Toolbox |
---|
![]() | SR Leader 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 September 22, 2010. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've reviewed the article, I believe the concerns from the previous review have been addressed with a number of good secondary sources now used and correct PD tags added to the relevant images. Thus, I'm happy to make the article a good article. The Rambling Man 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I have changed the wikilink to priming, which is a dab page, in the "Cylinder design" section so that it links to [[Priming (steam engine)]] instead. Note that this is a redlink. I didn't want to leave the link to the dab page, but there are no suitable targets on the dab page, and I suspected that this topic might be worth its own article. If not, please remove the link entirely. Thanks. -- Tkynerd 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just one more thing. Surely it is not correct to count R.C Jarvis as one of the designers of this locomotive. He had nothing to to with the design. He simply concluded after tests that it would have needed a complete redesign to have any success.-- John of Paris 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just think about it. Any bogie is by definition an interchangeable component. It would be hard to make it otherwise. So I don't see how it could have been "at Bulleid's insistence". He probably recommended keeping a pool of extra bogies in order to save time off the road. That would seem logical. But to say that it proved an "ineffective measure" is patently absurd, as there was never an opportunity to put it into effect! Five locomotives were being built, only one of which actually ran and that never reached full operating order.-- John of Paris ( talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just occurred to me; as the first working unit wasn't completed until after nationalisation, ought the title to be "BR Leader Class"? – iride scent 13:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was designed under the Southern Railway, and has its pedigree within the Southern fleet of locomotives, so technically it is a Southern Railway locomotive; it's just that events overtook things a little. Otherwise, it would look odd amongst the BR 'Standard' classes, and would turn a few heads amongst the enthusiast fraternity to say the least! I realise that the SR N class and N1 class articles should technically be under SECR, but a bit of 'artistic licence' is required when naming the articles to satisfy the majority of people, as the bulk of these classes was built by the SR (these articles will probably be relocated at a later date, anyway). However, it is impossible to say whether BR would have started a Leader class had it not been sufficiently developed under Southern Railway ownership, and so I think it is safer to keep it as it is. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Operational details" section mentions "a raised floor covering ballast material.". Was this intended to link to (rock) Track ballast, or was the term "ballast" being used simply to describe "added weight" (similar to Sailing ballast)?. Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The latter. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"four thermic siphons from beneath the firebox to pre-heat water entering the boiler,"
This is not the function of a thermic syphon.
86.177.23.232 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC).
How about nominating this for TFA? It would be a lovely article for the main page, but obviously I thought I ought to ask the main contributors before nominating. I've written a little blurb below: Bob talk 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The SR Leader class was a class of experimental 0-6-6-0 articulated steam locomotive, produced to the design of the innovative engineer Oliver Bulleid. Intended as a replacement for the ageing fleet of M7 class, the Leader was an attempt to extend the life of steam traction on the Southern Railway by eliminating many of the operational drawbacks associated with existing steam locomotives. Design work began in 1946, and development continued after the nationalisation of the railways in 1948, under the auspices of British Railways. The Leader project was part of Bulleid's desire to modernise the steam locomotive based on experience gained with the Southern Railway's fleet of electric stock. The design incorporated many novel features, such as the use of thermic siphons, bogies, and cabs at either end of the locomotive, resulting in its unique appearance. Several of its innovations proved to be unsuccessful however, partly accounting for the project's cancellation in the early 1950s. Five Leader locomotives were begun, although only one was completed. Problems with the design, indifferent reports on performance, and political pressure surrounding spiraling development costs, led to all locomotives of the class being scrapped by 1951.( more...)
The article describes the locomotive as an 0-6-6-0, but surely 0-6-6-0T is correct. The article also mentions "the tender". AFAIK, the Leader class did not have a tender, which is why 0-6-6-0T is correct. As this is a FA, I won't be bold, but am putting this up for discussion first. Mjroots ( talk) 05:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The culmination of the project was a £178,865 5s 0d (£4,074,550.40 in today's money, converted at the 1950 rate) bill for the taxpayer, though when the press reported the story as late as 1953, £500,000 (£11,390,000.00) was claimed to have been "wasted" on the project. R. G. Jarvis, who was placed in charge of the project after Bulleid's departure, insisted that the locomotive required an entire re-design to solve the problems of the original concept.
