# Talk:British Rail Class 47

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed the article at this time. The main reason for doing so is the lack of inline citations which is a recent requirement in the GA criteria. All information that may be questioned over its verifiability must be cited. Also, the "Preservation" and "Re-engineering" sections should be expanded upon or merged into alternate sections since they contain very little information. According to the Manual of Style, for "Fleet Details", only Fleet should be capitalized. Before renominating, look over the GA criteria and consider getting a peer review to see how else the article could be improved. If you do not agree with this review then you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article and have found problems with it, they are listed below:

Your references are not in the correct layout try looking at the Ford BA Falcon article to get the idea of what references should look like.
Try making the introduction bigger so it includes information from the rest of the article.
Don’t just use imperial measurements, also use metric measurements, in your article it states “straight-six unit producing 2,750bhp…” try including metric measurements so it converts Horsepower to Kilowatts.
Chose a good picture to go at the top of the article on the right, so readers get a good idea of what the train looks like.
Put the incidents section at the bottom part of the article just above the Fleet details.
If you have any questions about this, then please go to my talk page and leave a message.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"The most noticeable result of the dieselisation of Britain's railways following the Modernisation Plan of the late 1950s," - a little confused! did dieselisation form part of the modernisation plan or did it come after the modernisation plan. Also, the wikilink for "modernisation plan" is british rail and i don't think is very appropriate
removed this sentence as it's too confusing and also the pointless wikilink - it's dealt with in the next paragraph anyway
Please provide a link or point to a link for the phrase - "making them easily the most numerous class of British mainline diesel"
" though five were fitted with a V12 12LVA24 power unit (see separate article - British Rail Class 48)." - i think this needs tweaking. how, i am not sure.** moved this to "Origins" section where it reads more smoothly and the wikilink is better placed
"still in mainline use today" - removed 'mainline'
put it back, and changed to "mainline and private" - I wanted to emphasise that a number were still running on the mainline
"They were numbered D1500-D1999, and D1100-D1111." - this sentence needs explanation
expanded the sentence to explain it
Need references for
"This significantly improved reliability by reducing stresses on the power plant, whilst not causing a noticeable reduction in performance."
"Two locomotives, 47798 Prince William and 47799 Prince Henry, were dedicated to use on the Royal Train, and were designated as Class 47/7c."
Both done
"Reduction of the fleet only started in earnest as this fluid situation stabilised and freight companies started ordering their own new locomotive fleets." - need more data here. how did the overall figure come down from 300+ to 31.
expanded explanation a bit - the actual mechanics of the fleet reductions are *very* convoluted so I've summarised them
" only around 30 examples are currently" - the exact number from list attached is 31. also, why use of "example"?
fixed the discrepancy, though the number fluctuates so often that it may be worth leaving tyhe sentence as "around 30".  'Example' is railway jargon and I've changed it.
"47208 became the fifth Class 47 to be withdrawn" - but the section has only 2 listed prior to this. please explain the withrdrawal of the other two.
Done this
In the 'Fleet details' table, can you please add the data on the number of engines built.
Done
Please revert back to me once you address these comments and i shall re-review the article for GA. I think that this article has sufficient data for FAC --Kalyan 12:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is good to go for GA. --Kalyan 09:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why has the contents/navigation bar been 'turned off'? --Jorvik 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It broke the formatting of the page.  Try removing the first __NOTOC__ line and previewing the results, and you'll see what I mean. ELIMINATORJR 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really break the article layout, and what it does can be used to good advantage with a bit of lateral thinking, but you are breaking Wikipedia's formatting! (SouthernElectric 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

These locomotives were not prototypes for the Bush Type 4, the design of which pre-dates those prototypes - just look at the dates of introduction in any reference book! These locomotives were manufactures prototypes for what became the class 50s - English Electric winning the contract, but having the cab front design changed by the BRB design panel decree. (SouthernElectric 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

