Talk:LNWR Whale Precursor Class

Inconsistency within article, and between article and sources
Text added to reason parameter of by  :

There are a few problems with the reliability of information in this article, most obviously with respect to withdrawal dates. Here the table lists 9 from beginning of 194O onwards, which contradicts the last paragraph of the "History" section. Also, neither the table nor the text are in agreement with Baxter (1979), according to which, for example, Harbinger was withdrawn in June, not July 1937, and Sirocco in 1947, not 1949. A comparison of Baxter, Casserley and Yeadon would be helpful, as it unclear from which of the general sources listed the information in question is derived. A cursory examination of the Rail UK database suggests that the withdrawal dates in the table could have been obtained from there, but unfortunately its accuracy cannot be verified as no sources are given. Any comments or suggestions would be most welcome re. the reliability of the sources mentioned above plus O. S. Nock's book on the "Precursor family", as would details of any others which might be consulted.

Template:Inconsistent if the explanation would be lengthy, use the article's talk page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Redrose64 for his assistance, since when some changes have been made to the text now that there is more space to do so!!

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC))
 * I no longer have Nock "The LNWR Precursor Family", I don't know what happened to it. Baxter does have demonstrable errors in the lists for other classes (these are sometimes simple typos or transposed digits), so there is a possibility of error in his section on the Precursors. What I do know is that lists exactly one "Precursor", and that is 58010 (25297) Sirocco. This part of the book is correct to 31st August, 1948 . Ian Allan publications were generally well researched, so 1947 seems unlikely. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Redrose64, which is very useful. It confirms what I suspected about Baxter's list, as I'd discovered one obvious typo where the year of withdrawal was given as 57 instead of 37. The other discrepancies are probably too numerous to be written off on the same grounds. I've ordered a copy of Yeadon, but don't know what information that includes. I have a copy of Nock somewhere, but it's in one of many storage boxes and I don't have time to look for it at the moment. However, it occurred to me that it might be worth contacting the LNWR Society as some of their members may be able to help.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC))

The reference I have just added (Casserley, 1973) corroborates a withdrawal date of 1949 for Sirocco, so it is likely this information came from Casserley (1974 [1966]). However, I have seem him state elsewhere that the Precursors were probably the most efficient locomotives the LNWR ever built, which I'm not at all sure is an accurate assessment given the evidence from their initial trials (see The Engineer, 15 April 1904) and other figures for coal consumption.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC))

Thanks to the information provided by User:Redrose64 and a copy of Yeadon (1995), it now seems possible to resolve most of the issues noted previously. Firstly, the statement that only 7 examples of the Precursor class survived at the end of 1939 is incorrect. Yeadon does say this, but he was referring only to the subset locomotives rebuilt with superheaters, piston valves, and 20½" cylinders, not the class as a whole. Secondly, Yeadon (p.v) notes that due to the way in which LMS stock changes were aggregated, there may discrepancies of a month betwen the withdrawal dates he gives and those found elsewhere. It would appear, therefore, that Baxter used the aggregated figures. In a sense, both sources are valid, although Yeadon is more precise.  Thirdly, the evidence suggests that the withdrawal date of ' for 643 Sirocco given by Baxter is a misprint and should read ', as is that of ' for 1309  Shamrock, which should be '.  What I have been unable to reconcile with Baxter's data is Yeadon's statement (p.39) that 513 Precursor and 11 other engines were fitted with superheaters. Baxter lists only 11 such conversions in total and the disparity cannot be explained as a simple misprint. It seems more likely that Yeadon made an error here, but given the format in which the data is presented in his book, there isn't an obvious way to check locomotives on an individual basis with reference to this particular point. As soon as time allows, I will make changes to the article to reflect the above observations (with explanatory notes where necessary), then remove the template.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC))

Having now gone through the withdrawal dates provided by Baxter and Yeadon, there was actually more agreement between these two sources than between them and the table as it stood. I didn't compare the latter with the Rail UK database (which I suspect was used as the source) because, in the absence of further information, its reliability could not be established other than by examining the original LMS stock returns (if available).

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC))