Talk:L&YR Class 5

Re-merge L&YR Class 6
The Class 6 was a re-boilered rebuild of the class 5, not a new design. Two thirds of them were rebuilt class 5s. Their overall story is better told with a single more readable article, as it was previously. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, most of the Aspinall/Hoy/Hughes locos for the LYR were a process of continuous development rather than a succession of distinct classes. Taking the 2-4-2Ts as an example, these were built almost continuously between 1889 and 1901, with more in 1905 and 1910-11, eventually totalling 330. They were built or modified with at least three different cylinder diameters, four types of valves, four types of boiler (every combination of round top or Belpaire; saturated or superheated), and two types of superheater. The only firm division that can be made in the 2-4-2Ts is that the 120 built from October 1898 had longer frames and larger bunkers, and the 210 earlier locos were not subsequently given this modification. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Amend that, none had a superheated round-top boiler - those were found on the Aspinall 0-6-0, but not the 2-4-2T. But the 2-4-2T did use two different types of superheater, so there were four types of boiler. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I prefer a separate article for each class. A single article with numerous sub-divisions becomes very long and complex. Biscuittin (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about half-a-dozen lines and an infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is bad practice to have more than one class per article. If the railway thought it was different enough to give it a separate class then we should accept that. How far will this go? Will we soon find all the GWR 2-6-2Ts in one article? Biscuittin (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list of L&YR classes, and the fact that it is the L&YR working timetable that is the primary source, suggests to me that the Hughes classification is for the benefit of those who actually use the engines - the operating department. These staff will consider the presence or absence of a superheater to be important in deciding whether a loco is suitable for a given task, and they don't worry about details such as the shape of the firebox or the length of the frames that don't affect the loco's capabilities. The maintenance staff on the other hand will be mainly concerned about such matters as whether a given spare part will fit the loco or not; where are the fastenings for the component (and what type they are); and what else has to be removed to get to the job. To them, it is very important to distinguish between a round-top boiler and a Belpaire, between slide valves and piston valves, or between the short and long frames (of the 2-4-2T) yet Hughes' classification makes no mention of any of these. Where more than one class covers the same wheel arrangement, we find the following:
 * Class 2 6 ft 0 in 4-4-0
 * Class 3 7 ft 3 in 4-4-0
 * Class 4 7 ft 3 in 4-4-0 superheated
 * Class 5 2-4-2 tank
 * Class 6 2-4-2 tank superheated
 * etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What conclusion do you draw from this, as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Biscuittin (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That we should have just one article for all the L&YR 2-4-2T. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the L&YR classes ( I have Marshall, but haven't read it in years) but I would welcome articles on the L&YR 2-4-2Ts as a group, and also on UK 2-4-2Ts in general. The suburban passenger 2-4-2T of the Edwardian period was a notable type on several railways, and even for those like the GWR that didn't favour it, it's interesting as to why and what they used instead.
 * Similarly the passenger 4-4-0 and the goods 0-6-0 types Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a period when pretty much every large British railway used four wheel arrangements: the 4-4-0 for long-distance passenger; the 0-6-0 for long-distance freight; the 0-6-0T for short-distance freight and shunting; and either the 2-4-2T or 0-4-4T for short-distance passenger. Some railways - such as the L&YR, GER and NER - started with 0-4-4T but switched to the 2-4-2T (the GER of course switched back later); and the GWR had some 0-4-4T followed by 2-4-2T. I think that the L&YR and GER were the last companies to build 2-4-2T: the L&YR finishing in Nov 1911, the GER in Jan 1912. I'm not aware of the 2-4-2T being used by the Southern companies, nor the Scottish railways. It's when the traffic outgrew these six- and eight-wheel types that we got the real diversity, with 4-4-2, 4-6-0, 0-8-0, 2-8-0 and all the others coming thick and fast from about 1900. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the appropriate place for discussion about 2-4-2T in general is at 2-4-2. Biscuittin (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, trying to cover two classes in one article is an extremely bad idea. However, I am not opposed to the idea of a single page covering L&YR 2-4-2Ts. Tony May (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As per 2012, these have been merged. Please open a new discussion, maybe ping those involved last time, if you want to split it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy. Actually, I don't see consensus from 2012.  I see in 2019 an article with TWO infoboxes.  That alone indicates that it's trying to cover 2 classes.  They need to be demerged.  Lacking consensus for this change, you shouldn't've made it.  Tony May (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If in doubt with the lumper-splitter problem it's better to split than lump. This results in some duplicated content, but WP:NOTPAPER. Tony May (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: (merged) Oppose split : This is a fairly clear case of being able to have one better article than two lesser ones and a more useful comparision of the within class variations which occurred on as the class progressed. The second infobox needs to go but a table comparing the differences between Aspinall's orginal and his apprentti Hughes final modifcations would be useful.  The references are a little unclear about dates and rebuilds and I have some concerns/thoughts all long framed locos may have been built as such.  I have some access to references in Bulleid but not to say Marshall and others.  I'll note the Charleston Curve derailment is likely relevant to the article.  .  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)  I'd also note  but I think both were later locos and likely long wheelbase.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are tables showing conversions between round-top and Belpaire, also between saturated and superheated, in
