Talk:SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes

Good Article Nomination

Good morning (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
anthony^[cfc] 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Preserved locomotives

Please note: Details of individual class members and preserved locomotives are located on their own page to keep the article tidy and uncluttered. Please refer to List of SR West Country Class locomotives link. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. --Bulleid Pacific 20:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebuilding Section

When passed for FA, the Rebuilding section was a level 3 heading, a subsection of Construction history. An editor has since promoted this to Level 2, which seems OK at first glance, but other users' views are sought.

Should Rebuilding be a stand-alone section or a sub-section? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 12 June 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) 12:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know on this one, I think (as you rightly point out) that its just as important to show what was kept the same, although merely writing a note saying what remains unchanged would necessitate the reader to scroll upwards to access this data, therefore running the risk of losing their place in the article (it happens to me a lot). Keeping it would therefore ease accessibility for the reader. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep it as is. The text should fully cover the differences, and the infobox neatly collates the parameters in one place. Having a second ('full-length') infobox emphasises that the rebuilt locomotives were substantially different -- a smaller infobox would not be as noticeable. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - limiting it to the parameters that have changed emphasises that is about a rebuild, it would impinge less on the text that has nothing to do with the rebuild, even a shortish infobox is pretty noticeable, and finally, a quick reading of the page could give the impression that there are two classes of locomotive (see question on classes below). Robevans123 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

one hundred and ten locomotives and a funeral

The most important journey undertaken by a member of the class occurred on 30 January 1965, when No.34051 Winston Churchill hauled the funeral train of its namesake from London's Waterloo station to his final resting place, close to Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire.

I do not think that was the most important journey of any of the members of the class. That is ridiculous. I mean they were wartime engines and certainly performed many more useful things than hauling a VIP cask. Do you think they will be remembered for that?? Just get rid of it, no? 194.246.46.15 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wartime engines? Hardly. 21C101 Exeter entered service in May 1945, so could possibly have been a wartime engine; the rest entered service between June 1945 (ie after the war in Europe had ended) and January 1951. Churchill was one of the most important statesmen that the UK has ever had; he was a commoner, yet was accorded a full state funeral. This was definitely a documented, notable event. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The funeral of Churchill continues to be the one major event associated with the class. Who remembers Charles de Gaulle's state visits to Britain, or Bulganin's for that matter? Simon Schama called the event the 'last roll call of the Empire', and 34051 played a highly prominent part in it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would change "important" to "high profile" for a more encyclopedic style 81.178.163.89 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference?

What's the difference between a West Country and Battle of Britian class? I'm asking because they are classified as different, but both forms look similar. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, apart from the shape of the nameplate (and of course the naming theme). Some books claim that the difference in the width of the cabs (the first seventy had cabs 8 ft 6 in wide, the last forty were 9 ft 0 in wide) was also the difference between the two "classes", but both blocks included both WC & BB locos. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Although identical in all respects other than their names, there was a difference in their intended area of use. The West Country class were originally intended for use on lines to Bournemouth and West of Salisbury, whereas the Battle of Britain class were intended for use on lines in Kent and Sussex. However in practice it never became a practical to restrict individual locomotives to one area.--Das48 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, the class distinction is reflected by the name carried by the locomotive, rather than any mechanical/aesthetic difference. However, the class distinction is carried by each locomotive (note the images within the 'Naming and numbering' section), and is carried beneath the actual name/crest. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Air-smoothed

The lead links "air smoothed" to streamlined, even though there is considerable text in the body that questions this statement. The term, both in this article and others in print, appears to refer to a styling note that appears on a limited set of locos in the UK, and was used nowhere else that I can see, nor was it generically used to refer to streamlined locos in general - the Mallard for instance. Unless anyone strongly disagrees, I will remove the linkage in the lead and leave it to the discussion area below.. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulleid always used the term "air-smoothed", not "streamlined". I gather there were two main reasons for this: (i) unlike the wedge-shaped front of the LNER "A4" or the domed front of the LMS "Coronation", the upright flat front end was hardly suitable for overcoming air resistance; (ii) gimmicks like streamlining would not have been good publicity at a time of national crisis. One stated reason for the air-smoothed casing was so that the loco could be cleaned using a carriage washer - these have about three revolving brushes like an automatic car wash. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the link is that it is easier to define what air-smoothed casing is by linking to what it's not. Also, whilst the flat front is not conducive to overcoming air resistance, the casing still gives some semblence of a streamlining from side-on profile, so it might be better to adapt the streamlining article to suit. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

SR

Should the title not be Southern Railway? Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 17:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

SR does indeed stand for Southern Railway, but it seems to be a convention in articles about UK railway locomotives to abbreviate the railway name. See Category:Southern Railway locomotives. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason for such convention is that the full name of the locomotive class/es would be far too long, and it wouldn't really add anything to the article.

