Toolbox |
---|
SR Merchant Navy class is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 18, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can a rebuilt merchant navy class disguise as Jordon for Day Out with Thomas? Felix 18:15, 17 July 2006
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)
What is meant by "speed restrictions for inside motion"?-- John of Paris 13:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
{{
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.
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)
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)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.
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
< 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)
Have accessed source and corrected the error.