SECR K and SR K1 classes is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments:
I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments: Just a couple of issues with the above review:
Other than these points, I will make the other changes soon. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Have referenced the statement in the background despite my personal misgivings. However: "The solitary K1 class locomotive became the three-cylinder SR U1 class prototype following similar conversion"- as the U1 class is wikilinked, I really don't think there needs to be a reference here, as the conversion is discussed in a lot more detail in that particular article. However, I do have a reference if it really is needed. Would it also be possible to request a fairly thorough review of the prose? -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Aargh, my brain is hurting.
Having now seen the interrelations between the K/K1/U/U1/N/N1 I can see why this article was so long in the gestation, but that first sentence is grammatically incorrect. I think you may need to lose the bolding of the page title, or consider some reconstruction. For example:
Sorry for the lack of linking!
In fact, it occurs to me that you could legitimately call this article SECR K Class and have SR K1 Class as a redirect to a subsection of the article. (OK, so I haven't read it all yet...)
EdJogg ( talk) 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(A) I think we are assuming some background knowledge here. The locos were tested on the LNER, fine, then tested on the Southern, fine, then Gresley terminated the tests. Hmmm.
The problems that I have with this are:
This will require a bit of restructuring I think, but it needs to be sorted.
(B) A second, minor point. Would it be helpful to clarify as "as surge in the side tanks", or would this imply there were other tanks? (Wasn't sure, so left it as-is.) Later in the section, 'side tanks' is appropriate terminology.
EdJogg ( talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(C) Did the locos retain their names after rebuilding? I presume not, but we don't actually say as much! EdJogg ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's OK for us railway-types to use the word 'rebuild' as a synonym for 'rebuilt K class locomotive', but is this OK for a wider audience? Phrases such as "...the rebuilds remained in service..." are unambiguous to us, but is it clear to a non-technical/railway audience?
This occurs in several places, but is most apparent in this section, of course.
EdJogg ( talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The {{convert}} tags for feet-and-inches to metres are set to a precision of 3 decimal places, whereas the ones for feet alone give one place. A very trivial point in a very comprehensive article. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This section has a pile of placename links which need replacing by the appropriate station links (which is the usual convention for railway-related articles). Can use {{
stnlnk}}
in many cases, although some (eg London, Portsmouth) may require some thought (eg [[Portsmouth railway station]] is a DAB page). Rest of article will need checking for same. --
EdJogg (
talk)
15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no "Further reading" section; I have three suggestions for that:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I realise that Bradley is already in the references, but that is for first edition. The above 2nd ed is much expanded (note the different page numbers). Nock is a Book Club edition, and was first published by Patrick Stephens Limited. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't put it better myself, so as you can see, I've added one of the texts suggested. I'm thinking of ordering a second hand copy of Bradley's revised edition of SECR locomotives after Christmas to see if there's anything important that wasn't included in the 1961 version. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Add to above list:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The first article describes what happened to the Maunsell moguls (including the N class) after Dieselisation of the Reading-Redhill route in January 1965. The second article is essentially a selection of photos; a posed photo of A790 in service, plus three (with lengthy captions) of A800 awaiting repair at Ashford after the accident. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional:
Most info on the Rivers and the rebuilds is in two chapters, which are chronologically out of order. Chapter 8 "Tank Engines and the Sevenoaks Incidents" (pp. 96-108) and chapter 7 "The Moguls: The Maids of All Work" (pp. 84-95), but there is more elsewhere, such as pp. 65,67. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
PPS. is something I picked up from a previous FA attempt, not to mention my referencing as an MA student of History. As usual it represented a compromise between how the editor and the reviewer wants the article formatted. I think I'll change to PP., as this seems to be the common way to do it, looking at recent FAs. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
template (such as my earlier examples), you'll see that these have their bare page numbers in a |page=
or |pages=
parameter, and the visual rendering is as "p." or "pp." respectively. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)I have just checked the referencing. It was something of a mess; here is a
composite diff of my fixes. Most of the problems concerned the use of the name=
attribute to the <ref>
tag. Put simply, each occurrence of value in <ref name=value>
must be unique - and there were several non-unique instances. It must be appreciated that if we have a ref like this:
<ref name=Bradley2nd>Bradley 1980, pp.66-7</ref>
then to reference the same page in the same book, you simply do this:
<ref name=Bradley2nd />
but to reference a different page in the same book, you cannot do this:
<ref name=Bradley2nd p.69/>
Instead, it needs to have a fresh ref like this:
<ref>Bradley 1980, p.69</ref>
(where the ref is only needed once, the name=
attribute is not required).
