Talk:LNER Class A4

Page name
Moved. due to naming conventions Duncharris 17:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Record
'has the official record as the fastest steam locomotive'

Surely more accurate to say something like 'is generally regarded as the fastest steam locomotive'. There is no official record that I know of. 86.171.187.9 (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's as official as any rail record. There's no international body like the FAI for aviation. The speed was officially recorded by LNER engineers in the dynamometer car. The astonishing French 200mph record in 1955 was recorded by the SNCF and no one ever quibbles about that. Roger Bannister's four-minute mile of 1954, though ratified by an international body, the IAAF, was just timed by blokes at the trackside in overcoats with stopwatches (and you can see them in the photos of Bannister breaking the tape at the finish, one of them with a pipe in his mouth). Again, nobody quibbles about that. There's something disagreeable about online pretences that Mallard somehow didn't really do what Mallard quite obviously and provably did in fact do. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Name links in the table need modifying
Rather than wade in I wanted to know if anyone else found the links for the locomotives names in the table pointless and frustrating. I would assume that the links should take you to a more detailed article on the actual locomotive, but in fact they take you to the general article about what it was named after. Maybe this should be changed. Nshimbi (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The convention is that loco names are linked to the person, place or object that the loco is named after; when linking to articles on individual locomotives, we link from the loco number. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the table in the paragraph 'Preservation' grossly (and incorrectly) overlinked? 109.145.109.77 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LNER Class A4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420181235/http://www.germansteam.co.uk/FastestLoco/fastestloco.html to http://www.germansteam.co.uk/FastestLoco/fastestloco.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041206062509/http://www.bath.ac.uk/~hssmrg/a4.html to http://www.bath.ac.uk/~hssmrg/a4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fate
The "fate" column is completely uncited and seems to have undergone arbitary changes to exact location and date (and hence at least some of what has been there was not just uncited but wrong). Other than Wedgewood and the six preserved A4s, it also seems like trivia. I like kettles as much as the next person but the exact date one was cut up is rarely of interest; the class is not even one of those where some were scrapped early but some hung on until the world ended in 1968. I suggest if no good cite is forthcoming, these dates and locations be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Masthead image
Re

I'm broadly happy with that, but think we ought to reinstate the previous image somewhere. Because it's colourful (UK locos were rarely blue) and mainly because it's one of the few sources for decent photos with the original full valances. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It also briefly had this third picture, showing two A4s with valances. I have no preference as to which is used. What about in the section "Design"? It is there the removal of the valances is discussed, but at typical screen resolutions the infobox is also taking up some of the horizontal real estate and the article text might be squeezed. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox image should be of the loco in service, as that image conveys well - however, I wonder if the image of Mallard at York (which shows the whole loco) could replace that image of the retiring driver, since other than a very faint outline of an A4, it's not really backed up by any of the article text? Bob talk 19:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use a historical photograph where possible. Preservation-era photos should only be acceptable in the absence of pre-1968 photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see why. The locomotives are the same locomotives and photography - especially colour photography - is greatly improved. I think perhaps instead of "should only be acceptable", you mean that you personally don't like it.
 * I imagine that Andy Dingley is correct and there is a very limited corpus of photos with valances, so in any event we'll have to take what we can get, but feel free to suggest a steam-era colour photo of similar quality. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the image in question is already in use as the top image in LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard so I think it's probably best to not repeat it. Bob talk 15:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's use the historic black-and-white pic at the top of LNER Class A4, and the one that shows two blue A4s at the top of the LNER Class A4 section. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Any objections? Pinkbeast (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there are potentially many official LNER publicity photographs that were anonymously published in books called e.g. "Steam Trains for modern 1930s boys!" (using shocking gender non-neutral language) before the war and therefore out of copyright. This is where user:Andy Dingley with his scanning skills comes in! Meanwhile, user:Pinkbeast there are very good reasons for not using preservation shots. No serious historian would ever do it, and where it has to be done, it should be noted. Tony May (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you personally don't like it. Obviously one wouldn't use a preservation-era photograph in a book about the history of the class pre-1968, but that's a very different question. Much of this page is about the class in preservation, so preservation-era photographs are perfectly appropriate and have, as said, the advantage of typically being in colour and more clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh, no, user:Pinkbeast. Most of this article should be about the class prior to preservation. The reason being that they did most of their work prior to preservation. Please try to understand this. Tony May (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That most of the article should be (and is) about the class in pre-preservation does not mean it is not the case that, as I said, much of the article is about the class in preservation. Since much of the article is about the class in preservation, a preservation-era photograph of A4s is perfectly sensible, especially at the head of a section itself about the class in preservation - just as appropriate as it would be in a chapter of a history book dealing with the class in preservation. It would seem frankly rather perverse to head such a section or chapter with a picture of something the section or chapter is not actually about!
 * "Most of their work" is a carefully selected metric. They obviously clocked the overwhelming majority of their locomotive kilometres there, but it is also the case that the class has been in preservation for nearly twice as long as it was in ordinary service. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please try to understand this user:PinkBeast, your arguments are not effective.Tony May (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)