![]() | SECR N class 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 November 24, 2018. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I made quite a few minor formatting changes for WP:MOS, but my major concern here is the lack of wikilinking, just three outside of the lead. I think this isn't quite up to the standard of other recent locomotive articles, if the linkages could be improved to broaden the scope of interest. Hence, I'll put the review on hold until such a time my concern is addressed. Cheers! The Rambling Man 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have observed that some articles on locomotive classes are labelled as follows "SR N Class" whereas others are "SR Class N". Which is the preferred method, and if there is not one, then please can we agree on one in order to have consistency in naming. Olana North ( talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As several articles have been moved to "SR x class", I think we can safely say this is the standard. However, there are exceptions, such as the SR class N15X, where "N15X class" was and is not in common usage. Most of the other articles would benefit from the above, though. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is
transcluded from
Talk:SR N Class/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Done, as far as I can tell. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with these to some degree, although any help you can give in fine-tuning the factual content of the article will be greatly appreciated. I've also pasted this on the peer review page. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I will admit that I haven't read the whole article yet, but does this section adequately cover the fate of all 100 kits? I can only account for 82 (26 + 6 + 50). There is scope for a small table here showing the final loco class against number of kits.
The Metropolitan Railway K Class article suggests that boilers were manufactured by Stephenson's, not NBR (as in the 'N' article). I haven't looked into this in depth which is why it appears to me to be an anomaly. The LNER Encyc. link from the 'K' page may be of use here too.
What was the loco class identity on the Great Southern and Western Railway? That article doesn't mention them (or any other locos!)
EdJogg ( talk) 12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As usual with the Maunsell moguls, different snippets of information are to be found all over the place. One of the great things about wikipedia is that you can add things as they arise. Thanks for the research, and I have added it to the main article. I'll have to count how many locomotives there were myself! By the way, some of the boilers went to other types, such as the N1 and W classes. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing I've read is clear on this, so I'd rather leave it as it is. On a personal note, I believe it was because they were from Woolwich, and it sounds like the shop chain sweeping across the country at the time. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The wording of the first sentence is rather odd. The N class was designed prior to many designs including the Q1 and Merchant Navies, but there is no more explanation of its link to the K class. Maybe this section would be better worded to say that the K class was designed soon after, or in parallel, using common components, to meet a different traffic need.
The K class article uses the phrase "basing the mechanical elements on those used on the slightly older N class design to standardise parts and ease locomotive maintenance" and does not suffer the same problem.
The K class is also mentioned in the final sentence of the second paragraph, so the whole section will require a re-think to include the text in a meaningful way.
EdJogg ( talk) 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, from the next section you can see that the first 'K' was finished before the first 'N', despite the 'N' design being started (and finished?) first. Presumably that's what's alluded to here? EdJogg ( talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I'm almost confused myself. What I was trying to say when I wrote it was that the N class was designed BEFORE the K class. However, the circumstance of the First World War breaking out delayed actual construction from 1914 to 1917, by which time the K class prototype was already in service.
Probably ought to state how the leading bogie would make such a difference -- may mean a brief mention of what was poor quality about the track.
Also, why 'poor quality track', and where (whole network, parts, main routes?) ?
EdJogg ( talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting thought, I'll have to look into this when I have some spare time. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the Southern Railway article to include liveries, but unless someone actually goes up to a locomotive and photographs the paint for each variation, I'm afraid we are going to be a bit limited on Wikipedia. SECR Maunsell grey has not been used since the early 1920s! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the colour schemes be named "Maunsell Grey", "Olive Green", etc, to indicate the name of a specific colour? "Maunsell grey" would be OK, as Maunsell is a proper noun, but for consistency should state "olive green"? Thoughts anyone? -- EdJogg ( talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the late locomotive historian D. L. Bradley, the Urie olive green was officially called sage green. Hope this helps. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Final sentence of "SECR and SR" section states:
Simple question, why "therefore"?? These numbers have no obvious relationship to the earlier numbers.
EdJogg ( talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noted that the power classification field mentions the LSWR - surely a cut-and-paste error??