Isn´t the word used more neutral? Maybe spended, just replace wasted.
eg £500,000 (£11,390,000.00) was claimed to have been used/spended on the project.
Olof nord ( talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Tractive effort is given as "30,000 lbf (Approx.) (133.44 kN)". But if the 30,000 lbf is only approximate, what is the justification for stating the metric conversion to the nearest 0.01 kN? Is that the level of accuracy implied by "Approx."? If the original figure could be several hundred, or even thousand, lbf off then the level of accuracy in the conversion looks excessive. Even if the original figure is plus or minus a few lbf, then (if my math serves me correctly) the error would be around plus or minus a few tens of Newtons, so 0.01 kN accuracy is still pushing it? TheGrappler ( talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only reader who looked at the lead paragraph & would have been happier if it had explicitly stated this was a British make of locomotive? Maybe I'm displaying an unconscious US-centralism here, but until I saw the reference to Southern Railways I presumed that this was a US-made class of locomotives -- although a 0-6-6-0 locomotive would have been considered very experimental in the US. Obviously, if others agree with me, a lot of articles would need to be altered to add a qualifier (e.g., "manufactured in the US", "manufactured in the UK", etc.), but it would help those of us who aren't railroad nerds. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the blurb may have been better if it had said "a British locomotive", although it would have made the first sentence very busy. Only slightly lower down in the TFA blurb says "British Railways", so anyone reading beyond the first line wouldn't be confused. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word "make" - unlike a car, steam locos were usually made by an in-house design and engineering works, in this case Southern Railways. Bob talk 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
"It was intended as a replacement for the ageing fleet of M7 class tank engines still in operation on the Southern Railway" Somewhat hard to believe - it seems incredibly oversized for that purpose, unless the M7s were regularly double- or even triple-headed, of which I can find no mention in their article. Marked with "citation needed".-- No qwach macken ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
< This included oscillating gear that gave a 25-degree axial movement >
Rotary movement, I think. The axial movement was provided by the valve gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.83.192 ( talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SR Leader 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) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | SR Leader 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 September 22, 2010. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've reviewed the article, I believe the concerns from the previous review have been addressed with a number of good secondary sources now used and correct PD tags added to the relevant images. Thus, I'm happy to make the article a good article. The Rambling Man 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I have changed the wikilink to priming, which is a dab page, in the "Cylinder design" section so that it links to [[Priming (steam engine)]] instead. Note that this is a redlink. I didn't want to leave the link to the dab page, but there are no suitable targets on the dab page, and I suspected that this topic might be worth its own article. If not, please remove the link entirely. Thanks. -- Tkynerd 04:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just one more thing. Surely it is not correct to count R.C Jarvis as one of the designers of this locomotive. He had nothing to to with the design. He simply concluded after tests that it would have needed a complete redesign to have any success.-- John of Paris 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just think about it. Any bogie is by definition an interchangeable component. It would be hard to make it otherwise. So I don't see how it could have been "at Bulleid's insistence". He probably recommended keeping a pool of extra bogies in order to save time off the road. That would seem logical. But to say that it proved an "ineffective measure" is patently absurd, as there was never an opportunity to put it into effect! Five locomotives were being built, only one of which actually ran and that never reached full operating order.-- John of Paris ( talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just occurred to me; as the first working unit wasn't completed until after nationalisation, ought the title to be "BR Leader Class"? – iride scent 13:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was designed under the Southern Railway, and has its pedigree within the Southern fleet of locomotives, so technically it is a Southern Railway locomotive; it's just that events overtook things a little. Otherwise, it would look odd amongst the BR 'Standard' classes, and would turn a few heads amongst the enthusiast fraternity to say the least! I realise that the SR N class and N1 class articles should technically be under SECR, but a bit of 'artistic licence' is required when naming the articles to satisfy the majority of people, as the bulk of these classes was built by the SR (these articles will probably be relocated at a later date, anyway). However, it is impossible to say whether BR would have started a Leader class had it not been sufficiently developed under Southern Railway ownership, and so I think it is safer to keep it as it is. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Operational details" section mentions "a raised floor covering ballast material.". Was this intended to link to (rock) Track ballast, or was the term "ballast" being used simply to describe "added weight" (similar to Sailing ballast)?. Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The latter. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"four thermic siphons from beneath the firebox to pre-heat water entering the boiler,"
This is not the function of a thermic syphon.
