists as a new build if it is listed with the originals is not really a point at all. Clearly, if they are separated, the reader will still realise that Tornado exists because he (or she) is told in the lead and it is further explained, chronologically, further down the article, and further elaborated upon in a separate article. So I don't understand that argument at all.
• MacNee's accusation that this structuring is "original research" is stretching that definition to its limits. I can back up structuring the article appropriately with sources. MacNee apparently cannot produce a complete list including Tornado.

Conclusion

The danger of course is that people say, "oh go on then" and let MacNee have his way. I fear that this is what might happen if you are not a well-read railway enthusiast and so not understand the historical points above. This point has also been made by User:Biscuittin, and I agree with him (though in claiming to be reasonably well read, I'd hate to think I was patronising anyone, I wish to merely offering a humble opinion based on experience). Unfortunately, MacNee's way is so very wrong that it fundamentally ruins the article.

I have tried to compromise with MacNee, and ignore or sidestep most of his more illogical points, but he has just continued nevertheless. Some of these edits have removed valid information that I have added to the article.

Furthermore, MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IMVHO has engaged in attempted bullying, edit warring, violation of WP:OWN, and wikilawyering, editing the article to specifically support his opinion, by selectively quotation and interpretation of said quotes (and in doing so reducing its quality). He seems to think that negotiation and discussion revolve around him having to have the last word. When he can't discuss content, he whinges about being "personally attacked". Furthermore, he has form for such issues, having been blocked 13 times for variations ranging from 3RR to incivility and swearing. I'm sorry to make such accusations, but I do so based on experience of dealing with him. I do not feel that MacNee will be genuinely offended by them, though they may anger him enough to accuse others, of being rude.

I will also say FWIW that MacNee has written most of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, and on that he has done a very good job there. That however does not make him the be-all and end-all expert on a collaborative Wiki. IMVHO he has not doing a reasonable job here. Thanks for your attention --Tony May (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with what Mr May says. I am particularly annoyed that Mr MacNee refuses to accept that there is a controversy about this article and relies on legalistic arguments. I think the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Biscuittin (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)