Talk:LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0

Name source

Anyone happen to know where the name 'Black Five' came from? (Well, the 'Five' part is obvious!) Noel (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

They were all painted black, in contrast to the Stanier "Jubilees", which in their early days were sometimes known as "Red Fives". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great, thanks! By 'Stanier Jubilee', did you mean the LMS Jubilee Class? That's a 6 (later a 7), not a 5? (Later: I see it was originallya 5XP?) Also, I saw no mention of red in that article - got a reference? Once we sort this all out, I'll add it to the article in a bit (or someone else can) - I expect others will be curious about that, like me! Noel (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Stanier only designed one class known as "Jubilees" (as you say, the LMS Jubilee Class); I qualified the name "Jubilee" because there was another "Jubilee" class on the LMS, the Webb "Jubilees" inherited from the LNWR. As for the LMS Jubilee Class, it was only the two rebuilt examples (nos. 5735 Comet and 5736 Phoenix) which were ever class 7P. Apart from those two, they were all class 5XP to begin with, becoming class 6P under British Railways as part of a general rearrangement of the higher class numbers. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, got it - thanks very much for enlightening me! I'll add this to the article when I get a chance (unless someone else gets to it first). Noel (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

3 were painted green, but only in 1948.

The reason for the 5XP classification is that the Royal Scot Class was introduced, it was bigger than anything else the LMS had (power classes up to 5P), so they classified it 6P. Then the Patriots (Baby Scots) were introduced, which were bigger than a class 5 Dreadnought but smaller than a Royal Scot. The Jubilees are basically Unrebuilt Patriots with taper boilers. BR reorganised the system so that 5XP was eliminated, and 5XP-->6P, 6P-->7P and 7P-->8P. Tony May (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Domeless engines

This has just been tagged as unref section.

I've no time to look at it at present, and the only ref I have to hand is the RCTS Raising Steam on the LMS. Chapter 8 Classes 3B, 3C and 3D Boilers seems a relevant section though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, although I do have that book, I cannot decide whether it's relevant or not because I clearly don't have access to official records. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Detail overload?

The table listing the boiler numbers (and exact construction details) fitted to each of the preserved examples is perhaps more suitable for a fan page? Also the 'Operation in preservation' carries the level of detail and commentary better suited to a fan page rather than wikipedia? Not commenting on accuracy but could the article be better with some pruning / elimination in these areas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.152.232 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Have removed above table and cleaned up some of 'operation in preservation'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It belongs, as this "railfan crap"(sic 8-( I always love it when some anonymous router calls me an anorak.) is important to the engineering history of the LMS standard boilers. As it's quite tabular though, it may well be time to split this article into an engineering appraisal of the Black Five, and a list article on those preserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0

 – Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your dumbing down of this page is just dreadful. You have removed information that is available elsewhere but not all in one place, and most people who are interested in that kind of information don't have the time, ability or the resources to go looking for it. The whole point of wiki is to make such information available, yet you and people like you are doing the opposite with some sort of rabid determination. Worse than that, you are prepared to accept incorrect information wrongly published elsewhere and promote it on this Wiki page in preference to accurate and correct information which someone has provided. You don't have to look very far to verify it. The official report following the inquiry into the incident at Bletchley in 1939 is available on-line, and there are photographs taken the following day in various publications with the correct data on. I think your actions are despicable. I've noticed that railway enthusiastic seem to commonly suffer from this obsessive egotistical disease of the "I know better than you" variety and it's quite noticeable that the Wiki pages on British Railway subject matter is infested with inaccurate and plainly wrong information published elsewhere. People like you (and you are far from being alone) seem to have taken over and obsessively promote your own view of the world to mislead everyone else. What a waste of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.8.217 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I presume this relates to this series of edits. Please read WP:V and make sure that your changes are attributed to a reliable published source. The information about the accident that you changed had been sourced - it is the {{sfn|Trevena|1980|p=42}} that Mjroots (talk · contribs) used when it was first added - and so was verifiable: not only did you you remove that source, you also failed to add your own.

As for the table of boilers, your re-addition of the table earlier today means that the burden of proof is now with you. I appreciate that you did not make the previous addition - that edit was made by 121.221.77.42 (talk) - but regarding that, the comment "Table of preserved boilers restored (why was it vandalised?)" - it wasn't "vandalised", it was removed with this edit by 2ghoti (talk · contribs), who also posted above at 17:20, 27 May 2014; and as for the words "Data sourced from works records and identifying marks on the actual boilers" - these indicate that the edit falls well inside the heading of original research, which is not permitted. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

44806 is back

danners, she is litteraly back, she has been running since the start of the santa specials and there are many pictures and videos of her. Why you can't just accept the fact she has returned from traffic baffles me. Warszawa Marshal (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Find a reliable source, fan sites and YouTube are not reliable, being self-published sources WP:SPS Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Page Tampering

The photographs we're kept seperate from the notes section, for a reason. Having the photograph positioned above the notes makes it even bigger than it's supposed to be, having the photographs in a seperate box and the notes in a seperate box makes it easier for people to understand also. Plus it makes no sense having photographs in a box which isn't related, they are better in a seperate box than mixed up as 44806 has a large number of notes in it presently and you having the photograph above these notes makes it even bigger than it's supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.53.153 (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Murgatroyd49 as the other editor involved Danners430 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Just coming back to this - “tampering” implies that no other editor is allowed to make changes. Take a step back and realise that anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, and they don’t have to work to “your rules”. Danners430 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)