Jump to content

Talk:GNR Stirling 4-2-2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Whereabouts of model: not a compatible license
Line 38: Line 38:
In this article, under Modelling, there's reference to an 1893 18"-gauge model whose whereabouts are currently unknown. I saw it yesterday at Preston Steam Rally (Kent, England). I have a [http://www.flickr.com/photos/angelislington/7485747044/in/set-72157630390579682/ photo] to prove it (and would be happy to 'donate' it to Wikipedia for all to view). How can I best edit the article? Need I upload the photo? Not edited Wikipedia before (save for the odd stray punctuation error) so would appreciate advice. Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.85.45.31|91.85.45.31]] ([[User talk:91.85.45.31|talk]]) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In this article, under Modelling, there's reference to an 1893 18"-gauge model whose whereabouts are currently unknown. I saw it yesterday at Preston Steam Rally (Kent, England). I have a [http://www.flickr.com/photos/angelislington/7485747044/in/set-72157630390579682/ photo] to prove it (and would be happy to 'donate' it to Wikipedia for all to view). How can I best edit the article? Need I upload the photo? Not edited Wikipedia before (save for the odd stray punctuation error) so would appreciate advice. Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.85.45.31|91.85.45.31]] ([[User talk:91.85.45.31|talk]]) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Unfortunately that photo does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia; it is "&copy; All rights reserved". See [[Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:Unfortunately that photo does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia; it is "&copy; All rights reserved". See [[Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64; I have now removed that restriction so we can use it here. Also I've created myself a login. Now to be brave and have a go at editing!

Revision as of 08:47, 5 July 2012

WikiProject iconTrains: in UK / Locomotives Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Really the only single stirling left?

I'm not a train buff, but the Science Museum in London has what appears to be a different Single Stirling locomotive. See the picture on this page. There doesn't seem to be a number on it - 1868 is presumably the year of construction, matching the date in the article. If it's useful, I am the copyright owner of that photo, and it can be freely used. Mail me as jifl, followed by the at, followed by jifvik.org, if you want more official confirmation.

This is the LNWR 2-2-2 "Columbine". To see details go here [1], enter 1868 in the "Locomotive Number" box and click "Start searching". Biscuittin 10:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LNWR No. 1868 was formerly Grand Junction Railway No. 49. Here is another photo [2] Biscuittin 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Locomotive Classification

Is Class 7P really correct?? That would be the size of, say the SR "Battle of Britain" class, I think. Shouldn't it rather be Class 1P?

Regards,194.246.46.15 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GNR Classification

I strongly doubt the classifications G, G1 and G2. See this book:

  • Groves, Norman (1987). Great Northern Locomotive History: Volume 2 1867-95 The Stirling Era. RCTS. ISBN 0 901115 62 2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In there we find that Class G1 were Stirling's 766 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1889-95, nos. 766-70, 821-30, 931-44 (Groves 1987, pp. 95, 96); Class G2 were Stirling's 120 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1872-81, total 46 (Groves 1987, pp. 73, 74). As for the Stirling 4-2-2s, the first 47 were Class A2 and the last six (1003-1008) were A1; locos rebuilt with Ivatt domed boiler were A3.(Groves 1987, p. 163) --Redrose64 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the source of this classification: Bird, George Frederick (1910). The Locomotives of the Great Northern Railway 1847–1910. London: Locomotive Publishing Company. Internet Archive scan.
In Table IV (Doncaster works list) on page 220, for number 1 (works number 50) he gives "Class: G", but in Table II (Stirling's locomotives) he uses the phases "First of Type" and "Reference to Doncaster List", with 8-ft Bogie Single of 1870 as No. 1 / G. But in Table III (Ivatt's locomotives), he uses the same headings, but the codes for locomotives built after the introduction of Ivatt's classification scheme in July 1900 do not match their official alpha-numeric class designation.
This leads me to believe that Bird's designations are a only cross-referencing shorthand, and extrapolating them to be Official Classification would constitute original research. — Iain Bell (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mention Bird - and in this I must agree. See the RCTS work on LNER (not GNR) locos:
  • Boddy, M.G.; Fry, E.V.; Hennigan, W.; Proud, P.; Yeadon, W.B. (1963). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 1: Preliminary Survey. Potters Bar: RCTS. p. 21. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"On the G.N.R. two systems had been in use. One was more correctly an order identification and was a very complicated series in which, for example, the 4-4-2T's were either T, X or X2. This is the classification used in G. F. Bird's Locomotives of the G.N.R., but it does not seem to have continued after Gresley succeeded Ivatt in October 1911." This is amended by part 11 of the same series:
"There is no evidence so far discovered to support the statement that the G.N. locomotive classification used by G.F. Bird had been in use on the G.N.R." So, a cross-referencing shorthand is the most likely explanation, and so is akin to the locomotive "classifications" of letter-number form attributed to the Furness Railway (see, for example, first paragraph of Furness Railway K2) and Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway which were actually reference codes devised by R.W. Rush for his books. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has reappeared. I don't have Herring's book: is Herring merely reusing Bird's reference system, or is there an official basis? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity or steam sanding?

I'd assumed gravity, given the date, but 4-2-2 suggests steam. Anyone know? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereabouts of model

In this article, under Modelling, there's reference to an 1893 18"-gauge model whose whereabouts are currently unknown. I saw it yesterday at Preston Steam Rally (Kent, England). I have a photo to prove it (and would be happy to 'donate' it to Wikipedia for all to view). How can I best edit the article? Need I upload the photo? Not edited Wikipedia before (save for the odd stray punctuation error) so would appreciate advice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.45.31 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that photo does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia; it is "© All rights reserved". See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Redrose64; I have now removed that restriction so we can use it here. Also I've created myself a login. Now to be brave and have a go at editing!