Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

2-6-4T 2-6-0 section
Suggest splitting this into two seperate sections, there's no real relationship between the two (any more than they're related to the 4-4-0 or 0-6-0, No.4 is a NCC 2-6-4T, No.461 is a D&SER 2-6-0). GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Underlying this is a good faith editorial discussion, which I dont really dont want to get drawn into. It isd to note the proposer avoids the controversial  new build 105 which is a linker.   made an unsourced opinion at, which, while I am not contesting the plausible accuracy of such, shows a COI/involvement between us in this matter.  Again I don't want to get into a a massive non neutrals discussion on this: In essence all have two leading leading wheels, six coupled wheels, the WT is the tank version of the W.  The Class W '105' flagship? project is of course early stage, and possibly controversial in its consumption of resources compared to immediate needs.  My unstated design goal of the Rolling stock section was to minimize sub headings as reasonably far as possible to try to give a better prose/heading ratio let direct relevant content elsewhere, yet leaving a structure to work into.  A mediated discussion would be best going forward if necessary  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies today I've been unable to do much in the past few months but hopefully back to normal now. I would contend these need to remain seperate, as there really is no relation between the two bar being six-coupled (in which case, you could also bring in the 0-6-0s, and 0-6-4T). Seperate, but we need to give space to the 0-4-0ST Guinness engine which is an important loco being their first. Now in saying all this, maybe we should revert to the tabular format anyway, as most other pages don't list by wheel notation? It doesn't particularly bother me but might be easier? GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @ My objective has been to keep a format fully acceptable to who had to deal with issues raised by previous editing and to try to place locomotives into groups; and minimize the number of such subgroups whilest remaining to be able to encycloedically differentiate the similarities and differences amongst the members of such groups and here we have two 2-6-0's and a tank version version of one of them. And per the COIN I've just raised while I have to assume by AGF you intentions are pure your edit at Special:Diff/1022135389 would suggest you are opinionated in parts of this matter, although I would fully admit aspects of the new build are controversial.  I recall winge about stocklist iterineries in those dealing with the problematic editing have studiously wished to void that on article improvement although I am aware there would likely be much support for a table format from those interested in railway articles.  The addition of R.H. Smyth is welcome, as a minor point I've probably want to try a slight reformat for rendering purposes. 23:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. However, I think then it would make more sense to list the two 2-6-0s together. I understand the DSER 2-6-0 developed from 0-6-0 lineage, in which you could argue that it's as much related to the 0-6-0 group. As regard to the diesels, we should probably mention the shunting locos and also the Hunslet mainline locos once owned by the Society GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternative groupings that might wotk better Whitehead. could be Passenger tender locomotives (Sometimes used on goods work), Mixed traffic tank locomotive, Goods tender locomotives (The RPSI one's are also suitable for medium speed passenger work) and shunters suitable for shunting short journey round e.g. Whitehead. The idea is really to give a summary of the group while leading easy navigation to the main article on the type.  I was also under the brief from involved mediators to avoid a stocklist table-type article; though I would suspect many would prefer that.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * yes that sounds like a good idea GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

