Talk:L&YR Class 2 (Aspinall)

LY&R 4-4-0 articles renaming
I have copied and extended a table and associated from a split discussion at Talk:L&YR Class 3 and wish to given acknowledgement to for excellent work ... Columns past "Rush" are mine:Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The LYR does not seem to have had a logical classification system for locomotives. The scheme introduced by Hughes in 1919/20 uses broad descriptions: for the 4-4-0 classes of Barton Wright and Aspinall, Hughes divided these into three groups - Class 2: 6ft 0in; Class 3: 7ft 3in; Class 4: 7ft 3in superheated. It also was not retrospective, since it does not cover those classes which had become extinct before 1919, so we cannot be certain if the 4-4-0s built in the 1880-85 period (none of which survived later than 1909) would have been included in Class 2 or not. Various authors of LYR loco history use different classifications as follows:"
 * The R.W. Rush classifications were entirely unofficial, being devised by him as a convenient reference system for his book, in the same way that he did for his book on the Furness Railway. Despite this, the Rush system was also used by some other authors, including H.C. Casserley.
 * Of those classified 3 and 4 by Hughes, all 40 were built saturated so all would have been placed in class 3 if the classification had existed at that time; since none were built with superheaters, class 4 consisted entirely of rebuilds. There were only a small number of these - one was superheated in 1908, four in 1909 and a final one in 1914. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My first concern is the article L&YR Class 2.  It covers last 36 from the Vulcan Foundry of the 110 usually assigned to Barton Wright as part of the 629 class.  Of the 36 the last 16 were ordered and delivered by Aspinall in 1887 and had different wheelbase.  Of those 16 only 2 made it to the 1919 classification and survived into 1930.  Thus I'd argue L&YR Class 2 is primarily the Aspinall 6.0 Beyer Peacock (Peacocks .. Looking at Pictures the styling and manufacturer name could contributed to the nickname).  I tried to extend that article to cover more of the Barton Wright but I just ran into more and more issues.  I then wrote L&YR Barton Wright 4-4-0 which flowed a lot easier. (I'm happy to change the name to any consensus I don't strongly object to.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In terms of article naming WP:COMMONNAME applies I think) L&YR I think people would probably go for a guideline such as (nothing should work either way): See also Locomotives of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and
 * If an article consists of 2 of more combined types the article should usually be named after the earliest with other types having printworthy redirects with categories
 * If there is a reasonable commmon name alias for a type that should be a printworthy redirect without categories
 * If there is a solid Hughes Classification for a type that should be used in the form: L&YR Class Hughes Class
 * Otherwise:
 * Option 1: LY&R Baxter number classnumber  ( I assume baxter number is class lead)
 * Option 2: L&YR CME or equiv. or builder Whyte tyke or description
 * Notes: Also need possibly need redirects for locomotives LYR electric units, LYR electric units and LNWR Newton Class

Specific WP:BOLD proposal for the L&YR 4-4-0s (Basic idea is L&YR Beyer Peacocks are going to L&YR Class 2 and previous L&YR Class 2 article to be retained as a redirect with history): There will be a little tidyup to do after this. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep L&YR Class 3 on current name
 * Keep L&YR Class 4 as redirect with categories
 * Either:
 * Keep as is and move  to  and change to a printworthy redirect with history but no categories
 * Move to  not leaving redirect and  to  as printworthy redirect with history but no categories
 * Move L&YR Class 2 (Aspinall) to L&YR Class 2 without leaving redirect.

Thanks for your contributions of expertise user:Djm-leighpark. I agree that these pre-grouping 4-4-0s can be extremely confusing. I would repeat (for want of sounding like a broken record) that (1) it's generally massively better to split than lump. Tony May (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I today have temporary access to: Lane, Barry C. (2010). Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Locomotives. Pendragon. ISBN 9781899816170. He uses various method to refer to locomotive classes. I interpret his divisions of the LY&R 4-4-0s as:
 * 1) Barton Wright 6ft 4-4-0s (inconsistenty does not use '639' class) :: Covered pages pp=40-46 (Stewarts pp=40/41; Neilson pp=42/43;  Kitson p=45; Vulcan p=46.  The last 16 ordered by Aspinall from VF had smaller 3' 0'' bogie wheels and quite a few other changes but treated effectively as the same on the same page as the earlier Vulcan batch
 * 2) '978' Class/Aspinall 6ft  4-4-0 Tender Engines/Hughes Class 2/Aspinall 6ft 4-4-0 "Peacocks" :: pp=50/54
 * 3) '1093' Class/Aspinall 7ft 3in Tender Engines/Hughes Class 3/Aspinall 7ft 3in 4-4-0 "Flyers" :: Covered in continuous section pp=76-81 with rebuilds described as ('1093' class rebuilds/Hughes Class 4)
 * I find Lane's designations somewhat in alignment with my proposals (correction: It is the 7' 3" flyers that have significant styling changes .. The Beyers look more like Barton Wright's at first glance) .Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Of a slightly related note relating to the common abbreviation to Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway" I have observed while our article titles and infoboxes tends to (mostly) use L&YR a straw poll of some pages in some literature I am reading including Bulleid, Marshall, Cox use LYR though Mason (1953) uses L&YR''.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)