User talk:Bulleid Pacific

NowCommons: File:34007 nameplate.JPG
File:34007 nameplate.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:34007 nameplate.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class again
Hello 'Bulleid Pacific' thanks for the comments on my additions to the above class - I also appreciate your own improvements to my own contributions. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative effort. I will have a look at the WC/BB article, but probably not until early/mid October as I have to go abroad for two weeks this weekend. Regards, David --Das48 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALT (or "As if we didn't already have enough to do...")
Hiya. Just bumped into Alternative text for images (WP:ALT). In a nutshell this gives the reason behind -- and instructions for -- adding 'alt' text to images: text that will be displayed instead of an image (eg if images are turned off) or, much more importantly, what will be read to a visually-impaired user by a screen-reader program. (You will see that my section heading is somewhat tongue-in-cheek!)

I suspect that at some stage in the future there will be a project/campaign to add alt text to ALL images, and I am rather surprised that GA/FA reviews are not checking for it yet. You may wish to think about adding text to your existing GA/FA articles -- (there is a tool to help you check the alt text) -- and try to get into the habit of applying it to all images from now on. I am going to try and get into this habit myself. As more editors see alt text being applied, the job should become easier.

(Incidentally, I recommend a read of the WP:ALT page before you try adding any. There are numerous hints and tips to this rather different way of writing.)

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For completeness, I just found the following in the WP:TRAINS thread about the matter:


 * Alt-texts are required at FA and FL nominations, and lack of alt-compliance is a valid reason to delist such articles now. However, the requirement has not been enforced for GA, and probably will not be until a full revamp of the GA criteria is done again (the last time was in 2007). Arsenikk (talk)  09:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you have already applied some ALT text to some of your FA articles (you may have done all, I haven't looked!) but this would suggest that it is now a requirement for existing, as well as proposed, FAs, so you may want to attend to this before starting your next major article upgrade. Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ALT text -- new guidance
As I introduced this extra burden to you it is right that I should keep you updated. By chance, I discovered that there has been a substantial discussion going on regarding ALT text, for some considerable time: what was its real purpose?; how should it be written?; how to avoid OR and NPOV in descriptions?; is it really a guideline or a requirement for FA?, etc.

Separately, I have since discovered that the requirement for FACs to include ALT text has now been dropped, as WP:ALT is no longer a guideline (apparently it was elevated thus without consensus, some years ago, and the FAC requirement was added unilaterally sometime last year). If you're interested in reading further, see WT:ALT and WT:FAC, the latter has produced two whole archive pages on the subject!

I can't advise you what to do, that's your choice, but I have given up adding ALT text anywhere within WP. If it becomes a major issue in the future, a task force will be recruited to apply the necessary changes using whatever is deemed the appropriate style by then.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As (I think) the only one here who was involved in that interminable conversation; my recommendation would be to use short alt-text whenever possible, with the emphasis on the "short" (the RNIB's guideline is "dog leaps for a stick"). Thus, File:7803 Barcote Manor at Dovey Junction.jpg (right), would have alt-text along the lines of "steam locomotive at a station", as opposed to "Black and white photograph of a GWR Manor Class locomotive, painted black, towing a long train of passenger carriages past a near-deserted platform. The locomotive is numbered 7803 and its nameboard reads Cambrian Coast Express."


