Talk:GNR Stirling 4-2-2

Really the only single stirling left?

I'm not a train buff, but the Science Museum in London has what appears to be a different Single Stirling locomotive. See the picture on this page. There doesn't seem to be a number on it - 1868 is presumably the year of construction, matching the date in the article. If it's useful, I am the copyright owner of that photo, and it can be freely used. Mail me as jifl, followed by the at, followed by jifvik.org, if you want more official confirmation.

This is the LNWR 2-2-2 "Columbine". To see details go here [1], enter 1868 in the "Locomotive Number" box and click "Start searching". Biscuittin 10:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LNWR No. 1868 was formerly Grand Junction Railway No. 49. Here is another photo [2] Biscuittin 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Locomotive Classification

Is Class 7P really correct?? That would be the size of, say the SR "Battle of Britain" class, I think. Shouldn't it rather be Class 1P?

Regards,194.246.46.15 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GNR Classification

I strongly doubt the classifications G, G1 and G2. See this book:

• Groves, Norman (1987). Great Northern Locomotive History: Volume 2 1867-95 The Stirling Era. RCTS. ISBN 0 901115 62 2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In there we find that Class G1 were Stirling's 766 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1889-95, nos. 766-70, 821-30, 931-44 (Groves 1987, pp. 95, 96); Class G2 were Stirling's 120 class, the 5ft 6in 0-4-4T of 1872-81, total 46 (Groves 1987, pp. 73, 74). As for the Stirling 4-2-2s, the first 47 were Class A2 and the last six (1003-1008) were A1; locos rebuilt with Ivatt domed boiler were A3.(Groves 1987, p. 163) --Redrose64 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I have the source of this classification: Bird, George Frederick (1910). The Locomotives of the Great Northern Railway 1847–1910. London: Locomotive Publishing Company. Internet Archive scan.

In Table IV (Doncaster works list) on page 220, for number 1 (works number 50) he gives "Class: G", but in Table II (Stirling's locomotives) he uses the phases "First of Type" and "Reference to Doncaster List", with 8-ft Bogie Single of 1870 as No. 1 / G. But in Table III (Ivatt's locomotives), he uses the same headings, but the codes for locomotives built after the introduction of Ivatt's classification scheme in July 1900 do not match their official alpha-numeric class designation.

This leads me to believe that Bird's designations are a only cross-referencing shorthand, and extrapolating them to be Official Classification would constitute original research. — Iain Bell (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You mention Bird - and in this I must agree. See the RCTS work on LNER (not GNR) locos:

• Boddy, M.G.; Fry, E.V.; Hennigan, W.; Proud, P.; Yeadon, W.B. (1963). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 1: Preliminary Survey. Potters Bar: RCTS. p. 21. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"On the G.N.R. two systems had been in use. One was more correctly an order identification and was a very complicated series in which, for example, the 4-4-2T's were either T, X or X2. This is the classification used in G. F. Bird's Locomotives of the G.N.R., but it does not seem to have continued after Gresley succeeded Ivatt in October 1911." This is amended by part 11 of the same series:

• Fry, E.V.; Hennigan, W.; Yeadon, W.B. (1994). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 11: Supplementary Information. Lincoln: RCTS. p. 2. ISBN 0 901115 80 0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"There is no evidence so far discovered to support the statement that the G.N. locomotive classification used by G.F. Bird had been in use on the G.N.R." So, a cross-referencing shorthand is the most likely explanation, and so is akin to the locomotive "classifications" of letter-number form attributed to the Furness Railway (see, for example, first paragraph of Furness Railway K2) and Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway which were actually reference codes devised by R.W. Rush for his books. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that this has reappeared. I don't have Herring's book: is Herring merely reusing Bird's reference system, or is there an official basis? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Gravity or steam sanding?

I'd assumed gravity, given the date, but 4-2-2 suggests steam. Anyone know? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahrons, Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century, Volume 2 pp117-8 gives the invention of steam sanding as occurring at Derby in the 1880s. There is no reason why the Stirling may not have been retro-ftted, of course.(TJ (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC))

Groves (1987, p. 165) says that "gravity sanding was changed to steam sanding from 1886". This implies that the last twelve (nos. 775-8 in 1887, nos. 1001-8 in 1893-95) always had steam sanding. Certainly one of them did, since he states (p. 177): "No. 775 was built with cast-steel wheel centres and gravity sanding was abolished in favour of steam sanding gear." --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whereabouts of model

In this article, under Modelling, there's reference to an 1893 18"-gauge model whose whereabouts are currently unknown. I saw it yesterday at Preston Steam Rally (Kent, England). I have a photo to prove it (and would be happy to 'donate' it to Wikipedia for all to view). How can I best edit the article? Need I upload the photo? Not edited Wikipedia before (save for the odd stray punctuation error) so would appreciate advice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.45.31 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that photo does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia; it is "© All rights reserved". See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64; I have now removed that restriction so we can use it here. Also I've created myself a login. Now to be brave and have a go at editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelislington (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wrong Tender

This locomotive was originally preserved early in the 20th century and at the time was paired incorrectly with a smaller tender, older than the locomotive, and designed by Patrick Stirling's predecessor, Archibald Sturrock. Much later in the 1960s or 70s, a remaining tender of the correct type was found in a scrapline after miraculously surviving as a water bowser in a depot. The National Collection acquired it but it has been in storage ever since. Recently the museum have announced they are to restore the Stirling Tender. Although incorrect, some feel that the Sturrock tender suits the fine lines of the locomotive design better than the seemingly 'over large' Stirling tender, but the water and coal capacity of the latter was necessary for the long distance non-stop work carried out by the class. Perhaps in retrospect the selection of the Sturrock tender resulted in preservation of something that would otherwise not have survived at all.

http://railways.national-preservation.com/national-railway-museum/29324-tale-two-tenders.html

Mark Townend mark@townend.me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.166.183 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

26 passenger carriages

I thunk that some reference ought to be made that these would have been coaches of the loco's own time - possibly even four wheelers, no corridor connectors, turnbuckle underframes(?), etc etc. Comparing that load to twenty six bogie carriages of even Edwardian vintage is very misleading. (TJ (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GNR Stirling 4-2-2. 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/20070810181949/http://shewolf.notnet.co.uk:80/jaywick/history/rail.shtml to http://shewolf.notnet.co.uk/jaywick/history/rail.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas and Emily

The following keeps getting removed, "because it is plainly *wrong*". Why? It's plainly right, albeit primarily sourced.

== In fiction ==

This class is the basis of Emily, a character from Thomas & Friends.

References

Only in its most recent addition has it been sourced. This source is not what we recognise as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

But there is a difference between "unsourced", "primary sourced" and yet "plainly wrong", as you are claiming.

It is "plainly wrong" that Edward is a Furness Seagull, yet it's sourceable. It is plainly right that Emily is based on a Stirling single, there is no claim that she isn't except from you. Now maybe we can't add this, as there's a lack of RS souring to back it up, but it is a pejorative and false claim to say that it is "plainly wrong". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Andy Dingley on this one. Yes, it's a primary source. But that doesn't mean it can't be used pending a third-party source being found. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The first paragraph is frankly rather confusing. Are we talking about the Stirling Singles in general, No. 1 itself, or the specific No. 1 class (the first of the three successively enlarged classes)? I'd suggest a rewrite is needed to make this clearer, and that the "No. 1 / class" should be omitted here, or referred to separately as "The pioneer engine, No.1, has been preserved." Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)