EdJogg ( talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a fair amount of the format was cut and pasted to try and get some sort of standardised article. The N class is now the guinea pig for others that I am working on. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I may be being pedantic here, but should we say 'left-hand driving position' (or right-hand, where approp.) since 'drive' might imply something mechanical (eg drive-belt, drive-shaft) rather than the location of the man doing the driving? -- EdJogg ( talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Barring the first sentence and the first half of the second, the "Background" section as it stands seems to be largely focused on the N class' design, and duplicates information that can be found in the "First SECR batch" subsection ("The class incorporated features from the successful GWR 4300 class, and was the first use of Churchward design principles outside the GWR"). Do you think the information in the "Background" section would be more appropriately placed as an introductory paragraph to the "Design details and construction history" section (without a subheading)? "Design details and construction history" might also be rendered more concisely as "Design and construction"; I don't think the shorter heading would lose any of the intended meaning. Steve T • C 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, as I am trying to get some sort of standard article format for all locomotive-related articles, and some previous examples have a background section in them. As to the misplaced ref, this article has developed so much over the last few days that some references have turned up in pretty strange places. Will check them. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The copyright status of the original image on this article, File:BR Class N 31871 Plymouth 1948.jpg was questioned at the FA Review, and an OTRS request raised (since there was apparently informal email approval to use it). Just to note that the result of the OTRS request was that the image was deleted from Commons ( D'oh!!!)
For further details on the discussion, see the link to the FAR in the box at the top.
EdJogg ( talk) 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The statement "One of the "Woolworth" batch, this locomotive was purchased and restored for use on the Mid-Hants Railway from 1977, and is currently stored pending overhaul" is referenced to a source dated 1966. Obviously this can't be right! – iride scent 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The current state of the Background section after several days at FAC I think ought to underline why this article will continue to struggle, and further reinforces the issues raied by Tony in his oppose vote:
The N class was designed by Richard Maunsell in 1914 to provide the SECR with a sturdy mixed-traffic locomotive that would have high route availability. Intended to replace several ageing 0-6-0 types, the N class was a first step in the SECR's steam fleet standardisation programme; components were to be shared with other Maunsell locomotives to reduce the burden of maintenance. Maunsell enlisted the help of former GWR engineer Harold Holcroft, who suggested a 2-6-0 wheel arrangement that would allow the class to operate on the SECR's poor-quality track in north Kent. This arrangement allowed for a longer wheelbase and leading axle to permit greater stability at speed on track curves, which had constrained the size of locomotives able to operate on the SECR network. The increased length would also accomodate a larger boiler than that fitted to the 0-6-0s, which gave the N class sufficient power to avoid the costly need for double-heading 0-6-0 locomotives to haul trains.]
Trying to play catchup with these ever-changing prose issues is rather a hopeless task, and one that may even lead me to oppose on the same grounds as Tony. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Having read it above in isolation from the rest of the article, I'm inclined to agree that it suits the Design and Construction aspect better. I think I need to remove this section for the time being at least, and maybe re-write it (once agian in isolation from the rest of the article). If it can 'stand alone', then I'll add the results. If not, then it's bye-bye Background section if the FAC depends on it.
The problem with submitting an article for FAC nowadays is that very few editors want to involve themselves at the Peer Review stage when there should be all sorts of help in prepping the prose. I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but some would rather make 'big hitting' edits during FAC and have stated that they'd rather not do anything until its up for promotion. I think we're reaching a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation here, where the bar for FA has been raised stupidly high. Whilst I'm all for a professional approach, there should be some give and take, and the FA status gives this in the phrase: 'if you can improve the article further, please do'.
This is not the first locomotive article that I and another editor have worked on, but the the problem of trying to explain terms that should be fairly simple to understand or can be wikilinked completely wrecks the flow of the article, which then becomes far too wide in scope. Because of this, I am beginning to have misgivings about wikipedia as a platform for spreading knowledge, for if some things aren't taken as given, then articles become overly bureaucratic and unmanageable (as this one seems to be). If viewers and reviewers cannot see this, then I'm afraid I may be wasting my time here.-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Queried by Steve. Originally pebbles; I added the "beach" assuming they were from a similar source to LBSCR ballast i.e flint nodules from a coastal source, not good for ballast compared with angular granite or other roadstone chippings because they're round in profile and tend to move more easily. But that's two assumptions (source and behaviour) without a ref, so if it needs explaining can someone... Ning-ning ( talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain from my sources, beach pebbles is correct. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
My (limited) research suggests that this loco was one of the first (if not the first) to haul a service train on the Watercress Line. The current status doesn't really indicate when it was 'saved' from Woodhams, nor returned to service. The MHR website doesn't contain much detail, unfortunately (except this which shows it was laid-up in 1998 with terminal leaks in the firebox, requiring extensive and expensive work -- presumably it hasn't been steamed since?) Also there is a hint that at one time it was painted as "James the Red Engine".
A little more detail on this engine (within reason) might be appropriate -- as would a photograph, if any MHR members are reading this (there is also a pic of it at Barry in 1968, on Flickr).
