Talk:British Rail Class 22

.
This was partly because of prejudices against hydraulic transmission high up in BR's engineering wings which deemed all the Western Region's diesel-hydraulic locomotives non-standard. Ex-Eastern Region Class 31 diesel-electrics were drafted in as replacements.

I'm not sure this sentence is justifiable. While it's true that the anti-hydraulic sentiments at BR saw the Hymeks, Warships and Westerns withdrawn long before they should have been, the 22 was not a successful locomotive design and would have been withdrawn anyway. Note that NBL's Diesel-Electric Class 21/29 was withdrawn at the same time. FiggyBee 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just been re-reading Vol 2 of Cox's `Locomotive Panorama'. You need to treat his views with care, as an LMS man and a steam man, but he's fairly scathing of the flimsy justification of the Diesel Hydraulic programme, notably the statement that 40% of the problems with D-H locomotives were in fact electrical. This goes against the argument that WR didn't have electrical staff available because of the lack of electrified lines. He essentially argues it came down to the former GWR staff wanting to preserve difference (see also low superheat). --Ibatten 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement about BR's 'prejudice' against hydraulics is so often repeated and so difficult to prove one way or another that I wouldn't try to fight the tide of history.
 * Nevertheless - a 'contentious' comment such as the quote above should be properly referenced, preferably from multiple sources.FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation
I have deleted "Like most North British products, they were poor..." because I think it is too sweeping a generalisation. 82.21.65.109 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again same problem as above - so often repeated, so difficult to prove one way or another..FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
The article states "D6300 was introduced to traffic in 1958" yet the build date says 1959 to 1962.

Only one can be right, which is it! FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I should just edit it to say mid 80s % for availablilty to make it simple? what do you think?. Heres the referance anyway. Raliway World annual 1980 page 114 to 119 written by Chris Leigh. Cheers Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbozed (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I make it ~86% (58 locos, only really 57 in service, availabilty = 85 gives true availability of 85*58/57 )

So i've put "over 85%" with a note.FengRail (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames
Were these called 'Ronsons' by staff? I remember that one V-engined type had a problem with vibration-fractures, or it shook a union loose, on the fuel-lines, & dripped diesel between the V, which flashed over on a regular basis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archolman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2012‎


 * Was the nickname `Baby Warships' actually used by railwaymen when the locos were in service? If it is just an enthusiast nickname, or even worse, one concocted after the class's withdrawal, it would be best to omit it from the article as being inauthentic and mere trivia. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed section

 * The class is now extinct, but an attempt was made to preserve D6319. A purchase price was agreed with BR but for some unknown reason, it was cut up by staff at Swindon Works. BR became embarrassed and offered the purchaser a Warship class locomotive at the same price and D821 Greyhound thus became the first preserved ex-BR mainline diesel locomotive.

This is a too "a little bird told me" as is, for an encyclopedia.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 2 which refers to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_22&dir=prev&offset=20111231014655&limit=11&action=history these edits]. I keep meaning to go through my old mags. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Engine types - suffix confusion

 * D6300-D6305 1000bhp 1445rpm MAN L12V18/21A
 * D6306-D6357 1100bhp 1530rpm MAN L12V18/21BS (or just MAN L12V18/21B )

In http://www.derbysulzers.com/year1957.html it states a S suffix means "supercharged" -it also refers to a "M" engine.

Most engine technical literature the corresponding MAN engine is sometimes called L12V18/2lmA - according to Diesel Railway Traction vol.15 (1961) p.173 it says that "mA" means "mit Aufladung" meaning with pressure charging.. (ie supercharging) .. if so what does the "B" in the D6306-D6357 versions refer to?? Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * According to
 * the engine types were L12V18/21A in D600-4 and D6300-6; and L12V18/21B in D6306-57 and D833-65. The codes are explained as
 * the engine types were L12V18/21A in D600-4 and D6300-6; and L12V18/21B in D6306-57 and D833-65. The codes are explained as

"The first supplied to the WR for locomotives D600–4 and D6300–5 were the older L12V18/21A model; the remainder, beginning in 1959, were the revised L12V18/21B. The code L12V18/21S was used sometimes by NBL, the S for supercharged taking the place of the German A for Aufladung."
 * On pp. 24-25 of the same book we find that the letters BS preceding a power rating in BHP indicates that British Standard brake horsepower are meant, rather than metric brake horsepower. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you - in the BR document the B.S. is not associated with a rating - I haven't seen the equivalent page for the the D6300-6 series yet.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

New build project
Several attempts have been made to include some material on the new build project but these have been deemed unsuitable. Lately the standard has not been good enough, but do we really think this project should have no mention whatever? Globbet (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable third-party WP:SOURCES? -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to find a magazine article about the project, but it is not likely to feature in anything I regularly read. Meanwhile, | here is a piece in another group's newsletter. And here is a reference to a stand at an | Eping & Ongar railway event. Neither of these references is all that independent, but the existence of the project group is hardly a matter that is likely to be subject to challenge, and as it appears to be the first attempt at a diesel loco 'new-build', it is notable enough for me. Globbet (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are people within the preserved diesel movement who just see the 22 rebuild project as something pie in the sky and unrealistic and thus this page continually has such mentions removed out of spite/childishness. It's clear to see all the information regarding the group/project on there website - http://www.class22newbuild.co.uk - surely that's enough of a source? It was also in RAIL magazine earlier in the year but I don't have a copy5.133.19.66 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need WP:THIRDPARTY sources. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I know it's a primary source but there's no need to be bureaucratic about it. Are you doubting that Project 22 actually exists? There are now a lot of new build projects around and some of them actually come to fruition, e.g. LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And many of them don't - they're just ways for the gullible to throw money away. Tornado runs special trains across the network, it has been mentioned numerous times in both the specialist and popular press. It clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the nanny Wikipedia. The proles can't be trusted to spend their money wisely. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)