Talk:British Rail Class 22

message: I have deleted "Like most North British products, they were poor..." because I think it is too sweeping a generalisation. 82.21.65.109 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again same problem as above - so often repeated, so difficult to prove one way or another..FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: The article states "D6300 was introduced to traffic in 1958" yet the build date says 1959 to 1962.
Only one can be right, which is it! FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Were these called 'Ronsons' by staff? I remember that one V-engined type had a problem with vibration-fractures, or it shook a union loose, on the fuel-lines, & dripped diesel between the V, which flashed over on a regular basis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archolman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2012‎
:Was the nickname `Baby Warships' actually used by railwaymen when the locos were in service? If it is just an enthusiast nickname, or even worse, one concocted after the class's withdrawal, it would be best to omit it from the article as being inauthentic and mere trivia. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: :::The class is now extinct, but an attempt was made to preserve D6319. A purchase price was agreed with BR but for some unknown reason, it was cut up by staff at Swindon Works. BR became embarrassed and offered the purchaser a Warship class locomotive at the same price and D821 Greyhound thus became the first preserved ex-BR mainline diesel locomotive.
This is a too "a little bird told me" as is, for an encyclopedia.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: More at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 2#I don't get it which refers to these edits. I keep meaning to go through my old mags. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section

message: Several attempts have been made to include some material on the new build project but these have been deemed unsuitable. Lately the standard has not been good enough, but do we really think this project should have no mention whatever? Globbet (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable third-party WP:SOURCES? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to find a magazine article about the project, but it is not likely to feature in anything I regularly read. Meanwhile, here is a piece in another group's newsletter. And here is a reference to a stand at an Eping & Ongar railway event. Neither of these references is all that independent, but the existence of the project group is hardly a matter that is likely to be subject to challenge, and as it appears to be the first attempt at a diesel loco 'new-build', it is notable enough for me. Globbet (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there are people within the preserved diesel movement who just see the 22 rebuild project as something pie in the sky and unrealistic and thus this page continually has such mentions removed out of spite/childishness. It's clear to see all the information regarding the group/project on there website - http://www.class22newbuild.co.uk - surely that's enough of a source? It was also in RAIL magazine earlier in the year but I don't have a copy5.133.19.66 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need WP:THIRDPARTY sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I know it's a primary source but there's no need to be bureaucratic about it. Are you doubting that Project 22  actually exists? There are now a lot of new build projects around and some of them actually come to fruition, e.g. LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And many of them don't - they're just ways for the gullible to throw money away. Tornado runs special trains across the network, it has been mentioned numerous times in both the specialist and popular press. It clearly meets WP:GNG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the nanny Wikipedia. The proles can't be trusted to spend their money wisely. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New build project