EdJogg ( talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this was not a Midland concept per se, and have moved the statement further on in the paragraph. However, it was definitely a variation from GWR practice, as apart from some very obvious exceptions (Panniers, 14xx class etc.) they used domeless boilers, so that the top-feed became a visible part of the safety valve bonnet assembly. What the sentence was trying to convey was that domes were not a feature on the larger GWR locomotives, whereas the Midland Railway was a prolific user of domes to collect steam. The emphasis was not necessarily on whether the Midland was the first to combine top-feed with a dome, but as it has evidently caused some confusion here, I've tried to clarify the situation. Hope it's better. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I must admit that was a fine class of locomotive (even better when in Wainwright's fully lined green livery!), its a shame the train loadings increased to the extent that they were put on secondary duties. Maunsell's D1 rebuild spoiled the looks somewhat. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I do have a reference, but it wasn't very clear as to the actual purpose of the condenser. I will change it, but if someone can include a better reference, then by all means add it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought, Ed. As to the second point, erm, yes, one day... when I do have a quiet moment! By the way, that is going to be the photo that will be added to the article, as it is an official works photograph, and the copyright belongs to the National Railway Museum... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should start an article on this particular locomotive as there's a fair amount of material, which would only clutter up this article if included. What do you think? It'll only be a stub for the time being, though. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What would be an ideal title for this new article? Here's a few suggestions: "Experimental SECR N class locomotives"; "SECR N class No. A816 with Holcorft-Anderson recompression equipment"; "Holcroft-Anderson recompression equipment"... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pre-empting the FA-reviewer Steve...
This paragraph uses the word 'design' too many times, and the middle sentence is still a bit clumsy. Steve may have other issues with it too.
As a first go at a re-write, how about this?
It is possible that "New innovations..." should also be rewritten as "Maunsell's own innovations...", to underline that that sentence is not connected to James Clayton. Obviously the second 'Maunsell' in that sentence would then need to be dropped.
Feel free to adjust it further! -- EdJogg ( talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's actually spot on, Steve. I think we'll use it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Paget's loco [4], part designed by Deeley in 1909, suggests that Deeley introduced the cab style. Ning-ning ( talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Which is what I've done. I'd rather remove it anyway, as it probably adds too much detail, therefore damaging the argument. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
References
The current wording seems just fine to me; as long as that "simpler and more functional" is well-cited I haven't a problem with it. Sorry to clog this talk page up further (though better here than at the FAC page, where looooong reviews can put off new reviewers from taking a look), but I just wanted to mention something in the "First SECR batch" section:
In 1922, the decision was taken to modify the cylinder arrangement of No. 822 to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. [1] A third "inside" cylinder was fitted between the frames during construction, and the "outside" cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages.
Here we have three sentences written in the passive voice; I'm perfectly happy to use it where appropriate, but with three in quick succession it renders the segment a little weak. I think this segment would be much more dynamic if at least some of it was converted to active voice, the first of the three especially. Now, I realise that may not be possible, if we don't know the agent of that change (to say "So-and-so modified..."), in which case we can still lessen the effect by putting the focus on the action—the modification—rather than the decision to make the modification. The design change was carried out, yes? In which case, it could easily read:
In 1922,
the decision was taken to modifythe cylinder arrangement of No. 822 was modified to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. [1] A third "inside" cylinder was fitted between the frames during construction, and the "outside" cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages.
Didn't want to make this change without consulting with the experts, so I'll just leave it here for your consideration. What might count against this change is that "In 1922"; the work was completed in March 1923, so unless work began in 1922 (rather than just the decision to do the work), it might not fit. All the best, Steve T • C 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
References
With the lead editor ("BP") currently on holiday, certain editorial decisions concerning factual content may need to be deferred (as he has all the reference books!). The omission or amendment of these should not adversely affect the progress towards FA, since the article text will be left in a manner that makes sure of this!
There are likely to be more queries, but I'll save this now as a starting point. EdJogg ( talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Following a request for an OTRS ticket to cover the only photograph we have, I decided to do a Google image search to see what else was available. The results are below, and cover the first 400 or so results of the search "N class locomotive":
I have ignored about the same number again, taken from Maunsell Society newsletters, as most were poorly reproduced scan of photocopy?), but they might be able to provide some originals...?
I leave it to other editors to try and source the copyright holders for these images. Good luck!
EdJogg ( talk) 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
From a reading of a book about the LNER (!) it appears that Churchward modified the Belpaire firebox by having the side plates curved, thus increasing the circulation of water in areas where problems with cracking had occured. On the LMS they stuck with straight-sided boxes for some time (e.g. Royal Scot). Although it's probably of some significance in the N class design, I'd be surprised if there's an appropriate cite available. Ning-ning ( talk) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the addition of this sentence doesn't ask more questions than it answers. Not only can I not picture a "helical arrangement of trays", I cannot see what a 'tray' has to do with a top-feed in the first place. I thought a top feed was simply an inlet (clack) valve on top of the boiler...? (My apologies for the convoluted multiple-negatives in this paragraph!)