--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Moylesy98

I'm not convinced the loss of a connecting rod is a minor incident, myself - it would have been before the world ended in 1968, but steam (and the railway in general) is a bit less relaxed about this sort of thing these days.

I would favour re-inserting it, cited to http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources/140616_R132014_Winchfield.pdf, but I could go either way.

However, the recent SPAD incident for Tangmere is surely notable. If no-one objects I'll introduce a para, cited to the RAIB notice of investigation. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The section you removed was the entire "Operation in Preservation" section, rather more than just one con rod. As spam cans seen to be ubiquitous on main line steam workings these days (I've had Tangmere past my window, and I'm in Wales!) there deserves to be some coverage of it.

The con rod incident was major, even back in the day. It could even be seen as meeting WP:AIRCRASH, as an accident that led to an ongoing change in operating procedures for the class and for the industry in general. In contrast, SPADs are not specific to the type and they do keep happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - Redrose64 removed the con rod. I removed the "Operation in Preservation" section - overly long, inappropriate tone, rather incoherent, and totally uncited. That's another question, though - I think it's worth documenting they're a mainstay of mainline running, and I'll bet a search through old Steam Railways will find a cite for that.

The recent Tangmere SPAD was not just J. Random SPAD. Enormous overshoot, apparent suppression of AWS, and if they'd been a few minutes earlier they'd have derailed and then been collected by an HST. I feel it is worth mentioning. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The bit that I removed was one item in a bulleted list. It was unsourced, and had been added fourteen minutes earlier. The section that Pinkbeast removed was also entirely unsourced, and again was recently added. As a result, the article was returned to the state in which it had been an hour or so earlier. The article is about the class in general; we have a separate article listing the locos, and two articles specific to individual locomotives (34051 Winston Churchill and 34073 249 Squadron). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I do feel the con rod incident and major SPAD warrant inclusion as short entries in that list, although of course I'm willing to hear otherwise. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree the SPAD [1] is major, but it belongs under AWS, SPAD or contemporary ML steam operations. Unlike the Milton derailment [2] and problems with GWR ATC on Standard classes (and sighting), I haven't seen a type-specific connection between the AWS disengagement and spam cans. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, of the other incidents mentioned, only the Lewisham crash is even arguably connected to type-specific features. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point. If an accident is directly attributable to the class of loco (perhaps it happened because of a fault in the design), it's OK to mention it with sources; but if it was an accident that would have happened regardless of the type of loco, it's simply coincidence. Describing every rail accident that happened to a train hauled by a WC/BB is not exactly WP:NPOV since it gives the impression that the locos were inherently dangerous, and could be considered to be WP:COATRACKing. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, recent changes to West Coast Railways, re their suspension after the SPAD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Given today's developments, the SPAD is now notable enough to be mentioned here. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I don't know what I think, so I'll leave it alone. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Route Availablity?

What's the route availability for these classes? I'm asking because for some odd reason, it isn't listed. Dinoboyaz (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably because none was allotted. The RA system was devised by the LNER, and after nationalisation used by the Eastern and North Eastern Regions, and extended to cover the whole of the Scottish Region. Only later on - and certainly after the end of steam - was the system extended to the whole of BR. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrebuilt vs Unmodified

Continued from User talk:Redrose64#Unmodified not Unrebuilt --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, on reflection, I'm inclined to agree that "unrebuilt" is a bit of a misnomer compared to "unmodified". On the other hand, my perception is (and a brief rummage through the books I have to hand confirms) that "rebuilt"/"unrebuilt" are the terms in general use. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this definition. I have studied official BR technical drawings which use the terms Modified/Unmodified. I know it does not meet criteria for for validation for Wikipedia, as it seems to constitute personal research; but I feel it is most important for the legacy of these locomotives that we try to record and use the official terminology from the age of steam. I agree and realise that unrebuilt is a term that has filtered its way into this subject, perhaps quite a lot but it does not alter the fact that it is not a valid word in the English language, with no record in the OED. If it is not stopped then it will be perpetuated for years to come, further distorting the legacy of this phase in locomotive engineering.

Various sources of railway literature record that whilst it is acceptable to use the terms "rebuilt" and "original" the Bulleid Pacifics were not redesigned from the ground up but were instead modified (retaining an approximate 85% of the original design according to Ron Jarvis). This theory based on the overall retention of the basic design fixing the boiler, wheel and cylinder sizes and stroke and these were never changed.

