Talk:British Rail Class 55

message: What about mentioning the engine, it was pretty unusual.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.112.4 (talk • contribs) 03:07, May 28, 2006. 
agreed the engine was a ship engine i belive.
Hear hear indeed, highly distinctive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.57.38 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique engine design 

message: Could do with a lot more info on service - the Deltics were exceptionally high performance for diesel locomotives, not just becuase of their power, but also becuase of the spec of the electrical transmission system. They forced extensive speed upgrades on the ECML and paved the way for HST and later IC225 workings. No other UK diesel locomotive could have done that.--81.152.21.121 10:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service and performance 

message: Could we clarify this, all the pictures I have seen of green Deltics indicate the whole class had this feature while in BR green. I had understood that Finsbury park had re-instated them to it's machines before withdrawal in BR Blue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.64.93 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true pictures of 55003 Meld illustrate it with both blue window surrounds (admittedly with the paint flaking to reveal white underneath) and also in servive with the white surrounds. The white surronds were added on April 6th 1979. There are also pictures of 55003 Meld on the scrapline at Doncaster works with this feature. Meld was assigned to Finsbury Park. (Ferdinand4321 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White window surrounds.

message: Although out of the scope of this article mention should be made of DP2 (linked back to the class 50) article, if for no other reason than to prevent people mistaking an un/wrongly captioned picture of DP2 for a production Deltic. Comments either way please. (SouthernElectric 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DP2 

message: :Image:The Flying Scotsman (train) centenary poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Flying Scotsman (train) centenary poster.jpg

message: I removed this text, which was under a section heading of "Ghost Sightings":
:A British Rail Class 55 "Deltic" diesel locomotive was sighted on the main line outside of Crewe nine months after it was scrapped. This ghost train is known as Nimbus. The locomotive was 55020 and the incident was later reported to be a hoax.
There are no references given whatsoever, and Google searches such as "Deltic 55020 hoax", "Deltic D9020 hoax" and "Deltic Nimbus hoax" turn up nothing relevant. As such, this looks like - at best - a hoax remembered only within a small group of people. As such, I don't think it should be in unless a proper citation can be given. Loganberry (Talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been confirmed as scrapped through photographic evidence http://neil-gibson.fotopic.net/p54079839.html Patrick lovell (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: http://www.peakrail.co.uk/delticwe.htm has gone dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.232.187 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: About 75% at least of this article deals with the surviving locomotives after preservation, and on livery changes which are of minor interest and unsuitable for an encyclopaedia.  Like so many wikipedia articles on British diesel locomotives there is little on the locomotives during their working lives which is surely what matters.  I suggest that the preservation `news' - much of which is trivial or out of date - be moved elsewhere, or, preferably, deleted, and that an expert on the subject writes an informative, readable account of the concept behind these locomotives, their design, construction and operation.  Barney Bruchstein (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Separate articles on surviving locomotives wouldn't be unwarranted, and is largely how we deal with articles on preserved steam locomotives.  Good thingking user:Barney Bruchstein! Tony May (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on British Rail Class 55. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080930161211/http://www.peakrail.co.uk:80/delticwe.htm to http://www.peakrail.co.uk/delticwe.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090717081407/http://www.gordonhighlander.co.uk:80/News1.html to http://www.gordonhighlander.co.uk/News1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can anyone verify this change? 
The article previously stated that this Type 3 loco (1500-2000 hp) would use a single 18 cylinder engine, which is plausible. It now reads that it's a 9 cylinder, as used for the 1,100 hp Type 2 Class 23, which isn't. Does anyone have the cited ref handy?  Andy Dingley (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It definitely says "a 'Deltic' 18-cylinder engine". A single Napier engine of the type used in Class 55 would give 1,650 bhp, well within the band for Type 3 of 1,500-1,999 bhp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 cylinder Type 3? 

message: Article describes it as ‘most powerful single-unit diesel locomotive’. Could this be misinterpreted as single engine? Would the meaning be the same without the term ‘single-unit’? Andyeff (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Single unit refers to the vehicles which make up the power unit - as an example, look at certain American locomotives which had A and B units - technically the same locomotive, but two coupled vehicles, which of course thereby had much higher power output. Danners430 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: LMS No. 10000 and 10001 were often operated as a pair known as the Ivatt twins. This was because on their own they were not powerful enough for the heaviest tasks, like many of the early diesel locomotives. The Class 55s were notable because they could easily replace the most powerful steam engines of the day without doubling up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

text: So why not simply ‘single locomotive’? Andyeff (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some American locomotives with A and B units are technically "a single locomotive", despite having two units. Similarly there's the Iore in Scandinavia which is made up of an A and B unit, but classed as a single locomotive. Danners430 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Single locomotive' would be even more confusing, as it would imply there was only one of them. G-13114 (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just locomotive? In response to other posts, can anything that is coupled to something else be a ‘single’ unit? Can forty parts coupled together be a single unit? Andyeff (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the examples I'm talking about are locomotives where the two (there used to be some examples with three) units are specifically designed to be semi-permanently coupled together to form a single vehicle. They would be the most powerful locomotives, but not the most powerful single-unit locomotive. An example would be the Alco FA, which could have a second unit Danners430 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

text: What Danners430 said. As examples, see this image - it's got four locomotive units, followed by a mail car, two more cars, three vista dome cars and then the rest of what appears to be a sixteen-car passenger train. This heavy load needs plenty of power, both to haul it up stiff gradients in mountainous country, and to provide a good turn of speed when conditions are favourable. The first and fourth locomotive units each have a single cab - they are EMD F7A units; the second and third are cabless - they are EMD F7B units. An F7B, having no cabs, cannot operate independently but only if coupled to an F7A and remotely controlled by the cab of the F7A. One F7A may be used alone, but if also used alone for the return trip, it needs to be turned around between trips. When more power is required, one or more F7B may be added behind the F7A, but this does not eliminate the need for turning. Two F7A may be used back-to-back, which both doubles the power output and eliminates the need for turning; and when even more power is required, one or more F7B are added in between the two F7A. See also A unit and B–unit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification