Talk:GWR 2900 Class

More detail required
Article gives the introduction dates for the prototypes, but omits the dates for the production examples. This would be useful.

EdJogg 12:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
The detail on prototypes is copied from a Great Western Society webpage. Ning-ning (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have the URL? We can then use it as a reference.
 * If the wording is identical, that constitutes a copyvio, and we'll have to tweak it about to avoid that. Otherwise I don't see what the problem is. To some extent the whole of WP is built on plagiarism, since WP:OR is not allowed...
 * EdJogg (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The URL is . I've reverted some changes I made, which obscured the similarities. The problem is that the original prose is pretty substandard; for example the bit about "Built to his ideas on standardisation of design Churchward created a large response for its completely modern look". Ning-ning (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The text was added by a user with a "history" of copyvios. Ning-ning (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess 'well-spotted' is in order, then! (And thanks for the reversion - it was clear to see after that.) Now and then I see text added which is suspicious, but that doesn't mean that I can always confirm my suspicions (for example, if it has been 'lifted' from a book).


 * "We" have two options here. If we leave the text 'as-is', then it remains a copy-vio and should be deleted, but then the article will have NO meaningful text, which seems a bit silly. I would suggest the better approach is to re-write what is here and quote this website as the reference. Perhaps re-reverting your changes is the first step.
 * EdJogg (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've re-reverted the text. I'll try later to 'hack' the text around a bit. Unfortunately at the moment I haven't got a written source for the Saints (but may be able to get access to one). Ning-ning (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to do the trick! EdJogg (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Speed claim
I've the following from the lead section:
 * According to the "Illustrated Book of Rail and Steam" by Colin Garratt and Max Wade-Matthews (pg. 70, Anness Publishing Ltd, 2010), a Saint class reached an unofficial speed record of 120mph while running light engine on a test trip after being overhauled at Swindon.

partly because it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article (see MOS:LEAD) - if included in the lead section, it is somewhat sensationalist; but mainly because at a time when very few locomotives had achieved even 100 mph, a claim of 120 mph is very much dubious. It is sourced: but is the "Illustrated Book of Rail and Steam" the most reliable of sources? The title isn't quite "Boys' Book of Steam Trains", but I'm still highly sceptical. There is no mention of this "record" in the RCTS "Locomotives of the Great Western Railway" part 7. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At least it's a plausible claim, unlike the several 100+mph claims that WP keeps popping up for in-service trains pre-dating City of Truro. Or the outlandish claims for A4s in the 1950s.
 * I find it strangest, not that a Saint could do this, but that it could do it without the GWR publicity office finding out. Provided that traffic was light enough to avoid signal checks, I'd expect a Saint running light on the good road around Swindon to be capable of reaching such a speed. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting article at Heritage Railway that lends some credence to the story and explains why it may have been hidden from the publicity department. But a very unofficial record... It also reports a quote from Collett from the Railway Magazine (April 1932) saying that it reached 120 mph on a [unverified] stop watch timing. Robevans123 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This item is just over eight column inches. 'The timing for some distance by the mileposts with a stop watch was given as 120 miles an hour, and the clocking between the signal-boxes of Little Somerford and Hullavington was booked as two minutes for the $4 1/2$ miles. Mr. Collett points out that ... the timing could not be regarded as accurate and that the 102.3 m.p.h. record of "City of Truro" in 1904, made under the personal observation of one of the most careful recorders of his time—the late Charles Rous-Marten—with the aid of a chronograph reading to one-fifth parts of a second, must remain the best duly authenticated railway speed record that this country has yet witnessed.' -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * bearing in mind the statement from a participant about accuracy would it not be appropriate to use wording like approximate or even very approximate about the recorded speed. The signal box timings, being to the nearest 30secs even if the clocks in the boxes were precisely synchronised are plus minus several tens of mph, whilst Collett's comments about chronograph versus stopwatch, and the very round number, suggest the stopwatch used had much lower resolution, likely only to whole seconds. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * bearing in mind the statement from a participant about accuracy would it not be appropriate to use wording like approximate or even very approximate about the recorded speed. The signal box timings, being to the nearest 30secs even if the clocks in the boxes were precisely synchronised are plus minus several tens of mph, whilst Collett's comments about chronograph versus stopwatch, and the very round number, suggest the stopwatch used had much lower resolution, likely only to whole seconds. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
I am not sure how to deal with the infobox as the different series have so many differing dimensions (loco weights, tractive effort, wheel wheel base, wheel arrangements etc. etc. Can anyone suggest what to do?Das48 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lady of Legend
If you think that Lady of Legend needs more prominence, or to be included in the main table, please discuss first. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not go into the main table, because it's a replica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)