86.177.23.232 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC).
How about nominating this for TFA? It would be a lovely article for the main page, but obviously I thought I ought to ask the main contributors before nominating. I've written a little blurb below: Bob talk 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The SR Leader class was a class of experimental 0-6-6-0 articulated steam locomotive, produced to the design of the innovative engineer Oliver Bulleid. Intended as a replacement for the ageing fleet of M7 class, the Leader was an attempt to extend the life of steam traction on the Southern Railway by eliminating many of the operational drawbacks associated with existing steam locomotives. Design work began in 1946, and development continued after the nationalisation of the railways in 1948, under the auspices of British Railways. The Leader project was part of Bulleid's desire to modernise the steam locomotive based on experience gained with the Southern Railway's fleet of electric stock. The design incorporated many novel features, such as the use of thermic siphons, bogies, and cabs at either end of the locomotive, resulting in its unique appearance. Several of its innovations proved to be unsuccessful however, partly accounting for the project's cancellation in the early 1950s. Five Leader locomotives were begun, although only one was completed. Problems with the design, indifferent reports on performance, and political pressure surrounding spiraling development costs, led to all locomotives of the class being scrapped by 1951.( more...)
The article describes the locomotive as an 0-6-6-0, but surely 0-6-6-0T is correct. The article also mentions "the tender". AFAIK, the Leader class did not have a tender, which is why 0-6-6-0T is correct. As this is a FA, I won't be bold, but am putting this up for discussion first. Mjroots ( talk) 05:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The culmination of the project was a £178,865 5s 0d (£4,074,550.40 in today's money, converted at the 1950 rate) bill for the taxpayer, though when the press reported the story as late as 1953, £500,000 (£11,390,000.00) was claimed to have been "wasted" on the project. R. G. Jarvis, who was placed in charge of the project after Bulleid's departure, insisted that the locomotive required an entire re-design to solve the problems of the original concept.
Isn´t the word used more neutral? Maybe spended, just replace wasted.
eg £500,000 (£11,390,000.00) was claimed to have been used/spended on the project.
Olof nord ( talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Tractive effort is given as "30,000 lbf (Approx.) (133.44 kN)". But if the 30,000 lbf is only approximate, what is the justification for stating the metric conversion to the nearest 0.01 kN? Is that the level of accuracy implied by "Approx."? If the original figure could be several hundred, or even thousand, lbf off then the level of accuracy in the conversion looks excessive. Even if the original figure is plus or minus a few lbf, then (if my math serves me correctly) the error would be around plus or minus a few tens of Newtons, so 0.01 kN accuracy is still pushing it? TheGrappler ( talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only reader who looked at the lead paragraph & would have been happier if it had explicitly stated this was a British make of locomotive? Maybe I'm displaying an unconscious US-centralism here, but until I saw the reference to Southern Railways I presumed that this was a US-made class of locomotives -- although a 0-6-6-0 locomotive would have been considered very experimental in the US. Obviously, if others agree with me, a lot of articles would need to be altered to add a qualifier (e.g., "manufactured in the US", "manufactured in the UK", etc.), but it would help those of us who aren't railroad nerds. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the blurb may have been better if it had said "a British locomotive", although it would have made the first sentence very busy. Only slightly lower down in the TFA blurb says "British Railways", so anyone reading beyond the first line wouldn't be confused. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word "make" - unlike a car, steam locos were usually made by an in-house design and engineering works, in this case Southern Railways. Bob talk 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
"It was intended as a replacement for the ageing fleet of M7 class tank engines still in operation on the Southern Railway" Somewhat hard to believe - it seems incredibly oversized for that purpose, unless the M7s were regularly double- or even triple-headed, of which I can find no mention in their article. Marked with "citation needed".-- No qwach macken ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
< This included oscillating gear that gave a 25-degree axial movement >
Rotary movement, I think. The axial movement was provided by the valve gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.83.192 ( talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SR Leader 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) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)