There are still two problems outstanding, and I can't sort those because I don't have the book in question. In the lede we have this:
<ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 18</ref>
under Sevenoaks disaster we have this:
<ref name=Scott-Morgan />
So far, so good. But under Rebuilding we have this:
<ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 46</ref>
The value of the name attribute, ie "Scott-Morgan", has been used before. It is not unique. If you examine the Notes section, you will see that all three have been consolidated into one entry, reading "3. ^ a b c Scott-Morgan, p. 18". What needs to be done here is that the page number for the sentence "To recoup the expense of constructing the engines, Maunsell was given permission to rebuild them to the new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." should be determined; if it is 18, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 46 ref; conversely, if that sentence be backed up by page 46, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 18 ref. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The article states
This is misleading - 822 wasn't converted - it was originally built as a 3-cyl engine. I'll get the page nos from Bradley and from Haresnape when I'm back home tomorrow or Monday. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
My copy of Bradley seems to imply the above (granted it is the 1961 version, so I can't vouch for any revision in the 1980 edition) on p. 55, where he states that of the twelve eventually constructed by the SECR by grouping "Four others [N class locomotives] were on order [towards the end of the war], of which Nos. 823 to 825 eventually entered service as standard locomotives, but the thirteenth [N class locomotive under construction], No. 822, was fitted with three cylinders." This may be pedantic, but this implies to me that it was an ad-hoc 'lash-up' of the N class and different cylinders. It doesn't imply the intent that they were going to make No. 822 the prototype N1 class from the outset. I hope you can see the difficulty here. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Differences listed include "a chimney of larger diameter, a 3in. higher pitched boiler, two cab front lookout windows, leading sandboxes on the running-plate and a high front platform.". -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Maunsell requested Holcroft in February 1919 to have drawings prepared for three-cylinder versions of the K's and N's to be classified K1 and N1. These drawings were on hand on 1 June 1920 when an example of each was ordered from Ashford Works ... no work on either engine was possible before November 1922 when Maunsell decided to avoid further delay by completing No. 822, the twelfth engine of the current N class order, with three cylinders and Holcroft derived valve gear.
My interpretation of the above text is that we are now in broad agreement that No. 822 was intended to be another N class locomotive. However my understanding is that if the intention before construction was to produce No. 822 as an N1 class, then we are able to say that it was built as such. However, seeing as the order for a 2-cylinder N class had already been placed in 1917, even with the delays in construction, it shouldn't really be misleading to say that the order was converted or modified to the N1 design. I think the problem here is subjectivity of language, and how different people can interpret the same data in different ways. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems OK apart from the sentence that starts "The first was built...", which naturally takes 'K1' from the previous sentence as its subject. I couldn't see a way to re-arrange it easily, unless the sentence is moved to the end of the paragraph, where it still works, just about, without text change. In this revised position the subject becomes K Class, but if necessary it can be adjusted to: "The first was built in 1917 and the remaining nineteen between 1925 and 1926; the K1 was built in 1925." This move has the added advantage of separating the two sentences that start "The K class...". Still not entirely happy though. -- EdJogg ( talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that... Moved it even further down the section, reducing some duplication in the process. There are still the two adjacent "The K class..." sentences to re-consider. Can't help there. -- EdJogg ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The 'Career' heading currently mentions SECR and Southern Railway. Shouldn't it also mention BR? If so, should it link to 'British Railways' or 'Southern Region of British Railways'? And should it be displayed as BR (or 'BR(S)' ), or in full (eg BR (Southern Region)), in which case SECR might need to be expanded too?
I would be quite happy with a list showing: "SECR, SR, BR(S)", each linking appropriately, as all the abbreviations are expanded in the lede.
EdJogg ( talk) 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have this urge to place single quotes around 'dual-fitted' as we are declaring (and explaining) some new terminology here.
Are we allowed to do this? --
EdJogg (
talk)
20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion, have implemented it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Short and sweet, and exactly the terminology used both colloquially and in most works on the subject; yet here we have: "300 long tons (305 t; 336 short tons) train", which is ghastly and very difficult to read -- it really disrupts the flow.