No, they were not prototypes for Cl.47, and the article does not say that. They were prototypes for a possible lightweight type 4 design. However the BRB decided to go with the Class 47 programme before the prototypes could be assessed - exactly as the article says.  You are correct in saying DP2 is certainly irrelevant here, which is why it isn't mentioned. ELIMINATORJR 16:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but the way it's written that is exactly what is being suggested, the paragraph is under the "Origins" sub-heading which is totally wrong, (as you and I know) the origins of the Brush Type 4 pre date these three prototypes, in fact I can't see any reason to even mention the prototypes as they have little to do with the Brush Type 4 apart from sharing body styling. (SouthernElectric 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I've been mulling if this over for a few days and really do feel I need to voice my concerns; Looking at the references one sees just a long list of web citations, there is only two non web citations in a list of 41, there seems to be to much reliance on these web citations (such as "Class47.com"). I'm sure that most if not all information will be available elsewhere - if not, how does one know if Class47.com etc. have got the correct information and this article is thus not just republishing web-myth, if a web citation can't be backed up with a third-party printed publication citation should a citation even be offered? It's not as though there are not print or magazine sources - see WP:V#SELF and thus the possibility of someone placing a {{self-published}} template at the head, I'm tempted to do so myself but feel that I should raise my concerns here first. SouthernElectric 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right, although I do know that Class47.com get their information from original BR information sources; in other words TOPS archives.  I probably need to research some print resources; however as you'll see from my talk page my time is quite limited at the moment. Having said that, web citations are better than none; and if you look at the version of the article before I re-wrote it, there were no references at all.ELIMINATORJR 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following comment made by 81.79.65.0 (talk · contribs) from the article text:

On the contrary One railway and FM rail still operate a plentiful fleet.
Assuming that this is true, it will need to be better written in an encyclopedic style with appropriate citations.  Slambo (Speak) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not even true.  ONE don't own Class 47s, they hire them occasionally; and FM Rail no longer exists. ELIMINATORJR 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
One always have at least one Cotswold Rail 47 on hire, to be used as a Thunderbird. It's often stabled at Colchester. Still yet to experience the famed Brush thrash on a rescue mission though, myself, although they are fairly regular (at least a couple of times a month) occurences. Muchclag (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a section on 47's in preservation? - see class 33 page as an example

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Rail Class 47's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Earnshaw6":
From British Rail Class 45: Earnshaw, Alan (1990). Trains in Trouble: Vol. 6. Penryn: Atlantic Books. p. 47. ISBN 0-906899-37-0.
From British Rail: Earnshaw, Alan (1990). Trains in Trouble: Vol. 6. Penryn: Atlantic Books. pp. 28, 30–47. ISBN 0-906899-37-0.
From British Rail Class 40: Earnshaw, Alan (1990). Trains in Trouble: Vol. 6. Penryn: Atlantic Books. pp. 44–45. ISBN 0-906899-37-0.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mjroots, please would you check this out? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614195024/http://www.gwsr.com:80/html/47376.html to http://www.gwsr.com/html/47376.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724094922/http://www.c58lg.co.uk/html/mgr_haa_history.html to http://www.c58lg.co.uk/html/mgr_haa_history.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108204356/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk:80/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47300 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47300
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108152126/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk:80/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47981 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47981
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_433.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108185026/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk:80/bt4_liveries.php?s_liv=99 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_liveries.php?s_liv=99
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This article needs a list of still in use TOPS numbers (47xxx) Like the class 37 has. SageWater (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It does, although it probably shouldn't, because it goes out of date too quickly - like this one is out of date now. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British Rail Class 47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210601/http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Loco%20Tech%20Data/Class47.html to http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Loco%20Tech%20Data/Class47.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016105708/http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/rv_coupling_system_data/SD001-%20E024.pdf to http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/rv_coupling_system_data/SD001-%20E024.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_437.php?G=gone
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219134229/http://therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/Class57.pdf to http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/Class57.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210503/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?s_loco=D1734 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?s_loco=D1734
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There's seems to be some controversy over using a photo in the infobox with a copyright notice displayed. While I can see both points of view I don't think it matters.  Having said that I believe the older image of a loco in original 1960s livery should be the one used as it is the only livery the whole class carried and the infobox is a generic description.  The rest of the article has a good selection of images of locos in different liveries relevant to the sections they are displayed in.  Discuss.  Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The one of 47449 is an excellent image if it could be cropped to remove the copyright notice - so I have done this.  However both this and the existing one of 47424 show BR large-logo blue, which was only carried - with a few exceptions - by 47/4s.  47449 also has a non-standard front end (accident damage repair).  I'm not keen on the one of D1705 as the paintwork is faded and it has a non-original red buffer beam. If we are going to show a representative image, it should be of a locomotive in standard BR blue, as all of the class bar the early withdrawals carried this, and usually for far longer than the two-tone green.   Some suggestions;
File:Hugh llewelyn 47 105 (5568526842).jpg
File:47401 at Swanwick.jpg
File:Brush Class 47 47840 North Star (8061920450).jpg
Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks user:Black Kite.  I agree that a good photo of a "typical" example should be used.  If you can find a good quality BR-era image of one in green, that's not a problem.  We've got some black and white photos from the 1960s that shouldn't be arbitrarily excluded because they are not in colour.  There is a general lack of *good quality* images.  As for your suggestions, see these comments: Tony May (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a hunt through my slides and see what I can find. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I too have loads of photos, but I've just had a look through the ones I've actually digitised and the vast majority suffer from the underframe being hidden by the platform.  Annoyingly, I've a really good one of 47476 but it has a Stratford silver roof, and an excellent one of 47901 but that's not exactly representative!  I'll have a dig through my other stuff and see what I can find. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Some more Flickr images by the same person that took the 47449 image above, they have CC licences
47285, Bescot, 1978
47500, B'ham Int, 1979
47474, B'ham NS, 1987 - I really like this one
Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

