User talk:Bulleid Pacific/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merger?[edit]

I have had a go at merging the MN and WC/BB articles. As they stand there is much repetition and redundant statements due to all three classes being mechanically so similar. I have nonetheless maintained two articles, one dealing with the originals and the other with the rebuilds. I have put them in sandboxes(User:John of Paris/sandbox 3 Bulleid Pacifics (original) User:John of Paris/sandbox 4 Bulleid Pacifics (rebuilt). See what you think: there will certainly be more edits to do if ever you should decide to proceed--John of Paris 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Z class[edit]

You are welcome to download this for what it's worth,

Z at Exeter002.jpg

taken with my dad's awful old camera. Sorry, this is all I can offer, but it might just stimulate somebody to send something better.--John of Paris 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, I'd like your views on my comments re chain-stretch at Talk:Bulleid chain-driven valve gear.

Background: 5MT Pacifics[edit]

Morning. Added a couple of comments to Talk:BR Standard Class 6, but not sure if you know about it never having seen a comment by you there. Cheers--John of Paris 06:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

BR Class 9F[edit]

Been and had a look at the sandbox. I well remember the Crosti engines right from the early days and must have seen about all of them. I'm afraid it was before I started taking photos, which is a pity as the one you have put in the article shows the locomotive with the preheater drum removed--John of Paris 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulleid Pacific, I just want to point out that the link your user page takes us to the main 9F article which I have a number of issues that I have corrected in the sandbox. Do we continue to work on this? If so, then surely your main user link should be directed there pending a move. - Good news about WC/BB article; makes it all seem worthwhile.--John of Paris 08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have been editing your sandbox today. Just one question, why have you reverted my edits to the Crosti locomotives section? (Revision as of 18:22, 19 October 2007) Was this an oversight? --John of Paris 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, re your comment on my talk page just now, I could have sworn I had put in the page numbers. Ah well, the road to Hell and all that... One thing I should point out is that the closure date of Chapelon's book is 1952 i.e. 2 years before the 9Fs were built. His description on page 85 seems to refer to his own 2-12-0, 160 A1 which had a boiler consisting of two compartments in line with eachother. The front preheater portion simply spilled over into the boiler compartment. The arrangement nearest to that of the 9F was on two German Kriegsloks 52. 893 & 894 delivered in 1951 plus thirty of the lighter 50 class built in 1958-59 (needs confirming). I suspect the 9F version could have been made viable, but the "It'll never work, it'll never pay" climate of the time always brought about a cloud of negativity over any original project from the start. Also the piecemeal trials of various gadgets on the 9Fs seems to me very different from the Chapelon/Porta holistic approach - the only one that could have any future. For instance, I suspect that a Giesl ejector, might have given more economy than the chimney fitted and cured the problems of smoke lifting. Another thing is that I can't understand that low temperature/sulphuric acid business: if you look at the link I give in the article, you will see in the drawing that such should have been prevented by the steam jacket around the drum at the final exhaust end. It would be interesting to know what the thinking behind the steam jaqcket was. One more thing, I can cite my sources for the description of the apparatus, but have no idea where those remarks on the subsequent history come from which is why I have inserted the "citation needed" template.--John of Paris 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just put a word on the User talk:Bulleid Pacific/Sandbox page.--John of Paris 11:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

SR Leader Class[edit]

Hello! You've done a lot of work on SR Leader Class, so I thought you might be interested in weighing in on a small matter having to do with the article that I raised at Talk:SR Leader Class. Thanks. --Tkynerd 14:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back in touch with me. You might also want to post at the article talk page, so other people who are concerned with the article can see some discussion. Thanks. --Tkynerd 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I missed the fact that you'd created Priming (steam engine); just saw that now. Thanks! :-) --Tkynerd 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Not an expert in the field, however I do know enough to tell you that we need expert advice in writing this Priming (steam engine) article as we are getting into really deep water here. What I do definitely know is that priming is not "caused by the build-up of condensed water in the cylinders" and certainly has nothing to do with cylinder design. Priming is the word often used specifically to describe the effects of water carry-over from the boiler due to impurities in the water making it foam up as it boils. The foam fills the steam space and get drawn down the the steam collector pipe in the form of slugs of water, through the superheater (where present) and into the cylinders and out of the chimney. It is not condensate but water that has never been steam and cannot be counteracted by keeping the cylinders hot. Bulleid was the only British locomotive engineer to address the problem of water quality, adopting the French TIA (Traitement Intégral Armand) on-board water treatment system, doing so with great success so I am surprised that the subject of priming should come up in article on his work. However the man who really solved the whole problem, including priming, was L.D. Porta in the 1970s in Argentina. Boiler Water quality and treatment method is a huge subject, certainly worth its own article. In the meantime, I suggest you follow these links: [1] - Page 18, section 2.4; [2]. For confirmation on the meaning of priming, see [3]. Condensation in the cylinders is quite another issue and I very much doubt the truth of the statement in the Leader article that "keeping the cylinder heated by hot steam," (was in order to) "reduce the rapid cooling of steam in the cylinders that can cause priming". Condensation in the cylinders is another huge subject - have to rush now but will come back to you on all this. --John of Paris 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rail transport[edit]

