Talk:Locomotives of the Caledonian Railway

Creation
Article created after discussion at Talk:Locomotives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. Biscuittin (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Classification
Following comments at various class-specific talk pages, such as Talk:Caledonian Railway 670 Class

0-6-0
Caledonian numbers are as at Grouping, and are in order of LMS numbers, which was not necessarily the order of building. Many of the Drummond 'Jumbo' Class had been renumbered. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposals

 * LMS 17650-82 Move from 294 Class to 300 Class
 * LMS 17683-92 Redirect from 670 Class to 300 Class
 * LMS 17230-392 Move from 259 Class to 294 Class
 * LMS 17393-473 Redirect from 711 Class to 294 Class
 * LMS 17550-628 Leave as 812 Class
 * LMS 17629-45 Redirect from 652 Class to 812 Class
 * LMS 17646-9 Redirect from 30 Class to 812 Class

Is this OK? Biscuittin (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If two or three series that are recognised as different classes by more than one author, we should either keep them separate, or combine them under a name which does not imply that they were the same class. See for example NBR 224 Class and NBR 420 Class; both of these are redirects to the same article, which gives both classes in its name.
 * Under that plan, using your grouping, we would have three articles: Caledonian Railway 294 and 711 Classes; Caledonian Railway 812, 652 and 30 Classes; Caledonian Railway 300 Class. We would also need redirects to the first one from: Caledonian Railway 294 Class and Caledonian Railway 711 Class, also redirects to the second one from Caledonian Railway 812 Class, Caledonian Railway 652 Class and Caledonian Railway 30 Class.
 * But I don't think that the 30 Class should be grouped with the 812 and 652 Classes: as Cornwell states (p. 144): "Extension of superheating to goods classes began in 1912 when four 0-6-0s were constructed at St Rollox ... These engines were based on the 652 Class but their boilers were pitched 6 in higher and contained a 21-element Schmidt superheater with long return loops." He then goes on to show that these four were a direct predecessor of the 34 Class 2-6-0, the 179 Class 4-6-0 and the 184 Class 4-6-0. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposals
New articles: Do you agree? Biscuittin (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Caledonian Railway 294 and 711 Classes
 * Caledonian Railway 812 and 652 Classes
 * Caledonian Railway 30 Class
 * Caledonian Railway 300 Class (over redirect)
 * OK, these seem fine. We can accomplish most of it with three page moves.
 * Move Caledonian Railway 259 Class to Caledonian Railway 294 and 711 Classes; create one redirect Caledonian Railway 711 Class
 * Move Caledonian Railway 812 Class to Caledonian Railway 812 and 652 Classes; amend existing redirect to point at the new page name
 * Move Caledonian Railway 294 Class to Caledonian Railway 300 Class - although there is a redirect, this won't be a problem because the redirect has no significant history.
 * Find all links to and check what they refer to. If the Pickersgill locos, amend to 300 Class; if the Drummond locos, leave alone.
 * Once those links have been checked, the redirect can be amended to point at Caledonian Railway 294 and 711 Classes.
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made a start. What about Caledonian Railway 670 Class? Is this not regarded as a separate class? Biscuittin (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All done, except query about 670 Class still outstanding. Biscuittin (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any books that segregate BR 57684-57691 (LMS 17684-17691; Cal 671-678) from BR 57650-83/92 (LMS 17650-83/92; Cal. 294-324, 280/1, 670/9). Casserley & Johnston - the only printed source which is given on our article Caledonian Railway 670 Class - show no variation within the entire group of 43 locos BR 57650-92. However, both Baxter and Cornwell record that the first twelve (CR 300-311) had steel fireboxes, the remainder copper; and that the last twelve (CR 280/1, 670-9 - i.e. including the eight under discussion) had slide valves instead of piston valves - but both authors group all 43 together as the 300 class. I think that we should do the same. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For now, I have redirected 670 Class to 300 Class. However, I see there was a 670 Class 0-4-2 (LMS 17000 to 17020) so I could create an article for it. Could you please check that it has been correctly classified before I create the article? Biscuittin (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; this is the 0-4-2 I mentioned at Talk:Caledonian Railway 670 Class. I've dropped some notes at Talk:Caledonian Railway 670 Class, since I don't see a need for an 0-4-2 subsection on this page (none of Brittain's successors built any 0-4-2, and no earlier locos made it to the LMS). -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

0-4-4T
As with the 0-6-0, Caledonian numbers are as at Grouping, and are in order of LMS numbers, which was not necessarily the order of building. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawals
I think we should add withdraw dates to all of locomotive classes on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.89.46 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)