I think the FA reviewers may take exception to this without a picture or further explanation, and I am concerned it may require excessive text to explain. Was this arrangement unusual for a top-feed? Was it unique or innovative to the N class? Would it be better explained at top feed (which is merely an entry in a glossary section at present)?
EdJogg ( talk) 10:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The annoying thing is that I no longer have access to this book, so I'll have to wait a fair while before I get another chance to borrow it. I love the way all the sources *seem* to contradict each other, which is why I think a Wikipedia article on the subject will attempt to cut through most of the conjecture to produce a fairly coherent account on the subject.
My tuppence worth is this: maybe the incorporation of a dome shell improved access to these sludge trays? The trays act like a waterfall in filtering impurities in the 'hard' water found in the region, reducing the need for frequent boiler wash-outs (they still needed washouts to prevent scaling, but not as frequently as locomotives without the 'helter-skelter' design), which was a messy and laborious process that inevitably affected a locomotive's availability for service. Could it therefore be a superficial addition to improve the looks of the locomotive by covering these trays and clack valves in the same vein as the brass safety valve bonnet on GWR locomotives? There are loads of possibilities, but not enough corroboration. Will have to keep looking.-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is all being very educational... Questions that immediately spring to mind are:
I would suggest that steam reverser is incorrect terminology here: I think a 'screw reverser' is being described (see Cutoff (steam engine)), rather than a steam(-powered) reverser (see same article).
If that is the case, the text could be modified to something like:
...which needs much more polish, agreed, but hopefully gets you thinking in the right direction.
Incidentally, radius rod is an automotive term, and although Walschaerts valve gear does mention 'radius rod', that article would be of little use to anyone who didn't already know how it works -- so much unexplained terminology! (I have since expanded an image which makes life a lot easier).
EdJogg ( talk) 15:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Very difficult to explain exactly what it does, except that it seems to act as a pivot-point for changing the setting of the combination lever (I'm not an engineer, but I am interested). I think if we are to define it on Wikipedia, I think it would be best to expand the list of parts on the article mentioned above to include definitions of each bit. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Some jargon has sneaked-in:
These will need linking, explaining or avoiding.
EdJogg ( talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Done --
EdJogg (
talk)
00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Re "The quality of the original design was such that No. A866 was put on display at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley from May to November 1925, and no class-wide modifications were made until 1934."; the ref given supports the Wembley Exhibition bit, but not "no class-wide modifications were made until 1934". Interestingly, Bradley (SE&CR 2nd ed p. 90) has this to say about Wembley: "No.A866, as Southern Railway 866, was specially prepared for display at the Wembley Exhibition and consequently did not enter traffic until 28 November 1925" (my bold). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Individual withdrawal dates (month, year) for all 80 locos are given in
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)which also gives the final areas/duties/allocations for several of them on pp. 100-101. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The last of the N class to receive general overhauls were nos. 31405, 31874 (October 1961), 31850 (December 1961) while No. 31400 on 9 June 1962 was the last engine to be repaired at Ashford. Somewhat earlier, in February 1961, Eastleigh Works opened it's doors to the N's and U's, although it was November 1962 before general repairs commenced, with U class no. 31632. By then, however, withdrawal was imminent for members of both classes requiring heavy boiler or frame attention and only six N's gained approval, all in 1963: Nos. 31816 (February), 31411, 31859 (May), 31862 (June), 31834 (July) and 31846 (November). ...
In November 1962, Nos. 31409/14, with mileages of 708,811 and 699,823, were laid aside with firebox damage and after inspection on arrival at Eastleigh Works were condemned and broken up in the New Year.
