Talk:SECR K and SR K1 classes

Lede issue
Aargh, my brain is hurting.


 * "The SECR K and SR K1 classes, also referred to as the River class, was a type of 2-6-4 tank locomotive designed in 1914..."

Having now seen the interrelations between the K/K1/U/U1/N/N1 I can see why this article was so long in the gestation, but that first sentence is grammatically incorrect. I think you may need to lose the bolding of the page title, or consider some reconstruction. For example:


 * "The SECR K class, also referred to as the River class, was a type of 2-6-4 tank locomotive designed in 1914 by Richard Maunsell for express passenger duties on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway (SECR). The SR K1 class was a prototype for a variant of the K class. Built between 1917 and 1925, the K class was the second non-Great Western Railway (GWR) type to use and improve upon the basic design principles established by GWR Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) George Jackson Churchward.[2] The K class was based on the GWR 4300 class, improved with Midland Railway concepts.[3]"

Sorry for the lack of linking!

In fact, it occurs to me that you could legitimately call this article SECR K Class and have SR K1 Class as a redirect to a subsection of the article. (OK, so I haven't read it all yet...)

EdJogg (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Name change is no longer relevant, as the lede is much clearer and the grammar stacks-up. I think it is shaping up nicely now, provided that no-one complains that the article now starts with three long sentences... (Not suggesting that this is changed, just expressing potential future frustration!)
 * EdJogg (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebuilding
(A) I think we are assuming some background knowledge here. The locos were tested on the LNER, fine, then tested on the Southern, fine, then Gresley terminated the tests. Hmmm.

The problems that I have with this are:
 * 1) Who was "Gresley"? (he is not mentioned earlier) - yes, we know (and I've linked him), but read on...
 * 2) What was Gresley's relationship to the Southern Railway and these tests? - bearing in mind he was the LNER CME (there's your assumed knowledge!)
 * 3) How come Gresley got the Southern trials stopped? (Had the LNER trials already finished?)

This will require a bit of restructuring I think, but it needs to be sorted.

(B) A second, minor point. Would it be helpful to clarify as "as surge in the side tanks", or would this imply there were other tanks? (Wasn't sure, so left it as-is.) Later in the section, 'side tanks' is appropriate terminology.

EdJogg (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They were tested on the LNER, and as a guess, I think it was because it had main lines in a better state of repair that the Southern on which to gain an objective assessment of the running characteristics of the class. I'll have to wait a bit to confirm this, but it should be done by Monday/Tuesday evening.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(C) Did the locos retain their names after rebuilding? I presume not, but we don't actually say as much! EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above has been dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rebuilding -- revisited
I know it's OK for us railway-types to use the word 'rebuild' as a synonym for 'rebuilt K class locomotive', but is this OK for a wider audience? Phrases such as "...the rebuilds remained in service..." are unambiguous to us, but is it clear to a non-technical/railway audience?

This occurs in several places, but is most apparent in this section, of course.

EdJogg (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that we either keep it as it is or repeat 'the rebuilt locomotive... the rebuilt locomotives... the rebuilt locomotive...' (I think you get my drift!). In some cases, we should assume that the reader has the intelligence to realise what we mean by rebuild, otherwise we get really bogged down with detail that drifts away from the purpose of the article (but I stand to be corrected) ;)! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Precision
The undefined undefined tags for feet-and-inches to metres are set to a precision of 3 decimal places, whereas the ones for feet alone give one place. A very trivial point in a very comprehensive article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've standardised all to 3 sig-figs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Operational Details
This section has a pile of placename links which need replacing by the appropriate station links (which is the usual convention for railway-related articles). Can use in many cases, although some (eg London, Portsmouth) may require some thought (eg Portsmouth railway station is a DAB page). Rest of article will need checking for same. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have sifted through the article and modified those that I felt needed modifying in this way. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
I have just checked the referencing. It was something of a mess; here is a of my fixes. Most of the problems concerned the use of the  attribute to the   tag. Put simply, each occurrence of value in  must be unique - and there were several non-unique instances. It must be appreciated that if we have a ref like this:

then to reference the same page in the same book, you simply do this:

but to reference a different page in the same book, you cannot do this:

Instead, it needs to have a fresh ref like this:

(where the ref is only needed once, the  attribute is not required).