Is there no better way of doing it? Linking to [[long ton|tons]], for example, improves the text, or could moving the whole conversion thing into a footnote maybe work, like: "300-ton<ref>{{convert|300|LT|t ST|sigfig=3}}</ref> train". Urgh. -- EdJogg ( talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look, and changed it to the type in the infobox. Its still not a brilliant bit of prose, but I think its the best we can make of a bad situation. This is mainly because in my experience, most Wikipedians seem to have a fetish about templates that calculate everything... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This probably needs wikilinking somehow, but more crucially the sentence immediately poses the question, "what were the first ten fitted with?" presumably they weren't unsprung?
Fairly easy to fix: "...address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class, which were fitted with clotted-cream -filled horsehair buffing pads." Obviously you will need to determine the appropriate material/technology!
-- EdJogg ( talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added my tuppence-worth, although I think it needs rewording. It addresses what batch had what springs, anyway. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"The locomotives constructed in 1925 were named..." Am I missing something? Surely the 1926-built examples were also named? Why the distinction '1925'?
--
EdJogg (
talk)
20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This section has some generalisations and inaccuracies.
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've created the redirect SR K1 class, to allow this to be identified and linked separately where appropriate (for example in the 'K1' DAB page). -- EdJogg ( talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Quote: "Three factors dictated the type of locomotive that could operate on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway (SECR): the heavy passenger train loadings; the poor track quality; and the weak, lightly built bridges". The second and third factors seem to me to be good reasons for not using a tank engine. A 2-6-4 tank would have heavier axle loadings and a higher centre of gravity than an equivalent 2-6-0 tender engine. Biscuittin ( talk) 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Reading the blurb on the front page of Wikipedia today, I noticed that it wasn't mentioned that the K class was completely Rebuilt to U classes, and ceased to exist in 1920's, instead it put that the class survived until 1966, which isn't true Torekipe ( talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Today's FA is SECR K and SR K1 classes and its blurb says "The class was the earliest large-scale use of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement in Britain." This seems to be incorrect because, as the article explains, the earlier GCR Class 1B class had already used this arrangement. Twenty of each class were constructed so the numbers were the same. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
SECR K and SR K1 classes is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments:
I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 ( talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments: Just a couple of issues with the above review:
Other than these points, I will make the other changes soon. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Have referenced the statement in the background despite my personal misgivings. However: "The solitary K1 class locomotive became the three-cylinder SR U1 class prototype following similar conversion"- as the U1 class is wikilinked, I really don't think there needs to be a reference here, as the conversion is discussed in a lot more detail in that particular article. However, I do have a reference if it really is needed. Would it also be possible to request a fairly thorough review of the prose? -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Aargh, my brain is hurting.
Having now seen the interrelations between the K/K1/U/U1/N/N1 I can see why this article was so long in the gestation, but that first sentence is grammatically incorrect. I think you may need to lose the bolding of the page title, or consider some reconstruction. For example:
Sorry for the lack of linking!
In fact, it occurs to me that you could legitimately call this article SECR K Class and have SR K1 Class as a redirect to a subsection of the article. (OK, so I haven't read it all yet...)
EdJogg ( talk) 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(A) I think we are assuming some background knowledge here. The locos were tested on the LNER, fine, then tested on the Southern, fine, then Gresley terminated the tests. Hmmm.
The problems that I have with this are:
This will require a bit of restructuring I think, but it needs to be sorted.
(B) A second, minor point. Would it be helpful to clarify as "as surge in the side tanks", or would this imply there were other tanks? (Wasn't sure, so left it as-is.) Later in the section, 'side tanks' is appropriate terminology.
EdJogg ( talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(C) Did the locos retain their names after rebuilding? I presume not, but we don't actually say as much! EdJogg ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's OK for us railway-types to use the word 'rebuild' as a synonym for 'rebuilt K class locomotive', but is this OK for a wider audience? Phrases such as "...the rebuilds remained in service..." are unambiguous to us, but is it clear to a non-technical/railway audience?
This occurs in several places, but is most apparent in this section, of course.
