Talk:SECR N class

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

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)

Thanks for your expedient attention to my review comments, hereby satisfied. GA awarded. The Rambling Man 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are some articles SR Class X and others SR X Class ??

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)

GA Reassessment

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.

• Where books or journals are being used as references, the relevant pages should also be given.

• It's often easier to separate the References into Notes and Bibliography, to make it easier to provide references to different pages in the same book.

• The infobox provides imperial to metric conversions, but the body of the article does not.

--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)

That'll do for me. Thanks for dealing with this Bulleid Pacific. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing notes

• Wasn't the initial livery SECR grey, with engine number in white on the tender?

• Think the Churchward references need tightening up. He used long travel valves- did the N class use similar?Ning-ning (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Woodham references- could they be deleted? (since the same info about wagons gets repeated ad vapourem). Ning-ning (talk)

• Section headed Second Woolwich Batch with Woolwich in quotes refers in the text to their nickname as "Woolworths". Should the quotation marks be removed from the heading, as it gives the impression that "Woolwich" is a nickname as well? Ning-ning (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2009 (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)

Towards FA

Second "Woolworth" batch

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)

There were 119 boilers manufactured: 85 by North British Locomotive Company; 20 by Robert Stephenson and Company; and 14 by Kitson & Co.. [Haresnape (1977) p.24]

The Midland Great Western Railway bought 12 sets (at £2,000 ea.), the first one finished at Broadstone Works in April 1925, after the MGWR had been absorbed by the Great Southern Railways. The GSR bought another 15 sets, and assembled 8 of them with 5-foot-6-inch (1.676 m) drivers (GSR K1 class #372–391), and 6 with 6-foot-0-inch (1.829 m) drivers (GSR K1a class #393–398), with 1 set held for spares. [Haresnape (1977) p.116].

Hope this helps. Iain Bell (talk) 13:56, 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)

Woolworths nickname

• "Woolworths" as a nickname- was this given to the class because they were made at Woolwich, or because they were produced in kit form? I think Woolworths were in the habit of selling some household items broken down as separate components, to bring the price down to 6d or 3d. Ning-ning (talk) 18:54, 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)

I've altered the wording to remove the phrase "earned their nickname". Ning-ning (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The revised wording is better. I had made a mental note to do something like it. Unfortunately it does still beg the question 'why?'. I think it was a combination of factors, not just because they were Woolwich-built, although that is probably the main reason, but also because of the unusual manufacturing. Woolworths was (originally) known for its cheap ranges, and presumably the SECR buying kits to assemble was seen to be cheaper than those produced from scratch? I did check the Woolworths Group article (note correct link for UK stores!) but its history coverage starts nicely, encounters the call-ups of staff at the beginning of WW1, and then jumps to 1982!!! (entirely avoiding the period of this article - grrr!)

I have added some weasly words to deflect the question, but this may be better transmuted to a footnote, as it does disrupt the flow of the text.

EdJogg (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with EdJogg, I really think there needs to be a footnote explaining the origin of the "Woolworths" nickname. It's a name familiar enough to us here in the UK, but I'm not sure it's well-known in other countries. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Background"

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.

• OK, I've removed all trace of the K class from the background, as it confused the issue, and it wasn't really the right place to put it. I've now tied it into the first batch, and have tried to make it clear that whilst the N was designed in 1914, the K class derivative was actually produced first. Whew! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why 2-6-0?

"...2-6-0 wheel arrangement, which would allow the class to operate on the SECR's poor-quality track."

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)

"Livery and numbering"

• Link to Malachite green might be confusing, as it leads to an article dealing mostly with the use of the dye as a biocide (use as a dye only mentioned in passing). I know there's some sources on the paint somewhere... Ning-ning (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that for the MN and WC/BB articles we had used Malachite Green (or [[Malachite|Malachite Green]]) since it is the colour we are interested in, which is named after the mineral. However, both those articles also link to the chemical. What we actually need is a redirect Malachite Green livery, to wherever the livery is fully described (on the Southern Railway page?)

EdJogg (talk) 17:53, 11 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)

As far as I remember, the paint Malachite Green was developed in the 1920s or 1930s, just before its adoption by Bulleid. I think it is based on the carcinogenic biocide of the same name, but am not sure. It definitely doesn't have any relation to the copper mineral. Ning-ning (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say that the biocide/dye has nothing to do with the mineral since one takes its name from 'tother! I suspect that the SR livery simply shares the name with the dye -- I don't for one minute think that the SR paint actually included malachite, since the mineral itself was not used as an ingredient by that date. As part of the investigation it would be interesting to know if the SR paint colour was the same as, or simply 'close to', the dye colour. Either way, you could justifiably say that it was Malachite Green (note link to mineral), in the same way that the GWR used Chocolate Brown!

EdJogg (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, think you're right. I think now that the pigment may be Phthalocyanine Green G, or a similar Phthalocyanine, in which case a) you're right that it's not the dye b) it does contain copper (but not the mineral). There's supposedly two shades, pre-war and post-war. Ning-ning (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly Pigment Green 7 developed in 1938, a "blue shade green". Ning-ning (talk) 15:34, 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)

Consistency of capitalisation?

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)

I agree. I've long been puzzled by this apparent convention in locomotove articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think when a CME's name is attached to a colour (apart from Stroudley's Improved Engine Green) it's a kind of temporary label, like Drummond green livery is distinct from Adam's (but there's no Drummond green per se). It might be better to remove Maunsell's name, and just have grey, or mid-grey. Most of the time paint names don't seem to be capitalised. Ning-ning (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This article refers to Urie's sage green, but the LSWR article refers only to Urie's holly green and Urie's olive green. No sage. Ning-ning (talk) 10:04, 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)

Yes- the designation in LSWR articles does seem (on superficial reading) to be very inconsistent- one article refers to "Drummond's sage green"! Ning-ning (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

Final sentence of "SECR and SR" section states:

"The final batch of 15 locomotives, built between 1932 and 1934, were therefore numbered 1400–1414 from new."

Simple question, why "therefore"?? These numbers have no obvious relationship to the earlier numbers.

EdJogg (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Second "Woolwich" batch and exports to Ireland

• This punctuation in this sentence makes it seem ambiguous: "The North British Locomotive Company built 85, Robert Stephenson and Company 20, and Kitson & Co. 14 for allocation to a kit of parts at Woolwich."

• Does it mean that all 119 boilers were allocated to a kit of parts at Woolwich (just one kit of parts?), or only the 14 from Kitson? If it means all of them then there's a comma missing after "Kitson & Co.". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Left-hand drive etc

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)

Background / Design details and construction history

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)

Not sure what you mean by a misplaced reference; I just meant that one sentence in "Background" was repeated, almost word-for-word in "First SECR batch". EDIT: Ah, I see you've removed that now. Steve ^{T • C} 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Image query

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)

Question

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! – iridescent 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved the ref to the middle of the sentence. Ning-ning (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment

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)

Ultimately, it's because it's a square peg, round hole issue. The "Background" section isn't necessary because the information it presents isn't anything to do with the background; it's better suited to the "Design" section, where individual statements would sit more comfortably among friends. Steve ^{T • C} 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 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)

• "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." That would be me, and it's not something I'm about to apologise for. If peer review isn't doing its job that's no fault of mine. I'm quite busy enough with GA/FA/GA Sweeps to be bothered with peer review as well. I have made no complaint about the terms, I'm complaining about the basic grammar. Just look at the last sentence in the section I quoted, for instance. Getting all huffy because I complain about prose quality while doing all that I can to help, is not conducive to a productive working relationship. I wish you luck with this article, but it looks like I will now be left with no option but to oppose its promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

• "Maunsell became CME on the proviso that he would take stock of the situation by improving existing designs, and would eventually introduce new engines to progressively replace obsolete types and cope with the workload." Whose proviso- his or theirs? How would a CME whose job entails improving existing designs and introducing new ones which would cope with the workload differ from any other CME? (apart from Webb and Whale ;) Ning-ning (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Beach pebbles

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)

Preserved 31874

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)

Bulleid Pacific has provided the essential additional information needed for the FA push. (Thank you.) There is scope for more, if anyone can find it, even to the extent that many preserved locos have their own pages here.

