Talk:LSWR N15 class

old comments

 * References and completion to follow .Bulleid Pacific 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --Bulleid Pacific 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction of loco details to follow . --Bulleid Pacific 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First attempt GA nom questions...
Another editor removed this article from GAC earlier today leaving only "quick-fail" in the edit summaries. I left a note on that editor's talk page to ask why. Slambo (Speak) 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This article quick failed on GA criteria because it does not cite the sources of the facts like weight and dimension.  OhanaUnited   13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards to infobox data sources, please see section 'References/Footnotes' for details of notability. --Bulleid Pacific 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination passed

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Reasons for verdict and suggestions: The article is written well, with a good amount of information, broad coverage of the entire history of the train, with good and fair use of images. A single complaint: However, this is not enough for me to fail the article as it does provide verification of all the facts, even if I had to work a bit to make sure! Well done with the article, and keep up the good work! Mouse Nightshirt | talk  13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Section 2a - Although the article has references for the statements in this article, it would be preferable to place them more liberally throughout the article. Ideally, each statement should have an accompanying reference, rather than have the one reference apply to a huge swathe of text, especially in the infobox. The lead section needs referenced!

Fair use rationale for Image:SR King Arthur poster 2.jpg
Image:SR King Arthur poster 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The rationale was already there, it just lacked a section heading with this article's title. Slambo (Speak) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale was already there, it just lacked a section heading with this article's title. Slambo (Speak) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cab, tenders
1) Eastleigh Arthurs had Drummond type cabs as can be seen here . 2) I always thought that the nickname "Watercart" applied to any Drummond tender irrespective of the number of wheels or which brother we are talking about. The thing is that the tenders had tubes piping exhaust steam to warm the water, a device Dugald inherited from Stroudley. I have never seen drawings of this, but quite a few authors allude to it. The best description I know is in David Smith's "Tales of the Glasgow and South Western Railway" referrring to the Peter Drummond "Pumpers" - "(...) The water could be made hot enough when you were running. You could divert some of the exhaust to the tank, and if the the safety valves came near to blowing off, you could open a cock and blow some surplus steam in also. The tender had a well underneath and about 60 heating tubes passed through it. At the rear end the tubes were turned down through the floor of the well so that the now condensed steam would drain off to the track. Of course they had not been very long on the job before those tube ends shook loose and it was not only condensed water that was descending on the track but the contents of the tender as well. Every Pumper was going round like a watering cart and you could hardly run from column to column." As the GSWR system  was used along with a steam donkey feed pump, which does not seem to have been the case on the LSWR. Even so Dugald Drummond locomotives did essentially have this system. Of course Urie lost no time in taking it out and introducing new tenders with outside plate frames for the bogies. H.C. Casserly in "London & South Western Locomotives", Ian Allan, 1971, referring to the H15 gives the vital statistics of the first Urie bogie tender as 5200 gallons water/7 tons coal. He goes on to say that the Maunsell version was smaller with 5000 gallons water/5 tons coal. Casserley gives no precise information for the NI5 tender types but until further information comes our way, we could perhaps presume they their history was the same. Whatever the case it contradicts what is implied in this article i.e. that the Maunsell tender was an enlargement of what preceded it.--John of Paris (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Queries and comments
I've made a few small changes to the article, and have some comments and queries that I think ought to be addressed: Good luck with working towards FA. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead section should make it clear that this was a British loco.
 * Is it "Class" or "class"? Be consistent, certainly within the article (including the article title), and preferably with directly related articles such as List of King Arthur Class locomotives as well.
 * "Ashford style cab" - what's that?
 * The loco exchange trials are briefly mentioned, and should be expanded. Which locos were involved, when, why, and what were the results?

Sir Lamiel - who was he then?
Sir Lamiel is mentioned on eight pages in Wikipedia, and seven of these relate to the locomotive! I'm sure that "Who the heck was Sir Lamiel?" is a question that will be asked by FA reviewers and other readers alike. I assumed he was at least a significant minor character (!), but the Knights of the Round Table article shows Sir Lamiel of Cardiff to be one of the 'other' knights mentioned in passing in Le Morte d'Arthur.