EdJogg ( talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The {{convert}} tags for feet-and-inches to metres are set to a precision of 3 decimal places, whereas the ones for feet alone give one place. A very trivial point in a very comprehensive article. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This section has a pile of placename links which need replacing by the appropriate station links (which is the usual convention for railway-related articles). Can use {{
stnlnk}}
in many cases, although some (eg London, Portsmouth) may require some thought (eg [[Portsmouth railway station]] is a DAB page). Rest of article will need checking for same. --
EdJogg (
talk)
15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no "Further reading" section; I have three suggestions for that:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I realise that Bradley is already in the references, but that is for first edition. The above 2nd ed is much expanded (note the different page numbers). Nock is a Book Club edition, and was first published by Patrick Stephens Limited. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't put it better myself, so as you can see, I've added one of the texts suggested. I'm thinking of ordering a second hand copy of Bradley's revised edition of SECR locomotives after Christmas to see if there's anything important that wasn't included in the 1961 version. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Add to above list:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The first article describes what happened to the Maunsell moguls (including the N class) after Dieselisation of the Reading-Redhill route in January 1965. The second article is essentially a selection of photos; a posed photo of A790 in service, plus three (with lengthy captions) of A800 awaiting repair at Ashford after the accident. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional:
Most info on the Rivers and the rebuilds is in two chapters, which are chronologically out of order. Chapter 8 "Tank Engines and the Sevenoaks Incidents" (pp. 96-108) and chapter 7 "The Moguls: The Maids of All Work" (pp. 84-95), but there is more elsewhere, such as pp. 65,67. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
PPS. is something I picked up from a previous FA attempt, not to mention my referencing as an MA student of History. As usual it represented a compromise between how the editor and the reviewer wants the article formatted. I think I'll change to PP., as this seems to be the common way to do it, looking at recent FAs. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
template (such as my earlier examples), you'll see that these have their bare page numbers in a |page=
or |pages=
parameter, and the visual rendering is as "p." or "pp." respectively. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)I have just checked the referencing. It was something of a mess; here is a
composite diff of my fixes. Most of the problems concerned the use of the name=
attribute to the <ref>
tag. Put simply, each occurrence of value in <ref name=value>
must be unique - and there were several non-unique instances. It must be appreciated that if we have a ref like this:
<ref name=Bradley2nd>Bradley 1980, pp.66-7</ref>
then to reference the same page in the same book, you simply do this:
<ref name=Bradley2nd />
but to reference a different page in the same book, you cannot do this:
<ref name=Bradley2nd p.69/>
Instead, it needs to have a fresh ref like this:
<ref>Bradley 1980, p.69</ref>
(where the ref is only needed once, the name=
attribute is not required).
There are still two problems outstanding, and I can't sort those because I don't have the book in question. In the lede we have this:
<ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 18</ref>
under Sevenoaks disaster we have this:
<ref name=Scott-Morgan />
So far, so good. But under Rebuilding we have this:
<ref name=Scott-Morgan>Scott-Morgan, p. 46</ref>
The value of the name attribute, ie "Scott-Morgan", has been used before. It is not unique. If you examine the Notes section, you will see that all three have been consolidated into one entry, reading "3. ^ a b c Scott-Morgan, p. 18". What needs to be done here is that the page number for the sentence "To recoup the expense of constructing the engines, Maunsell was given permission to rebuild them to the new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." should be determined; if it is 18, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 46 ref; conversely, if that sentence be backed up by page 46, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 18 ref. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The article states
This is misleading - 822 wasn't converted - it was originally built as a 3-cyl engine. I'll get the page nos from Bradley and from Haresnape when I'm back home tomorrow or Monday. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
My copy of Bradley seems to imply the above (granted it is the 1961 version, so I can't vouch for any revision in the 1980 edition) on p. 55, where he states that of the twelve eventually constructed by the SECR by grouping "Four others [N class locomotives] were on order [towards the end of the war], of which Nos. 823 to 825 eventually entered service as standard locomotives, but the thirteenth [N class locomotive under construction], No. 822, was fitted with three cylinders." This may be pedantic, but this implies to me that it was an ad-hoc 'lash-up' of the N class and different cylinders. It doesn't imply the intent that they were going to make No. 822 the prototype N1 class from the outset. I hope you can see the difficulty here. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Differences listed include "a chimney of larger diameter, a 3in. higher pitched boiler, two cab front lookout windows, leading sandboxes on the running-plate and a high front platform.". -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Maunsell requested Holcroft in February 1919 to have drawings prepared for three-cylinder versions of the K's and N's to be classified K1 and N1. These drawings were on hand on 1 June 1920 when an example of each was ordered from Ashford Works ... no work on either engine was possible before November 1922 when Maunsell decided to avoid further delay by completing No. 822, the twelfth engine of the current N class order, with three cylinders and Holcroft derived valve gear.