Hi. Just had a comment on my talk page asking why we were taking a sandbox approach rather than modifying the page in the usual way. I countered by saying you wanted to experiment with section ordering 'off-line'. Is there any reason to continue using the sandbox?

EdJogg 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro is fine, although I'm sure some things can be removed while others are expanded.--Bulleid Pacific 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Poked my nose into it too the other day. What I felt was missing in the intro was reference to Blackett, Wylam colliery and the contributions of Hedley, and especially Hackworth. So as is my wont, I looked up the Hackworth article and found it seriously wanting in information, especially since last Summer when I passed by Shildon and picked up a copy of the Young's "Timothy Hackworth and the Locomotive" reprint (worth every penny of the 17 quid they ask for it), so that has stood me in good stead as the main reference. Anyway if either of you wish to contribute to the Timothy Hackworth article, please feel free to do so, then we'll get a better idea on what can be incorporated here.--John of Paris 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd better have a look at History of rail transport too. Both articles include a fair amount of information up to the mid 19th century, and then tail off rapidly. John, by all means add whatever history you have at your fingertips, to whichever article seems most appropriate!
The more that I look at this hierarchy of articles, the more I realise that we (railway enthusiast editors) have been very good at detailing all the nitty-gritty branch line and loco type articles, and not so good on the genuinely enyclopaedic ones (such as these)! I don't think we're going to run out of stuff to do in the near future...
EdJogg 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

william adams[edit]

I noticed your contributory history in LSWR Class G6 and LSWR O2 Class. I am fixing the William Adam link, which links to a disambiguation page. But as there are two William Adams', I'm not sure I linked the right one. Please correct it if I am mistaken. Thanks, --Brewcrewer 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FA[edit]

Congrats on the FA. Hope to see you back at FAC again sometime. J.Winklethorpe talk 06:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits[edit]

I noticed that you have recently reverted an anonymous editor 86.20.212.168‎ who has been active mostly in preserved locomotive articles, often making vandal attacks. This person seems to have some sort of chip on his shoulder and to be a bit obsessed with Thomas the tank engine and "friends". His main thing appears to be replacing "she" personifications by "he" plus some strange allusions to celebrities as with the N15 article. This is quietly disruptive and something needs to be done, but I don't know what. Since August he has made a total of 115 edits and I am wading through the lot. It's like no trolling I have ever seen. What do you think?--John of Paris 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

BR Standard Class GA reviews[edit]

Now that we're on a roll having got BR Standard Class 6 GA listed, we might as well deal with the BR Standard Class 7 and BR Standard Class 8 reviews, so I've undertaken to do those as well.

I probably won't be able to post up my comments until later this evening, maybe not until tomorrow, but on a quick glance through it doesn't look like there's going to be too much that needs to be done. Later.--Malleus Fatuarum 15:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a bit brusque, but I was a taken aback by the speed of events. Anyway, as you will have seen from this morning's post, I have no intention of contesting the GA status and quite accept that it does not set the article in stone and that we can take it on from there. Best wishes, John.--John of Paris 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Unless you can see any more improvements to make, we might be getting near the moment when we can move the 9F sandbox to the main page. What do you think? It would make life simpler. - By the way the Britannia Article is looking OK. Not touched anything.
One general problem, in the infobox it seems pretty clear that what they mean by "Total weight" for a steam locomotive is in fact the loco weight in working order - a much more useful statistic. I think the confusion comes from their template which in addition gives the rubric locotenderweight = Weight of loco and tender combined (useless info IMO). I left a word on their talk page about it some time ago but got no reply. We may have to take the law into our own hands and indulge in a little "gnomework".--John of Paris 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's best that you do the header as you know what is needed - so we'll wait a bit--John of Paris 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More on 5MT Pacific[edit]