 * The requirement for alt-text is reasonable; the problem was that certain people started demanding mini-essays on the photos in question. Quite aside from the fact that it's a legal requirement under both US and UK disability law, it's basic good manners; a lot of people read Wikipedia via IPhones and the like (particularly in a field like railways, where people are likely to be looking up exhibits they see in museums or information about the station they're currently at), and a lot of people browsing on phones turn images off to save on time and download charges. If alt text's turned off, the software defaults to treating the caption as the alt-text, so what they actually see isn't "no picture at all", but a blank white square containing the image caption twice. (Switch images off in your browser, and it's surprising how shoddy a lot of Wikipedia pages look.) If you really don't want alt-text, you should add "alt=" to the image (e.g. 7803 Barcote Manor at Dovey Junction.jpg ), which tells the software to leave it blank altogether if images are disabled—and that part is still a requirement at FAC, as it's mandated by the MOS. – iride  scent  14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't mind doing it as long as someone 'clears up' after me, so to speak, as I'm someone who likes doing veritable essays as captions whether seen or unseen. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Iridescent, thank you for the advice. I will try to remember to add some kind of simple text when I'm adding a picture, but I will expect a future editor with suitable experience to polish it later. Trying to describe a picture adequately is very difficult, especially without resorting to NPOV/OR text. Trying to describe a particular steam locomotive, or variations between it and the previous picture of a different-but-related steam locomotive, is even harder -- and nigh-on impossible if we must allow for a reader who is not versed in the technicalities of the iron horse... Cheers. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SR Light Pacifics
As requested I have amended the first half of this article incorporating material from Bradley. Please add, amend or revert as you thing necessary. Will take a look at the remainder in about 10 days time after my return to the UK. --Das48 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question that's right up your street!
Hi. There's a question just been posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways that's right in your field of expertise, if you'd care to take a look...

EdJogg (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bluebell Line?
There's been a recent edit to SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes, changing a number of redirect links. One of these replaced Bluebell Line, with Bluebell Railway. The Oxted Line article also mentions the Bluebell Line, but I wouldn't have thought the Line is synonymous with the Railway, especially with regard to its usage in the WC/BB article. Are we missing an article on the Bluebell Line?

Bluebell Railway presumably takes its name from Bluebell Line (it is mentioned, but not in bold as a redirect, and not at the top). Presumably the latter was longer than the heritage line. If you agree with / share my concerns, could you take a look at this?

EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi. I hope to be able to have a look at your entry for SECR K & K1 this weekend and let you have my thoughts early next week.--Das48 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry I haven't had a chance to peer review this yet, I will endeavour to do so over the Christmas break. --DavidCane (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SECR K and SR K1 classes -- ready for FAC?
Hi. Done some final checks: DAB links, Ext links, hyphens/dashes, curly quotes, ALT text, station links. I think I'm done now. I could keep reading the article and keep tweaking the text, but I don't think I can improve it noticeably now. You may still need to consider the comments I've left on the talk page, particularly about the spring changes (I think the other comments have been dealt with, but best you double-check). I'm sure it would be possible to 'tighten' the text further still, but I'm quite happy with it as it is, and I don't think there's much 'padding' to remove.

It's an interesting story, and engagingly written, so hopefully FAC review will go smoothly. I'll keep watching (but must next attend to the GWR page!)

EdJogg (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be glad to take a look at it, thanks. I have an unrelated question - do you recall the image I found on Flickr of a locomotive? I now have a Flickr account and could try asking the uploader if s/he would be willing to relicense it for use here, but I could not recall which engine it was. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was it and the image is here. Just let me know if you want me to ask for permission to reuse it here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that K/K1 has even though SandyGeorgia's recommendations haven't yet been carried out. I was planning on checking all the web link titles tomorrow when I'm less muzzy. What should we do? -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but its nice to get things done properly. We're not after a perfect article, but a proper article. ;) --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FA isn't the end of the road; it's not Perfect Article (PA) after all. If you can see where improvements can still be made, then make them. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done for sticking to your guns
I'm referring to this. There seems to be a growing trend to dumb articles down, so kudos for resisting it. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, and its something that needs saying, otherwise each article on steam locomotives will need a complete history of the steam locomotive as background information. I'm also not particularly keen on the amount of referencing some reviewers 'require' within articles; it sometimes seems that you can't even urinate without providing references for otherwise banal, mundane and well-established factual content. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if this how you feel about my contributions, please don't ask for my input in future I am not sure why you asked for my input in the first place. Congratulations by the way, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Malleus, I was in no way trying to dumb down the article, just suggesting it provide context to the reader beyond a wikilink. If the article can explain the qualities of stone used as ballast in a few sentences, it does not seem to me unreasonable to add 12 words (as I suggested at FAC) to describe the first adjective (2-6-4) used to describe the locomotive in minimal detail.
 * Bulleid, I supported the FAC from the first, so all of my points were suggestions, not requirements. That said, I believe I am in the majority on referencing standards. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about all this. I came here excited that the article had passed FAC and wanting to congratulate you. When I read the above, I assumed both comments were about me (as the first clearly was and I had suggested to you that refs to be added in FAC). As you might expect, I was hurt and a bit insulted, but still excited about the FA. The mix of emotions led to the "meh" edit summaries.