Good luck! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First SECR Batch

• "Midland Railway influences were evident in the placement of fittings as another of Maunsell's assistants, James Clayton, worked for this railway prior to joining the SECR. Examples include the location of the water top-feed into the boiler inside a dome" . Don't think this is correct, as I haven't yet found a photo of a pre-1913 MR loco with top feed into a dome. Ning-ning (talk) 15:31, 16 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, it is- I see Clayton was responsible for the design of Wainwright's D class 4-4-0 cab and splashers as well! Ning-ning (talk) 19:31, 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)

816 and Anderson gear

• Anderson's compression condensing system as fitted to A816 appears to be a means of conserving heat rather than saving water, but I haven't got a source for changing it (apparently chapter 8 of Holcroft's Locomotive Adventure). Ning-ning (talk) 20:14, 11 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)

Just to chuck in a curved ball in passing... The revised text here is better, but we really need a link to an article explaining the purpose of condensing in more detail, to indicate why the modifications were trialled. The nearest I have found is Surface condenser, which is clearly inappropriate in this case. A description of the Anderson gear on an appropriate page would do. as a link.

Conventionally, if I understand correctly, condensers are used to save water (eg on a steam ship, where the supply of clean water is severely limited) and the conservation of heat is a bonus.

EdJogg (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of links [1] and [2] . "The engine was notable for its almost total silence"- obviously it deserves its own article!. There's a patent number in the first link, which might be searchable. Ning-ning (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Something for BP to do when he has a quiet moment...? :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:37, 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)

A link to the Holcroft-Anderson Recompression Locomotive [[3]]. It appears that the purpose was to cool exhaust steam and compress it, then feed it back into the boiler (as steam). Ning-ning (talk) 20:14, 16 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)

A stub is fine for now -- just enough to explain what it the article's about. Don't add too much or it won't qualify for a DYK when you come to expand it later!

EdJogg (talk) 00:05, 17 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)

Or a title that encompasses Anderson's work with stationary boilers (from which this experiment derived) or "Experimental SR Steam Locos" Ning-ning (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual article-naming conventions should apply: the title should match the name by which the subject is usually known.

In this case you need to decide whether there is enough information about the Anderson gear to support a separate article.

Your suggestions seem to imply a number of different potential articles:

• Anderson -- describing the person, with a subsection about the condensing gear, mentioning 816 in passing
• Anderson gear -- describing just the experiments etc
• 816 -- was the experiment sufficiently notable that it could sustain a stand-alone article?
• Experimental locomotives of the UK/BR/SR/SECR/Maunsell, depending on how detailed you can make the coverage!

Really you need to decide on the scope of the article (which is dependent on the references available) and then set a title to suit.

EdJogg (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Midland Influences

Pre-empting the FA-reviewer Steve...

Design and construction

(para 3)

Another of Maunsell's assistants, James Clayton, brought Midland Railway influences to the design. The design of running plate along the boiler sides, the cab's strong resemblance to designs by Henry Fowler, and the tender design, all contributed to the creation of a simple, functional locomotive. New innovations included greater superheating surface area, the location of the boiler water top feed inside a dome, outside Walschaerts valve gear, and parts that could be shared with other Maunsell locomotives to reduce maintenance costs.

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?

Another of Maunsell's assistants, James Clayton, brought Midland Railway influences in the shape of the cab, which strongly resembled the style of Henry Fowler, the tender, and the running plate along the boiler sides. New innovations included greater superheating surface area, the location of the boiler water top feed inside a dome, outside Walschaerts valve gear, and parts that could be shared with other Maunsell locomotives to reduce maintenance costs.

