Talk:GWR 5700 Class

File:7714train.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:7714train.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:7714train.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Costs and Government Loads

I'd like to add something on government loans that were used to fund some or all of the first builds (1929-31, 350 locomotives) but the sources are a bit confusing.

Jones (2014) page 39 - says "the first batch of 250 57XXs were built between 1929 and 1931 by outside contractors, using money borrowed from the government..." I'm guessing that what he really means is "250 of the first batch of 350" (as 100 of the first batch were built by GWR).

le Fleming (1958) page E78 - (after talking about the first 150 built by North British Loco and GWR) says that "Two hundred further engines were built in 1929-31, all by outside firms under a scheme to alleviate the effects of the trade depression".

Also, there was the "Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act 1929" which certainly enabled loans to GWR. This was definitely used to fund some big infrastructure projects but I can't find any specific mentions of it for engine building...

Any thoughts/clarifications/references much appreciated. Robevans123 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I need to dig out my books, but IIRC nos. 6700-49 - the ones with round windows in the cab front, three-link couplings and no train brakes - were built to keep people in employment. They were not needed at the time - hence the cheap couplings and brakes - and were put into store as soon as they were completed. The GWR certainly did build locos financed using Government loans, but these were in the 1936-39 period, and included the whole of the Grange class, the first twenty Manors, the ten Castles which were named after Abbeys, the 3200 (Dukedog) class, and the 8100/3100 classes of 2-6-2T (the ones which did not have 5 ft 8 in wheels). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've just found my post from four years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I have a note to myself to mention 6700-49 going into storage. Didn't realise the whole of the Grange class were so funded. Maybe the Betton Grange project should ask George Osbourne for a loan!

Question on preservation section

Has the sentence "As the oldest locomotives were the first to be withdrawn and sold for further use, they form the majority of preserved examples." Is this really true? If you regard old as referring to the earlier ones with "spectacle" windows then there's an 8/8 split in the sixteen preserved. If you regard old as meaning the first half of the class built (up to sometime in 1936), then again, there is an 8/8 split. I suspect it might come from a source on the LT locomotives and is probably true in that context.Robevans123 (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Video on Youtube

Found this nice little 15 minute documentary on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGkCtlBnkZI.

It appears to be self-published work for Youtube by Chris Eden-Green (E-G Media). Does this make it permissible to include in External Links? If so, is it suitable for inclusion? Robevans123 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just found Wikipedia:Video_links - seems like Yes to both questions to me. Robevans123 (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also WP:EL and its subtopics WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE and the lengthy WP:ELNO. WP:YOUTUBE (also a subsection on that page) is a quick summary but doesn't cover much beyond copyright concerns; those fall under WP:ELNEVER. --Redrose64 (talk)

Stating the obvious?

After re-reading/editing this page, I've realised/remembered that the 5700s were the first GWR 0-6-0PTs that were built as new with panniers (see GWR_0-6-0PT#Classification Small engines (wheelbase under 15'), built as pannier tanks from new and Large engines (wheelbase over 15'), built as pannier tanks from new). Unfortunately GWR_0-6-0PT hasn't got any references to chase, and I don't think any of my references explicitly states that the 5700s were purpose-built as 0-6-0PTs. You can infer this from a complete reading of le Fleming... but does that make it WP:OR? Jones says they were not the first purpose built PTs, but only mentions 0-4-4 classes as previous purpose built classes. Robevans123 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio in possible source

I found the minimum curve figures for the 6700 class at http://locodriver.co.uk/Vol01/Part14/02/index.html. See Pic 7 near bottom of the page. This looks like a standard GWR diagram but doesn't say which one. But my main concern is that this page seems to be a scan of a book or magazine (as do many other pages on this site) and seems likely to be breaking copyright. I presume that this is not acceptable as a source for a reference. None of my sources mentions the 6700 minimum curve so it would be good to find a valid source somewhere. Robevans123 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a page from the GWR Diagram Book; the notation $0-6-0 \over {\text{T}}$ was a GWR peculiarity, and the drawing itself is almost identical to that in

• GWR Engines: Names Numbers Types & Classes. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. 1971. 1946 section, p. 68. ISBN 0-7153-5367-5.

although there are slight differences. But the "Description" and dimensions that follow were typeset for the book, and certain dimensions (such as the minimum curve) were omitted. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Section on "Other pannier tank locomotives"

Ever since I've been editing this article, I've wondered about this section, and whether it actually belongs here. I think would fit better in GWR 0-6-0PT (with a bit of editing, and references). I'd like to replace it here with a section on "Related locomotives" which would only mention pannier tanks relevant to the 5700s (ancestors, and later pannier tanks), but also include the updated Dean goods and later Collett goods locos, which influenced, or were influenced by, the 5700s. Any thoughts? Robevans123 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)