Talk:LNER Class W1

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Wheel Arrangement[edit]

Surely this engine should be classified asa 4-6-2-2, and not a 4-6-4? 86.22.72.64 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the two front pairs of wheels were on a single bogie - so the '4' is correct for them. However, the two trailing pairs (under the firebox in the case of the Galloping sausage) were on two separate pony-trucks. Hence, 4-6-2-2 is (pedantically) correct! The 4-6-4 in the main article should be so amended. Hair Commodore (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compounding and cylinders[edit]

One other thing is tthat before it was rebuilt in "A4" streamlined form, the W! was a four-cylindercompound locomotive - later it became a three-cylinder compound.81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Model of 10000 with British Enterprise name[edit]

Mentioned from near the end of page 3 to about half way down page 4.

http://www.nlsme.co.uk/Articles/Spotlight_on_Ron_Price.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.49.25 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The abandoned plan to name the loco British Enterprise is already in the article. Placing said name on a model of the loco is essentially artistic license by the modelmaker, and irrelevant to a serious history of the actual locomotive. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who is putting the wrong wheel arrangement in[edit]

hello, so a few months back i removed that 4-6-2-2 thing and guess what, its back. could someone do something about that user. thanks 73.250.53.193 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they're right. The front was a four wheel bogie, the rear was two separate axles. A Cartazzi axle in front and a regular Bissel behind. I don't know if the Cartazzi had any side play. 79.79.16.211 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there was no rear bogie: the sixth axle (with outside bearings) was mounted in the main frames, and the seventh (with inside bearings) in a separate pony truck, so 4-6-4 was technically incorrect; but that seems to have been the wheel arrangement used by the LNER themselves. Bogies having one axle with outside bearings and and one with inside bearings did exist (see GWR 6000 Class), but this was not the case here. The sixth axle did have some side play (that's what the Cartazzi slides control), but not as much as the corresponding axle in the A1 and A3 classes. where it was 21⁄2 inches (64 mm) each way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]