Talk:SR Merchant Navy class

message: I made a few minor changes to comply with WP:MOS and now I'm promoting to WP:GA.  The Rambling Man 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: What is meant by "speed restrictions for inside motion"?--John of Paris 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, where is that written? I can only see "space restrictions..." EdJogg 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed restrictions

message: Much of the information in the second infobox (the one for the rebuilt class) duplicates that given in the first. What do other people think about restricting the contents of the second infobox to those items that have changed, possibly with a note that all other specifications are unchanged?
--Das48 (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox for rebuilt locomotives

message: I see that the blame has been shifted from the oilbath to the axlebox lubricators. This is contrary to several sources I have seen in the past, such as
*
About half-a-mile east of Honiton a chain parted and, thrashing around in the oil-bath, caused absolute havoc until the engine came to rest. The scattered oil quickly ignited, setting the boiler cladding, sleepers and lineside bushes ablaze He also describes how the oil baths were prone to leakage, either through the vents or from distortion leading to fracture, and that the escaping oil "reached the wheel treads, causing slipping, and the boiler lagging where it provided a ready source of ignition". He does not seem to mention axlebox lubricators.
*
This feature [the oil bath] ... brought a number of problems, not the least of which was that of keeping the oil in the oil bath. Unless the engines were exceptionally well-maintained it seemed to get everywhere else—on the track, into the boiler lagging and, worst of all, onto the wheel treads. Later he states "I have already mentioned the leakage of oil and this not only caused slipping and other difficulties, but sometimes led to fires". Again, he does not seem to mention the axleboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be worth using both theories rather than one or the other. My main issue with the oilbath explanation for the slipping is how can something that is located between the frames seep directly onto the rail interface? However, I need to see pictures of the oilbath in relation to the frames before I can comment further, for if the oilbath sides are in contact with the frames, then it is possible for oil to seep down towards the wheels. It would also account for the impossibility of getting an adequate seal, as the amount of movement in the frames to allow for shocks etc. would prevent this. However, I have no problem with Bradley's anecdote, as this event sounds akin to that that experienced by 34067 a few years ago, when a combination lever sheared-off and pierced the sump, dumping 45 gallons of oil onto the track. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No books with me- can't check veracity, but I think the oilbath sides are the frames, and the sump construction was weakened by the use of thinner plate than was specified (the latter assertion came from Bulleid's son in his book). It could be that the wheel treads picked up oil from misting rather than by a direct leak. Ning-ning (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiler lagging fires 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SR Merchant Navy class. 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/20140304150750/http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/3/37/Er19600610.pdf to http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/3/37/Er19600610.pdf
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) 13:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I want to voice an opinion that this article covers two classes; Unrebuilt MNs and Rebuilt MNs, and as such they should be split into two separate articles.  Sensible comments welcome.  Tony May (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting this article 

message: <
this was quickly modified to a 2-8-2 equipped with a Helmholtz "Bissel bogie" – a system already successfully applied on the Continent.[12] The proposed "Mikado" locomotive was heavily based on Nigel Gresley's P2 locomotives and was planned to have a Hemholtz pony truck
>
. . . but a "Bissel bogie" and a Helmholtz pony truck are not the same thing - or if they are then the linking to other articles needs work, since it does point to two quite distinct arrangements
(Plan B is to delete details altogether: "The CE refused a 2-8-2 - too heavy.")
86.129.146.77 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sourced to H.A.V. Bulleid's 1977 work Bulleid of the Southern, so somebody should check that. Unfortunately, it's a book which I don't have. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused? You will be