Talk:LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman/Archive 1

Untitled
This article was split from the Flying Scotsman page to make the naming of articles on LNER locomotives consistent. See Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives. (Our Phellap 00:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Criticism?
Does anybody know enough about the Criticism surrounding the train to write about it? I know that a lot of British trainspotters have a vendeta against it that really should be mentioned.


 * I think there are three possible explanations.


 * One: the fact that the locomotive is famous even among non-railfans means that it has effectively "sold out". Thus being a fan of Flying Scotsman may be considered a gaffe among trainspotters (much like admitting to liking mainstream music within the indie music 'scene').


 * Two: many modern image railfans will write off any steam locomotive as being a 'kettle'.


 * Three: steam fans may consider the locomotive's fame unjustified, and mainly a result of conflation with the train of the same name.  4472 was neither the first A1 nor the first A3, and the locomotive's eventual use as the flagship of the LNER was an arbitrary decision based on the fact that at the time of the British Empire Exhibition, it was out of service and thus available for display. FiggyBee 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with these statements, most critics of the Scotsman are people who hold greater affection for locomotives from other, competing railways. The engine has several achievements to its name; first official 100MPH, record mileage, only one of its class to be preserved, etc Oxyman42 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
The first paragraph of this section merely points out that there is some controversy about liveries, but as far as can see does not lean in one way or the other. It alludes to real problem concerning preservation. As what you are preserving has in this case fifty years of history and modifications behind it, in what phase do you "freeze" it? The second paragraph is about the wisdom of NRM policy for allocating funds. It seems to me that the writer leaves one in little doubt as to as his personal leanings are on the subject, so it' is probably a more of a "weasel paragraph" and should be taken out as it does not contribute anything to the above debate. That said, it seems pretty obvious to me that NRM considers it a good investment precisely due to the iconic nature of the locomotive. Another thing I would add — perhaps those who consider themselves more discerning than the average member of " Joe Public" would do well to make less of a fetish of this one particular locomotive and look for a way of of satisfying general public demand whilst valorising what this locomotive really represents: it is the sole example of a whole landmark class and of Gresley's contributions to a long and important phase in British steam locomotive development. I for one am delighted that it has come down to us, whatever its present state.--John of Paris (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the "Weasel words" section to the Criticism part of this page, to keep all that stuff together, and to assist other editors who happen upon this particular teacup.

The criticism claim needs a citation. And it should probably say something like "Some railway preservation professionals (enthusiasts?) have criticised..." - or name them, if there are only one or two of any stature - rather than using the rather non-specific passive "has attracted some controversy in British railway preservation circles". Is it a major body of informed or professional opinion, or just a few enthusiastic supporters of other trains, lines or companies? If it's neither notable, nor supported by citation, it may well be out of place in an encyclopedia.

Finally, I agree with John of Paris, above, that the first paragraph is not problematic. Hence I've added a citation needed tag, and am removing the huge and unnecessary weasel tag, which needlessly disrupts the flow of the article. It's not like the whole thing is riddled with weaselry!

If we don't get a citation, the problematic paragraph can and should be removed or significantly reworked.

- Paul (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Images
I have reverted back to my version without the galley, but with the two large images for the following reasons: Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there was no reason to remove the commonscat tag. Thryduulf 20:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The gallery format doesn't work with the wide format images - hence I made the two thumbnails 515px wide at the bottom to show them properly.
 * There is no need to display every image we have - that is what the commons is for.
 * There isn't (imho) a need to display an image in BR livery - it doesn't add anything to the article. If people want to see the other images they can follow the link to the Commons and see all of them.
 * There isn't space in the article to display all the images. Unlike in articles like British Rail Class 47 the text isn't long enough to warrant a right hand margin of the train in every livery its ever had (I'm not too keen on it there either, but that is beside the point).
 * If it truly is important to have it in BR livery then use that as the lead image - we have the LNER green in the wide photo.


 * The BR livery is the accurate on it as an A3 with smoke deflectors. The current LNER apple green livery is not and is quite controversial. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and there is space, if remove the pointless infobox. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the first sentence of your first point, could you try rephrasing it? I wasn't aware that the current livery is controversial - care to explain? As for the infobox, I actually think its quite useful. Thryduulf 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The current apple green livery is wrong (can't you see this?!?). The smoke deflectors were fitted under BR, so it looks very wrong and quite a few people are narked off about it. BR green is more accurate for its condition. That's why the photo is needed because that's what the caption says.

Anyway, what is really needed is to find an official LNER photograph. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally can't really see the difference in the greens, but telling the difference between shades of colours has never been my strong point. I agree an LNER photo would be good.
 * As it currently is the article isn't bad, but I disagree with removing the infobox as a quick summary of the technical details is very useful. I often refer to things like that when writing captions for my photos and I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds it useful (else it wouldn't have been added in the first place). Thryduulf 12:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put in the BR Green photo (replacing the rather naff underexposed image that was there before) and restored the infobox - I agree with Thryduulf that it serves a purpose, keeping the stats out of the main body of the text (and in any case, some of the stats in the text body version were wrong, and had been corrected in the infobox). FiggyBee 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The photograph of the locomotive in BR livery can also be considered incorrect, as when the Scotsman was in service with BR it always pulled a smaller GNR designed tender. There is no truly correct livery for the locomotive as it is at present, especially as it has been rebuilt and slightly changed many times over its long period in preservation. Can I suggest a section in this article devoted to these matters? also I feel there is little information about the locomotive's achievements and life in its earlier Carrier Oxyman42 20:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See LNER Class A1/A3 article.--John of Paris (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we dispense with the "Gallery" section and relocate images inline?
I think the current format of this page is inconsistent with other Wikipedia rail articles on subjects for which there are a lot of photographs. I suggest that it also makes the user experience a little disconnected. You have a large-ish block of text, with no images to illustrate the facts, then at the bottom of the page a gallery. You're then looking at a bunch of photographs, in no particular logical order, and trying to work out which picture relates to which section of the article.