COI/Neutrality concerns of 25 December 2021 edits.
@,, : I have raised concerns about editing on this article on 25 December 2021 at WikiProject UK Railways and linked in WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject Ireland. I have also emailed the RPSI over concerns and advised them to monitor but not edit the article. This should bring in neutral editors which should be useful in article development / oversight. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about the issues raised at COIN. Issues of conflict of interest aside, the RPSI has been in existance since 1964. There should be plenty of coverage in journals covering both the modern and heritage railway scene over the years. I'm in full agreement with about not wading into a war zone. It would probably be for the best if all COI editors were PBLOCKED from editing the article. This is something that should be raised with the community via ANI and consensus gained that those named as having a COI do, in fact, have such a COI, rather than having an editor PBLOCKed on the word of another editor. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on the road but I've found the comment by the uninvolved admin, indeed oversighter, Drmies, identified users with a COI and which caused me to set those as Connected contributor; the comment is at Special:Diff/1038917193.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it, . Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - has raised a valid concern at ANI. You cannot attribute 2015 information to a 1996 source. Please either source the information correctly or remove the material from the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * fixed nowGalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Mullingar
I think I last travelled through Mullingar railway station westbound on 8 August 2017 probably about 5pm. I'd taken a glance at Connolly loco shed about an hour earlier, and might have noticed a GM bo-Bo outside but my memory is hazy. Regarding Inchicore railway works ... I'd already created the article for it on 17 October 2017 but I've never seen the place in my life. I've never been to Whitehead, Northern Ireland I have only been into to visit Marble Arch caves two, maybe three times; and once in in 2 night road tour in July 2008 essentially visiting Giants Causeway & Bangor for Ulster Folk and Transport museum at Cultra. I've only once experienced the a Galway line platform at Mullingar when I was may 4/5/6 yo; at about 11pm at night when I have vague recollections of mixed passenger goods from there in a Sligo direction possibly hauled by a Metrovick. The key point of this that while I've passed through Mullingar station 50 to 100 times I have no real awareness until I just looked it up of today the RPSI shed (and the turntable) which lies adjacent to the Galway lines. I've never travelled on an RPSI train; I once went down with the late grandmother to see a (presumably) RPSI steam train (Tank no. 4?) pass by on the Sligo line circa 1990 and I might be able to find a poor quality photo one day. I've given that as background to the do-gooders vaguely pass by and who think I'm ultra-pro Whitehead or something. But I'll now address the concern with the content added at Special:Diff/1061995636 under summary Whitehead site and museum: Added Dublin and Mullingar sections for balance which added top level sections "Dublin Operations" and "Mullingar base". To be clear is significant as a site in its own right to have it own section on the basis of a publiclly notable museum. It therefore appropriately has its own section that mainline operations are kept out of; albeit that could either be a level one or level two section. Pushing Mullingar base as an equally comparable base seems most inappropriate. Links I've put on Talk:Mullingar railway station seem to show work on a single coach with a dormitory coach also present. Its very hard to find anything on the RPSI site, and there doesn't appear to be a safety casse here so it seems unlikely the site is very active. That is not to in any way downplay the significance of work done there in the past; but here that is more for the history section. In the centre of Ireland it had (perhaps even just has) the potential for being a significant base, but that's CRYSTAL and its chance has probably elapsed. If you look at the Dublin operations section then the operations bit should currently be under operations (and balanced between North and South in a constructive manner. To solve the issue of bases it is probably best to have a top level section of "Bases" and then sections for "Whitehead site and museum", "Inchicore works", "Connolly diesel shed", "Mullingar": but in essence Whitehead, as a museum with public access, likely needs a larger treatment.  Content needs to be facts and not a SOAPBOX slanging opportunity.  I now know why Mullingar was on the Rocky Road to Dublin.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources for RPSI via ProQuest
A nice Dude pointed out to me there is currently (and perhaps only for a short while) available access to various source via ProQuest : goto & enter "Railway Preservation Society of Ireland" for 6550 hits ... then filter. Hopefully this is useful to neutrals. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Request edits 06 January 2022 with regards to bases

 * Specific text to be replaced:

Whitehead site and museum

 * Specific text to be inserted as replacement:

Whitehead site and museum

 * Reason for the change:
 * Allows for all bases to be added at the same level
 * The Anchor is now redundant

This change is a refactor and does not require a URL; it does require additional changes below to make sense Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * References supporting change:


 * Specific text to be added: (After Whitehead site and museum subsection)

Inchicore, Dublin
The RPSI has arrangements for storage of stock at Inchicore Works with maintenance also being carried out there.

Connolly shed
In 2015 the RSPI gained an arrangement with Irish Rail to lease the locomotive shed just to the north of Connolly for the maintenance and storage of mainline diesel locomotives.

