Talk:Edward Thomas (locomotive)

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

A fact from Edward Thomas (locomotive) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Talyllyn Railway locomotives No. 3 Sir Haydn and No. 4 Edward Thomas both hold the unusual distinction of carrying the same number through the ownership of four different railway companies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Wikipedia

When did it become No.4 ?

It first actually carried the number under GW ownership sometime after 1930. There is a question over whether it was ever allocated the number by the Corris in the 1920s. Can anyone confirm whether it was ? RGCorris (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes certainly verifies it, as does Boyd's Narrow Gauge in Mid Wales (I only found that after it had already been cited from elsewhere). I can't verify the Davies et al. citation as I don't have a copy of that, but I'm willing to assume good faith on the part of whoever added it. I think that the concept of Verifiability, not truth applies here - unless you can supply some evidence that it wasn't numbered by the Corris. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 16:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of verifiable errors in the Corris section in Boyd's Narrow Gauge in Mid Wales, it cannot be relied on as an accurate source without cross-references. I suspect Holmes takes his information from Boyd, as do a number of other writers; possibly including Davies et al, if they cover the question at all - after all, they were primarily covering the post-1930 GW period. I am not currently proposing to alter the article but am seeking whether there is any contemporary verifiable confirmation (i.e. pre-1930) where the loco is referred to by the number 4. RGCorris (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look through some older books, and see what I can find. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RCTS book (Davies et al. 1966), states (p. K265) "The condemnations of Nos. 1 and 2 followed the purchase of a new 0-4-2ST from Kerr, Stuart & Co. (their No. 4047) in 1921. This engine ... was numbered 4 and bore the name Tattoo, though not for very long. (One account, by a writer who visited the line about the time when No. 3 was being rebuilt, refers to the engine as No. 3 Tattoo)." also "Neither engine was noticeably altered by the G.W.R. or by British Railways; they kept their original number plates" and finally "sold in March 1951 to the Talyllyn Railway Company. They are still in service ... again retaining their Corris numbers" --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no evidence that the loco ever carried the name "Tattoo" - it does not appear on any known contemporary photographs - and the number plates on No.4 were altered by the GWR, I am afraid this source cannot be regarded as reliable; as mentioned above it may well take the information from Boyd, whose Corris chapter is full of unverifiable guesses and assumptions. What is needed is a contemporary (pre-1930) source referring to the loco by number. RGCorris (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cozens, which predates Boyd, also mentions that the loco may have been named "Tattoo". On the strength of this I've added the fact to the article as "it has been suggested that...", which should be uncontroversial enough. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerr Stuart's policy was to name their classes after the first loco of the class. "Tattoo" was a 3' gauge loco built c.1905 for a waterworks contract in northern England. They would not therefore have named the Corris loco "Tattoo" before delivery. There are plenty of photographs showing the loco in the 1920s, both before and after its re-boilering, none of which show any sign of a name. There is no doubt it was referred to as "the Tattoo" on the Corris, in the same way that No.7 is nowadays referred to as "the Tattoo", and that No.3 was referred to as "the Falcon" once it was the sole survivor of the original three locos. I have added the fact to the article that photos suggest the name was not carried by KS4047, which should hopefully be uncontroversial. RGCorris (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RCTS not a reliable source? Oh please. For some eighty years they have prided themselves on the accuracy of the information that they publish, and deservedly so. Reviews of their books in publications such as The Railway Magazine are always positive. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the original source they used for this reference ? Without that it is of limited value. RGCorris (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now an article no longer has to list its sources, but its sources' sources? Or should we just use books that you personally consider reliable? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary sources. Hmmm. Well, I've been through The Railway Magazine, vol. LXVII (July-December 1930), and the only mention of the Corris Railway, or its locos, that I can find is in the July 1930 issue, on p. 26 where there is a photo captioned "Corris Railway 0-4-2T No. 3 at Machynlleth"; loco and four coaches. I guess I need to check the Jan 1921-June 1930 issues; unfortunately, although my collection for 1935 on is reasonably complete, I only have 37 (out of 114) issues for that period, none at all for 1921 or 1926. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only contemporary source I am aware of is an article by Humphrey Household in the August 14th, 1926 issue of "The Locomotive" magazine. Household visited the railway on August 7th 1925 and corresponded with the railway's management before writing his article. KS4047 was in use on the day of his visit and he saw two other locos, one lying derelict at Machynlleth and one partially dismantled at Maespoeth. Although he did not record the details it seems likely that the one at Machynlleth was No.2 and what he saw at Maespoeth was the work underway to combine the best parts of Nos. 1 & 3 into what became No.3. In response to his enquiries the railway's Secretary (based in Bristol) referred to locomotives No.1 and No.2 being reconstructed and the operating loco as "Tattoo", from which Household assumed that there were only three locomotives in all. It seems reasonable to infer from this that KS4047 was not referred to as No.4 during his visit; the number was not used by the railway's Secretary in response to his enquiries. In his 1988 book "Narrow Gauge Railways - Wales and the Western Front" Household states, regarding the name "Tattoo", that "...she was known by that name among the Corris staff, although bearing no visual evidence of it in 1925." Any other contemporary references would be very useful RGCorris (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]