I think I see the root of the problem now. In your version you say: "British Railways initially intended to design a larger Pacific version of the Class 5MT 4-6-0 design". In Haresnape's Profile on the Britannias, he says the exact opposite: "The fourth Pacific proposal, for a lightweight class 5 design was dropped in favour of a 4-6-0, closely based on the LMSR Stanier "Black Five" and utilising the same excellent boiler." This makes far more sense than saying that a Pacific is a version of a 4-6-0 - or vice versa. The configurations are entirely different. The way I understand it now is that the 5MT "slot" was originally meant to be filled by a Pacific and no 4-6-0 built, and that is where they changed their minds, preferring a to continue the 4-6-0 configuration. It is obvious that the performance of the Bulleid Light Pacific gave them further them food for thought. I have been looking through the Ian Allen LNER stockbook for 1954. The Standard 6MT was in the same RA7 group as the BR 5MT - in stark contrast to the BI that was the same 5MT power group but was in RA5 (there was a 5-ton loco-weight difference between the two 4-6-0s) - one wonders what the Light Pacifics' LNER RA would have been as it had a 90% route availability on the Southern. However Bulleid's approach to the question was in the time honoured Gresley "horses for courses" tradition, whereas Riddles rather reflects the Churchward tradition of piecing together proven standard components - except for the boiler, the weakest link in the Clan. In Churchward's case that policy resulted in monstruosities such as the County 4-4-0 or the 4600 4-4-2 tank.--John of Paris 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have now rewrittten the Background section. See what you think.--John of Paris 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Phew! That's kooking better. À bientôt, John.--John of Paris 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have slept on that since, as is my wont and put a couple of minor niggles and comments on the 6MT talk page--John of Paris 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The gramatical difference between "nearly" and "almost" is far too subtle for my poor old noddle. Nuff sed.--John of Paris 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MN vs WC/BB[edit]

Hi. John's recent edits to the MN article have improved the flow of text about the spectacle plates, smoke deflectors, etc. Since this is common text with the WC/BB article, had you thought of copying the changes to that article too?

EdJogg 14:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy article[edit]

Was the post-nationalisation livery modified Southern Malachite Green, or was it a modified Southern Malachite Green livery? The former suggests that the paint colour was different, the latter suggests the overall livery was different (which it was, slightly).

EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LNER Class A1/A3‎[edit]

Been working on a rewrite of this article. Huge job. Started it in a separate word processor but have now put it in User:John of Paris/sandbox 6. What has it got to do with the Southern? Well everything if you want to trace the genesis of Bulleid Pacifics. If you care to pay a visit you will be most welcome.--John of Paris (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments and advice. I think the rebuild of Great Northern is better dealt with on the Thompson/Peppercorn A1 page. What is coming out from doing this article is that whatever failings Gresley Pacifics A1/A3 may have had, they were a key design and in writing about them you are almost doing a potted history of the British pacific locomotive. Also, apart from poor old ‘’Great Northern’’, they were never really rebuilt over their 40 years’ career, although some had very few of the bits they started out with (Sailor’s knife and all that). Nor were they ever replaced, their numbers were only reinforced by more recent pacifics. Instead, a very sound basic design was regularly updated, according to the state of knowledge (I can think of only one comparable case - the K4s they were based on); the photo of Tracery is symbolic of this. A few months after it was taken the loco was bumped off the ECML; I doubt if it was ever in steam again and by the end of the following year it had been officially withdrawn. No other work could probably have been found for it. The same story is true of pretty well all six Gresley pacifics I photographed in action that memorable afternoon in the space of less than three hours (do you realise that some of them ran for less than two years in that final state?). The thing is that so late in the day they were fitting into diesel diagrams. I wouldn’t call the picture stylised, it is as stated “fairly accurate", but I will try to put it another way; it does however give a good idea of the iconic nature of the design in its heyday. I just hope that no over-zealous WP patroller will remove it as it’s essential to this article. Livery bit is a problem as it had the same one as a number of other LNER and even more BR locomotive and in order to avoid tiresome repetition, there should be separate articles on the subject of liveries in general IMO.— Anyway, thanks again. --John of Paris (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You've put in a lot of work. No problem with the edits, it's looking much better now. I hesitated to call the Great Northern Pacifics A1 because I wasn't sure when the system came in. There is however a WP article on the subject of LNER locomotive numbering and classification and from there we can see that in GN times, there was already the beginnings of the system with letters standing for wheel arrangements, but not quite the same. The letter A was first used for singles and as they died out by 1914, it was allocated to the Pacific arrangement. All the same, the most common designation for the GN Pacifics seems to have been 1470 class. Regarding the Cole Pacifics I did not express myself very well as what I was trying to say was that they had no combustion chamber, that being introduced with the K4. It's interesting to note that Gresley used exactly the same 19' tube length as the K4. It must have been realised later that with a smaller diameter English boiler this was slightly wrong proportionally which would explain the shortening to 18' 6" for the A4s and all Pacifics built subsequently - these boilers were also applied to some A3s.--John of Paris (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


