Talk:LMS Coronation Class

Photos and copyright

LOL....You crafty git!!!!! :-) ChrisRed 10:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I beat you to uploading those photos you mean? Yeah, you get the credit for finding them. Dunc|☺ 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I do like a bit of the old black-and-white; dont you?. Very moody. BTW, nothing heard from 'Ron Healey', re the Duke pic. How do we stand if Mr Healey is no longer with us?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRed (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 September 2005‎

If he's passed away, copyright of works published during his lifetime is inherited by his next of kin or to whomever he gives it to in his will. His work then becomes public domain on the next first of January 70 years after his death. So if he died yesterday, it'd be 1st January 2076 before that happenned. This is because of the corporate thieves oppressing the right of the people to their work, etc, etc, etc...

However, there is a market for photographs like this, and you might be in luck [1] £2.50 for an anonymous 1955 photo of the Duke, (assuming that copyright is also bought, though i'm not 100% you wouldn't be in trouble if the original author did by some miracle turn up, but I think it'd be fairly safe if you explained that you assume in good faith that you do buy the copyright when you buy the image. It might be an idea to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, though everyone will probably be clueless. Dunc|☺ 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fairy Nuff. I absolutely hate nitpickers, but isn't that the South end of Crewe station?. Memory fades, but I'm sure that wall in the background runs along the east side of the station. Also there's a tiny typo in your text (bath/batch) I didn't want to appear a smartass by correcting it. I'll sit tight for a few days for Mr Healey. Somebody got the e-mail, because it would have bounced back otherwise.(ChrisRed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.215.153 (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2005‎

Yes I tried to email John Griffiths at two email addresses that are on his websites but got bounced back. Just what did you say though? We have boilerplate request for permission letters which might help. Dunc|☺ 20:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I got bounced by John Griffiths' address too, but I managed to dig out another address for Ron Healey. Perhaps it is 'a' Ron Healey rather than 'the' Ron Healey, time will tell, although he was definitely a rail buff living in NZ. (ChrisRed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.215.153 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2005‎

I got through to John Griffiths through his mates. I think Ron Healey is ignoring me. Never mind, I have others in the pipeline. Dunc|☺ 23:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to know - I have just (27/1/06) contacted Yahoo - Ron's e-mail provider- to see if I can get his contact details. I am the one who posted the query message on a.b.p.rail about him - a short time ago. I still have not had any response from him either (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.16.67 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2006‎

Blue livery

Is there any point in mentioning BR experimental blue livery twice in the liveries section? Or is it me being a bit pedantic? (Bulleid Pacific 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

The BR experimental blue livery is not mentioned twice. The experimental blue is mentioned once, the standard blue is mentioned once. The experimental blue is ignored by Mannion and Sixsmith in their books but Jenkinson states it was carried by 7 locomotives. These 7 were painted in 1948 and were in a paler blue to the BR standard blue and had initially black and yellow lining, later changed to black and white. These 7 are considered by Jenkinson as the prototypes for the BR standard blue. The standard blue was adopted in 1949, a year later, which backs up Jenkinson thoughts on the 1948 scheme. The standard blue was not experimental, it was meant to be a standard livery for the bigger passenger locomotives, but due to it's poor performance in traffic in was decided to abandon it in 1951. Gawthorpe Dave 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to resurrect this discussion, as the "Table of BR liveries" shows the experimental blue as a lighter shade of standard with white/black/white lining. I accept that such a livery did exist experimentally (as discussed in Jenkinson), but I do not believe the 7 locos painted in 1948 all received this livery at that time. Original colour photographic evidence of 46224 Alexandra exists showing her in a darker blue with red lining (very akin to the GER), and variations of this livery were applied to 8Ps across the regions (sometimes unhelpfully referred to as 'Experimental Purple'). I am almost certain I can find a reference to back this up in Nock, and of course photographs exist in Huntriss' "Colour of Steam" volume on the LMS Pacifics (or possibly the LMS in colour). However, this causes difficulty with the table. We can either replace the colours in the header with something like HEX #4729CB with red lining, but this would obfuscate the lighter blue version of standard livery applied to (amongst possible others) 46244 "KGV" (citation to follow when I find it again!). Alternatively, we add a new column for the GER style livery, but then face the challenge of having to work out which locos had which and when. Personally, I am minded to treat all 7 locos named by Jenkinson as having the darker GER style livery in 1948, since this coincides with the same livery being applied to other regions (with 'BRITISH RAILWAYS' tender legend). But this is a tricky area. I feel this is of value to those modelling the class, as it represents one of the broadest range of liveries for a single class. Mja58 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Most powerful pasenger loco?