My interpretation of the above text is that we are now in broad agreement that No. 822 was intended to be another N class locomotive. However my understanding is that if the intention before construction was to produce No. 822 as an N1 class, then we are able to say that it was built as such. However, seeing as the order for a 2-cylinder N class had already been placed in 1917, even with the delays in construction, it shouldn't really be misleading to say that the order was converted or modified to the N1 design. I think the problem here is subjectivity of language, and how different people can interpret the same data in different ways. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems OK apart from the sentence that starts "The first was built...", which naturally takes 'K1' from the previous sentence as its subject. I couldn't see a way to re-arrange it easily, unless the sentence is moved to the end of the paragraph, where it still works, just about, without text change. In this revised position the subject becomes K Class, but if necessary it can be adjusted to: "The first was built in 1917 and the remaining nineteen between 1925 and 1926; the K1 was built in 1925." This move has the added advantage of separating the two sentences that start "The K class...". Still not entirely happy though. -- EdJogg ( talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that... Moved it even further down the section, reducing some duplication in the process. There are still the two adjacent "The K class..." sentences to re-consider. Can't help there. -- EdJogg ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The 'Career' heading currently mentions SECR and Southern Railway. Shouldn't it also mention BR? If so, should it link to 'British Railways' or 'Southern Region of British Railways'? And should it be displayed as BR (or 'BR(S)' ), or in full (eg BR (Southern Region)), in which case SECR might need to be expanded too?
I would be quite happy with a list showing: "SECR, SR, BR(S)", each linking appropriately, as all the abbreviations are expanded in the lede.
EdJogg ( talk) 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have this urge to place single quotes around 'dual-fitted' as we are declaring (and explaining) some new terminology here.
Are we allowed to do this? --
EdJogg (
talk)
20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion, have implemented it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Short and sweet, and exactly the terminology used both colloquially and in most works on the subject; yet here we have: "300 long tons (305 t; 336 short tons) train", which is ghastly and very difficult to read -- it really disrupts the flow.
Is there no better way of doing it? Linking to [[long ton|tons]], for example, improves the text, or could moving the whole conversion thing into a footnote maybe work, like: "300-ton<ref>{{convert|300|LT|t ST|sigfig=3}}</ref> train". Urgh. -- EdJogg ( talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look, and changed it to the type in the infobox. Its still not a brilliant bit of prose, but I think its the best we can make of a bad situation. This is mainly because in my experience, most Wikipedians seem to have a fetish about templates that calculate everything... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This probably needs wikilinking somehow, but more crucially the sentence immediately poses the question, "what were the first ten fitted with?" presumably they weren't unsprung?
Fairly easy to fix: "...address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class, which were fitted with clotted-cream -filled horsehair buffing pads." Obviously you will need to determine the appropriate material/technology!
-- EdJogg ( talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added my tuppence-worth, although I think it needs rewording. It addresses what batch had what springs, anyway. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"The locomotives constructed in 1925 were named..." Am I missing something? Surely the 1926-built examples were also named? Why the distinction '1925'?
--
EdJogg (
talk)
20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This section has some generalisations and inaccuracies.
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've created the redirect SR K1 class, to allow this to be identified and linked separately where appropriate (for example in the 'K1' DAB page). -- EdJogg ( talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Quote: "Three factors dictated the type of locomotive that could operate on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway (SECR): the heavy passenger train loadings; the poor track quality; and the weak, lightly built bridges". The second and third factors seem to me to be good reasons for not using a tank engine. A 2-6-4 tank would have heavier axle loadings and a higher centre of gravity than an equivalent 2-6-0 tender engine. Biscuittin ( talk) 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Reading the blurb on the front page of Wikipedia today, I noticed that it wasn't mentioned that the K class was completely Rebuilt to U classes, and ceased to exist in 1920's, instead it put that the class survived until 1966, which isn't true Torekipe ( talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Today's FA is SECR K and SR K1 classes and its blurb says "The class was the earliest large-scale use of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement in Britain." This seems to be incorrect because, as the article explains, the earlier GCR Class 1B class had already used this arrangement. Twenty of each class were constructed so the numbers were the same. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)