 * These are inconsistent, but none show evidence of conversions from short to long frames or vice versa. One loco (no. 661) suffered extensive damage in an accident at Penistone in 1916 and was "renewed" (replaced by a new loco incorporating undamaged parts of the original). Since the frames (of the long type) had been cut up during recovery of the wreck, replacement frames were required; but the only spare frames available were of the short type, and these were lengthened for the renewal by welding on extension pieces. So, in a way, this loco was almost converted from long to short and then immediately reconverted to long. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are inconsistent, but none show evidence of conversions from short to long frames or vice versa. One loco (no. 661) suffered extensive damage in an accident at Penistone in 1916 and was "renewed" (replaced by a new loco incorporating undamaged parts of the original). Since the frames (of the long type) had been cut up during recovery of the wreck, replacement frames were required; but the only spare frames available were of the short type, and these were lengthened for the renewal by welding on extension pieces. So, in a way, this loco was almost converted from long to short and then immediately reconverted to long. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are inconsistent, but none show evidence of conversions from short to long frames or vice versa. One loco (no. 661) suffered extensive damage in an accident at Penistone in 1916 and was "renewed" (replaced by a new loco incorporating undamaged parts of the original). Since the frames (of the long type) had been cut up during recovery of the wreck, replacement frames were required; but the only spare frames available were of the short type, and these were lengthened for the renewal by welding on extension pieces. So, in a way, this loco was almost converted from long to short and then immediately reconverted to long. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are inconsistent, but none show evidence of conversions from short to long frames or vice versa. One loco (no. 661) suffered extensive damage in an accident at Penistone in 1916 and was "renewed" (replaced by a new loco incorporating undamaged parts of the original). Since the frames (of the long type) had been cut up during recovery of the wreck, replacement frames were required; but the only spare frames available were of the short type, and these were lengthened for the renewal by welding on extension pieces. So, in a way, this loco was almost converted from long to short and then immediately reconverted to long. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I say if we are going to have one article, it should be titled class 5 & 6. I however think it will be better to have two articles and duplicate content where necessary.  This ought to be done for other articles covering two classes as well. Tony May (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Having worked with articles labelled classes X, Y and Z Oppose the rename. One article on the almost always on the original with redirects in from categories on the remainder and use a table to show the differences and my preference is a single infobox ...  But thats more general beyond where we have here. If one must have a combined title then I'd note the contemporary Accident reports seem to bundle these as something like like a four-wheeled-coupled radial tank with leading and trailing axles and don't refer to them by class. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's probably because Hughes' classification (Class 5, Class 6 etc.) was not introduced until either 1919 (Baxter p. 102; Marshall p. 273) or early 1920 (Mason pp. 110-1), some years after these accident reports were written. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks .. as it happens this morning I taking my Mum for a shared sub in Chi and was tempted by Marshall(1972) v3 2 shops north so I can hopefully use some of cite suggestions from that book.
 * I'm also hoping? to establish all builds prior to 1898 were short frames, all post 1898 were long frames and all conversions to Class 6 were already long frame examples.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no and no. The change to long frames occurred in late 1898 - no. 134 of Horwich Lot 35 was the last built with short frames, and no. 5 of Lot 36 was the first with long frames. They were delivered a week apart (to traffic 26 Sep 1898 and 3 Oct 1898 respectively), and had consecutive works numbers (610 and 611). I've to summarise the variants as built. There were no superheater conversions from Lots 1, 11, 22, 28 or 30.
 * Conversions to superheated were selected from all earlier varieties: three from the short-frame series with 18 inch cyls; six from the short-frame series with 17.5 inch cyls; 17 from the long-frame round-top; 18 from the long-frame Belpaire. The 26 built with a round-top boiler were given Belpaire boilers at the same time as the superheater.
 * Try to get a 3-volume set of Marshall. Whilst vol. 3 is devoted entirely to loco, carriage and wagon matters, some of the more prosaic information about the locos is omitted from that volume if it was included in one of the others - for example, the renewal of no. 661 is covered in Vol. 1 p. 243 which deals primarily with the collapse of Penistone viaduct in 1916. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)