Good bit of research, that. I'll put some of it in when I have the time, and reference it to Bradley (1981). According to SEMG, 31823 was withdrawn in September 1963. I'm surprised how complicated these locomotives have turned out to be, but we'll get there sometime. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The text states "It re-entered service as No. 1816 in August 1936", which is cited to Whitehouse & Thomas (2002), p. 54. Bradley states (p. 92) "returning to revenue earning service as a standard N on 3 August 1935". It's difficult to imagine a whole year out of service following a rebuild to standard form. I've checked the Whitehouse and Thomas book: and it makes no such statement, and in fact gives only one date: that the conversion occurred "in 1930". Where did the claim of "August 1936" really come from? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SECR N 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:
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) 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SECR N 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:
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) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at this, the following are notably missing:
I cannot conclude therefore that this should be a featured article, and request that the above infomration is added ass oon as possible. Tony May ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | SECR N class 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 November 24, 2018. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I made quite a few minor formatting changes for WP:MOS, but my major concern here is the lack of wikilinking, just three outside of the lead. I think this isn't quite up to the standard of other recent locomotive articles, if the linkages could be improved to broaden the scope of interest. Hence, I'll put the review on hold until such a time my concern is addressed. Cheers! The Rambling Man 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have observed that some articles on locomotive classes are labelled as follows "SR N Class" whereas others are "SR Class N". Which is the preferred method, and if there is not one, then please can we agree on one in order to have consistency in naming. Olana North ( talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As several articles have been moved to "SR x class", I think we can safely say this is the standard. However, there are exceptions, such as the SR class N15X, where "N15X class" was and is not in common usage. Most of the other articles would benefit from the above, though. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is
transcluded from
Talk:SR N Class/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Done, as far as I can tell. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with these to some degree, although any help you can give in fine-tuning the factual content of the article will be greatly appreciated. I've also pasted this on the peer review page. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I will admit that I haven't read the whole article yet, but does this section adequately cover the fate of all 100 kits? I can only account for 82 (26 + 6 + 50). There is scope for a small table here showing the final loco class against number of kits.
The Metropolitan Railway K Class article suggests that boilers were manufactured by Stephenson's, not NBR (as in the 'N' article). I haven't looked into this in depth which is why it appears to me to be an anomaly. The LNER Encyc. link from the 'K' page may be of use here too.
What was the loco class identity on the Great Southern and Western Railway? That article doesn't mention them (or any other locos!)
EdJogg ( talk) 12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As usual with the Maunsell moguls, different snippets of information are to be found all over the place. One of the great things about wikipedia is that you can add things as they arise. Thanks for the research, and I have added it to the main article. I'll have to count how many locomotives there were myself! By the way, some of the boilers went to other types, such as the N1 and W classes. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing I've read is clear on this, so I'd rather leave it as it is. On a personal note, I believe it was because they were from Woolwich, and it sounds like the shop chain sweeping across the country at the time. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The wording of the first sentence is rather odd. The N class was designed prior to many designs including the Q1 and Merchant Navies, but there is no more explanation of its link to the K class. Maybe this section would be better worded to say that the K class was designed soon after, or in parallel, using common components, to meet a different traffic need.
The K class article uses the phrase "basing the mechanical elements on those used on the slightly older N class design to standardise parts and ease locomotive maintenance" and does not suffer the same problem.
The K class is also mentioned in the final sentence of the second paragraph, so the whole section will require a re-think to include the text in a meaningful way.
EdJogg ( talk) 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, from the next section you can see that the first 'K' was finished before the first 'N', despite the 'N' design being started (and finished?) first. Presumably that's what's alluded to here? EdJogg ( talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I'm almost confused myself. What I was trying to say when I wrote it was that the N class was designed BEFORE the K class. However, the circumstance of the First World War breaking out delayed actual construction from 1914 to 1917, by which time the K class prototype was already in service.
Probably ought to state how the leading bogie would make such a difference -- may mean a brief mention of what was poor quality about the track.
Also, why 'poor quality track', and where (whole network, parts, main routes?) ?
EdJogg ( talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting thought, I'll have to look into this when I have some spare time. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the Southern Railway article to include liveries, but unless someone actually goes up to a locomotive and photographs the paint for each variation, I'm afraid we are going to be a bit limited on Wikipedia. SECR Maunsell grey has not been used since the early 1920s! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the colour schemes be named "Maunsell Grey", "Olive Green", etc, to indicate the name of a specific colour? "Maunsell grey" would be OK, as Maunsell is a proper noun, but for consistency should state "olive green"? Thoughts anyone? -- EdJogg ( talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the late locomotive historian D. L. Bradley, the Urie olive green was officially called sage green. Hope this helps. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Final sentence of "SECR and SR" section states:
Simple question, why "therefore"?? These numbers have no obvious relationship to the earlier numbers.
EdJogg ( talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noted that the power classification field mentions the LSWR - surely a cut-and-paste error??
