Talk:British Rail Class 17

Additional reference material
I found these video clips when looking for information regarding the manufacturer's name!

The main clip usefully includes shots from many different angles, including overhead, plus some views inside the cab. Both clips give a good idea of what these machines sound like. Taken at the Severn Valley Railway Autumn Diesel Gala 1998. EdJogg 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Clayton Runs Round" (4'43")
 * "More Clayton Thrash" (2'09")

Engine displacement
See Talk:British Rail Class 16 for calculation. Biscuittin (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Engine type
The Paxman engines were six-cylinder horizontal (all six cylinders on the same side of the crankshaft) not flat-six (horizontally opposed). The Rolls-Royce engines were V8. Biscuittin (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Mis-read the reference (although looking now, it does clearly specify 'in-line'!) -- EdJogg (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
Ed - I think the summary is too long but I'm not going to start an edit war about it. Biscuittin (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I'm inclined to agree with you. It is too long, marginally, for the current article length. I tried to prune it but could not find much that was not 'essential'. (I'll have another go after I'm done with this.) But the article has scope for expansion, I'm sure, to match the lead length - the different bonnet on the Rolls Royce examples isn't mentioned, for example, and I'm sure the locos were frequently worked in pairs.


 * I work from the basic instruction of WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points..." In many articles you will find an 'Overview' section where someone has decided the lead is too long and split it up. Usually I try to revert this process in line with WP:LEAD (which I think mentions the need to avoid 'Overview' sections). Somewhere else on that page you will (probably) find a note about the lead section being used in isolation, in certain versions of WP (such as CD) where space prevents inclusion of the full article. There are thousands of articles that would make little sense if reduced to just their current lead sections.


 * In the Class 17's case, the current 2nd paragraph (about Type 1 and TOPS) can probably be relocated. The paragraph I restored gives the reason for their existence, their shape, operating issues, withdrawal and final disposition. The lead is supposed to cover every main section, and it has to work hard in a short article!


 * EdJogg (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's not a big issue for me. Biscuittin (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on British Rail Class 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160119131556/http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Pages%20Loco/Recognition%20loco/Illus_17.html to http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Pages%20Loco/Recognition%20loco/Illus_17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Road Switcher?
Should we call it a road switcher since it is designed for both mainline freight and yard switching duites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.152.192 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See the reply that I left at Talk:British Rail Class 14 and also WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of “off” when describing multiples of items in technical language
For the benefit of the IP user making edits to the page, it is common to use the spelling “off” instead of “of” when describing multiples of items in technical descriptions. For an example and explanation, see https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/magazine/04FOB-onlanguage-t.html Danners430 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)