Thanks again for your consideration on this matter for the record.

TPEsprit (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Cite those "various sources" and then you'll be able to make some progress. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

After a quick look I have sourced a few references to begin with; Bulleid's Pacifics, by D.W. Winkworth, 1974, Third impression 1981 ISBN 0 04 625005 0. Page 38; "The first withdrawals of Merchant Navy engines (Nos.35002 and 35015) were made in February 1964 and a modified West Country locomotive-No. 34028-in the following May."

Page 39; "The last of steam-hauled trains ran on 9 July 1967 and there remained to be withdrawn that month twenty-eight Pacifics of which seven were Merchant Navy class, two were unmodified West Country/Battle of Britain engines". Page 43; "Because the modified light Pacifics were not permitted to operate to Ilfracombe a stud of the original small design would remain." Page 48; "In January 1960 unmodified No. 34069 entered works having run 305,808 miles".

Bulleid of the Southern, by H.A.V. Bulleid, 1977, Reprinted 1978, ISBN 0 7110 0689 X. Page 118; "Some quite senior officials were tarred with this brush and, perhaps unwittingly, repeated grossly exaggerated stories of defects and lack of reliability in the unmodified engines." (this quote may refer within context to the MN Class but the same obviously applies to the light Pacifics, as they received the same treatment). Page 204; ""Merchant Navy" and "West Country" Class Engines-Modifications." Page 205; "modified and unmodified locomotives".

Bulleid Last Giant of Steam, by Sean Day-Lewis, 1964, between Pages 176-177; "No. 34001 Exeter, built as the first of Bulleid's 'West Country' class, as modified by British Railways.-British Railways." (Caption for photograph of 34001 in modified condition.) Pages 187-188; "In 1955 the lengthy talks about the future of the Bulleid Pacifics at last came to a conclusion. Complete scrapping was rejected on the grounds that the cost of building new engines would be more than St Marylebone could bear and that many of the original features were much too good to lose. It was decided to modify a group of the 'Merchant Navys', principally by installing a conventional valve gear and removing the oil bath and exterior 'air-smoothed' casing. The design work was carried out at Brighton by Jarvis and his staff, under the nominal direction of H.H. Swift, the new Regional Chief Mechanical and Electrical Engineer; and in consultation with R.C. Bond, the British Railways Chief Mechanical Engineer. For reasons of accountancy, 'modification' was the official word for the changes and the cost was kept down to an average of £7,500 for each engine." Page 192; "No. 34098 Templecombe was modified" (I realise the last LP modified in 1961 was in fact 34104 Bere Alston)

This was the official terminology used to describe the locomotives, as 'modified' by BR. Obviously the opposite being 'unmodified'. I feel it is worth bearing in mind that this book was published at a time much closer historically as to when these events actually took place. Whilst it is understandable that subsequent books have used other terminology, my intention is respectfully to try to help make clear the true historic definition of the Bulleid Pacifics in both forms. This last example will help explain why such definitions were given. At a personal level I am very familiar with the mechanical differences of the locomotives and still feel that Modified/Unmodified are the most apt terms.

TPEsprit (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we might reasonably now use either term and personally I agree that "unrebuilt" is a bit of a misnomer. What do you think, Redrose64 ? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should advertise this more widely. I've informed WT:UKRAIL and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed in principle, but COMMONNAME should be our relevant guide, and that supports 'unrebuilt'. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

With respect, 'commonname' does not necessarily define whether or not something is right or wrong. I'm sorry it's off topic but a fine example is how many people say "haitch" when they mean letter H (Aitch). It is widespread in Britain for example but it is quite incorrect. The point being that the term unrebuilt is a corruption, or mistaken word for unmodified. Presumably as some individuals attempted to identify the opposite of a "rebuilt" locomotive. Again I can only apologise if I have been too quick to alter the article but I mistakenly thought it was okay to change it. I hadn't realised that there were any further comments here. In terms of these locomotives this is historically of the utmost importance, as it is for the well-being and knowledge of everybody who looks to learn about Bulleid Pacifics. We must not try to rewrite history but to record it correctly. I am offering this contribution in the spirit of goodwill, of helping the subject, of wishing to record history. It seems inconsistent to record certain historical events re: Bulleid Pacifics, such as the tendency for the originals (LP especially) to catch fire (this is documented) yet to miss a true terminology that was used, first time around, as it happened during the 1950s.

TPEsprit (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong about that. There is ultimately no "correct" in language but only usage (not that prescriptivists don't influence usage). If everyone calls the unmodified class "unrebuilt", unrebuilt they are.