To specify Dublin bases.
 * Reason for the change:
 * References supporting change:

Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Specific section and contents to be removed:

Dublin Operations
Multiple issues: Not under "Operations" section. "lions share of income", emotive, non-neutral, claim not dated. Some uncited "Base" things now covered elsewhere. POV chip-on-shoulder feeling from content. Remove totally. This change is a removal and does not require a URL Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason for the change:
 * References supporting change:

Specific text to be replaced:

Mullingar base

 * Specific text to be inserted as replacement:

Mullingar
To bring section to correct level. Content change proposals to this section may be made indendently at a later time. This change is does not require a URL Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason for the change:
 * References supporting change:


 * ✅ - I take it you wanted all the text associated with ==Dublin Operations== removed. Ping me if not. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Request edits 06 January 2022 with Steam locomotives section
When I laid out the sub-headings to group steam locomotives under wheel arrangements under wheel arrangements people found this contentious, especially with the new build NCC class W 2-6-0 new build No. 105. d. GEM and myself broadly reached consensus in principle a subdivision by function, and I think its an immediate rendering improvement. A notes section is used pull No. 105 out of the main body text.


 * Specific text to be added: (immediately after references):

Passenger tender locomotives
The RPSI has three Great Northern Railway of Ireland 's within its fleet. No. 131, a 'Q' class, was built in 1901. The others are 'S' Class no. 171 Slieve Gullion and 'V' Class No. 85 Merlin, although the latter is owned by the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum and is on loan. These locomotives are suitable for longer distance main line work, but are speed restricted if they need to run tender-first in the event they cannot be turned.

Mixed large tank locomotive
The RPSI's Northern Counties Committee (NCC), WT Class No. 4 holds significant records. It worked the last steam passenger train on Northern Ireland Railways, and with No. 53 operated the last stone goods train on 22 October 1970. Acquired by the RPSI in June 1971 it then went on to work over most of the remaining Irish railway network.

Goods tender locomotives
The Society possesses three goods tender locomotives all of which are suitable for slower speed passenger workings. Two of these are from the 101 (J15) class, of which over 100 were built between 1866 and 1903 and which lasted until the end of the steam era on CIÉ in 1963. The RPSI possesses two examples of these simple, reliable and robust engines, No. 184 with a saturated boiler and round-shaped firebox, and No. 186 with a superheated boiler and squarer Belpaire firebox. No. 461, a K2 Class heavy goods locomotive, is the only Dublin and South Eastern Railway example that has been preserved.

Shunting locomotives
Shunting locomotives are useful and economical for shunting and short passenger work within Whitehead yard. These include the No.3 'R.H. Smyth', affectionally known as Harvey, which has also been used ballast workings for NIR.
 * Reason for the change:
 * Improved section heading and spliting


 * References supporting change:

Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ( Updated: Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC))

Diesel locos
Diesel 121 and 141 class were built by General Motors EMD not General Electric. There were never GE locos in Ireland 🤫. Maybe someone could review. 89.19.88.179 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Source Hewitt said GM, (not GE) so agree should be General Motors. This was probably my sloppiness in the first place so accept WP:TROUT as the yokes have taken me up and down the Royal Canal enough times. I'll have to leave to someone else to fix.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)  Yes confirmed my error at Special:Diff/1040393918 likely saying GM+EMT=GE or something and misreading source/linking 121 article. I'll raise a formal request to make sure it gets fixed. Well spotted 89.19.88.179! -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

General Electric General Motors (EMD)
 * Specific text to be changed: (In section Diesel and other locomotives):
 * Specific text to be used in replacement: (I'm proposing a specific replacement but the implementer is welcome to sensibly tweak the replacement text if they feel something else is better):
 * Reason for the change:
 * Correcting mistake in using sourced content by myself


 * References supporting change:
 * Existing (Hewitt|2017p) support change (says GM) as does e.g. CIE 141 Class

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)