EdJogg ( talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a fair amount of the format was cut and pasted to try and get some sort of standardised article. The N class is now the guinea pig for others that I am working on. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I may be being pedantic here, but should we say 'left-hand driving position' (or right-hand, where approp.) since 'drive' might imply something mechanical (eg drive-belt, drive-shaft) rather than the location of the man doing the driving? -- EdJogg ( talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Barring the first sentence and the first half of the second, the "Background" section as it stands seems to be largely focused on the N class' design, and duplicates information that can be found in the "First SECR batch" subsection ("The class incorporated features from the successful GWR 4300 class, and was the first use of Churchward design principles outside the GWR"). Do you think the information in the "Background" section would be more appropriately placed as an introductory paragraph to the "Design details and construction history" section (without a subheading)? "Design details and construction history" might also be rendered more concisely as "Design and construction"; I don't think the shorter heading would lose any of the intended meaning. Steve T • C 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, as I am trying to get some sort of standard article format for all locomotive-related articles, and some previous examples have a background section in them. As to the misplaced ref, this article has developed so much over the last few days that some references have turned up in pretty strange places. Will check them. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The copyright status of the original image on this article, File:BR Class N 31871 Plymouth 1948.jpg was questioned at the FA Review, and an OTRS request raised (since there was apparently informal email approval to use it). Just to note that the result of the OTRS request was that the image was deleted from Commons ( D'oh!!!)
For further details on the discussion, see the link to the FAR in the box at the top.
EdJogg ( talk) 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The statement "One of the "Woolworth" batch, this locomotive was purchased and restored for use on the Mid-Hants Railway from 1977, and is currently stored pending overhaul" is referenced to a source dated 1966. Obviously this can't be right! – iride scent 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The current state of the Background section after several days at FAC I think ought to underline why this article will continue to struggle, and further reinforces the issues raied by Tony in his oppose vote:
The N class was designed by Richard Maunsell in 1914 to provide the SECR with a sturdy mixed-traffic locomotive that would have high route availability. Intended to replace several ageing 0-6-0 types, the N class was a first step in the SECR's steam fleet standardisation programme; components were to be shared with other Maunsell locomotives to reduce the burden of maintenance. Maunsell enlisted the help of former GWR engineer Harold Holcroft, who suggested a 2-6-0 wheel arrangement that would allow the class to operate on the SECR's poor-quality track in north Kent. This arrangement allowed for a longer wheelbase and leading axle to permit greater stability at speed on track curves, which had constrained the size of locomotives able to operate on the SECR network. The increased length would also accomodate a larger boiler than that fitted to the 0-6-0s, which gave the N class sufficient power to avoid the costly need for double-heading 0-6-0 locomotives to haul trains.]
Trying to play catchup with these ever-changing prose issues is rather a hopeless task, and one that may even lead me to oppose on the same grounds as Tony. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Having read it above in isolation from the rest of the article, I'm inclined to agree that it suits the Design and Construction aspect better. I think I need to remove this section for the time being at least, and maybe re-write it (once agian in isolation from the rest of the article). If it can 'stand alone', then I'll add the results. If not, then it's bye-bye Background section if the FAC depends on it.
The problem with submitting an article for FAC nowadays is that very few editors want to involve themselves at the Peer Review stage when there should be all sorts of help in prepping the prose. I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but some would rather make 'big hitting' edits during FAC and have stated that they'd rather not do anything until its up for promotion. I think we're reaching a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation here, where the bar for FA has been raised stupidly high. Whilst I'm all for a professional approach, there should be some give and take, and the FA status gives this in the phrase: 'if you can improve the article further, please do'.
This is not the first locomotive article that I and another editor have worked on, but the the problem of trying to explain terms that should be fairly simple to understand or can be wikilinked completely wrecks the flow of the article, which then becomes far too wide in scope. Because of this, I am beginning to have misgivings about wikipedia as a platform for spreading knowledge, for if some things aren't taken as given, then articles become overly bureaucratic and unmanageable (as this one seems to be). If viewers and reviewers cannot see this, then I'm afraid I may be wasting my time here.-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Queried by Steve. Originally pebbles; I added the "beach" assuming they were from a similar source to LBSCR ballast i.e flint nodules from a coastal source, not good for ballast compared with angular granite or other roadstone chippings because they're round in profile and tend to move more easily. But that's two assumptions (source and behaviour) without a ref, so if it needs explaining can someone... Ning-ning ( talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain from my sources, beach pebbles is correct. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
My (limited) research suggests that this loco was one of the first (if not the first) to haul a service train on the Watercress Line. The current status doesn't really indicate when it was 'saved' from Woodhams, nor returned to service. The MHR website doesn't contain much detail, unfortunately (except this which shows it was laid-up in 1998 with terminal leaks in the firebox, requiring extensive and expensive work -- presumably it hasn't been steamed since?) Also there is a hint that at one time it was painted as "James the Red Engine".
A little more detail on this engine (within reason) might be appropriate -- as would a photograph, if any MHR members are reading this (there is also a pic of it at Barry in 1968, on Flickr).