It might be interesting to know how the names used were decided upon. It is possible that the SR were running out of obvious choices when they chose Sir Lamiel and the like (in the same way that certain GWR 'Manors' and 'Halls' were named after buildings which were not strictly Manors or Halls, or else were outside the GWR's service area. (Sorry, no ref for this last fact -- a memory of a talk heard at our Railway Society a few years back!))

This will require some non-railway research, but is probably necessary to ensure proper coverage for FA.

EdJogg (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Sir Lamiel, for just about everything known about him! (thanks to BulleidPacific for that). EdJogg (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What's Bulleid got to do with it?
Apologies in advance if I've missed this in the text, as I only skimmed it quickly, but what was Bulleid's input to their story? According to the lede, he modified the exhaust arrangement on certain examples; in the infobox it says he did 'further modifications' ('further' since dropped from text); later on, apparently, he experimented with the livery. What appears to be missing is a description of the technical changes that Bulleid actually applied. Since it is in the lede, the reader will expect to find further information...

EdJogg (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A description of Bulleid's input can be found towards the end of the 'Scotch' Arthurs section.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- told you I'd only skimmed it. (Haven't got that far with the proof-reading yet!)
 * Next question...what is the benefit of reducing the cylinder diameter? It was obviously an important factor in performance improvement, but what was improved? (Sorry, my physics knowledge is not working today!)
 * EdJogg (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Crumbs! I've taken a long time to proof-read this article!
 * There is a curious reference at the end of the "'Scotch' Arthurs and Bulleid's modifications" section. It cannot refer the reader directly to the Oliver Bulleid article, since that article does not contain the information implied. The ref text suggests that there should be a wikilinked article where the reader may find out more, but which one?
 * EdJogg (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An addition
"30449 took part in the Darlington Railway Centenary celebrations in July 1925" Observer's Book...of...Locos (Copy cite from GWR 6400 Class, but edition is 1960. (p77 " "King Arthur" (N-15) Class ")

No time to do properly now. EdJogg (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)      Ta muchly! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that the footnote "Casserley, p77" does not tally with any of the references!!
 * EdJogg (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre- Main Page appearance queries
Q1 -- In the "Operational details" section, the second paragraph starts:
 * The class was found in most areas of the British Railways Southern Region network on medium-length expresses and stopping trains on the ex-LSWR mainline, though the detail variations across the class meant that the Urie Arthurs began to be withdrawn as early as 1953 for reasons of standardisation.

I think there is too much in this sentence, and what is there is unclear. It's OK up to 'expresses' provided that there's a comma added before 'and' (with 'on' following), or OK up to 'trains' if "on the ex-LSWR mainline" is removed completely. Either way, from 'though' is probably a separate sentence, and I'm not sure that "reasons of standardisation" quite explains why they were withdrawn - maybe I'm being picky, but perhaps it should be mentioned, for example, who was requiring standardisation and why, and how the withdrawal helped. Admittedly we don't need it spelled out quite so plainly, but hopefully the above will help focus your thoughts.

EdJogg (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ (by BulleidPacific) -- 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Q2 -- Under "Livery" there is a hidden comment regarding wartime black livery. Was it an 'economy measure'? (black paint being cheaper and/or more readily available?) And did it just apply to locos as they were out-shopped, or were the whole class so treated regardless (which wouldn't seem to be 'economic')!

EdJogg (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Peter Swift (2006) book should contain the answer to the second question (don't have a copy available unfortunately, but it did have a lot of livery details). It might be that the black livery combined an "austerity" look with a reduced need for cleaning. The Merchant navy class were supposedly air-smoothed so they could be cleaned in carriage washing plants; never been shown to be the case but (apparently) SR nameplates often show horizontal scratches which could be from mechanical cleaning. The malachite green paint was manufactured from a newly developed synthetic pigment or dye, and was probably pretty cheap. Ning-ning (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ (by BulleidPacific) -- 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LSWR N15 class. 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/20100417104659/http://www.steamdreams.com/content/view/14/16/ to http://www.steamdreams.com/content/view/14/16/

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) 10:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)