Talk:SR Merchant Navy class

Day Out with Thomas

Can a rebuilt merchant navy class disguise as Jordon for Day Out with Thomas? Felix 18:15, 17 July 2006

GA review

I made a few minor changes to comply with WP:MOS and now I'm promoting to WP:GA. The Rambling Man 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Speed restrictions

What is meant by "speed restrictions for inside motion"?--John of Paris 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, where is that written? I can only see "space restrictions..." EdJogg 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Must have misread it.

Let's try another... In what way was the valve gear "modified" in the rebuilt Pacifics? - looks pretty conventional to me.--John of Paris 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Who is the extremely sad individual with nothing better to do than vandalise this article? If it were an article about a politician or war then perhaps I could understand it, but not an article about a railway engine of all things. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.13.13 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some person posted a picture of horse feces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.232.6 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's called envy. I've never seen so much vandalism in the space of one day. That must be the downside of being nominated a front page article. It should be WP policy to automatically fully protect them for a few days to keep these bird brained incapables at a distance--John of Paris (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Over 100 edits in one day! (including my two which were just to mark where I had reviewed up to!) I too was surprised by the level of vandalism -- I wonder how much it happens to other Main Page Featured Articles? Protecting might be a good idea, certainly semi-protecting, since that would allow through the number of 'good' edits that occurred as a result of the page being featured. Fortunately, wanton vandalism is easily reverted (have you requested Rollback yet, John?).

EdJogg (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What's Rollback?--John of Paris (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably to remove the history of vandalism. Anyway, it doesn't really matter now. The article appears to have reached its highest degree of excellence in terms of content without going overboard on the technical details, and only sundry minor edits are required to improve grammar/spelling from now on. As my Dissertation tutor said recently: "Having looked that problem squarely in the face, let us now pass on". There are other railway articles that need work, so let's improve them, now that a benchmark for quality has been set... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for rebuilt locomotives

Much of the information in the second infobox (the one for the rebuilt class) duplicates that given in the first. What do other people think about restricting the contents of the second infobox to those items that have changed, possibly with a note that all other specifications are unchanged? --Das48 (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Boiler lagging fires

I see that the blame has been shifted from the oilbath to the axlebox lubricators. This is contrary to several sources I have seen in the past, such as

• Bradley, D.L. (1976). Locomotives of the Southern Railway: Part 2. London: RCTS. p. 12. ISBN 0 901115 31 2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

About half-a-mile east of Honiton a chain parted and, thrashing around in the oil-bath, caused absolute havoc until the engine came to rest. The scattered oil quickly ignited, setting the boiler cladding, sleepers and lineside bushes ablaze

He also describes how the oil baths were prone to leakage, either through the vents or from distortion leading to fracture, and that the escaping oil "reached the wheel treads, causing slipping, and the boiler lagging where it provided a ready source of ignition". He does not seem to mention axlebox lubricators.

• Nock, O.S. (1987). Great Locomotives of the Southern Railway. London: Guild Publishing/Book Club Associates. pp. 196, 198. CN 5587.

This feature [the oil bath] ... brought a number of problems, not the least of which was that of keeping the oil in the oil bath. Unless the engines were exceptionally well-maintained it seemed to get everywhere else—on the track, into the boiler lagging and, worst of all, onto the wheel treads.

Later he states "I have already mentioned the leakage of oil and this not only caused slipping and other difficulties, but sometimes led to fires". Again, he does not seem to mention the axleboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Mannion, Roger J. (1998). The Southern Pacifics. Thrupp: Alan Sutton. pp. 100, 101. ISBN 0750917342.

  When the locomotive was running at speed the oil bath suffered from immense pressures and...was beset with vibration and racking stresses...The oil that seeped its way onto the rails and driving wheels...was also absorbed by the boiler and firebox cladding, so much so that after 20,000 miles it created a significant fire risk.

  The initial assumption was that sparks from the ashpan were the source of ignition; after a number of WCs were transferred to the S&D fires were started by white-hot particles from the brake shoes; this was cured by changes in design and composition. Mannion mentions the oilfeed to the axleboxes (p57) -worsted trimmings fed from boxes on the footplate and firebox backplate, and the 2 or 3 Wakefield lubricators below the smokebox door and fed from a single reservoir, but does not describe them as being a source of oil leaks. Mannion reports an unsubstantiated assertion that the MNs fitted with wheel splashers had a lower incidence of fire; he also reports an assertion that BR replaced the specified Duckhams oil with Red Ilo, leading to corrosion in the sumps... "this account flies against accepted information and is difficult to confirm today" (p49) The average consumption of oil by the locos was 23.8 pints per 100 miles (p100) compared to 8 to 10 pints for KA and LN classes; it looks possible that the oil bath was consuming 10 pints per 100 miles, or 250 gallons per 20,000 miles. Ning-ning (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth using both theories rather than one or the other. My main issue with the oilbath explanation for the slipping is how can something that is located between the frames seep directly onto the rail interface? However, I need to see pictures of the oilbath in relation to the frames before I can comment further, for if the oilbath sides are in contact with the frames, then it is possible for oil to seep down towards the wheels. It would also account for the impossibility of getting an adequate seal, as the amount of movement in the frames to allow for shocks etc. would prevent this. However, I have no problem with Bradley's anecdote, as this event sounds akin to that that experienced by 34067 a few years ago, when a combination lever sheared-off and pierced the sump, dumping 45 gallons of oil onto the track. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No books with me- can't check veracity, but I think the oilbath sides are the frames, and the sump construction was weakened by the use of thinner plate than was specified (the latter assertion came from Bulleid's son in his book). It could be that the wheel treads picked up oil from misting rather than by a direct leak. Ning-ning (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SR Merchant Navy 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/20140304150750/http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/3/37/Er19600610.pdf to http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/3/37/Er19600610.pdf

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) 13:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Splitting this article

I want to voice an opinion that this article covers two classes; Unrebuilt MNs and Rebuilt MNs, and as such they should be split into two separate articles. Sensible comments welcome. Tony May (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Confused? You will be

< this was quickly modified to a 2-8-2 equipped with a Helmholtz "Bissel bogie" – a system already successfully applied on the Continent.[12] The proposed "Mikado" locomotive was heavily based on Nigel Gresley's P2 locomotives and was planned to have a Hemholtz pony truck >

. . . but a "Bissel bogie" and a Helmholtz pony truck are not the same thing - or if they are then the linking to other articles needs work, since it does point to two quite distinct arrangements

(Plan B is to delete details altogether: "The CE refused a 2-8-2 - too heavy.")

86.129.146.77 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's sourced to H.A.V. Bulleid's 1977 work Bulleid of the Southern, so somebody should check that. Unfortunately, it's a book which I don't have. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Have accessed source and corrected the error.

Light Pacific (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)