Talk:Three-drum boiler

Steam locomotives
There was at least one steam locomotive having a boiler of three-drum pattern, LNER Class W1 no. 10000 built in 1929 with a Yarrow boiler and rebuilt in 1936 with a conventional locomotive boiler. The Yarrow boiler fitted to this loco actually had five drums, because there were two pairs of lower drums: each lower drum was slightly less than half the length of the upper drum, and the forwards pair of lower drums were placed closer together than were the rear pair, the furnace occupying the space between the rear pair. Information on this locomotive may be found in: The two Nock books are essentially updated editions of the 1941 articles in The Railway Magazine, with different photographs. Photos of the boiler itself are shown in. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see 10000 as being relevant here, at least not enough to include it. I'm also working on an article on Yarrows in particular, and I might include it in there. Even there though, it's not a mainstream form of Yarrow boiler. 10000's boiler (although never described as such) actually has more in common with the Woolnough boiler. It's long and thin, fired from one end. The circulation paths are thus, like the Woolnough, longitudinal through the drums, rather than transverse through the banks. Although the locomotive drew on previous marine experience from these boilers, it had no further influence on them from itself.
 * An even better ref than those above (as it includes boiler drawings as well) is in Nock's second volume of Nock & Ahrons' British Steam Railway Locomotive. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was designed and built by Yarrow (to Gresley's specifications), even if it wasn't a Yarrow boiler in the accepted sense. The books don't mention Woolnough; Gresley's 1931 paper to IMechE may well do, but I don't have a copy. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was designed by Yarrow, but not to Gresley's original specifications (they were unworkable) and I'd love to know why Yarrow didn't build it - I suspect that they wanted rid of the project, as they expected it to be a failure. The design process for this boiler took nearly three years and was fairly heated in its exchanges between Gresley and Yarrow. Gresley didn't understand some aspects of high-pressure and water-tube behaviour as well as Yarrows did, but wouldn't listen. The eventual 10000 had too much longitudinal gas flow that wasn't doing much, too much reliance on the radiant elements in the firebox and no gas flow through the banks to make it work as a water-tube boiler ought to. A water-wall furnace would have helped. Any attempts to improve the bank's gasflow tended to take the paint off the boiler cladding. Really it was just too long and thin, for a design that's really based on transverse gas flow. It would probably have worked better if it had followed Doble's ideas instead, and his idea for a multiple modular boiler, based on the shorter Woolnough.
 * I think you're probably right though and 10000's boiler should be covered here, as a unique type, rather than in with the Yarrows. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed rename from three-drum boilers to three-drum boiler
Rename to from three-drum boilers to three-drum boiler, per common practice for singular items and WP:MOSNAME.


 * Oppose
 * This is a case under WP:PLURAL #2, "Articles on groups or classes of specific things." Although there are several types such as the "Admiralty three-drum boiler", there is no such simple device as an unqualified "three-drum boiler" and so this new name is now a WP:NEO. We can talk of "one boiler", but we cannot (except in reference to this abstract class) refer to "one three-drum boiler". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Preventing further moves by locking the page down looks like a failure to engage in discussion of the issue at the least overlooking the D in BRD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The D in BRD stands for Deutschland in my understanding - what are you talking about? But I accept the criticism and have unlocked. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of WP:BRD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * i think it should be plural, but only this, (as opposed to biscuittin's that all of them make sense one wway or another). cant say anything new it was already reasoned well why, but as an off topic: it sounds horribly in singular, for the purpose it is used here (a grouping of pages) --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 12:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support a title in the singular. Would Andy please explain to me very slowly why the articles on locomotive, turbine and especially boiler and many others are in the singular but this one must be in the plural. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The easiest (although probably impractical) way to explain this is to address a computer programmer who is familiar with object-oriented programming. In that domain's vocabulary, three-drum boiler would be considered an abstract class - this is a common issue in that domain and programmers will recognise it. Although abstract classes can be discussed in the abstract, the Platonic ideal, or in programming terms as "classes" they cannot, unlike the more common concrete classes, be instantiated as an "object".
 * It makes sense to talk of "a boiler". It is not only a conceptual class of steam-generating devices (that can be discussed as a class), it is also something that can represent a single concrete item (a single Yarrow boiler is still just "a boiler" for many practical purposes). In that case, WP:MOSNAME mandates the common singular form of the name.
 * However with the article here, three-drum boilers (and also a similar problem at Vertical boilers with horizontal fire-tubes), we have a coherent set that is recognisable as an identifiable group, yet cannot be instantiated as a concrete object - you cannot build a "three-drum boiler", only one of the sub-types. The term does have meaning (it's not a neologism), but only as a grouping, not as concrete individuals. This is precisely the case described under WP:PLURAL #2, "Articles on groups or classes of specific things.".
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we accept Andy Dingley's view then all boiler articles would have to become plural. For example, the article Fire-tube boiler lists eight variations. I think it is more sensible to regard Fire-tube boiler, or Three-drum boiler, as one type of boiler with several sub-types. The same argument could be applied to Steam engine because there are numerous sub-types, e.g. simple, compound, uniflow, etc. Biscuittin (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Undid Redirect
I undid another redirect removal by 82.132.231.156. Here the reason is given is an issue of notability; the user never discussed and simply removed the entire article. The articles are notable: Yarrow-type boilers powered most steamships during the Second World War, and this page covers many other types that may or may not deserve their own pages. 107.1.66.110 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)