"They were the most powerful passenger steam locomotives ever to be built for the British railway network"

I would dispute this. The LNER Class P2 article makes the same claim, and is listed as having a higher tractive effort (43'462 lbf vs 40'000 lbf). 86.20.206.100 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tractive effort is not a measure of power. It is a theoretical calculation of the maximum force which the locomotive could exert on starting, based upon just five values: rated boiler pressure; cylinder bore; piston stroke; number of cylinders; and driving wheel diameter. Although it typically allows for 15% losses, it does not scientifically take into account a large number of other factors which affect the power which may be exerted, such as the capacity to boil water, superheating, internal resistance of steam passages, leaks therefrom, number of driven wheels in contact with the rail, mechanical stiffness, rail friction, coal quality, skills of driver and fireman. TE has often been used to compare locomotives, but this is erroneous: the only fair test is a direct trial, either on a testing plant, or out the line. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another factor which supports the claim that the Coronations were the most powerful locomotives ever operated on the British railway network:- they regularly hauled 21 carriage trains out of Euston for Glasgow, something that the LNER locomotives were never able to emulate. They also pulled long - 21 carriage trains over Shap and Beattock without a banking locomotive. Lankyman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.57.35 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2014‎

Further to the above paragraph, the February 1939 test runs over the West Coast route of 6234 Duchess of Abercorn after its fitting with a double blastpipe & chimney are worth noting - peak indicated drawbar horsepower (idhp) reached approx. 3300, a magnitude more usually associated with Deltics and the first generation of 25kV Bo-Bo electrics built for the West Coast Main Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:301:1140:7059:E024:E5B8:A7FA (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Livery codes

I removed this from the livery section- I presume the codes are some kind of official LMS notation?

LMS Streamliner – Blue, Red, Shop Grey, Wartime Black (Code C22)

LMS Non-streamliner – Red (Code A11), Wartime Black (Code C22), Experimental Grey, 1946 Black (Code B12; a few early repaints Code B13) --Ning-ning (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some books use codes within the text as a form of link to a longer description at the back; these are usually unofficial. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought at first they were Carter's numbers, from British Railway Liveries, but they're not. --Ning-ning (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Carter uses simple integers 1-50, and those refer to particular colours, not to livery styles. Thus, Carter's codes relevant to the Coronations are 24 Royal blue and 28 crimson-lake.

If codes like A11, B12 and C22 were official, they would surely be mentioned in a book like

• Hunt, David; Jennison, John; Meanley, Bob; James, Fred; Essery, Bob (2008). LMS Locomotive Profiles, no. 11 - The 'Coronation' Class Pacifics. Didcot: Wild Swan. ISBN 978-1-905184-46-0.

but I don't see anything resembling livery codes (A11 etc. or otherwise) in the extensive description of liveries on pp. 136-159. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got some doubts about the "Royal blue", as Haresnape states Prussian blue, a different colour, but he also says it was intended to be a match for Caledonian blue, without saying which Caley blue! Ning-ning (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers in Jenkinson 1982

I've just found a copy of Jenkinson (1982), ISBN 0-86093-176-5, and although there are plate numbers, there are no page numbers. Where have these come from in all the references to this book? (User:Redrose64 editing whilst logged out - public library) --194.81.226.131 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I confirm that the above post was by me, logged out. It's mainly for the attention of Hoots Mon (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

CITEVAR change

A significant change in the citation formatting has been done here, see [2] and [3]. Undiscussed, unsurprisingly. I've raised this with the editor concerned previously on other articles, quoting WP:CITEVAR, but was just reverted then taken to ANI (ANI also quoted WP:CITEVAR to them).

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion, and I welcome other editors’ input, is that this change has massively reduced the number of inline citations and eliminated the need for a bibliography. This has two benefits:

• Users no longer need to hunt through the bibliography when looking for the source that sources a statement in the article. Previously with the SFN templates, the inline citation only named an author, a year and a page. It was up to the reader to find the relevant source in the Bibliography, then go back to find the page number. This is eliminated with the change, as the full source is in the inline cite, as is the page number.
• There were a large number (IIRC a minimum of 5-7) citations which didn’t need an SFN template in the first place - they were only used a single time in the article, or were used multiple times but with identical page numbers. Again, this introduced unnecessary searching for users when the cite could simply have been a normal (named) inline citation.

