User talk:PST195J
|
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Robinson
I've put back the redlinks for 11B/11C/11D to how they were: this is because GCR Class 11B has 119 incoming links, whereas (discounting John G. Robinson) GCR Classes 11B, 11C and 11D had none. There is nothing to stop an article titled "GCR Class 11B" from covering all three classes: later on, after the article is created, we can always move it. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough - I've decided to see how it goes writing separate articles on 11B, 11C and 11D and have completed a first go at 11B -- PST195J (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I would say that a single combined article is the way to go, until/unless you can amass a great amount of information which is distinct between the three classes. After all, their history is intertwined to a high degree: all 40 were built as 11B, and it was really only reboilering which produced the other two classes, and by the end of 1927, all had been rebuilt to 11D spec. See, for example, LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 where one article covers two classes, the difference between the two being primarily the boiler.
- The name "pom-pom" for the GCR 9J 0-6-0 refers to their exhaust sound resembling a QF 1 pounder pom-pom; apparently these engines had a sharper exhaust "bark" compared to earlier classes such as the Pollitt 9H. I've not come across the nickname "Pom-Pom Bogies" in relation to 11B/11C/11D before, but you've refd it, so that's OK.
- I've removed your signature from Talk:GCR Class 11B. You only need to sign talk pages when adding comments; talk page header templates, such as banners, always go unsigned. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK will run with that idea for now. The GCR Class 11C article would have to have been pretty thin based on my sources to date... PST195J (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, according to the RCTS book (part 3B), there were only three of those (and only two at once):
- 104 was built as 11B in March 1904, rebuilt to 11C (ie with saturated 5'0" diam boiler in place of 4'9") in March 1907; and finally rebuilt to 11D (5'0" superheated boiler) in June 1923.
- 110 built 11B May 1904, rebuilt 11C May 1907, reverted to 11B August 1918, rebuilt to 11D September 1923.
- 113 built 11B June 1904, rebuilt 11C October 1918 (boiler ex-no. 110), rebuilt 11D May 1923
- So, class 11C was in existence for slightly over 19 years, but with only three engines (all of which were 11B and 11D at various times), there's little scope for anything more than a section within the main 11B article.
- Besides those three, we also have two others recorded as carrying a 5'0" saturated boiler at some point, but which seem to have officially remained as class 11B until rebuilt to 11D spec:
- 1026 was built as 11B in March 1902, rebuilt with 5'0" saturated boiler in December 1909, rebuilt to 11D in October 1914.
- 105 built 11B March 1904, rebuilt with 5'0" saturated boiler (ex-no. 1026) August 1914, reverted to 4'9" boiler January 1916, rebuilt to 11D November 1923.
- This boiler had a firebox 7'0" long (as per the 11B & 11D boilers), whereas the two 11C boilers had fireboxes 8'6" long. This probably explains why 1026/105 remained as class 11B, instead of being reclassified 11C. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I hadn't picked up on 113 ever being 11C, especially since by 1918 their shortcomings were well known. My guess would be that this was an 'emergency' reboilering because of the date - late in the Great War by which skilled manpower must have been desperately short - and the suggestion by Martin Smith (1993) that the 11C 8'6" firebox was not well arranged. Probably the boiler was sitting around Gorton since August, and patching it up and fitting it to get a working loco out of 113 made the best sense at the time, even if it wasn't a completely satisfactory boiler. Surprising that 105 got the boiler from 1026 since according to Smith 1026 also had piston valves when it got the bigger boiler - did 105 get both boiler and valves, I wonder? That also makes 1026 practically only a superheater short of being an 11D... Robinson was criticised later - by O.S.Nock at least, I think - for not giving his larger locomotives sufficiently large fireboxes so one wonders whether the unsatisfactory experience with the extended 11C firebox was actually formative in Robinson's later design thinking... But this idle musing is "out of bounds" for any article, unless I can find a prior published idle muse-er! PST195J (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, according to the RCTS book (part 3B), there were only three of those (and only two at once):
- OK will run with that idea for now. The GCR Class 11C article would have to have been pretty thin based on my sources to date... PST195J (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)