I think, although I probably now favour "unmodified", it was definitely jumping the gun to change it when two more groups of interested editors have just been informed. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We may have to agree to differ then regarding common usage. Many folk say "different to" when they mean "different from". It is incorrect. The fact is, there is no valid word 'unrebuilt' and it is a genuine error that has been created at some point in the past; but it is never too late to restore something. 21C11/35011 will prove that! We must try to maintain objective. This is indeed another form of preserving our great steam heritage! Do please bear in mind what Sean Day-Lewis recorded in his splendid book "Bulleid Last Giant of Steam" [page 188]. If anybody can find a verifiable source for the other slightly less well remembered nickname "Flat Tops" that would also be very worthy of inclusion to the Wikipedia article on the Bulleid Light Pacifics. Presently I am not sure where one would locate such a source. Any ideas?

TPEsprit (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unrebuilt" is just as valid a word as any other. Literally every word you use - every word in the language - is one that someone somewhere just started using when no-one else did. I think it could be changed but the argument that it's "not a valid word" has no weight. If sources use it, it's a word, and we should not hesitate to use it on this page. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• The prefix "un" can mean "not", as in unaided. Personally, I have no problem with unrebuilt. That said, Steam Railway magazine differentiates between the two with "as-built" and "rebuilt". Perhaps we should do that where necessary. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I do think there is a lot to be said for the argument that since BR used "modified"/"unmodified" and other sources also do, that is the best choice. It is, after all, a correct description of the situation, if not the only possible one. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No-one else seems to have joined in. I'm not really sure we have a consensus here in favour of either option (or Mjroots' as-built/rebuilt). Pinkbeast (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got hold of

• Winkworth, Derek William (1982) [1974]. Bulleid's Pacifics. London: George Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-04-625005-0.

which I need to go through carefully - it's 264 pages, and a quick flick through shows the words "rebuilt" and "unmodified" in the same sentence; and another paragraph uses three terms "modified", "rebuilt" and "original condition". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting this article

I believe this article needs to be split into two covering rebuilt and unrebuilt engines. Let me know any comments. Tony May (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that would be too confusing. The article isn't all that long as is, at least in terms of readable text rather than Lines of Code. Much of the history is common to both. As it is, we just don't have much on the rebuilding at all – I think we'd be better with that expanded, but still in here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Andy Dingley.SovalValtos (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be confusing if they were split. Much of the content is common to both, and the rebuilt locos spent part of their life in unrebuilt state. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst there's nothing explicit at WP:FAR, I'm pretty sure that the article would be likely to lose its FA status if it were split, because the two portions might individually no longer satisfy WP:WIAFA. @WP:FAR coordinators: please confirm my suspicions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to FA status anyway (well, it probably is, but that's because GA/FA are always inadequate at judging content, rather than formatting). There's nothing like enough on the rebuilding to adequately cover that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose it has 30kb of prose. easily within size limits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - besides the above, I don't see how the article on the rebuilt engines could be written well without covering the same material as the article on the unrebuilt ones pertaining to the design and early history of the class, resulting in a large unnecessary duplication. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential FAR?

If folks feel it is well short of FA status, it is worth discussing and thinking about FAR. I have no familiarity with subject matter so discuss away....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

To change the current location of 34070 Manston from Swanage Railway to Tyseley Locomotive Works, please see Southern Locomotives newsupdates January, April and June that talk about the Loco's location http://www.southern-locomotives.co.uk/News/news.html I have also spent some time this year working on the locomotive at the named location Ethycraft (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ethycraft:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

I would like to add In popular culture 24.35.59.183 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Volteer1 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Add In Popular Culture 24.35.59.183 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

eddystone is operational

its august and eddystone is already operational, can someone fix it. 73.250.53.193 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In Fiction Appearances

Add a section that explains the appearance of SR West Country and Battle of Britain class in fiction, Most notably in the Thomas And Friends TV series, see [3] from Thomas The Tank Engine Wikia; Fandom ("Rebecca is based on a Southern Railway (SR) "West Country" and "Battle of Britain" class (also known as "Light Pacifics"), a class of 4-6-2 tender locomotives designed by Oliver Bulleid and built between 1945 and 1951.") and [4] ("Rebecca is a member of the Steam Team and helps Gordon pull the Express during busy periods, but otherwise performs mixed traffic duties on the Main Line."). Suggested wording with citations:

The character Rebecca from the Thomas And Friends television series is based on an unrebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain class.

Rb gumadlas (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Independent secondary sources are needed to show this is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:IPC. ==Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)