EdJogg ( talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this was not a Midland concept per se, and have moved the statement further on in the paragraph. However, it was definitely a variation from GWR practice, as apart from some very obvious exceptions (Panniers, 14xx class etc.) they used domeless boilers, so that the top-feed became a visible part of the safety valve bonnet assembly. What the sentence was trying to convey was that domes were not a feature on the larger GWR locomotives, whereas the Midland Railway was a prolific user of domes to collect steam. The emphasis was not necessarily on whether the Midland was the first to combine top-feed with a dome, but as it has evidently caused some confusion here, I've tried to clarify the situation. Hope it's better. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I must admit that was a fine class of locomotive (even better when in Wainwright's fully lined green livery!), its a shame the train loadings increased to the extent that they were put on secondary duties. Maunsell's D1 rebuild spoiled the looks somewhat. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I do have a reference, but it wasn't very clear as to the actual purpose of the condenser. I will change it, but if someone can include a better reference, then by all means add it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought, Ed. As to the second point, erm, yes, one day... when I do have a quiet moment! By the way, that is going to be the photo that will be added to the article, as it is an official works photograph, and the copyright belongs to the National Railway Museum... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should start an article on this particular locomotive as there's a fair amount of material, which would only clutter up this article if included. What do you think? It'll only be a stub for the time being, though. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What would be an ideal title for this new article? Here's a few suggestions: "Experimental SECR N class locomotives"; "SECR N class No. A816 with Holcorft-Anderson recompression equipment"; "Holcroft-Anderson recompression equipment"... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pre-empting the FA-reviewer Steve...
This paragraph uses the word 'design' too many times, and the middle sentence is still a bit clumsy. Steve may have other issues with it too.
As a first go at a re-write, how about this?
It is possible that "New innovations..." should also be rewritten as "Maunsell's own innovations...", to underline that that sentence is not connected to James Clayton. Obviously the second 'Maunsell' in that sentence would then need to be dropped.
Feel free to adjust it further! -- EdJogg ( talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's actually spot on, Steve. I think we'll use it. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Paget's loco [4], part designed by Deeley in 1909, suggests that Deeley introduced the cab style. Ning-ning ( talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Which is what I've done. I'd rather remove it anyway, as it probably adds too much detail, therefore damaging the argument. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
References
The current wording seems just fine to me; as long as that "simpler and more functional" is well-cited I haven't a problem with it. Sorry to clog this talk page up further (though better here than at the FAC page, where looooong reviews can put off new reviewers from taking a look), but I just wanted to mention something in the "First SECR batch" section:
In 1922, the decision was taken to modify the cylinder arrangement of No. 822 to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. [1] A third "inside" cylinder was fitted between the frames during construction, and the "outside" cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages.
Here we have three sentences written in the passive voice; I'm perfectly happy to use it where appropriate, but with three in quick succession it renders the segment a little weak. I think this segment would be much more dynamic if at least some of it was converted to active voice, the first of the three especially. Now, I realise that may not be possible, if we don't know the agent of that change (to say "So-and-so modified..."), in which case we can still lessen the effect by putting the focus on the action—the modification—rather than the decision to make the modification. The design change was carried out, yes? In which case, it could easily read:
In 1922,
the decision was taken to modifythe cylinder arrangement of No. 822 was modified to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. [1] A third "inside" cylinder was fitted between the frames during construction, and the "outside" cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages.
Didn't want to make this change without consulting with the experts, so I'll just leave it here for your consideration. What might count against this change is that "In 1922"; the work was completed in March 1923, so unless work began in 1922 (rather than just the decision to do the work), it might not fit. All the best, Steve T • C 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
References
With the lead editor ("BP") currently on holiday, certain editorial decisions concerning factual content may need to be deferred (as he has all the reference books!). The omission or amendment of these should not adversely affect the progress towards FA, since the article text will be left in a manner that makes sure of this!
There are likely to be more queries, but I'll save this now as a starting point. EdJogg ( talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Following a request for an OTRS ticket to cover the only photograph we have, I decided to do a Google image search to see what else was available. The results are below, and cover the first 400 or so results of the search "N class locomotive":
I have ignored about the same number again, taken from Maunsell Society newsletters, as most were poorly reproduced scan of photocopy?), but they might be able to provide some originals...?
I leave it to other editors to try and source the copyright holders for these images. Good luck!
EdJogg ( talk) 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
From a reading of a book about the LNER (!) it appears that Churchward modified the Belpaire firebox by having the side plates curved, thus increasing the circulation of water in areas where problems with cracking had occured. On the LMS they stuck with straight-sided boxes for some time (e.g. Royal Scot). Although it's probably of some significance in the N class design, I'd be surprised if there's an appropriate cite available. Ning-ning ( talk) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the addition of this sentence doesn't ask more questions than it answers. Not only can I not picture a "helical arrangement of trays", I cannot see what a 'tray' has to do with a top-feed in the first place. I thought a top feed was simply an inlet (clack) valve on top of the boiler...? (My apologies for the convoluted multiple-negatives in this paragraph!)