There are still two problems outstanding, and I can't sort those because I don't have the book in question. In the lede we have this:

under Sevenoaks disaster we have this:

So far, so good. But under Rebuilding we have this:

The value of the name attribute, ie "Scott-Morgan", has been used before. It is not unique. If you examine the Notes section, you will see that all three have been consolidated into one entry, reading "3. ^ a b c Scott-Morgan, p. 18". What needs to be done here is that the page number for the sentence "To recoup the expense of constructing the engines, Maunsell was given permission to rebuild them to the new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." should be determined; if it is 18, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 46 ref; conversely, if that sentence be backed up by page 46, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 18 ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference p. 46 now separated from the two p. 18 references. I'm surprised I let that one slip, but its good to have someone going over these things. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Holcroft refs, and also the Ian Allan ABC ones, could still do with page numbers. Ideally the Haresnape ones should have them too: but at least these have chapter (aka Section) numbers, which the Holcroft ones don't. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Design
The article states
 * The modification were based upon those used to convert N class No. 822 to a 3-cylinder locomotive in 1922

This is misleading - 822 wasn't converted - it was originally built as a 3-cyl engine. I'll get the page nos from Bradley and from Haresnape when I'm back home tomorrow or Monday. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why I believe that it was converted is the fact that the basic constituent parts could be used on an N class locomotive. Whilst Maunsell was going to build an N1 at some point, the way the prototype was created seems to me to require a certain degree of vacillation over the appropriate terminology used regarding 'built as' or 'modified to'. As the majority of parts had been constructed anyway, it was only the addition of the middle cylinder and corresponding valve gear that made it different to the N class, implying to me that it was a 'modified' N class that became the prototype of the N1 class (this is also implied in Reynolds, W.J.: 'The Maunsell moguls' (S.R. Railway Magazine, 1943, 89), pp. 155-156). To me, the first 'built' N1 class was therefore No. 1400 of 1930. Despite our current disagreement on terminology, I would like to clarify this, as the next article to be attended to will be the N1 class. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My copy of Bradley seems to imply the above (granted it is the 1961 version, so I can't vouch for any revision in the 1980 edition) on p. 55, where he states that of the twelve eventually constructed by the SECR by grouping "Four others [N class locomotives] were on order [towards the end of the war], of which Nos. 823 to 825 eventually entered service as standard locomotives, but the thirteenth [N class locomotive under construction], No. 822, was fitted with three cylinders." This may be pedantic, but this implies to me that it was an ad-hoc 'lash-up' of the N class and different cylinders. It doesn't imply the intent that they were going to make No. 822 the prototype N1 class from the outset. I hope you can see the difficulty here. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't just be a case of adding the middle cylinder and Holcroft valve motion, but the outer cylinders would need to be different, since they were smaller (they are also visually a different shape); the driving coupled axle would also differ, being cranked instead of plain. If the balance weights were cast into the wheels (rather than being built up from two outer plates and some molten lead), different wheel castings would also be required. Bradley's 2nd edn (pp. 84, 113-114) is clear that 822 was ordered as a normal 2-cylinder N, one of a batch of fifteen ordered November 1917 (WO 237/17) and "no progress was possible before March 1920". However "Maunsell requested Holcroft in February 1919 to have drawings prepared for three-cylinder versions of the K's and N's to be classified K1 and N1. These drawings were on hand on 1 June 1920 when an example of each was ordered from Ashford Works ... no work on either engine was possible before November 1922 when Maunsell decided to avoid further delay by completing No. 822, the twelfth engine of the current N class order, with three cylinders and Holcroft derived valve gear." Differences listed include "a chimney of larger diameter, a 3in. higher pitched boiler, two cab front lookout windows, leading sandboxes on the running-plate and a high front platform.". -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of the above text is that we are now in broad agreement that No. 822 was intended to be another N class locomotive. However my understanding is that if the intention before construction was to produce No. 822 as an N1 class, then we are able to say that it was built as such. However, seeing as the order for a 2-cylinder N class had already been placed in 1917, even with the delays in construction, it shouldn't really be misleading to say that the order was converted or modified to the N1 design. I think the problem here is subjectivity of language, and how different people can interpret the same data in different ways. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now re-read the article, and have changed the wording of the offending sentence. Even though I feel that the previous incarnation was not misleading, it should read better now.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede
Seems OK apart from the sentence that starts "The first was built...", which naturally takes 'K1' from the previous sentence as its subject. I couldn't see a way to re-arrange it easily, unless the sentence is moved to the end of the paragraph, where it still works, just about, without text change. In this revised position the subject becomes K Class, but if necessary it can be adjusted to: "The first was built in 1917 and the remaining nineteen between 1925 and 1926; the K1 was built in 1925." This move has the added advantage of separating the two sentences that start "The K class...". Still not entirely happy though. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that... Moved it even further down the section, reducing some duplication in the process. There are still the two adjacent "The K class..." sentences to re-consider. Can't help there. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh. Changes look OK on quick inspection, but this wasn't where I meant. It's the last sentence of the first para and the first sentence of the second para that both start "The K class...". (Sorry, haven't got any further yet!) -- EdJogg (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave the second alone, change the first to read "The locomotives were based on the GWR 4300 class". -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
The 'Career' heading currently mentions SECR and Southern Railway. Shouldn't it also mention BR? If so, should it link to 'British Railways' or 'Southern Region of British Railways'? And should it be displayed as BR (or 'BR(S)' ), or in full (eg BR (Southern Region)), in which case SECR might need to be expanded too?

