Talk:Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway

Untitled
This page lists GER Class G58 as (LNER Class J17).

However lists G48 as J17. Which is wrong?

--cfp 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The G58 info probably came from here but I don't know which is correct. Biscuittin (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now found a second source listing J17 as GER Class G58 so I have re-named the article GER Class G58. Biscuittin (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

North British Railway loco classification
Could we agree on a standard classification system for NBR Locos? So far, we have NBR C Class, NBR G Class and NBR K Class. Do people prefer "C Class" or "Class C". I don't know which designation was used by the NBR.

I have added a few more classes as redirects to their designers so these redirect pages can be expanded into articles in the future. A problem I have encountered is that NBR used the same letter for more than one class, e.g. NBR Class M 4-4-0 and NBR Class M 4-4-2T. I have dealt with this by including the wheel arrangement in the title.

Are people happy with this or would they prefer some other classification system? For locos which passed to the LNER we could use LNER classifications, e.g. LNER Class D31 and LNER Class C15.

The North British Railway Study Group has developed its own classification system, details here, but these classifications are modern ones and were not used by either NBR or LNER.

Please leave your comments here. Biscuittin (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there must be a logical classification of NBR locos. Classes which passed into LNER hands should be classified by the LNER system whereas locos withdrawn before the grouping should have the NBR classification + wheel arrangement and if necessary name of designer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Biscuittin. Biscuittin (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems a sensible solution. regardng 'Class C' vs 'C Class', you will have to keep an open mind until you know what the NBR used. I am rather surprised that the NBR Study Group cannot advise of this, even if they have developed their own set subsequently.
 * EdJogg (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal to use LNER classifications came from User:Williamgeorgefraser, not me. Current Wikipedia practice seems to be to use the pre-grouping classification even where there is an LNER one and I don't think we should change this unilaterally.  On the Template:LNER Locomotives the LNER classifications are shown but they redirect to pre-grouping classifications.  Biscuittin (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to leave things as they are until we can find out whether 'Class C' or 'C Class' is correct. Biscuittin (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose split
I am proposing that the sections for pre-grouping constituents should be hived off onto separate pages. Reasons:

(1) It is getting too big.

(2) Many of the engines described never made it to the LNER

If no-one objects I will perform the split in a month's time. Kjhskj75 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a big split. As the post-1923 section is currently small, this split doesn't really make sense unless it goes so far as to split the constituent companies individually, not just pre- and post-1923. Can that be done?  Can it be done usefully, without merely turning each sub article into a duplicate of the pre-grouping company's loco article?   Would it be worth splitting to NER, NBR, GCR, GER and "others"?  Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm proposing. Currently the pre-grouping companies loco pages (like Locomotives of the Great Eastern Railway) either don't exist or just redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjhskj75 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree and verify Some splitting is necessary. The current content is anachronistic ie wrong - eg in "Hull and Barnsley railway" it lists locomotives that did not exist on merger - it looks like other predecessor companies have the same issue. - the alternative is to delete those entries - a split is preferable.
 * I also agree that the current list is TOO BIG.
 * There would eventually be some duplication on this page of those units that were inherited - I think the best way to present them on this page would be by LNER class eg A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 etc - eg so people can find stuff... This would appear to require additional work on this page in addition the the split - either way - the removal of the stuff that was never used by the LNER from this page is essential.
 * I also note that having separate lists for companies that were significant makes sense, and is good practice, rather than lumping them here.87.102.90.152 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives also has a similar problem - Categorizing redirects, and Template:Category see also is the proper solution instead of placing (for example) all NER locos as subcats of LNER locos..
 * In terms of this page a sortable table (by designer, first build date, original build company, original name, LNER name etc) seems a likely good solution for the inherited locos - however that requires more work.87.102.90.152 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The page originally confined itself to classes which existed at the 1923 Grouping, plus those introduced later on. Classes which were extinct before 1923 were occasionally added in small numbers - I can see justification for some of these, because there were some loco engineers, such as T.W. Worsdell and James Holden, the majority of whose locos survived Grouping but a very few (2-2-2 and 4-2-2) did not: adding these completes the lists for those two. About four years ago, somebody decided to include a larger number of extinct classes - is the edit that brought in the H&B classes which you mention above. It's grown from there. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now started to execute the split, one company at a time. Kjhskj75 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed classes
I've about three classes that are shown as "never built". has already from these.

First, the section heading is "Locomotives built by the LNER", these were not built.

Second, the LNER Encyclopedia source states "If you work your way through the RCTS Locomotives of the LNER series you will find various proposals under the original class descriptions, with further examples in Part 10A. There are also various proposals described in FAS Brown's biography 'Nigel Gresley - Locomotive Engineer'." Part 10A pages 52-65 describes several other proposals, and 124.190.12.234 seems to have have cherry-picked three of them, with the implication that either (a) there were no other proposals; or (b) these proposals were very much more advanced than any others. The LNER Encyclopedia source also has a blatantly-faked image of a 4-8-2 numbered 2272, which 124.190.12.234 has taken as evidence of an actual loco number. 2272 would not have been used - as shown in Part 10A page 126, this number prior to 1946 was borne by a Q6; and after 1946, by a D40. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)