Talk:British Rail Class 41 (Warship Class)

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

Correct Page Title

I propose that this page be renamed British Rail Class D20/2. The reason is that they were never classified as Class 41 by BR as they were all withdrawn from service before the introduction of TOPS. Jsp3970 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one responded I went ahead and moved the page to British Rail Class D20/2 for the reasons listed above. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with D20/2, as in the article it only ever mentions it being called D600, so either the article needs re-writing, or the title should be D600. Lukeno94 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to Class 41. The locos are listed as Class 41 in Marsden, Colin J. (2011). Diesel and Electric Locomotive Recognition Guide. Ian Allan. ISBN 978-0-7110-3637-6.. Sunil060902 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just how do you suggest that they were renumbered under TOPS when they were withdrawn before TOPS was even introduced?68.147.37.149 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although TOPS numbering began in 1972, TOPS classifications were drawn up in 1967, and published in 1968. These locos were withdrawn in December 1967, between the preparation and publication of that list. Not having a copy to hand, I can't say whether they're listed or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone able to produce a contemporary source that shows that these locomotives were assigned class 41 under the TOPS scheme before they were withdrawn? I have been checking and found nothing, even spoken to people who remember these diesels in service, none remember them being assigned a TOPS class. I don't think an source from 2011 should count as a credible source as it is a secondary source, not primary. Maybe I will write a book saying that they never were classified so that someone will use that as a reference, thereby utilizing the major flaw that exists in Wikipedia. 68.147.57.5 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were never class 41. Even if a TOPS code was provisionally assigned to them it was never issued or used. So the article name is plain wrong, but as always Wikipedia is "whoever keeps shouting wins" rather than accurate. (81.2.110.250 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Found a source online, railbue.com, that states these engines were never class 41. [1]. It states The first 'C' type or Type 4 prototype locomotives delivered to the Western Region were the five NBL 'Warships', D600 - D604. (Contrary to popular belief, the locomotives were never designated Class 41.). So this should be considered as valid a source as anything listed above that states they were class 41. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be self-published. Where do they get their information from? Is that webpage what we could describe as a reliable source? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question but anything that is placed on a website is self publication, I have a website that is based on my own research but I can't or won't add any of that info to wikipedia as it forbidden to add own research. But then another editior from wikipedia can use it as a source as long as they reference it. As long as the research isn't original by the editor then it seems to be allowed. It may all be semantics, and I get the feeling that this TOPS topic is esoteric but it is quite interesting to discuss it with you Redrose64. I found out that my father had a TOPS list from the 1960's and I am trying to get him to locate it, if he can. But I also realize that if he does find it it can't be added to wikipedia as it hasn't been published. Mayhap you have one or a copy that will help.70.72.183.55 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that these were all in scrapyards before TOPS was up and running. So a better question instead would be, Why class 41?. What sourcing is there that "41" was allocated to them as a TOPS-like class number and when was this allocated? Was there ever a chance that they would be going under TOPS? (obviously TOPS classes were allocated before TOPS was in use) Was the decision to scrap only taken after a prior assumption of continuing service? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its more than likely that had the 600's (as they were known when in service)been given a number under the October 1968 classification scheme, they would have been allocated Class 40 as the EE Type 4's were the 2nd 2,000hp class to be introduced and would have been Class 41. Dougywales (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougywales (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen a list for TOPS classification. In the very first draft they were assigned the provisional use of class 41 but were marked as not assigned in the second draft, due to being withdrawn. Therefore I don't think class 41 is a valid title as they it was never officially used. 68.69.27.171 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 41 (Warship Class). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713144231/http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/page/28/Warship_Limited_Editions to http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/page/28/Warship_Limited_Editions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete axle load class

Why does the axle load class only list the link to route availability and not give the actual classification? If nobody can find it then why bothering having it? 2600:1008:B023:3A6:2DC7:7CAC:89DD:324A (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]