Talk:GNR Stirling 4-2-2

message: I'm not a train buff, but the Science Museum in London has what appears to be a different Single Stirling locomotive. See the picture on this page. There doesn't seem to be a number on it - 1868 is presumably the year of construction, matching the date in the article. If it's useful, I am the copyright owner of that photo, and it can be freely used. Mail me as jifl, followed by the at, followed by jifvik.org, if you want more official confirmation.
:This is the LNWR 2-2-2 "Columbine". To see details go here , enter 1868 in the "Locomotive Number" box and click "Start searching". Biscuittin 10:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really the only single stirling left? 

message: Is Class 7P really correct?? That would be the size of, say the SR "Battle of Britain" class, I think. Shouldn't it rather be Class 1P?
Regards,194.246.46.15 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locomotive Classification 

message: I'd assumed gravity, given the date, but 4-2-2 suggests steam. Anyone know? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahrons, Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century, Volume 2 pp117-8 gives the invention of steam sanding as occurring at Derby in the 1880s. There is no reason why the Stirling may not have been retro-ftted, of course.(TJ (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  says that "gravity sanding was changed to steam sanding from 1886". This implies that the last twelve (nos. 775-8 in 1887, nos. 1001-8 in 1893-95) always had steam sanding. Certainly one of them did, since he states (p. 177): "No. 775 was built with cast-steel wheel centres and gravity sanding was abolished in favour of steam sanding gear." --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity or steam sanding? 

message: In this article, under Modelling, there's reference to an 1893 18"-gauge model whose whereabouts are currently unknown. I saw it yesterday at Preston Steam Rally (Kent, England). I have a photo to prove it (and would be happy to 'donate' it to Wikipedia for all to view). How can I best edit the article? Need I upload the photo? Not edited Wikipedia before (save for the odd stray punctuation error) so would appreciate advice. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.45.31 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that photo does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia; it is "© All rights reserved". See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whereabouts of model  

message: This locomotive was originally preserved early in the 20th century and at the time was paired incorrectly with a smaller tender, older than the locomotive, and designed by Patrick Stirling's predecessor, Archibald Sturrock. Much later in the 1960s or 70s, a remaining tender of the correct type was found in a scrapline after miraculously surviving as a water bowser in a depot. The National Collection acquired it but it has been in storage ever since. Recently the museum have announced they are to restore the Stirling Tender. Although incorrect, some feel that the Sturrock tender suits the fine lines of the locomotive design better than the seemingly 'over large' Stirling tender, but the water and coal capacity of the latter was necessary for the long distance non-stop work carried out by the class.  Perhaps in retrospect the selection of the Sturrock tender resulted in preservation of something that would otherwise not have survived at all.
http://railways.national-preservation.com/national-railway-museum/29324-tale-two-tenders.html
Mark Townend
mark@townend.me  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.166.183 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wrong Tender 

message: I thunk that some reference ought to be made that these would have been coaches of the loco's own time - possibly even four wheelers, no corridor connectors, turnbuckle underframes(?), etc etc. Comparing that load to twenty six bogie carriages of even Edwardian vintage is very misleading. (TJ (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  26 passenger carriages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNR Stirling 4-2-2. 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/20070810181949/http://shewolf.notnet.co.uk:80/jaywick/history/rail.shtml to http://shewolf.notnet.co.uk/jaywick/history/rail.shtml
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) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first paragraph is frankly rather confusing.  Are we talking about the Stirling Singles in general, No. 1 itself, or the specific No. 1 class (the first of the three successively enlarged classes)?  I'd suggest a rewrite is needed to make this clearer, and that the "No. 1 / class" should be omitted here, or referred to separately as "The pioneer engine, No.1, has been preserved." Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph