Talk:GWR 4073 Class

Article title

I disagree with the move from GWR Castle class to this. Only strong GWR enthusiasts remember that the Castles were numbered starting with 4073; everyone else knows them as the Castles, and I think they should have remained at a name with Castle in it. Wikipedia has a policy of Use common names which should generally be kept unless there are good reasons not to. —Morven 22:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

• That is true, but following this approach keeps the name in line with the title for other pages on GWR classes, reflects their official classification, and avoids potential confusion with the Broad Gauge Classes (which were referred to by a name rather than a number). Musicandcomedy 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Morven - removing the obvious and proper name of 'Castle' from the title is utterly absurd. This has happened across the GWR range now and it has made searching for many locos unreliable. Frankly - it's a totally 'anorakish' move and needs sorting pronto. I grew-up with these locos and NO ONE ever referred to them as anything else buy 'Castles'. Someone needs to look at this stupidity right across the range of GWR locos now and ensure the proper name is in ALL of the locos titles. S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.232.58 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d prefer 4073 class to castle class, because “4073” is four characters, but “castle” is six characters, therefore being more complicated to type. Ilovejames5🚂:) 04:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ilovejames5: This thread was started eighteen years ago. The issues raised are long since settled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

World Record

The article states: "on June 6th 1932, pulled by 5006 Tregenna Castle, the train covered 77 miles (124 km) from Swindon to Paddington at an average speed of 81.68 miles per hour (131.45 km/h). This world record for steam traction was widely regarded as an astonishing feat." Does anyone know which world record this refers to? Obviously not the all-out speed record for steam, so what? I think the article would benefit from spelling this out if anyone knows. Gwernol 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This claim for Tregenna Castle has always puzzled me. I once ran the 2.5 miles from my front door to my place of work in 15 minutes 25 seconds. To the best of my knowledge, my performance has never been bettered, yet to claim a world record would not be meaningful. Mabzilla (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Tuplin, William Alfred (1971). British steam since 1900. London: Pan Books. p. 128. ISBN 0330027212. states that the record is for the average speed start-to-stop, and has never been bettered by a steam engine in the UK. Verbarson (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nameplates of the Abbeys

Does anyone know if the Castle Class Abbey locomotives, rebuilt from being Star Class Abbey locomotives, had the words Castle Class beneath the name, or did they use the original nameplates? They clearly had new numberplates as the numbers were different from when they were Star Class.

Locomotives such as Great Western and Viscont Portal had Castle Class below the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.67.2 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did; see either

• le Fleming, H.M. (July 1953). White, D.E. (ed.). The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part eight: Modern Passenger Classes (1st ed.). Kenilworth: RCTS. p. H15. ISBN 0-901115-19-3. OCLC 500544523.
• le Fleming, H.M. (November 1960). White, D.E. (ed.). The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part eight: Modern Passenger Classes (2nd ed.). RCTS. p. H15.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of Castles -- why? and for how long?

I may have missed this (in which case it's in the wrong place!) but why were a number of the Castle locomotives renamed (eg 5071 Clifford Castle / Spitfire)? (Presumably it was a wartime 'thing', but we need a bit more than that!)

Secondly, did they carry the new name until the end of service, or did they revert to the original name?

Just curious in passing. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The renaming of nos. 5071-82 in 1940/41 was basically a patriotism thing, rather like the Southern Railway's Battle of Britain class 4-6-2 a few years later. The renamings were permanent; many of the names that were removed were subsequently reused - for example, the abovementioned Clifford Castle was applied to three different locomotives:

• No. 5046 Clifford Castle built April 1936, renamed Earl Cawdor August 1937
• No. 5071 Clifford Castle built June 1938, renamed Spitfire September 1940
• No. 5098 Clifford Castle built May 1946

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

In common with similar sections on many other Wikipedia pages, this refers to trivial incidents which are not noteworthy and simply happened to be recorded in books of photographs. They also have no connection with the engines themselves. Meanwhile, the far more serious and significant collision at Dolphin Junction, Slough, in 1941, causing 5 fatalities and involving 4091 Dudley Castle, is not mentioned (I may add it). There is a case for deleting this section entirely. Hyperman 42 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hyphenation/dashes

Hi Redrose64, I see you have had occasion to correct this before, thanks for the heads-up. The vagaries of AWB, it perhaps requires an exclusion in this case (Whyte configuration). Neils51 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image captions

Can we come to some consensus about what infobox image captions should contain? It may be assumed that the image represents the subject of the article, but a caption that just says (in effect) 'This is a picture of <subject>' isn't adding anything helpful. Also, clicking through to the image page will give more information, but not every reader knows that or wants to interrupt their reading of the article to do that. In relation to steam locomotives, I suggest:

• Even though 'all GWR locos look the same' (joke) , there were detail differences between members of the same class, therefore it is not only interesting, but useful, to know which specific loco is pictured. (I personally dislike pictures - eg many calendars - that do not identify the loco.)
• Individual locomotives were modified over time, so knowing the date of the picture is relevant. (Also, locos in preservation, while providing better pictures in many cases, may not be representative or have modern modifications.)
• The location is not needed, unless it is significant to the loco (eg Caerphilly Castle at the British Empire Exhibition in 1923)

There is my opinion. Agree or differ as you feel moved. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think certain editors are taking the concept of succint captions too literally. Even with more modern engines, the detail differences between various locos means positive identification is often of value. As you say, the location is usually the least important fact and can usually be dispensed with. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My thinking up until now has been that the infobox is a generic example of the subject of the article, with there being more images and information in the body of the article itself. Obviously happy to go with consensus.

I would suggest though that the discussion be moved to a more appropriate venue, such as Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways so that a wider discussion can be had. Danners430 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Moved as suggested. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)