Talk:British Rail Class D16/1

message: diff
"Contrary to popular belief the LMS locomotives did not develop into the British Railways Type 4 (later class 44, 45, 46) but a large part of the design was used to produce the North British Type 4 diesel hydraulic locomotives for the Western Region of British Railways (numbered D600 to D604)."
At first sight this appears to be nonsense - what influence did the locomotives have on the "Class 41" ? The engine and tranmission were totally different - was it the bogies or frame ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: removal

message: Quoting: One cab 'noses' also contained a traction motor cooling fan, the other an air compressor.
Shouldn't that be: Each cab nose contained a traction motor cooling blower and an air compressor?
I've seen a pic of one being assembled, and the blower is on the right - second man's - side.  Both bogies would need one blower each.86.129.103.124 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: yes fixed.Prof.Haddock (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cab Noses

message: How could these two have been class 34 under TOPS when the last example was withdrawn in 1966 and BR didn't come across TOPS until 1968? Also the class 33/1 where originally class 34 before becoming class 33/1 so I think that the LMS twins being class 34 is not at all accurate. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are: Hunt 2005, p. 14; Richards 1996, p. 145; and Strickland 1983, pp. 27, 173. I have all three books. Hunt says Their official BR modernisation scheme power range was Type 3 and class designation was Class 34 but this seems rarely, if ever, to have been used and there was nothing on the locomotives to indicate it. Richards says They were given the classification of Class 34, but it is believed this was never painted on. but Strickland does not support the claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, if they were withdrawn by 1966, and the TOPS system was introduced years later there is no way that they would be classified under TOPS. Have spoken to people who worked with these and they said they were never classified under TOPS. So it seems to me that this is just wishful thinking and is in no way accurate. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The TOPS system wasn't introduced years later, but months. Drafts are known from 1967, and the first published list appeared in Autumn 1968. If there are 1967 drafts, there may have been a draft in 1966, at a time when no. 10001 was still in service. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet according to the wiki article on TOPS, BR didn't encounter TOPS until 1968. Further it is mentioned in the class 33 article that class 34 was originally assigned to the engines that eventually became class 33/1. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 1968 was the publication, but as I say, drafts are known from 1967. Also, please do not use Wikipedia as a referencing source - everything was entered by people like you or me, you need to go back to the actual sources of the information in order to be sure. When there is a discrepancy between two Wikipedia articles, and neither gives its sources, who is to say which one is "right"? Perhaps neither is actually correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Class 34

message: That was Armstrong Whitworth's 800 bhp locomotive built for the LNER in 1933
It also built mainline diesels for Ceylon and India in the middle-to-late 1930s
And Egyptian railways also ordered locos from EE just after the second world war. Construction started before the LMS twins, but the twins might have been delivered first for political reasons, as Ivatt wanted them working before nationalisation.
I will find some references. 180.219.9.217 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an interesting webpage ... obviously not possible to reference it. https://www.derbysulzers.com/ceylonindia.html 180.219.9.217 (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Armstrong-Whitworth loco was never LNER property, and was certainly not "built for the LNER". It was entirely an AW project, and although the LNER allowed it to be given trial runs over LNER lines (Newcastle-Berwick and Newcastle-Carlisle), no LNER order was ever placed, and nor did it influence the development of future LNER internal-combustion locos. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the first mainline diesels built in Britain