Talk:GWR locomotive numbering and classification

Summary of post-1902 class numbering
I think it is complete as far as new GWR classes is concerned. I have also added the 3000 class ex-RODs. I was hoping to add the pre-Churchward classes that survived into the twentieth century, but I don't have enough info on them to be accurate. Items that are missing/incomplete:
 * Badmintons - when were they first numbered in the 3300 range?
 * Badmintons - when did they finish being numbered in the 4100 range?
 * Bulldogs - when did they start/finish being numbered in the 3300 range?
 * Atbaras - when were they first numbered in the 3400 range?
 * The 4-4-0 classes (other than the Counties) need references.

I also considered using a simpler table with one row per NNxx range, but it looks as boring as watching Brunswick Green paint dry, and doesn't convey as much information (eg the relationship within classes that were numbered in ranges with the first digit incremented but not the second, like the Moguls 43/53/63/73/83/93xx).

--Verbarson (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we really need that table? It is huge, and seems excessively complicated - it even has what are apparently directions for use at the top, e.g. Each section has a title showing the range of one hundred locomotive numbers it covers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of everything. I won't comment on the accuracy, save to mention that you can't generalise numbers below 4200 into nice neat blocks of 100 all of the same class. This is particularly the case for numbers below 1400, which were mostly allocated on a first come, first served basis - 1000-1029 and 1101-1106 were rare exceptions. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Granted, the nature of wikitable markup means that it triples the source size of the article, but its impact on the readable article is much less. I feel that it actually fulfills the promise of the article title, to show how the GWR numbered its locomotive classes. Elsewhere the article goes into details about the renumbering of the 4-4-0 classes, and of the absorbed locos, but it never detailed the numbering of the standard classes that form most of the stock. (You can see an alternative version at User:Verbarson/sandbox/GWR numbering


 * I'll grant you that 'Mogul' is not an official class name, more a nickname, but it is informally used as the class name in the Haresnape book.


 * --Verbarson (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oil burning
OK, if it doesn't belong here, I'll create a page for it (and to catch the wikilinks that point here).--Verbarson (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not just put the lists in the appropriate class articles? But you must ensure that they are reliably sourced. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started Draft:GWR oil burning steam locomotives, as I think there is enough general info around oil-burning to justify an article. Of course, as soon as I try an get it written up, I start hitting inconsistencies. I've put a note on the talk page, if anyone is interested.--Verbarson (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GWR oil burning steam locomotives now in article space. -- Verbarson talkedits 18:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

GWR locos not renumbered by BR
GWR locomotives retained their GWR numbers under BR. (There may have been minor exceptions; the gas-turbine-electric locos 18000/18100 were never numbered by GWR). I was taught at my father's knee that this was due to the cost of replacing (or at least removing) all the cast brass and cast iron number plates, whereas other companies' engines could be renumbered with a paintbrush. However, I have never found a reliable source for this information. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? -- Verbarson talkedits 13:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My father told me the same thing. But consider: out of four companies, it was only necessary to renumber the locos of three of them, so there was a 25% chance that the GWR would be the one to avoid renumbering. Sometimes it's easy to build a coincidence into an unsubstantiated theory. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)