Like you and Malleus, I try hard to improve the encyclopedia, and really was not trying to dumb it down. As I wrote somewhere (FAC?), every time I read the locomotive articles I have to click on the link to see what the Whyte (?) notation means, so the cumulative effect made me think perhaps this should be included somehow, but I defer to your judgment on this.

I respect you and your work here and what I know of Malleus and his/her work too. I apologize for any hurt I have caused either of you. Just as one should not edit when drunk, one should also not edit when upset (at least on talk pages, and, I suspect, everywhere). If you want me to ask about the Flickr image, please ask. If I can review something, and you want me to, please ask.

Oddly enough, I like trains and especially steam trains very much. I just do not know a lot about them (one of my first articles here was on Steamtown National Historic Site). Thanks to your articles, I am learning more. Sorry for all this, yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly no hard feelings on my part Ruhrfisch, and I dare say none on Bulleid Pacific's either. It's a fine balancing act, how much to say, how much to leave to the wikilink to say; there's no "right" answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you, and I am glad this is behind us (and sorry again). I will try to take a look at the LSWR N15 class rewrite in a few days, right now I am trying to get all the i's dotted and t's crossed for an FAC nomination (hopefully submit it tomorrow). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

LSWR N15 class
I have looked at the sandbox and will start making some comments here tomorrow - my comments will be nitpicks, but wanted to give you a heads up. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) O, that's it - looks very good already, these are just some very nit-picky suggestions. Hope they help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be a space between "2-" and "cylinder" in The LSWR N15 class was a British 2– cylinder 4-6-0 express passenger steam locomotive... or is this a railway convention?
 * Missing word? Robert Urie completed his H15 class mixed-traffic 4-6-0 design in 1913 and the prototype [was?] built in August 1914.\
 * Missing article (or is this train lingo?) It incorporated features from the H15 class, including eight-wheel double bogie tenders with outside plate frames over the wheels and [an?] exposed Walschaerts valve gear.[5] Or is it plural? ... and exposed Walschaerts valve gear[s].[5]?
 * "and exposed Walschaerts valve gear" is correct: "gear" here is in the sense of "apparatus" or "equipment", not "cog wheel", so is plural already. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The MOS says to spell out primary units like imperial gallons on first use (can abbreviate after), so fix imp gal in ...although strengthened during construction with extra internal bracing to hold 5,000 imp gal (22,700 l) of water.[7]
 * The MOS also suggests spelling out per cent in things like The Urie boiler was retained, though the Eastleigh superheater was replaced by a Maunsell type with 10% greater superheating surface area.[6]
 * There are some terms that seem like they should be linked, like Hammer blow
 * Are the two clauses in this sentence logically connected? If so, the connection is not clear to me The company had under-quoted to gain the contract, and the necessity to maintain an intensive timetable on the Southern Railway’s Western section meant that the order was increased to 30 locomotives (Nos. E763–E792).[16]
 * I wonder if the sentence could be split with a bit added: The company had under-quoted to gain the contract, which would cause problems later. The necessity to maintain an intensive timetable on the Southern Railway’s Western section meant that the order was increased to 30 locomotives (Nos. E763–E792).[16]
 * I think I would say explicitly that 14 were built here After [the first 14 (]Nos. E793–E806[)] were built, it was decided to discontinue construction in favour of Maunsell’s new 4-cylinder Lord Nelson class design in June 1926.[17]
 * I would at least link Herbert Ashcombe Walker in When Maunsell was told of the decision to name the locomotives, he replied: "Tell [Sir Herbert Walker] I have no objection, but I warn you, it won't make any difference to the working of the engines".[20] you might add a bit of explanatory text too.
 * Deputised here is not a usage I am familiar with From 1945 the King Arthur class regularly deputised for Bulleid’s new Pacifics, which were experiencing poor serviceability due to mechanical failures.  would "were substituted" be OK? or "took over duties"?
 * Unclear which plate is meant here These resulted in the plate design illustrated above, and were gradually fitted to the class from late 1927 onwards.[28]
 * Identify by nickname the poor performance batch here Under LSWR ownership, the N15s were initially well-received by crews, though Nos. 736–755 [(the fill-in-the-blank Arthurs)] soon gained a reputation for poor steaming on long runs.[6]
 * I would specify the year here instead of "recently" Recently restored to British Railways Brunswick green livery, as of 2010 No. 30777 can be seen at the Great Central Railway and on the railway network hauling mainline railtours. [67]