it is the only livery the whole class carried - there wasn't one. D1671 and D1734 were withdrawn when still in original two-tone green; D1953-61 were blue from new. So, two-tone green: 503 out of 512; rail blue: 510 out of 512. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Great user:Black Kite - let's get those uploaded! Tony May (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I have uploaded the one of 47474 as the infobox photo. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Argh! That looks horrible! Is there actually any point in adding these maps, they only shows a random moment, presumably picked because you have the appropriate shedbook to hand? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree - the information is interesting and useful but surely it would be better in a separate section, with perhaps the equivalent information from, say, the 60s and 80s.  The table down one side looks a bit unpleasant. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The 1974 edition is not the only one I have (there are a few gaps in my collection, but mainly before 1972): it was chosen because it was the first one when TOPS depot codes were used (these were introduced in 1973), and it was also the first time since the early 1960s that every loco was allocated to a specific depot. For several years until 1973, diesel locos on the London Midland Region were not allocated to specific depots (see Railway Magazine April 1965 p.240, July 1966 p.423 and September 1968 pp.562-3) but either to divisions (such as D01 - London (Western) Division and D16 - Nottingham Division) or to "lines" (such as Western Lines and Midland Lines). Those on the other regions were allocated to individual depots, the codes of which were in the BR version of the former LMS system (such as 30A Stratford and 87E Landore). Apart from the difficulty of illustrating exactly what "Western Lines" meant (its area stretched from Euston to Carlisle and Crewe to Holyhead), a 1960s diagram for class 47 couldn't be much earlier than May 1968 without being incomplete, since that was when D1961 was delivered.
I wanted people to be able to compare the diagrams for class 47 with those for other classes, e.g. Class 40 or Class 45, so a common date for all classes was necessary. An edition from the 1980s could have been used, but even by 1980, planned general withdrawal had begun to take its toll. Several of the classes that vanished in the 1980s were still reasonably complete in 1974, apart from accident losses: for example, withdrawal of Class 24, which had been at a trickle (1 in 1967, 1 in 1968, 5 in 1969, 1 in 1970, 1 in 1971, 5 in 1972) became a flood from 1975.
As to the arrangement of three maps: the problem that I had was the geographical span and the closeness of certain depots. If the London map had been omitted and the four depots in London placed on the England map, they would have overlapped so closely as to be indistinguishable (see this version of Class 25 where I used a different colour for one of the two London depots, without much success). If the Scotland map had been omitted, Haymarket could have been fitted in close to the top of the England map (again see class 25) but Inverness would have been lost. If instead of separate England and Scotland maps, a United Kingdom map had been used (as with class 24), the depots in Yorkshire (Holbeck, Knottingley, Tinsley and York) would have overlapped so closely as to be indistinguishable, the same problem as London. Of the various main-line locomotive classes produced before privatisation, Class 47 was numerically the largest (512 built, but no more than 510 in service at any given moment) and allocated to the most depots simultaneously. It's a long way from e.g. Class 26. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Shifting the images left solved the layout problem, I should have thought of that. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
See tests at User:Redrose64/Sandbox3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I suppose there isn't a reasonably large map just of Great Britain without Ireland?  The overlap between northern England and northern Ireland is rather confusing in the current version. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know of one (see Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Location map/data/). It's also not simply a matter of cropping down an existing map image, since location map modules needs to be set up for the new image (for example, the England map, File:England location map.svg, is associated with Module:Location map/data/England and in turn Module:Location map/data/UK England). We could ask Nilfanion (talk · contribs), who has prepared many maps like these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Worth a try, would improve the look no end. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Fleet Summary Table as it took me more than I moment to realise what information was being presented.
For example take the Harry Needle Rail entry - at first glance reading left to right - one might think that HNR do not own any class 47s - in fact they own three (but non-operational).
Can I suggest moving the 'total' column so that it's to the right of each classification? and maybe add another total column to the right of each owning company so that it's clearer how many locos (in total) are actually owned - both operational and not. Just a suggestion.... Andywebby (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
If I might make another suggestion about the table. Provide sources for every entry, or simply delete the table and replace with point information about those locomotives that can be referenced. WP:OR is a key part of Wikipedia for a reason. --10mmsocket (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the table.  As for sourcing, class47.co.uk - the source used - is generally reliable, I believe. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)