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)

Was it Fowler... or was it Deeley? Ning-ning (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice pre-emption! My concern focused primarily on, "The design of running plate along the boiler sides, the cab's strong resemblance to designs by Henry Fowler, and the tender design..." The missing definite article before "running plate" threw off the entire sentence, and made me wonder whether that was deliberate. It also left unresolved exactly why the changed running plate, the new tender design and the cab's resemblance to Fowler designs "contributed to the creation of a simple, functional locomotive". Was it merely that? That these were more simple and functional than the existing designs? The reworded paragraph reads better, but I note you've left out the why, which leaves it question-begging. Would it be inaccurate to say something like, "... brought simpler and more functional Midland Railway influences to the design: in the shape of the cab, which strongly resembled the style of Henry Fowler, the tender, and the running plate along the boiler sides." But y'know, not as clumsily worded :D (I've somehow acquired a small reputation as a decent copyeditor, but that fails to consider that I took more than 800 edits to get my own FA up to scratch!) Steve ^T • C 15:02, 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)

How about "Maunsell's team incorporated new innovations..."? Maunsell himself was keen to emphasise the teamwork that went into his designs. I'll put it in for now, but if there are any issues, then please improve it further. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - TWICE!! - unedited)

Now I understand the issue you (Steve) have with 'running plate' (in simplistic terms, it's the flat bit sticking out sideways above the driving wheels!). I've not heard the term used often, but I knew what was meant. In these articles, one of my reviewer roles is to check for steam loco jargon and link or explain it -- thankfully we now have links for the most problematic terms!

The "simpler and more functional" is User:Bulleid Pacific's wording, not mine, so we'll have to wait for his input as to how significant it is here. Actually, for once this did not generate a 'why?' for me. The 'simpler and more functional' smacked of POV, and it seemed we could maybe get away without it.

Maybe the 'why' you're actually seeking is that James Clayton was ex-Midland Railway, so his designs were likely to benefit from his experience gained in his former employment. This was described more explicitly as first written, but was lost in my first hatchet job on this paragraph. I was trying to avoid the phrase "ex-Midland Railway designer, James Clayton, brought that railway's influences...", or more specifically, just trying to avoid using "that railway's" which I think is horrible! If you have any better ideas...?

(edit conflict, additional..)

...sorry, was interrupted while responding, but thought I'd submit it anyway!

EdJogg (talk) 15:41, 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)

It may even be Johnson, as "Midland Spinner" No. 1000 has a similar arrangement of spectacle to the Fowler reference above.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's really that uncertain, we could lose the sub-clause without disrupting the prose.

(Hark me, writing like I know how English works!) -- EdJogg (talk) 16:06, 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)

According to Holcroft, C.H. Pearson (also from Swindon) suggested that the SECR use only tank engines. Clayton was instructed to prepare a scheme for a passenger tank. His first essay (due to the roll of Midland drawings he kept at his house) "smacked too much of Derby". Pearson recommended GWR practices. A decision was taken to proceed with a 2-6-4 tank, and a 2-6-0 with the same boiler, cylinders and valve gear but with smaller driving wheels. The size of the boiler fitted to the N class was determined by the axle loadings of the K class, and was therefore too small, resulting in a reputation for being shy for steam. Maunsell and Clayton were later involved in an ARLE scheme to produce a design to be manufactured in government workshops. Their proposal was for a 2-6-0 (doesn't appear to have been the N) and a derived 2-8-0. Because the ARLE committee dragged their heels the government bypassed it and used the N class. Woolwich-built examples had defects such as misaligned cylinder centres and slide bars, which were partially rectified at Ashford, and fully rectified on first general overhaul. It's this lack of quality which Holcroft says inspired the Woolworths nickname.Ning-ning (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Prose discussion

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. 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 modify the cylinder arrangement of No. 822 was modified to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. 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

I've modified this as requested, but it may need a look over. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to read OK now, but Steve is looking from a different angle than I am used to doing, so I can't comment on the active/passive bit. EdJogg (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Queries for BP!

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!

• "Operational details" -- N class inspiration of other designs: this diff removed the text "such as", leaving the prose indicating that there were (only) two designs so inspired. The reviewer notes that if there were more than two, the text should either list 'all' the designs, or add "among others" at the end of the sentence (after the ref?) to indicate this. The omission does not affect the accuracy of the present text.

