Talk:BR Standard Class 7

Link to Disambiguation page

The link to Mercury goes to a disambiguation page. I'd have fixed it myself, but I don't know which type of Mercury the train was named after.

Alan Pascoe 21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the mythology meaning was intended, so I corrected the page on that basis. I judge this based on the use of other names from mythology. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

GA review

Another well researched and nicely written article that deserves to be listed as a GA.

You knew that there was going to be a "but" though, so here it is:

• "55 examples were constructed ...". Sentences shouldn't start with numbers, and they weren't examples, they were the real McCoy. So why not say something like "Fifty-five were constructed ...", or rewrite the sentence to avoid starting it with a number?
• "The Britannias were based upon several previous locomotive designs ..". Britannia is a class (singular) so surely it ought to say something like "The Brittania class was based ..."?
• "The class saw service until several were withdrawn in 1967, and the last was withdrawn in 1968". Does that mean that "The class was in service until 1968, when the last locomotive was withdrawn"?
• The Background section starts off by saying: "The locomotive exchanges that took place in 1948 ...". What locomotive exchanges? I think you need to give just a little bit of background as to what was happening at that time rather than just dropping the reader in at the deep end.
• Why is "Big Four" in italics?
• "'Pacific' type" surely ought to be Pacific-type?
• What's a "wheel splasher"? The reader is given a link to an axle, which most would probably understand anyway, but not to a wheel splasher.
• "The footplate was designed around the requirements of the operating crews, with a mock-up being constructed at Crewe for consultation purposes". Presumably this was some kind of a usability test, not just a meeting at Crewe for "consultation purposes"?
• "Designed at the drawing offices of Derby Works ..." is a bit too much detail, and may not even be true. I'd suggest "Designed at British Railways' Derby Works ..."
• "Repairs to the class were undertaken at Crewe, Swindon and Doncaster Works until the Modernisation Plan began to emerge." What does "began to emerge" mean?
• "... the class was granted the power classification 7MT" Were classes really "granted"? Weren't the locos assessed in some way as to their power classification?
• The lead says that "Only number 70000 has seen service on the railway network since 1967." But the Operational details section says that "A succession of bulk withdrawals ensued in 1967, and the last, number 70013 Oliver Cromwell, took place at the very end of steam operation in Britain during 1968." Seems inconsistent on the face of it.

Not too much to sort out there though I don't think, so I'm placing this article on hold. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

• "Negative feedback was however received from operating departments, notably on the Western Region, primarily out of preference for GWR-designed locomotive stock, and as such, Old Oak Common and Plymouth Laira depots proclaimed the class was surplus to requirements." That's unreferenced and sounds like POV on the face of it.

Note (March 2010). This is not as POV as it might appear. At the time there was considerable correspondence in Locopmotive Express and also in Railway Observer; O S Nock also makes a passing refrence in an article in The Engineer. This 1950s correspondence was summarised in an article in British railways Illustrated magazine (published Sept 1996) which was reproduced in The Book of The Britannia Pacifics, Irwell Press, 2004. These refs have been added to the article. Andy F (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Repairs to the class were undertaken at Crewe, Swindon and Doncaster Works until the Modernisation Plan began to preclude regular overhaul of locomotives. Overhauls became exclusive to Crewe Works ..." I still don't understand this. Why did the the plan preclude regular overhaul?

--Malleus Fatuarum 00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)  Done--Bulleid Pacific 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That'll do do for me, nice job! --Malleus Fatuarum 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit puzzled

"This meant that all the valve gear was on the outside, eliminating the problems encountered when operating three or four-cylindered locomotives, with poor access to the inside cylinders located between the frames.[2]

The Standard 7s were a two cylinder design. How about changing it to

"This meant that all the valve gear was on the outside, eliminating the problems of poor access to the valve gear located between the frames.[2] Patrick lovell (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go, but more radical than your suggestion. Hope this does the trick.

What I don't understand is the previous sentence:

"...two sets of Walschaerts valve gear were used, along with the largest cylinders capable of staying within the British loading gauge."

Surely each cylinder had one set of valve gear? So it would be better to say that the loco had two cylinders (stating 'one each side', if really necessary!) fitted with Walschaerts valve gear -- or did each cylinder really have "two sets"?? (In which case, was this the same or different from other locos?)

EdJogg (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sub-frames

Regarding this edit - I'm suspicious of this, because generally speaking, the pony truck pivot would be part of the sub-frame, and thus a problem solved during the designing of that sub-frame, whereas the presence of the ashpan is an obstacle found in the design of many loco classes, often causing a problem requiring a compromise solution. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Having studied the frame GA and other drawings further I've improved the description of the rear spring bracket arrangements. Sorry if it previously caused some confusion.7severn7 (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but do you have a reference? Otherwise it looks like unconfirmed speculation, or, worse, WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

May I refer you to the reply I made in the BR Standard Class 6 section. The Class 6 and Class 7 chassis' were nearly identical and suffered similar cracking. Had a 4th batch of Class 7 engines been ordered before the modernisation plan had taken hold the relevant drawings would have been amended to include Class 7 engines.7severn7 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

May I refer you to WP:V - each article needs its own set of references, and cannot direct the reader to another article to look up the sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got things right for all three classes of pacific now. Clearly 1953 and 1954 were pivotal years as refinement of these engines was stopped because of the modernisation plan. 7severn7 (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put that information inside <ref></ref> tags because really it belongs as a footnote, not part of the text. I still think it's borderline WP:OR though, so shall open it up to the floor. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

She

To my mind, 100 or so tons of miscellaneous metals makes an 'it'. (However, if 70000 really was a 'she', then she was also the doyenne, not doyen). 86.184.154.98 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

At least the Britannias had names, they weren't just anonymous numbers. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In Britain, steam locomotives were often referred to as `she', perhaps by analogy with ships, or out of affection(?!), or was it due to the action of the fireman's shovel? Barney Bruchstein (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Speed

Under "Performance" should we not have the top speed quoted?

--621PWC (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because there's no credible measure for it, or for any of the Standards. At most we might record some particular speed that was reached, with source, and with context as to what it was as a train and conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is at least one instance of a Britannia achieving the magic 100mph figure, the locomotive in question being 70005 John Milton in the vicinity of Elstow, Beds. on the Midland Main Line; sadly I forget the exact date. Can anyone elaborate and provide a magazine/book reference to support this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.94.188 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why so few preserved?

I'd love to know. And I'm sure I'm not alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.34.102 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox caption

Hi @SouthernFootplate - as per WP:BRD I've created this discussion so we don't end up in an edit war.

Per MOS:CAPTION, "Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text." For users visiting the page for the first time, who may not be rail enthusiasts such as ourselves, they would not understand text such as "70032 Tennyson" in the caption. If a user is interested in the photograph and wants further information, they can open the image where there is a more detailed caption submitted by the photographer. Danners430 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

And I must apologies - when referring to WP:BOLD, I was in fact thinking of WP:BRD - that's my bad! Danners430 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

BR Standard Class 7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Significant portions of this 2007 promotion are uncited. Standards were different back then, as some of the uncited content present today also lacked citations at the time of promotion. An effort would be required to cite the rest of this article to avoid delisting. Unfortunately, the primary authors of this article are long since retired. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.