Talk:GWR Iron Duke class

Charles Russell disambiguation

"Lord of the Isles (When built, temporarily named Charles Russell)" Which Charles Russell are you referring to? Maybe Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen? WouterVH 22:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Photograph

You ask for confirmation that the photo is really of an Iron Duke. It looks the same as a drawing I have (made from the original engineering drawings) except the ones in the photos have cabs (of sorts) and round smoke box doors. Cabs were fitted later, and smoke box doors maybe. But the later Rover class by Joseph Armstrong looked almost identical. Chevin 19:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

aah. I'll have to find someone to email then. Still if you can't tell the difference, then no-one'll know ;) Dunc|☺ 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Name Definitions

While I appreciate the need to provide a definition for some of the more obscure names in the class, I can't help feeling that whoever compiled this list, in spite of their good intentions, has gone slightly overboard. Is it really neccessary to explain just what a "Wizard", "Dragon", "Sultan", "Tornado" or a "Swallow" is in this article? It seems a bit superfluous and, in one or two cases, silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.21.176 (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this. This isn't explained on the article for the F16 Falcon, the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Enterprise, or F22 Raptor. Why explain here?Thirtysilver (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this where ordinary names are used. However, it is important to note the connection with historical events, locations, or people, battles, and ships. So, many of the locomotives have names significant in the Napoleonic Wars, so that needs to be recorded in some way: Nelson, Wellesley, Achilles, Ajax, Bellerephon, Balaclava, etc. It does not hurt to note the connection, which is more appropriate than knowing these were mythical characters or whatever. Similarly, several of the places/buildings used as names are significant sites within the GWR Region, and it is worth noting this. The reference to the 'meaning' of names is redundant, and probably inaccurate, as many of these were named because those names were used previously for something else, and that is why they were significant for as a name for a locomotive. I don't know about US naval ships, but H.M.S. tend to give details of the current ship, the most famous ship to hold that name, as well as those before/between that used the name. - MishMich - Talk - 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duku

On our page on Thomas Blake Glover it mentions he was responsible in 1865 for bringing the first steam railway locomotive called "Iron Duke" to Japan which he demonstrated on a short track at Oura in Nagasaki. There was a picture of this "Iron Duku" (sic) on a TV program and it looks like one of these. Does anyone know anything about this engine - Japan's first steam engine?

And here:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YNI0_HyaWXIJ:www.bxscience.edu/ourpages/auto/2008/12/1/44529561/japan%2520and%2520industrialization.pdf+"Iron+duku"+Nagasaki&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

"A lo-comotive named the ‘Iron Duku’ was imported to pro-vide the power. This name was presumably aJapanicised form of the ‘Iron Duke’ of the Great West-ern Railway in England, of which it seems to havebeena replica" (Msrasnw (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Daniel Gooch's Iron Duke was a 84 gauge locomotive, whereas Iron Duku was a 42 one – just half the width. The surviving illustration suggests that it was of similar proportions to Gooch's locomotives, but is there a record anywhere of its other dimensions? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Table vs list of loco names

I have left a note on Geof's talk page. Perhaps you could review that and discuss here before reverting back to a list, as I have put considerable work into improving the way the article appears by converting the list into a table. Mish (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the listings of GWR locomotives, the following all appear to have lists of locomotives ordered by name:

List:

Gooch: GWR Banking Class, GWR Bogie Class, GWR Caesar Class, GWR Firefly Class, GWR Hercules Class, GWR Leo Class, GWR Metropolitan Class, GWR Premier Class, GWR Prince Class, GWR Pyracmon Class, GWR Star Class, GWR Sun Class, GWR Victoria Class, GWR Waverley Class

Armstrong: GWR Hawthorn Class, GWR Sir Watkin Class, GWR 388 class, GWR Swindon Class, GWR 1076 Class

Dean: GWR 3501 class, GWR 3521 Class

The following have locomotives in tabular form, by number:

Table

Armstrong: GWR 517 Class

Dean: GWR 3031 Class, GWR 3252 Class, GWR 3300 Class, GWR 4100 Class

Churchward: GWR 1361 Class, GWR 2900 Class, GWR 3700 Class, GWR 3800 Class

Collett: GWR 3200 Class, GWR 4073 Class, List of GWR 4900 Class locomotives, GWR 6000 Class, List of GWR 7800 Class locomotives,

Hawksworth: GWR 1000 Class, List of GWR 6959 Class locomotives,

By wheel arrangement: GWR 0-4-0ST, GWR 0-6-0PT

This is not exhaustive, but represents articles that have substantive lists/tables, although some other articles have lists/tables that cover only preserved locomotives (some using lists, some tables). The most common factor in whether a class of GWR locomotive has a list or a table is whether the class is of broad gauge (having only a name and no number) or standard gauge (having a number and possibly a name). However, there is at least one class of standard gauge where there are no details apart from the numbers, and those are dealt with as a list in two columns.