Just to be clear… previously there were 169(!) inline citations plus 35 bibliography entries; now there are only 57 inline citations and no bibliography, yet the same sources are in the article, citing the same content they previously were. In my opinion, this is a mess that has been cleaned up.

Oh, and Andy - this wasn’t discussed the edit was made because of WP:BOLD. It’s only mandatory to discuss if it’s reverted and a discussion is needed (which is where I went wrong before). Danners430 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• First off, you have not 'cleaned up', 'tidied' or 'fixed' this article. Objectively it was correct beforehand. What you've done is a subjective change to the style of citation. This isn't wrong, but nor is it an obvious, unarguable improvement. We have to decide which style it is that we are going to choose. For this is a conscious choice. Throwing around loaded terms like 'normal citations' and and 'didn't need an {{sfn}} template' is the sort of pejorative style that tries to present this as something it isn't.

For that matter, the article did have consistent citation style and now has a mixture. Citations 26 & 27, one has page numbers in the citation, one does not. This is more than a syntactic change hidden away in the wikitext or in template params, it's in the evident page text of the article. WP:BOLD is followed by WP:BRD and this introduced inconsistency could easily be judged sufficient reason to simply revert the lot.

The fundamental change here has been to go from the WP:CITESHORT style 340 people were injured.^[26][42] that is the most commonly used on WP for long articles to the {{rp}} style with page numbers inlined into the body text on each citation Fifteen people were injured.^[27]:34. Our question now is which we prefer and want to use.

Personally I dislike the {{rp}} style as it puts more bloat into the text I'm trying to read. Which is still our primary use case, rather than chasing down the citations. However this article probably is one of the best places to use that style, if it's to be used. There are many citations here to the same reference, but the page numbers vary considerably. It's more common on WP that a small number of pages in the same ref are cited repeatedly. That means that this article isn't benefitting from the usual compression of short citations, in that the citations become few and repeated, not just the references. So if there is consensus here to use {{rp}} style, then I'd respect that.

However the current inconsistency of the now-mixed citation style (the visible aspect for the casual reader) should be fixed. By either means. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Cleaned up", "tidied" or "fixed" are opinions. They are my opinions. You do not need to agree, that is the point of a discussion to get consensus from other editors, whose views I now await. Danners430 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Danners430: Re Users no longer need to hunt through the bibliography when looking for the source that sources a statement in the article. Previously with the SFN templates, the inline citation only named an author, a year and a page. It was up to the reader to find the relevant source in the Bibliography, then go back to find the page number., you appear to be under a misapprehension here. Using {{sfn}} generates little superscripted [1] etc. just like <ref>...</ref> does, and as with those tags, these superscripts are clickable. Moreover, when you have clicked to the references section, the relevant ref is highlighted in pale blue; and that ref is also clickable. Clicking it takes you to the full reference, and again, it's highlighted in pale blue. Visit Special:PermaLink/1237756358 and try it.

If, at Preferences → Gadgets, you have not disabled "^(D) Reference Tooltips: hover over inline citations to see reference information without moving away from the article text (does not work if "Navigation popups" is enabled above)" and also have not enabled "Navigation popups: article previews and editing functions pop up when hovering over links", you don't even have to click through - hover your mouse over a superscripted [1], this yields a balloon containing the ref from {{sfn}}, and it contains a link that is also both hoverable and clickable.

So, even for logged out users, the article as it was had no need to "hunt through the bibliography", which incidentally was ordered alphabetically by author's surname. Please revert your edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree I misunderstood that - I gave it a try, and I agree that the multiple clicks aren't necessary as I thought. I am however confused at your demand that I revert my edits... there has been no consensus reached, neither have you addressed the second point which I have made - the huge reduction in citations in the citations section, from over 150 cites to less than 60. In addition, what about the not insignificant number of bibliography entries which were used precisely once, and so should have been inline cites in the first place? I'm sorry, but I fail to see, even taking into account the new information which you have made me aware of, how a change to more than halve the number of listed citations is a bad thing, when you're not materially reducing the actual citations used. Obviously if there's a better way to achieve the same aim, then I'm always open to suggestions. Danners430 (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm obviously not about to start an edit war... I learnt my lesson there, and I was wrong. I'm just surprised at the order to self-revert something that I don't believe is incorrect. Danners430 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)