I think the FA reviewers may take exception to this without a picture or further explanation, and I am concerned it may require excessive text to explain. Was this arrangement unusual for a top-feed? Was it unique or innovative to the N class? Would it be better explained at top feed (which is merely an entry in a glossary section at present)?
EdJogg ( talk) 10:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The annoying thing is that I no longer have access to this book, so I'll have to wait a fair while before I get another chance to borrow it. I love the way all the sources *seem* to contradict each other, which is why I think a Wikipedia article on the subject will attempt to cut through most of the conjecture to produce a fairly coherent account on the subject.
My tuppence worth is this: maybe the incorporation of a dome shell improved access to these sludge trays? The trays act like a waterfall in filtering impurities in the 'hard' water found in the region, reducing the need for frequent boiler wash-outs (they still needed washouts to prevent scaling, but not as frequently as locomotives without the 'helter-skelter' design), which was a messy and laborious process that inevitably affected a locomotive's availability for service. Could it therefore be a superficial addition to improve the looks of the locomotive by covering these trays and clack valves in the same vein as the brass safety valve bonnet on GWR locomotives? There are loads of possibilities, but not enough corroboration. Will have to keep looking.-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is all being very educational... Questions that immediately spring to mind are:
I would suggest that steam reverser is incorrect terminology here: I think a 'screw reverser' is being described (see Cutoff (steam engine)), rather than a steam(-powered) reverser (see same article).
If that is the case, the text could be modified to something like:
...which needs much more polish, agreed, but hopefully gets you thinking in the right direction.
Incidentally, radius rod is an automotive term, and although Walschaerts valve gear does mention 'radius rod', that article would be of little use to anyone who didn't already know how it works -- so much unexplained terminology! (I have since expanded an image which makes life a lot easier).
EdJogg ( talk) 15:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Very difficult to explain exactly what it does, except that it seems to act as a pivot-point for changing the setting of the combination lever (I'm not an engineer, but I am interested). I think if we are to define it on Wikipedia, I think it would be best to expand the list of parts on the article mentioned above to include definitions of each bit. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Some jargon has sneaked-in:
These will need linking, explaining or avoiding.
EdJogg ( talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Done --
EdJogg (
talk)
00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Re "The quality of the original design was such that No. A866 was put on display at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley from May to November 1925, and no class-wide modifications were made until 1934."; the ref given supports the Wembley Exhibition bit, but not "no class-wide modifications were made until 1934". Interestingly, Bradley (SE&CR 2nd ed p. 90) has this to say about Wembley: "No.A866, as Southern Railway 866, was specially prepared for display at the Wembley Exhibition and consequently did not enter traffic until 28 November 1925" (my bold). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Individual withdrawal dates (month, year) for all 80 locos are given in
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)which also gives the final areas/duties/allocations for several of them on pp. 100-101. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The last of the N class to receive general overhauls were nos. 31405, 31874 (October 1961), 31850 (December 1961) while No. 31400 on 9 June 1962 was the last engine to be repaired at Ashford. Somewhat earlier, in February 1961, Eastleigh Works opened it's doors to the N's and U's, although it was November 1962 before general repairs commenced, with U class no. 31632. By then, however, withdrawal was imminent for members of both classes requiring heavy boiler or frame attention and only six N's gained approval, all in 1963: Nos. 31816 (February), 31411, 31859 (May), 31862 (June), 31834 (July) and 31846 (November). ...
In November 1962, Nos. 31409/14, with mileages of 708,811 and 699,823, were laid aside with firebox damage and after inspection on arrival at Eastleigh Works were condemned and broken up in the New Year.
Good bit of research, that. I'll put some of it in when I have the time, and reference it to Bradley (1981). According to SEMG, 31823 was withdrawn in September 1963. I'm surprised how complicated these locomotives have turned out to be, but we'll get there sometime. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The text states "It re-entered service as No. 1816 in August 1936", which is cited to Whitehouse & Thomas (2002), p. 54. Bradley states (p. 92) "returning to revenue earning service as a standard N on 3 August 1935". It's difficult to imagine a whole year out of service following a rebuild to standard form. I've checked the Whitehouse and Thomas book: and it makes no such statement, and in fact gives only one date: that the conversion occurred "in 1930". Where did the claim of "August 1936" really come from? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SECR N 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:
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) 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SECR N 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:
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) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at this, the following are notably missing:
I cannot conclude therefore that this should be a featured article, and request that the above infomration is added ass oon as possible. Tony May ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)