I note the earlier comments that "there isn't enough space", in relation to the infobox. I suggest that these ignore the fact that different users have different screen resolutions, different default font sizes, default image alignments, etc. I would also disagree with the idea that there is no need to display more than one image for such a famous (and heavily photographed!) locomotive. For example, if someone can lay their hands of a fair-use or public domain image of the Flying Scotsman in the USA (with bell, cowcatcher and electric headlight) it would add a lot of value to the article.

My suggestion would be to include the BR 1963 photo inline with the sentence beginning "All A3 Pacifics were subsequently fitted with a double KYLCHAP chimney...", the Carnforth 1982 photo inline in the "preservation" section, the photograph in Australia inline with the paragraph about its visit to Australia (hopefully to be replaced by a much better photograph from its Australian journey), the dismantled photo inline with the sentence beginning "In 2004 "Flying Scotsman" was put up for sale..." and the Leamington Spa 2005 photo possibly in the "controversy" section. These images would then illustrate the relevant sections and make the article a lot easier for the layman to follow.

Such a reorganisation would in my opinion also meet the WP:IMAGE guideline "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." By leaving thumbnails in the default 180px size as per WP:IUP, we will also still meet the related guideline "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text."

Zzrbiker (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That discussion is very old, and you should be able to fit 5 images inline down the right hand side. The main reason I would use a gallery is if there are too many images to fit in. Wongm (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Flying Scotsman and Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps"
According to the Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026029/fullcredits#cast, "The Flying Scotsman" is the name of the train used in "The 39 Steps," 1935 film version of the John Buchan thriller, filmed by Alfred Hitchcock. This film appears to be one of the first, if not the first, of several Hitchcock films which use a passenger train as an important locale for the action of film.

Yes, the train The Flying Scotsman is different to the engine, which is what this page is about, the train itself has it's own page Bluebellnutter 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for info, Alfred Hitchcock's 1935 film The 39 Steps was on TV and the Flying Scotsman express train is shown leaving LOndon for Scotland, pulled by locomotive 2595 (Trigo). I've added the info to the film page and the LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 page under "In fiction". . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * this is pure trainspotting. The loco that was used is of no significance to the plot: the film would have been equally good if any one of the other 78 locos of this class had been used. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the originator of this thread was interested enough to ask. For the reader interested in the film, it links to info about the locomotive class, and hence images of it. Of course, any class of locomotive could have done even if it offended trainspotters, as was the case with later films of The 39 Steps. For those interested in the locomotives, it notes an opportunity to see one on film in 1935. For others, it may be mere trivia . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Only Kettle to Visit Alice Springs
I believe that the Scotsman is the only Steamer to have visited Alice on the Standard Gauge.

Cannot recall any others making it there. I have a pic of the "Old Ghan"'s Boilermaker, and a (fitter) from the Scotsman shaking hands at the Alice in 1988. Will have a dig and post it up for others to enjoy. Cannot remember the Scotsmans guy's name - Rolie or Roland rings a bell - nice guy. Ended up fixing water problems for them. The thing kept priming because of the crap water and a lack of a blowdown valve. We processed enought water through a softener/filter to get them back south to decent water. Sulzer55 (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, 3801 has visited Alice Springs as well, apparently in 1992. Flying Scotsman took the honours for being the first steam locomotive on the new standard gauge line. Zzrbiker (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

502
Why has the loco been outshopped in 2011 carrying the number 502 ? RGCorris (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That was its number between January 1946 (previous to which it was 4472) and May 1946 (when it became 103); for the whole of this period it was black (to black April 1943; to green January 1947). -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Various restorations
The article current says "had it restored over three years to running condition at a cost of £1 million,[18] a restoration which is still recognised as the most extensive in the locomotive's history". Is this still true, given the extensive (and expensive) restoration it is currently undergoing at the NRM? Noel (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Flying Scotsman - the most famous?
I just reverted an edit on the basis that the sentence was changed with a new meaning that no longer matched what was in the reference cited. The book in question has an entire chapter on the Flying Scotsman titled "Driving the world's most famous steam locomotive". There are also other publications which refer to Flying Scotsman as the world's most famous steam locomotive, eg, this one, which I've added as an additional reference. I've made a subsequent edit and adjusted the sentence to emphasise that this is a description that has been made of the locomotive, rather than an absolute truth in its own right. In making this edit, I'm not asserting that it IS the world's most famous, but I'm noting the fact that some published works describe it as such. Zzrbiker (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Railworks
I noticed that in the Popular Culture section says that the locomotive is in Microsoft Train Simulator. If this is notable enough, then surely the add-ons for Railsimulator's Train Simulator 2013 (also known as Railworks 4) are also notable. Similar add-ons for Big Boy are also mentioned on Union Pacific Big Boy. The locomotive currently has two products and is also featured in a stand-alone freeware game (I'm not honestly sure what it's officially called) with the National Railway Museum.

Original Add-On LNER Black Version Add-On National Railway Museum

I would add the information myself, but I'm not sure how to properly cite it or phrase it. --Truthseeker4449 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)