I would be quite happy with a list showing: "SECR, SR, BR(S)", each linking appropriately, as all the abbreviations are expanded in the lede.

EdJogg (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the Ks (and the K1) had been rebuilt to the U (and U1) classes well before 1948, so were never BR locos in their original state. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true. I'd only got as far as re-reading the lede (for the umpteenth time!) which finishes by mentioning their conversion and subsequent service into BR days. That's the trouble with trying to snatch 5mins editing time in your coffee break...
 * EdJogg (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It can be fixed by putting 'as rebuilt' in parentheses. Whilst its mentioned further down, some people skip over these, so it would be good for the reader to keep this in mind. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a quick try at adjusting the words, but they wouldn't fit into place. It might be OK as it is. Probably need a fresh pair of eyes on this one. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

K Class section
I have this urge to place single quotes around 'dual-fitted' as we are declaring (and explaining) some new terminology here. Are we allowed to do this? -- EdJogg (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "dual-fitted"


 * I don't really know, as the term is explained through inference later on in the sentence. All it is is that its fitted with both types of brake in separate systems for use anywhere on the Southern, so there's no new technology at play here. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A search reveals surprisingly little usage of the term within WP, so I'm inclined to leave as-is. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A link to Vacuum brake might be suitable. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, have implemented it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Short and sweet, and exactly the terminology used both colloquially and in most works on the subject; yet here we have: "300 LT train", which is ghastly and very difficult to read -- it really disrupts the flow.
 * "300-ton train"

Is there no better way of doing it? Linking to tons, for example, improves the text, or could moving the whole conversion thing into a footnote maybe work, like: "300-ton train". Urgh. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like short and sweet myself, but I'm willing to take a bet for 5 pence that the moment it goes up for FAC, someone will change it back. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look, and changed it to the type in the infobox. Its still not a brilliant bit of prose, but I think its the best we can make of a bad situation. This is mainly because in my experience, most Wikipedians seem to have a fetish about templates that calculate everything... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs wikilinking somehow, but more crucially the sentence immediately poses the question, "what were the first ten fitted with?" presumably they weren't unsprung?
 * "laminated springs"

Fairly easy to fix: "...address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class, which were fitted with clotted-cream -filled horsehair buffing pads." Obviously you will need to determine the appropriate material/technology!

-- EdJogg (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The second Marsh LBSCR J Class 4-6-2 tank was fitted with spiral springs (Marx, p13); on further members of the class built by Billinton laminated springs were substituted because of rough riding, so I suppose the Ks had a similar progression. The trouble with clotted cream is that it soon becomes work-hardened. Ning-ning (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is indeed unclear, using the word "leaf" in one place, and "laminated" in another. I have checked Bradley (2nd edn 1980), which says of the springs fitted to the prototype (A790) as built, and to the nine Armstrong, Whitworth engines (A791-A799):
 * Under-hung laminated springs were provided for the leading and coupled wheels while those of the driving wheels were of helical pattern. The leading Bissel truck had a spherical centre with the lateral displacement controlled by Cartazzi slides and a pair of coil springs ... The trailing bogie had ... helical springing (Bradley 1980 pp. 68-69)
 * No. A790 was modified, too late to affect A791-A799, but the modifications were incorporated into the ten Brighton engines A800-A809:
 * (1) Flat, instead of spherical, centres to the bogie and Bissel truck; (2) Laminated, instead of helical, bearing springs to the bogie and Bissel truck ... (Bradley 1980, p. 70)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It would seem that 'we' either need to condense this detail into something much shorter, or re-write the paragraph to avoid the technical detail. I think the flat vs spherical bearings change is also significant, but could take too much explaining to a layman maybe (could be dropped into a footnote). Alternatively the wording needs to be changed to something like "changes to suspension arrangements" or "changes to designs of bearings and springs used". That sort of thing.
 * (Ning-ning -- loved the retort!) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added my tuppence-worth, although I think it needs rewording. It addresses what batch had what springs, anyway. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've pondered this awhile, and decided that it was not adding much to the article by going into detail over what spring was fitted where. I've removed reference to these apart from saying that they were changed on later batches due to rough-riding on the earlier locomotives.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming the locomotives
"The locomotives constructed in 1925 were named..." Am I missing something? Surely the 1926-built examples were also named? Why the distinction '1925'? -- EdJogg (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rebuilds in British Railways service
This section has some generalisations and inaccuracies. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The K and K1 classes ... were given the BR power classification 4P3F." true, but not immediately: LMS-style power classifications were not applied to any non-LMS locos until 1949, and they were periodically revised in light of operating experience. The U & U1 classes were 4MT by 15 November 1950 - this became 4P3F at some point between Spring 1953 and Autumn 1955.
 * "The locomotives at first retained their Southern Railway livery" true
 * "but with "British Railways" on the tender" - only true if the tender received a full repaint, which would not apply to all locos in the short timespan.
 * "Those locomotives that had light repairs before 1950 had an "S" prefix added to the Southern number"; evidence in Bradley suggests that of the U & U1 classes, only 1620, 1631, 1891 and 1901 were so treated - these four were built as U or U1 class, and so are outside the scope of this article. Renumbering to the 3xxxx series began by May 1948, when U1 no. S1891 became 31891.
 * "From 1949 to 1950, ... repainted in the British Railways mixed-traffic lined black livery ..." Bradley gives the dates of repaint from SR livery to BR. For the former K & K1 class locos, dates of repaint to BR lined black range from February 1949 to June 1955, of which six were 1951 or later. 31800/1/2 were BR plain black before becoming lined black.
 * "Numbers were changed to the British Railways standard numbering system: the series 31790–31809 was allocated to the K class rebuilds, and 31890 to the K1 class." true, but what's wrong with saying that the former SR numbers were increased by 30000?


