Talk:L&YR Class 3

This article is now covering two subjects and should be split
The recent merge was unnecessary and counterproductive. Let's discus and reach consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

'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 believe this is further weight not to split. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose (split): Well as I done the merge I'll say this.  Subject LY&R 7' 3" four coupled eight wheeled locomotive.Per most classes rebuilt maybe every 20 years or so often with revised boilers and various changes from time to time so their tends to be a spectrum of variants at any time.  The Hughes 1919/1290 L&YR classification is strictly good from its introduction in 1919/20 until 1922/23 so its not a massive guidance factor.  The L&YR 4 article had a single source before merge and was a subclass of 6 about which not a lot different can be written.  Combined we have improved chance of one start/C class article rather than two stub/start class.  There's actually an argument all the LY&R 4-4-0's are actually the same development line and some might argue that gives better potential for a B Class article but that might be a merge too far ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case I think you at the very least need to consider renaming the article to make the article name consistent with the subject. I do warn you though that it's usually much better to split than to lump, and that duplicating information is OK. Tony May (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a particularly bad record of the naming especially after the incident that I regret.  Some juicy locomotive page names are currently of more concern to me anyway.  Ask a UK Railway project perhaps? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:21, 21 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)
 * Thanks. This brings up some real questions about our current L&YR 4-4-0 articles and naming in totality... but this is the wrong section for this as its about the merged state of this article. I'll continue on Talk:L&YR Class 2 (Aspinall) hopefully in an hour or two or three.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I note Lane, Barry C. (2010). Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Locomotives. Pendragon. ISBN 9781899816170 treats Hughes Classes 3 and 4 in the same section: ''