I've uploaded this text into the main article today, mainly because I was starting to be hassled by a bot telling me that I was not allowed to import a free use image on a user page and went and took, it off. Anyway we'll see what happens now and of course nothing prevents us from further improving it.--John of Paris (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


I see you are still hard at it! However I thought I had better mention that the reason I have abandoned the reflist method of citation, is that it does not show the page numbers in the displayed text, essential to the serious reader. The second point is that I get the feeling that that there is too much reliance on Herring (no less than 11 citations). I have no ready access to this work, but trolling through the net, it does seems to me to be very much a generalist work, whereas I have always tried as much as possible to cite secondary sources at least.--John of Paris (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sackcloth and ashes[edit]

I owe you an apology. After I had uploaded the the article into the main space, I copied it in its latest state state into a word processor to mark the event and to keep some sort of record. I thought that would be enough so I then erased the Sandbox because I in order to avoid duplication of effort but in doing so I lost the history and so all record of your contributions. I sincerely regret that the stages in your editing and the summaries have now all disappeared; next time I'll look for a better solution.--John of Paris (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the history page is the nearest we get in WP to signing our work, that's why I was a bit bothered. Signing means taking responsibility for both the good and the bad sides of our input. I don't know how much you are in "enemy territory" when you think that Bulleid was Gresley's personal assistant from 1912 to 1938 and how much the general arrangement of the Bulleid Pacifics owes to Gresley Pacifics; this became more and more apparent to me as I developed the A1/A3 article. Even the Leader's origins can probably be traced to an abortive Sentinel B+B locomotive project that did get quite a long way in the 1930s--John of Paris (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Appendix?[edit]

Is this what you were getting at in your first post on A1/A3? I have absolutely no opinion on the subject. If you think that creating a separate page will give a bit more air to the article, then by all means please do go ahead.--John of Paris (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A1/A3 article[edit]

In response to your word on my talk page, I have been away over Christmas and haven't touched it until today. I see that you have put in a lot of work on the other hand. Do you think we are getting anywhere a point where we can ask for peer review? As for the N15, I had a look at it yesterday, did a few odd jobs and will be back.--John of Paris (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just seen your edit on preservation. I really don't see the point in not restricting this to the Flying Scotsman page. Readers should surely be encouraged to follow blue links. Two or three words may suffice to do this. In this way articles will be kept down to manageable lengths.--John of Paris (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A1/A3 article: Refs[edit]

Not very well up on referencing conventions. From now on, it will be ibid. Don't quite see your point about monographs (or the more specialist books). I have always found them much more interesting than general works,and still have fun sifting through them for salient points likely to interest general readers and stimulate them to look further. Also many of these now-out-of-print books can still be found in reference libraries (or they could until recently).--John of Paris (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Me again, tweaking away at this article. There's one sentence that bothers me that was there in the old version before we got our hands on the thing: "Other problems persisted, such as a stiff, insensitive regulator and significant overall design flaws that hampered maintenance", followed by a note referring to to Herring. I would like to know more about these design flaws or at least have a copy what the Herring says exactly. The Gresley regulator was certainly stiff and insensitive in the early days, but if we are to believe Nock, they later had a Lockyer regulator, which by all accounts was very easy and sensitive. I feel like taking the sentence out, as I smell weasel words, but would like first to clarify the matter a little bit; the point is that whatever their "design flaws", by the early '60s, these engines had been brought up to a pitch where they were working in diesel diagrams. There are not many British steam locomotive types you could say that about!--John of Paris (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know when the new regulator was fitted?--John of Paris (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All I have is very circumstantial evidence, first from Brown where he gives an anecdote from the early LNER days by Ransome Wallis about a local meeting in which a Geordie driver complained to Gresley about the stiff regulator saying that his NER Lockyer regulator could be moved with two fingers, whereas it took the combined efforts of him and his mate to shift Gresley's. Then I noticed only the other day a more recent reference to Gresley Pacifics being fitted with it. Can I find it today? - I'll keep looking.--John of Paris (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy article - MAJOR NEWS!![edit]

There has been a subtle addition to the talk page for the MN article

-- it has been selected for Main Page display on 18th Jan!!!!!!!!! Congratulations!

I am very surprised by this, as the article was only promoted to FA status a little over a month ago. Makes all the editing and proof-reading worthwhile though, eh? Probably time for another proof-read, just to be sure!

I would have emailed you, but you have not enabled this facility yet. I hope you see this message before the 18th.

EdJogg (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations! Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)