Talk:GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange

Infobox
The infobox is a bit confused for this loco. The top section correctly (I presume) identifies a single loco, but the lower box showing the career is somewhat erroneous: the information is correct for the original class members, but doesn't apply to Betton Grange itself, surely?

Thoughts? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about a single locomotive (albeit one not yet completed). The infobox should contain only information specific to that one loco. To my mind, the article section headed "History" should also be trimmed down; it begins with a after all, which should stay. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I had visions of Wikipedia editors acting like GWR civil engineers, and insisting that the Llangollen Railway weigh and measure their engine instead of pretending that it's going to come out just like the drawings! After all, the major part of it is made out of "new metal" (titanium? neocollettium?). Ning-ning (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, have simplified the Infobox. I take Ning-ning's point, but do we need to make a footnote that the weights and measures refer to the original class members? The pedants would argue that the new one will be similar, but not identical. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not identical in that it will have a boiler from a Modified Hall, which were fitted with larger superheaters, though it's not clear from the project's website whether this will be retained. Ning-ning (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed; same shell (Standard No. 1), but the normal Grange boiler was pretty much a stock item with two-row superheater (84 elements in 14 flues, with 176 small tubes) as used with the Halls, etc. The Modified Halls used a three-row superheater (84 elements in 21 flues, with 145 small tubes). From the outside they were similar, you had to look inside the smokebox or firebox to spot the extra seven flues. Altering the tube/flue arrangement would mean the additional expense of two new tubeplates and a superheater header, so I imagine they'll leave it alone. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The 6880 website here claims that the steam circuit was superior to that of the Halls because the steam chest and ports were enlarged. Do Bradley or Gibson have anything on this? It gives a raison d'être for the project, other than building yet another GWR 4-6-0. Ning-ning (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * refers to John H. Trounson's article in Steam Railway (March 1981), and describes how the Grange and Hall cylinder castings differed in that those of the Granges had the centre lines for the pistons and the valves $2 1/2$ in further apart. The piston rods were then on the same centre line as the axles, instead of being $2 1/2$ in above; but since the valves were at the same vertical height from the axles, the same valve gear design could be used. Gibson then states that these new cylinders "... would involve considerably greater steamchest volume, making for a speedy engine. The ports would also be longer, increasing the clearance volume and lessening the compression, an aid to smooth running." Later on (p.146) we find that the Manor cylinder castings were the same as the Grange castings, but bored to 18 in diameter instead of $18 1/2$ in. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * confirms Gibson, but also states that the steamchests were separate from the cylinders. The new design for the cyls (as described in Gibson) is also mentioned in but curiously, the drawing there shows a difference in height between axle and piston rod. By contrast, the drawing in  shows no difference in height. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * confirms Gibson, but also states that the steamchests were separate from the cylinders. The new design for the cyls (as described in Gibson) is also mentioned in but curiously, the drawing there shows a difference in height between axle and piston rod. By contrast, the drawing in  shows no difference in height. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * confirms Gibson, but also states that the steamchests were separate from the cylinders. The new design for the cyls (as described in Gibson) is also mentioned in but curiously, the drawing there shows a difference in height between axle and piston rod. By contrast, the drawing in  shows no difference in height. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(od)Thanks! Just found the reference in Holcroft (page 84) to the original Churchward decision to raise the centre line by $2 1/2$ in, because otherwise the cylinders would foul the loading guage when the tyres and axlebox crowns were worn. The alternative, apparently, was to incline the cylinders, which Churchward would not tolerate. This was for the 2-8-0 loco No. 97 with 4 $7 1/2$ in wheels- the offset was carried over into the design for the 4-6-0 No. 100. I presume that the offset was unnecessary for locos with larger driving wheels. Ning-ning (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Churchward had a thing about standardisation - not necessarily that there should be as few locomotive classes as possible (see Edward Thompson) but that the loco classes should share as many components as possible. Thus, his designs used four diameters for driving wheels (all of which had already been used on Dean designs), and (prototypes excepted) just three types of outside cylinder casting. If we ignore two of these cylinder types (those of 26" stroke used on the 4-cyl "Stars" also the small 24" stroke cyls as used with the 44xx, 45xx and 46xx classes), and consider only the classes with the larger cylinders (30" stroke), they break down as follows:
 * 4'7½" 2-8-0 (2800 class); 2-8-0T (4200 class)
 * 5'8" 2-6-2T (5100 & 3150 classes); 2-6-0 (4300 class); 2-8-0 (4700 class)
 * 6'8½" 4-4-0 (3800 class); 4-4-2T (2221 class); 4-6-0 (2900 class)
 * So, the 2800 (and 4200), being the ones with the smallest wheels, imposed their restrictions upon those with larger wheels. To have the piston rods of 5'8" and 6'8½" locos on the same line as the axles, either the valve gear would need to be recalculated (with the possible result that no components were shared), or the cylinder/valve separation would need to be increased so that the valve could remain in the original place, allowing use of unchanged valve gear. Either way, there would be differing components. Collett was not as obsessive about standardisation: his use of 5'3" wheels on the 3100 class (of 1938); 5'6" wheels on the 8100 class; 6'0" wheels on the Halls; and 6'6" on the Kings, none of which were sizes used before or since by the GWR, demonstrates that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete refs
I note that refs 1-10, 12, 13 are by themselves incomplete: they are built using, but the full citations are not given later on (see WP:CITESHORT). Am I right in thinking that the full citations should be as follows? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done (but you might need to tinker with it). Ning-ning (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

History section
Following on from the comment in above, I compared the "History" section with the main GWR 6800 Class article. They are of similar size, but are not identical.

I do not think it necessary to include any history section here, since it should be adequate to link to the parent article from the "Background" section -- we are considering a locomotive that does not yet exist, so it cannot really have a history yet! -- however, I don't think the section can be simply deleted, since the two sections are different. There are some references here to Betton Grange, which should be incorporated elsewhere in this article. Some of the other information may be missing from the parent article (I have only taken a cursory look so far) and needs copying there. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. Duplicate content in two places means that updates/fixes have to be duplicated too. Let's just have one copy, and if anyone wants to know the history of the class, they can click on the link. Noel (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Target completion date?
The lead currently says "the locomotive is expected to be operational by 2013". Should this be changed? 109.148.70.228 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange. 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/20110902084100/http://www.steel-steam-and-stars.co.uk:80/ to http://steel-steam-and-stars.co.uk/

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 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange. 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/20110810161043/http://www.gwsr.com/news/features/steam-locomotive-features/the-grange-class.aspx to http://www.gwsr.com/news/features/steam-locomotive-features/the-grange-class.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.6880.co.uk/News/news.php?id=7509459934625698862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Project milestones
has my removal of certain insignificant events (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING), most of which are unsourced. Does anybody think that these should be kept in? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)