Talk:LNER Class J94

Navbox suggestion
The index of LNER locomotives at the bottom of the LNER loco pages, needs a section for externally designed locomotives which were purchased by the LNER. The J94 is probably the most prominent of these types. Also the O6, O7, 2-10-0 Austerities. The S160s could also be included although these were only a temporary addition to LNER stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.7.146 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Real vs Fake J94s
As several of these locomotives have been branded, operated and described as J94s within preservation for decades now, is calling them "fake" the best option? I'd propose "LNER/BR J94s" and "Replica J94s" as better titles. Considering that the chimera "kit-bashed" GWR locomotives now being built are considered new-build or replica I cannot see that there is much, if any, justification for branding these original locomotives as "fake". DiverScout (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * DiverScout, there are two preserved class J94s, and several others that have been painted into BR liveries. Now, the owners of preserved ex-industrial engines can do as they want with them, but the fact remains that those locomotives are ex-industrial.  I'm wary of using the word "replica" to describe ex-industrial Austerities because these are not replicas of BR locomotives, but as I've said they have their own histories working in coal mines, etc.  The Class J94 is a historical entity, and cannot be added to by simply painting an austerity in a new livery.  But if you can come up with a better word for this than "fake", then please make those changes. Tony May (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about "disguised"? Tony May (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Might work, although it gives me the impression that they are Thomas locomotives wearing glasses and false noses. What about "Heritage-era"?  The LNER designation is historic, but if preserved lines are using the same designation to describe these locomotives, as they are and have been for some time (including ones not carrying fake identities), this is surely the current designation for those locomotives?  As I said, things like the GWR County Project are using bits of many locomotives with their own histories, at least one of which being a uniquely important artifact in rail history, to make something that is being referred to as a member of that class despite it being the worst example of a "kit-bashed" chimera.
 * The fact is that railway preservation is part of railway operation and history in its own right and class titles do getr reused, even on the mainline (see Class 143 - either a Pacer or, originally, a Gloucester 100 trailer). While we need to ensure that the difference between the original Class J94 and the heritage use of the title both uses need to be noted. DiverScout (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The railway historian in me says no to "heritage era". This is primarily an historical article.  The disguised industrial locomotives were not taken into stock by LNER/BR.  That needs to be made very clear.  To blur the lines by trying to slip in other locomotives is rewriting history for the sake of a bit of paint, and is I suggest original research.  Tony May (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, as a graduate historian, I am always amused by people who seem to assume that history stops at the end of the period they are interested in.  These locomotives carry the identity of J94, and have been listed on here for a long time.  Whether or not replica locomotives (whether by paint or butchery) can be counted as members of the class is not something that we can settle between the two of us.  The fact that these locmotives are there and carry these identities is hardly original research.  DiverScout (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really see what the issue is here. Let's concentrate on content, not credentials.  They're not J94s, but they should be mentioned in the article clearly, as they presently are.  But to call them J94s is technically false; you need to box around that and say that they're locomotives disguised as J94s or somesuch. Tony May (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, lets. Seeing the title in black-and-white, it does not look bad.  I would suggest, though, that the 50 years of heritage railway operation covers a pretty large section of history now.  I agree, though, that latter developments and re-use of Class titles does need to be made very clear.  I think that we have now managed that here.  DiverScout (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)