This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
LNWR No. 1868 was formerly Grand Junction Railway No. 49. Here is another photo [2] Biscuittin 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
I strongly doubt the classifications G, G1 and G2. See this book:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)In there we find that Class G1 were Stirling's 766 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1889-95, nos. 766-70, 821-30, 931-44 ( Groves 1987, pp. 95, 96); Class G2 were Stirling's 120 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1872-81, total 46 ( Groves 1987, pp. 73, 74). As for the Stirling 4-2-2s, the first 47 were Class A2 and the last six (1003-1008) were A1; locos rebuilt with Ivatt domed boiler were A3.( Groves 1987, p. 163) -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I see that this has reappeared. I don't have Herring's book: is Herring merely reusing Bird's reference system, or is there an official basis? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd assumed gravity, given the date, but 4-2-2 suggests steam. Anyone know? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thank you, Redrose64; I have now removed that restriction so we can use it here. Also I've created myself a login. Now to be brave and have a go at editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelislington ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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))
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The following keeps getting removed, "because it is plainly *wrong*". Why? It's plainly right, albeit primarily sourced.
References
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)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
LNWR No. 1868 was formerly Grand Junction Railway No. 49. Here is another photo [2] Biscuittin 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
I strongly doubt the classifications G, G1 and G2. See this book:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)In there we find that Class G1 were Stirling's 766 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1889-95, nos. 766-70, 821-30, 931-44 ( Groves 1987, pp. 95, 96); Class G2 were Stirling's 120 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1872-81, total 46 ( Groves 1987, pp. 73, 74). As for the Stirling 4-2-2s, the first 47 were Class A2 and the last six (1003-1008) were A1; locos rebuilt with Ivatt domed boiler were A3.( Groves 1987, p. 163) -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I see that this has reappeared. I don't have Herring's book: is Herring merely reusing Bird's reference system, or is there an official basis? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd assumed gravity, given the date, but 4-2-2 suggests steam. Anyone know? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thank you, Redrose64; I have now removed that restriction so we can use it here. Also I've created myself a login. Now to be brave and have a go at editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelislington ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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))
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The following keeps getting removed, "because it is plainly *wrong*". Why? It's plainly right, albeit primarily sourced.
References
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)