Talk:LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3

message: The Specification table contains at least one error - Common sense says that the fuel capacity should be 6-8000Kg, 820kg IS wrong. AHEMSLTD 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was due to a missing 0 in the fuel weight in lb (18 thousand pounds sounds much more likely than 18 hundred), although I can't say how accurate that number is - apart from anything else, the Gresley Pacifics would have had at least two and probably three different tender designs during their career.  Changed it for now. FiggyBee 13:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specification Table 

message: For obvious reasons I am deleting much of the following passage: "No. 4472 Flying Scotsman is the only survivor of the class and has a strong personality to that of Liberal Party Leader, David Owen. His activities since being purchased for preservation in 1963 are such trips to USA and Australia have made him one of the best known and widely recognised steam locomotives in the world and a very good prime minister too."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.36.6 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam Trains, not Satire 

message: The comments on slipping and driving techniques are very interesting. However they are rather specialised for the general reader and apply more to general questions of Pacific design or design of locomotives with idle trailing axles rather than being specific to the A1. They also bring in a lot of chronological confusion — mention of Kings, A4s and the performance of A3s on the Waverley route when we are supposed to be discussing the A1 is quite dizzying. I would hesitate to remove these comments but wonder if a better place could not be found for them with appropriate internal links. This would leave space for a more rigourous and detailed history of the class. For instance there is little mention of the 1925 exchanges with the GWR Castle locomotives nor the benefits brought about by long travel valves (the 100 mph run is just one of them and would probably not have been possible without them).--John of Paris 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatise on Pacific locomotive?s

message: I would also like to know more about the "wheel burn" problem. The only mention I have ever seen was in Brian Hollingsworth's bookon "LBSC" on the subject of his practical advice  (page 101):  "Even people from other departments found his advice good; for example at Darlington some years ago there was an "insoluble" problem of locomotives slipping at the end of  of the down main platform. Because of serious wheel-burns rails had to be changed every few days and this had gone on for years. The curve had been eased at considerable cost (it involved alterations to the main platform) with negligible improvement. The only man for miles around to have read 'Curly on slipping' then made this point that even on a flat curve one wheel must slip; hence only one could 'bite'. He then suggested (to the derision of his colleagues) that the curve should be made sharper and hence shorter; this could be done so that just ahead of the water column at the spot where the driving wheels always came to rest, the track was dead straight. In desperation this alteration was carried out and Bingo! - no more problem, only a big undeserved boost to the Hollingsworth reputation." — Two points then: does anyone know of any other references to wheel burn? Did they occur in many places and were Gresley Pacifics the sole responsible? This all smacks to me of subtle weasel words.--John of Paris (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wheel burn

message: Been having a go at a rewrite of this article trying to respect some sort of historical sequence that is rather lacking in the present version. Have put my efforts into User:John of Paris/sandbox 6‎. All are welcome with bucket and spade.--John of Paris (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting article

message: I've assessed this as B class. Good solid work there, just needs a little more expansion. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My mistake: the last to go was 60052 Prince Palatine in Jan 1966; have corrected this with added reference. Also restored link to Flying Scotsman locomotive article and took out price comparison as nobody has come up with the reference, even though requested. The disambiguation at the head of the page gives a link to the Peppercorn A1 article; this surely means that a paragraph here on the new A1 project would be irrelevant — it's not the same A1. --John of Paris (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: It would be churlish of me to refuse to list this article as a GA until what are a few minor problems are sorted, so I won't, as I trust this community of editors to address these minor points.
*ibid is deprecated in references
*There are some missing imperial to metric conversions
This is an informative and obviously well-researched article, and I congratulate all of the editors who have worked on it on producing such a fine piece of work. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't Presevation be ref'd before it's passed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with my decision to pass this article, then please feel free to take it to WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to get it delisted so I won't do that.  I'm just noting this so the autor can make it buuletproof if they want, and you can also make your reviews bulletproof.  There's some rule about a ref per paragraph or section; just thought you should know.  I like to think of GA as a step to FA, and it would be brought up there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite familiar with the GA criteria, and I can assure you that there is no such rule. Criteria 2b) says "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". It is true that some reviewers will insist on a minimum of one citation per section/paragraph even if the material doesn't strictly need to be cited by that definition. I am not necessarily one of those, however. At FAC, of course the interpretation tends to be rather more strict, and to be safe everything should be cited, likely to be challenged or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the dialog.  I've watched reviews more than read the criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: The current lead pargraph begins:
::The London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) Class A1/A3 represent two stages in the history of the British 4-6-2 "Pacific" steam locomotives designed by Nigel Gresley. 
Now to my mind this is grammatically incorrect, although it does now match the current article title.
I would have said it should either start:
::The London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) Classes A1 and A3 represent two stages ...
...which is what it was previously, or:
::The London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) Class A1 and Class A3 represent two stages...
In either case, the article name should be changed to suit, with the bold text following LNER as the new title.
My personal preference is for the third version.
Thoughts, please? EdJogg (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of acting on the previous suggestion. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Still wrong

message: < using Gresley conjugated valve gear to derive the motion of the two outside valve spindles > 
is putting the cart well before the horse. What the conjugation did was to derive the motion of the inside valve spindle from those of the two outside cylinders!! 86.177.19.83 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. Will add missing words "to derive the motion of the  the two outside valve spindles". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjugation 

message: Is there any authority other than ref. 23 (Reed's 'Profile') for the statement that these were fitted to one locomotive in 1935? I note, without further comment as to the truth of Reed's text, that the books by Bellwood&Jenkinson, Brown and Nock and, presumably, therefore, though I've not read it, the paper by Spencer make no mention of such a fitting. 86.177.19.83 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trofimoff valves 

message: Hi'
:Look I know I shouldn't have to say this, but one day I would like to build a replica of Blink Bonny number 60051 to be A3 only, but this will be in the future, but it won't happen now,118.93.31.13 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future to build Blink Bonny 

message: < Eventually all of the A1 locomotives were rebuilt to A3 specifications. >
Not 1470
109.158.245.1 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding error 

message: Substituted at 21:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3. 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/20100924030338/http://www.bassettlowke.co.uk/products.html to http://www.bassettlowke.co.uk/products.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not usually someone to edit here and would rather someone else did it so I don't screw up the page by accident
Can the mention of Thompson in the wartime service section be removed, it doesn't actually speak about the wartime performance of these locomotives, it isn't relevant and moreover presents a historically inaccurate view of Thompson as unsynpathetic to Gresley's designs. This trope shouldn't be in this article 1.145.185.55 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions of Thompson 

message: The reason why I am bringing this up is because  removed the mention of Gordon the Big Engine from Thomas & Friends due to it being unsourced. He has also done so to many other pages, including the Caledonian Railway 812 and 652 Classes article, where he removed the mention of Donald and Douglas due to it also being unsourced. However, a variety of other locomotives that the characters were based on, do have mentions of the characters themselves in their respective "In fiction" sections (e.g. GER Class C53, having a mention of Toby The Tram Engine), so if all the other real-life locomotives have mentions of the characters in their "In fiction" section, then this article and the Caledonian Railway 812 and 652 Classes should have "In fiction" mentions of Gordon and Donald and Douglas respectively as well, as long as there's a reliable source for that matter. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have WP:IPC and WP:FANCRUFT. But most importantly, we have WP:V and WP:NOR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  While yes, that is true, perhaps the mentions including Gordon, Donald and Douglas should be reinstated with , which indicates that a reliable source to be cited is pending. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think, that since the Thomas characters really only vaguely resemble the locomotives. They shouldn't be listed in articles unless there is a good concrete source for the information. BigSneeze444 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Gordon the Big Engine be included in the "In fiction" section?