• "Operational details" -- Steam pipes -- snakey sentence: this diff shows my re-working of the sentence relating to new cylinder fitment. I've lost the 'exhaust arrangements', since I don't know how that would have changed with the work done. I've left the two sentences connected by a colon as the steam pipe changes were related to the cylinder changes, and this one-to-one relationship is lost if the colon is replaced by a full-stop. The words 'steam pipes' are repeated intentionally -- under normal circumstances 'steam' could be lost from the second occurrence, but the words are very nearly hyphenated here. The down-side of my re-wording is the slight implication that the reconditioning of the frames was only the fitting of the steam pipes: this may well have been the case, but we'll need someone knowledgeable to confirm 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)

Pictures desperately needed...

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":

• Two here: http://www.stteath.co.uk/history.htm (source unknown)
• One here, with lots of other goodies (incl a pic of Shaw Savill) http://www.steamtraingalleries.co.uk/steam_in_the_sixties_sr.html
• One here (after countless luggage labels): http://www.swindonsotherrailway.co.uk/ll.html
• Excellent colour preservation pic: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=238454&nseq=4031
• BR era colour pic: http://www.kentrail.co.uk/bricklayers_arms.htm
• 1960s BW pic: http://www.trenoweth.co.uk/NCR/route5.html

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)

Holcroft's Loco Adventure volume 1 has a works photo, side view in photo grey, lettered SECR. This is probably useable under PD-old. Ning-ning (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that I prefer to use NRM photographs, as nine times out of ten, they have purchased the copyright to vast collections of photographs on behalf of the nation. This means that by way of it being part of the Museum of Science and Industry, the copyright is attributable to the British Government (which provides the funding). However, I usually like leaving this sort of thing to other people unless I back it up with references.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Churchward influence

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)

Top feed query

"The dome covered a helical arrangement of trays for the top feed system."

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)

Apparently the 'helical arrangement of trays' was called the helter skelter lighthouse by Ashford works- even more unpictureable! Would have made a great DYK - "Did you know that the N class had a lighthouse on its boiler?". The clack valves feed the water onto a series of trays (as in the 'banjo dome' of the Flying Scotsman)- the feedwater is heated up, and deposits muck on the trays instead of the boiler tubes. The helical form may have been innovative to the N class, but Holcroft doesn't claim it as such- he just mentions the nickname given. The N class dome is mentioned twice in the article (once as a Midland influence, and once in regard to its height being reduced). The normal function of a dome is as a steam collecting device, but as the regulator of the N class is situated in the superheater header, a dome would not be needed. Therefore some explanation of the purpose of the dome might be of use.

Holcroft's two books have two chapters solely on the N class, one on design and one on performance and modifications (plus a chapter on the Anderson gear). BP has access to the first volume. I've given a brief synopsis above of what Holcroft writes about the design process, which appears to contradict what's in the article. Ning-ning (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So the key point is that the trays are inside the boiler, I presume? And if these collected muck, how would it have been removed?

You are probably right about the regulator vs dome issue, it might need explaining -- indeed, I had linked dome to steam dome which, as you have just pointed out, is actually incorrect! Argh!

It's possible we could add a footnote or two for these details (don't know how these would fare in the FA process!). For example, after 'dome', the footnote could say:

The N class did not require a steam dome as the boiler was fitted with a superheater, where the steam collection and regulator <wikilink??> was sited. The dome on the N class was just a cover for the top feed.

...and remove the in-article wikilinks to steam dome (my misunderstanding!)

Any footnotes would need to be separate (before?) the references.

EdJogg (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when you think about it, putting the top feed next to the steam collector would greatly increase the possibility of priming. I don't know where the trays on the N are- I was wrong about the Scotsman (that has a tray for steam collection inside the dome), but the GWR version has a tray in the boiler. Holcroft (vol 2, p 21) writes (paraphrased) the dome on the boiler is a casing for the trays of the top feed system, helical in form. The location of the regulator, in a three-row superheater, is from O.S. Nock The Locomotives of R.E.L. Maunsell :Edward Everard, Bristol 1954, p. 22. The use of trays in top feed is in O. Jordan Jordan's Guide to British Steam Locomotives :King's England Press, 2003 (not an WP:RS!) p.326 paraphrased Churchward used the steam space to heat the feed water and deposit sludge in trays. I suppose sludge removal would be simply a matter of undoing some bolts and removing the tray. Ning-ning (talk) 14:56, 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)

Sounds fascinating. When you've finished looking, perhaps you can present your findings in a top feed article? There is clearly enough to write about (and, as should be obvious by now, I was completely unaware of the complexities!) -- EdJogg (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got access to the Holcroft books (reference only), but won't be able to get to the library for about a week or so. Ning-ning (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-FA Review

Design

"The steam reverser differed from previous SECR practice, being a hand wheel with screw linked directly to the radius rods."