 * Ok, thanks, will work through this in due course. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the passage "Tell [Sir Herbert Walker] (the General Manager of the Southern Railway) I have no objection, but I warn you, it won't make any difference to the working of the engines". I have the book in question, and the actual quote shown by Nock is "Tell Sir Herbert I have no objection, but I warn you, it won't make any difference to the working of the engines!". The exclamation point aside, Nock uses the words "Sir Herbert", so whilst it's admissible to insert "[Walker]" by way of clarity, it's incorrect to put the square bracket around "Sir Herbert" as well. I would also suggest changing the order of the sentences to place the nicknames after Maunsell's remark, as being closer to chronological sequence, something like this:
 * When the former Drummond G14 and P14 4-6-0s were rebuilt to Maunsell’s N15 specification in February 1925, the Southern Railway decided to give names to all express passenger locomotives. Because of the railway's association with the West of England, the Public Relations Officer, John Elliot suggested that members of the N15 class should be named after characters and places associated with the legend of King Arthur. The first G14 to be rebuilt, No. E453, was given the first name and christened King Arthur. The Urie locomotives (hitherto referred as N15s rather than King Arthurs) were also given names connected with Arthurian legend and were referred to as "Urie Arthurs"; the Maunsell batches of N15s were nicknamed the "Eastleigh" and "Scotch Arthurs". When Maunsell was told of the decision to name the locomotives, he replied: "Tell [ Sir Herbert [ Walker] (the General Manager of the Southern Railway) I have no objection, but I warn you, it won't make any difference to the working of the engines". Walker was was the General Manager of the Southern Railway, who had told Elliot that Maunsell's permission was required. The first G14 to be rebuilt, No. E453, was given the first name and christened King Arthur. The Urie locomotives (hitherto referred as N15s rather than King Arthurs) were also given names connected with Arthurian legend and were referred to as "Urie Arthurs"; the Maunsell batches of N15s were nicknamed the "Eastleigh" and "Scotch Arthurs".
 * This also brings the explanation of who Walker is outside the quote. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fancy a change of scene?
I'm just doing a review of Holt Manufacturing Company for an editor who has massively expanded the article over the past week. He's put it forward for a DYK (due in the next day or so?) and is considering GA too. It's nothing arduous at the moment, just a proof-read to make sure everything is nicely readable (it's mostly created by one editor) with plenty of links. So, if you'd like to join in... (Check the history, and you'll see what I've done so far.)

Holt was a pioneering US manufacturer of steam tractors, formed in the late 19th century, and went on to become Caterpillar Inc. Although not about Southern steam locos, I'm sure you'd find it interesting.

I've noted you haven't edited for a few days, so no need to apologise if the DYK comes and goes before you see this request!

