Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1

Request that we do not consider the Tony May/A1 page in this discussion.
Mr May attempts to use a page that he wrote and controls as part of this discussion, but his actions on that page show that he is not prepared to discuss what he wrote there. He removes any changes that dissenting voices put on that page -- which would be breach of etiquette if done here. He also attacks other editors on that page and misrepresents the points that other editors seek to make. This level of control of a discussion is not concensus building -- rather it is a sham discussion. In short, the page is used in a manner that is inconsistent with this discussion page and hence should not form part of the record of discussions here. Mr May can bring his points here if he wants, where they can be discussed by all.

I'll go further and suggest that references to the Tony May/A1 page should be deleted off this page. Captain Nemo III (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite able, as you have done in the past, to leave your comments at user talk:Tony May/A1. It is not intended as a discussion page, it explains my views, and that includes my views on other points made.  You are quite free to note your views down, in your userspace, in fact I would encourage you to.  Since you continually fail to address my points without making any sensible points whatsoever, it seems to me that you want to simply delete my contributions as a convenient way of ignoring them.  Tony May (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But I have replied, and what was your response? To delete my replies. I note that you kept edits by another editor on your A1 page. You want responses elsewhere, where they may not be seen. I don't have a problem with you having such a page, just that it should not be considered part of the dicusssions on the A1 locomotives, since you are controlling the content of that page and not allowing dissent. You say it is an essay about the A1 Locomotives, but it stopped being this when you strayed into speculation about the motives of other editors. As for ignoring your comments: pot, meet kettle. As I said, you have misrepresented my points. You have attacked my motives. It's not worth engaging you in any more discussion -- you don't deserve it.  Captain Nemo III (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible consensus
Would I be right in thinking that there is consensus that the article is OK in its present form except for the inclusion of Tornado in the infobox? Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's better now that the obviously contentious stuff has been changed. The ultimate irony in all thats occurred is that the article on Tornado is actually far more comprehensive and detailed than this one. In fact its B-Class rating probably needs urgent review, as I think it is close to GA status, and ought to be peer reviewed for a submission as a FA.  This is the irony ... if only half of the effort of the two protagonists had been put towards improving the overall article, then this might be a better article. But as it is, Tornado is far better encyclopedic entry than this one, which is even more ironic, as there were 49 of the originals and just one Tornado.  The irony, in case you don't get it, is the disproportionate amount of research and effort expended on Tornado, a "modern" loco, rather than the orignal 49. Perhaps the A1's were just a footnote in railway history rather than anything more deserving. Bhtpbank (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason that the article on Tornado is able to be a better article is that it is a "current event" so to speak, and a wealth of sources are available. I agree that the article is a lot better than it was, but work is still needed to improve the referencing, which is the biggest obstacle to achieving B class. I've proposed a revision of the infobox below so that consensus can be achieved as to whether it should be changed or not. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, FUTON bias reigns. To document the Peppercorn A1s requires actual books, Google is much easier. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
This is the current infobox (left). I propose that certain aspects of the infobox related to Tornado be removed, resulting in a new infobox (right):-

Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose the proposed change so that consensus can be gained as to whether or not the infobox should appear as it is or be amended. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support per nom. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support this for the sake of consensus but I would prefer to have no mention at all of Tornado in the BR infobox because Tornado has its own infobox and there is no mention of the BR locomotives in that. Biscuittin (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion and delay, yes, I support the proposal (right hand box above) by Mjroots. For technical comparison between different LNER Class A1s see my proposal at User:Biscuittin/sandboxA1. Biscuittin (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been no objections so far to Mjroots' proposal. If no objections are posted here by 2nd January 2009, I propose to modify the infobox to the version proposed by Mjroots (above right). Biscuittin (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's an improvement. Another improvement would be to put all references to Tornado in (brackets). But I'd rather that Tornado was considered elsewhere in the infobox, perhaps in its own field, and not with the original locomotives at all. "No. in class" looks a bit silly as BR only had 49 Peppercorn-designed locos in Class A1. Tony May (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment With the way the template documentation is done, I don't think that it is possible to have Tornado's details in the infobox spearately. Detail differences between Tornado and the original locos are best dealt with in the article on Tornado. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support it seems to be a reasonable compromise, giving details for the original 49 locomotives, while acknowledging Tornado (with presumably the detail differences either picked up in the sub-section on Tornado or in that locomotive's own article). The "Number in class" field seems spot on to me - it is irrelevant whether or not Tornado was on the BR books as the article is concerned with the type of locomotive, not its ownership. ColourSarge (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections received so I will change the box. Biscuittin (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I have also added a comparison table at LNER Class A1.  I will expand the comparison table shortly but, if anyone else wishes to make additions or corrections, please do. Biscuittin (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You missed the "2008" date, which I just removed; I also corrected the link to http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a1peppercorn.shtml as the LNER encyclopaedia has moved, and fixed a redirect to point direct to the Tornado article. Still, I'm pleased the dispute appears to have been settled while I was off doing other things :-)  Monday is my birthday and I am reliably informed that I have a brand new Bachmann Deltic in BR early green to compete for the speed record with my recent Hornby A4.  Who will win?  I'm all agog :-) Guy (Help!) 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He didn't miss it, if you look above, your latest changes were not part of the proposal. Neither was changing the lead text. MickMacNee (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Power value
2700 hp seems a lot for a Pacific, especially considering it's British. And why is the number under "tractive effort"? No qwach macken (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the proper parameter, and also tagged it as needing a citation, . Ideally the figure should be qualified by describing it as indicated horsepower or drawbar horsepower. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)