This is all being very educational... Questions that immediately spring to mind are:

1. What was the previous SECR practice?
2. What are radius rods?
3. What is the 'screw' associated with the hand wheel?

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:

A screw reverser was fitted, providing finer adjustment of the cutoff, and hence greater efficiency than the stepped adjustments provided by the reversing lever control, which was previous SECR practice.

...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)

As an update, the SECR used steam reversers on its locomotives; the SER's James Stirling (1835–1917) was the first engineer to use the system, and Wainwright adopted it for his locomotives. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Performance of the class and modifications

Some jargon has sneaked-in:

"Another trial saw the addition of a second slidebar to No. 825, which gave better support to the motion and helped protect it from spillage from the driving wheel sander fillers."

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)

Withdrawal

Individual withdrawal dates (month, year) for all 80 locos are given in

• Bradley, D.L. (1980) [1961]. The Locomotive History of the South Eastern & Chatham Railway (2nd ed.). London: RCTS. pp. 101–102. ISBN 0 901115 49 5. {{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)

That's where the 1981 version is better that the 1961, as the latter was printed at a time when the class was still in service. What I'd like to know is the reason why the first two locomotives (31414 and 31409) were withdrawn- was it part of a plan as stated, or was there also something wrong with them? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. You have to take this in the context of:

• the "front end conversions" where the frames were partially or completely renewed, with new cylinders and outside steam pipes (last one done was 31858 in May 1961)
• the advance of electrification (eg. Sevenoaks - Tonbridge - Dover Priory elect. June 1961)
• the closure of Ashford for loco work (June 1962) and the transfer of N class repairs to Eastleigh

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.

The actual event is in just one sentence, on p.100, but it seems to me a case of "tough luck" - if the firebox damage had occurred just six months earlier, they would have been repaired by Ashford. Withdrawal had to begin sometime, and a line had to be drawn - and Eastleigh drew it. In the summary table (pp. 101-102), Bradley gives wdn. 11/1962 for 31409/14, and also 31823, but this last one may be a typo, because it doesn't get mentioned in the text, other than in a list of 33 engines cut at Elgh (no dates). The next date given in the summary is 5/1963, for the wdl of 31815/61/72, after which they went during most months, so can we say that general withdrawal began in May 1963? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The March 1963 edition of the Ian Allan ABC (SR correct to 30/01/1963) lists 78 locos inc. 31823, so it wasn't wdn 11/1962 as given by Bradley. The April 1964 edn (SR correct to 9/12/1963) lists 56, and does not include 31823 - can we assume a wdl date of 11/1963 for that? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

nb Bradley 2nd ed is 1980 not 1981. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Anderson experiment

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)

Must have been a typo. Also, the Whitehouse reference is somewhat superfluous now, as it was referring to something else that has now been moved. Will change. Bulleid Pacific. --92.6.52.65 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206234821/http://www.maunsell.org.uk/virtual%20shed/oddments/marshall.htm to http://www.maunsell.org.uk/virtual%20shed/oddments/marshall.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423032222/http://www.watercressline.co.uk/earlymhr.htm to http://www.watercressline.co.uk/earlymhr.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This artice is not FA quality

Looking at this, the following are notably missing:

• Tables, particularly
  • Construction table; showing works, lot numbers, years built.
  • A full list of engines, with full numbering, dates, and notes.
  • Withdrawal table showing the quantity withdrawn per year.
• Photographs, particularly of the Bachmann model.

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)

@Tony May: You are welcome and free to add the information you outlined to improve the article. If after that, you still believe if should be demoted from FA, then follow the procedure at WP:FAR. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tony May: Please see WP:WIAFA. Which of the four criteria is applicable here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)