 * Done, although I don't have a reference for 31800-31802 in plain black livey as I have the older version of Bradley. If you could include it yourself, then that would be grand. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect added
I've created the redirect SR K1 class, to allow this to be identified and linked separately where appropriate (for example in the 'K1' DAB page). -- EdJogg (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That gives five, which I think covers all legal combinations, unless we think that users might want to link to SECR Class K and similar forms. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nothing compared to Wilbert Awdry, which currently has 20!!
 * Actually, I was driven by finding the 'K1' DAB page. Having to use the link SECR K and SR K1 classes looked really weird there, and grammatically just couldn't be made to work, so another redirect fitted the bill. -- EdJogg (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Background section
Quote: "Three factors dictated the type of locomotive that could operate on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway (SECR): the heavy passenger train loadings; the poor track quality; and the weak, lightly built bridges". The second and third factors seem to me to be good reasons for not using a tank engine. A 2-6-4 tank would have heavier axle loadings and a higher centre of gravity than an equivalent 2-6-0 tender engine. Biscuittin (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but that was the situation on the SECR at the time. It would be interesting to know whether there was a rolling programme of bridge strengthening that had cleared the Ks for use on the mainlines. Haven't found anything in my references (mind you, I haven't really been looking, and I've been tinkering with the U class article on Word for the last three years- still not finished due to lack of time), but it would be an important addition to the article.

--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Big Mistake
Reading the blurb on the front page of Wikipedia today, I noticed that it wasn't mentioned that the K class was completely Rebuilt to U classes, and ceased to exist in 1920's, instead it put that the class survived until 1966, which isn't true Torekipe (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The main page blurb is Today's featured article/May 18, 2016, and problems with that should be reported at WP:ERRORS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should have mentioned, that the content that is missing was originally in the blurb, but was cut out by in . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the U class was a subclass or a separate class. I'm still not sure, but I avoided the issue by substituting this sentence (also adapted from the lead) for the offending sentence: "They were rebuilt as the SR U class and SR U1 class 2-6-0s following a railway accident at Sevenoaks, Kent in 1927." Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments posted at WP:ERRORS

 * The following was copied from of WP:ERRORS -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Today's FA is SECR K and SR K1 classes and its blurb says "The class was the earliest large-scale use of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement in Britain." This seems to be incorrect because, as the article explains, the earlier GCR Class 1B class had already used this arrangement. Twenty of each class were constructed so the numbers were the same. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the article and its talk page to see if there's agreement there to change it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's sourced to Casserley (1966), which is apparently an article in Railway World, which I don't have. The GCR Class 1B were indeed 2-6-4T, and also pre-dated the K class; but they were designed for hauling coal trains, whereas the K class were passenger engines, so I suspect that a qualification has gone missing somewhere. Maybe Casserley didn't mention it, or maybe the person who used Casserley as a source didn't realise the significance of that qualifier. The offending passage might be made more accurate by the insertion of the phrase "for passenger locomotives", as in either "earliest large-scale use for passenger locomotives of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement in Britain" or "earliest large-scale use of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement for passenger locomotives in Britain". -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose. This is now off the Main Page, so the discussion should continue at the article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Redrose64 for confirming this. A quick and simple fix would have been to delete the sentence from the blurb.  WP:ERRORS should not be waiting for an elaborate qualification such as Redrose64 suggests – this takes too long. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)