Looking at a few other railway company locomotives, where there are such details, they are in tables - such as the LNER Class A4, LNER Peppercorn Class A1, LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, LMS Princess Royal Class, then a table is used (Southern doesn't appear to have lists by class, only a list of all classes). Is there some reason I've missed why GWR broad gauge locomotives should be treated differently? Is the something in a project-specific style guide that elaborates on this? Style should be consistent in an encyclopedia, not arbitrary. Mish (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In the case of locomotives identified by name and not number (which includes GWR broad gauge, but also several other early railways such as Liverpool & Manchester), an alphabetical list will rarely be also a chronological list, so I would say table with the proviso that it be sortable by at least two criteria, these being loco name and date of entry to service.

Southern does have lists by class (not necessarily for every class), see for example List of SECR K and SR K1 class locomotives. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now made the table sortable.Mish (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, you obviously feel very passionatly that a table is best, however I still contend that a list works at least as well.

• Consistency with the other, contemporary, broad gauge locomotive articles is more important than consistency with more modern locomotives such as Castles and Kings.
• The width of a table is forced by the used of images alongside, whereas with a list they will be wrapped into it and make better use of the space on the page.
• Too many columns or long bits of text are difficult to fit into tables as they create short lines of wrapped text, and often lots of whitespace too. See GWR 6000 Class, for example.
• Wiki style guidelines state that, when there is no clear advantage to a table, a list is preferable: 'Often a list is best left as a list.'

Locos without numbers are best listed, in my mind, in alphabetical order. While resorting them does indeed bring together similar groups of names, A to Z makes more sense to me (remeber the Ian Allan ABC guides?). Making the table searchable has helped. There has been some more recent discussion on broad gauge locomotive naming policy in the specialist press which I will capture at some point for Wikipedia.

Another improvement would be to put the introduction and withdrawal dates next to each other again. Mind you, I would still prefer to see it back as a list. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done this.

If you compare the versions, the table takes up less space than what was a prosaic list. I'd tend to agree that the list would work best if it were just a list of loco names and two dates, but with some having details about the loco, and most having details about the name, it was long and hard to navigate and comprehend. I understand the concern about white space, and yet the tables are actually more compact, as many entries take up one line where before they took up two or three, and even those that take up more than one line take up less space than before.

My attention to this page was drawn when trying to make sense of the 3031 page, where almost every loco name was wikilinked to an inappropriate article - either a page dealing with a word, or the postulated article the name might have been associated with, or a disambiguation page. A link to a loco name would suggest a link to that particular loco, not a possible source for the name. That was already laid out as a rudimentary list. In looking into this further, it would have been WP:OR to speculate what the name was based on, so I reworked the list in a way that indicated when the name had been used before (such as on this class), or the contemporary holder of a title at the time (such as the numerous members of the Royal Family whose titles were used). It seemed appropriate to ensure some consistency of format between the articles, in case the reader was to want to trace back the naming to ascertain the origination. This was what I was trying to do, and found the inconsistencies in approach unhelpful. I should, however, have consulted other editors first - I now appreciate that - but do often edit in a WP:BOLD manner. I apologise for that.

I had hoped to work through the other broad-gauge articles in a similar way, because it is clear that locos in the other classes also possess names that were re-used by standard-gauge locmotives. But, I am in no hurry, and feel it better to hold back until I am sure that people are happy for this to happen. With hindisght, perhaps what might be more useful would be to relocate the list(s) of names to a new article called 'List names of GWR locomotives', and develop the list in a way that gives the detail of the name, the meaning and/or origin, the classes & numbers of locomotives given the name, and the relevant dates. This would then essentially capture all this information in place, thus avoiding unncessary repetion and cross-referencing, and allow for briefer lists just giving dates and significant information about the locomotive history?

I would be more than happy to work on that, so that the list could be restored, and if it would ensure that this and the existing lists could be kept as brief as possible. I have found it very interesting in terms of industrial social history to see how significant classical mythology, the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars, and the persons of the Royal Family were to the people who named these locomotives - and feel that this in itself deserves an article in its own right, if that can be done without relying on WP:OR. Again, that is something I would be more than happy to assist with of possible.

If you are happy for me to do so, I could take the table, and work on that in a sandbox, to see how it works out, then once it is in place in its own space, the list could be restored and simplified without all the naming detail? Mish (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bukeley

Er, that can't be right; it's Bulkeley isn't it?

86.9.95.119 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done True, have fixed it, thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Iron Duke replica "will"

At present the text says: "In January 2010, the replica arrived at the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway where it will form part of a static display of Great Western Railway locomotives celebrating the 175th anniversary of the GWR."

Is that still true? Do we know when? Something written three years ago ought really to have some date definition, please. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It was moved to Didcot a couple of years ago but was put in store pending the availability of a crane to move it into the Railway Centre there. The NRM list has recently been updated to show that it is on loan to Didcot, but I haven't yet heard for certain that it has finally arrived yet. It's always "soon...". Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In case anybody is wondering - the Didcot Railway Centre (DRC) site has no road access. Standard gauge locos that arrive by road get unloaded in the western car park, placed on a siding in the angle between the main line and the Chester line (at SU521908, and are then shunted to the eastern end of the station and back into the DRC. The same movement is made by the wagons making coal deliveries. Such a move is obviously impossible for a broad-gauge vehicle. The problem is how to get a crane to a position where it can reach both a road and the braod-gauge tracks at Didcot, the latter being at the northern end of the site, in the angle between the Chester line and the East Curve (at SU523912). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)