EdJogg (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

TFA?
How about nominating your article on the SR Leader Class for Today's Featured Article? It would be a lovely article for the main page, but obviously I thought I ought to ask the main contributors before nominating. I've written a little blurb below: Bob talk 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 The SR Leader class was a class of experimental 0-6-6-0 articulated steam locomotive, produced to the design of the innovative engineer Oliver Bulleid. Intended as a replacement for the ageing fleet of M7 class, the Leader was an attempt to extend the life of steam traction on the Southern Railway by eliminating many of the operational drawbacks associated with existing steam locomotives. Design work began in 1946, and development continued after the nationalisation of the railways in 1948, under the auspices of British Railways. The Leader project was part of Bulleid's desire to modernise the steam locomotive based on experience gained with the Southern Railway's fleet of electric stock. The design incorporated many novel features, such as the use of thermic siphons, bogies, and cabs at either end of the locomotive, resulting in its unique appearance. Several of its innovations proved to be unsuccessful however, partly accounting for the project's cancellation in the early 1950s. Five Leader locomotives were begun, although only one was completed. Problems with the design, indifferent reports on performance, and political pressure surrounding spiraling development costs, led to all locomotives of the class being scrapped by 1951.(more...)


 * The only problem with the 'Today's Featured Article' feature is that it sets articles up as targets for vandalism. The last one to have this treatment was the N15, and we had to get a team of editors to watch over it. As for me, I don't have the time at present to do much on Wikipedia, although I have got a couple of articles that I have been working on ready to be assessed for GA prior to further advancement. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

N1
Re (section "Design and construction"): it's not really the smokebox that is fitted with these components, but the boiler, although they may all be contained within the smokebox. The superheater header is almost always inside the smokebox, but the superheater elements themselves - which do the actual job of superheating the steam - are inside the boiler flues. The regulator valve is fitted between the steam pipe from the dome and the superheater header. The snifting valves are between the superheater header and the pipes to the steam chest: they prevent a vacuum forming in the cylinders when the loco is coasting with the regulator shut. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed to 'housed'. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

List of SR West Country and Battle of Britain class locomotives
This diff re-added the 'e' to Mort[e]hoe. This must have been spelt deliberately in the first place, as it was there as a piped link, but the Bulleid Society page shows the conventional form of the name.

Could you double-check in your refs please? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * has Mortehoe. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Whoever had added it originally used this spelling intentionally (piped link), and Mortehoe and Woolacombe railway station was known as 'Morthoe' for the first 25 years or so, hence I needed proper confirmation.
 * EdJogg (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes
This is a note to let the main editors of SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 8, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 8, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes, collectively known as Light Pacifics or informally as "Spam Cans", are classes of air-smoothed 4-6-2 Pacific steam locomotive designed for the Southern Railway by its Chief Mechanical Engineer Oliver Bulleid. A total of 110 locomotives were constructed between 1945 and 1950, named after West Country resorts or Royal Air Force and other subjects associated with the Battle of Britain. Incorporating new developments in British steam locomotive technology, both classes were amongst the first British designs to utilise welding in the construction process, and to use steel fireboxes, which meant that components could be more easily constructed during the wartime austerity and post-war economy. They were designed to be lighter in weight than their sister locomotives, the Merchant Navy class, to permit use on a wider variety of routes. They were a mixed-traffic design, equally adept at hauling passenger and freight trains. The classes operated until July 1967, when the last steam locomotives on the Southern Region were withdrawn from service. Although most were subsequently scrapped, 20 locomotives found new homes on British heritage railways. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  locomotive class

Thank you for quality articles for project UK Railways such as SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes, with a passion for steam, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 418 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for today's SECR K and SR K1 classes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for today's SECR N class! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Southern Railway (UK)
Template:Infobox Southern Railway (UK) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 18, 2016
I see you've been gone a while; I posted a note at WT:TRAINS. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

SECR N class scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that SECR N class has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 24 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/November 24, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR Lord Nelson class
SR Lord Nelson class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3
LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR Q class
SR Q class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR V class
SR V class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)