Talk:LNWR George the Fifth Class

John Hick

A "See also" section has three times been added, which I believe is of tangential relevance. It presently reads "the names of the majority of John Hick Class locomotives were transferred to George the Fifth Class". The phrase "the majority" implies that there were a large number; in fact, there were just six such names - the other 74 in the George the Fifth Class took their names from other sources. Why are those other sources not given equal weight? This emphasis on a class that had no connection other than being painted the same colour I believe to be WP:UNDUE. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

See Redrose64's talk page for more discussion, a "majority" in this case is 6 out of 10 names used from the John Hick Class for the George the Fifth Class, 5 names, (engineers) transferred on 2 Feb 1913, the 19th anniversary of Hick's death following withdrawal of the John Hick Class in 1912. The decision was apparently made as an acknowledgement of Hick's contribution to LNWR and his memory. Can anyone elaborate on this LNWR decision?81.149.141.199 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, User talk:Redrose64#George the Fifth Class. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § George the Fifth Class

 – Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

George the Fifth Class

Hi there, not the best link, but there is nothing in the article to state the Class is named after George V, reining monarch? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

John Hick Class

I take your point the JHC locos were withdrawn and not rebuilt, but 6 of the names including that of the John Hick were transferred to George the Fifth Class on the anniversary of Hick's death.81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of LNWR names were transferred. There are even books devoted to the subject:

• Goodman, John (1994). Greenwood, William (ed.). LMS Locomotive Names. Lincoln: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-79-7.
• Goodman, John (2002). L&NWR Locomotive Names / A Sequel to LMS Locomotive Names. Peterborough: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-90-8.

This does not mean that there was anything more than a tangential connection between the two classes. As you say, six of the George the Fifth names were taken from the John Hick class - but as there were 80 locos in the George the Fifth class, the use of some John Hick names is more coincidence than design.

Please also note that when linking loco classes, we link to an article about the loco class and not the person, place or thing that the class was named after. Such a link already exists in the LNWR George the Fifth Class article, in the big orange "London and North Western Railway locomotives" box at the bottom, in the row beginning "Francis William Webb (1871–1903)", and it is there as John Hick. Notice that this does not link to John Hick, the person. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the refs above and for adjusting the link accordingly. There are as you rightly point out 80 locos in the GV class, however for reasons that we may yet discover, LNWR management resolved to transfer 5 engine names (engineers) from the JHC on 2 Feb 1913, 'John Hick' was the 62nd GV Class engine built. The remaining one name 'Henry Maudslay' transferred Jan 1911. I doubt the decision was coincidental, it would seem to be a nod to Hick's contribution to LNWR and memorial following withdrawal of the last JHC in 1912?80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a pic here [1] of Crewe works during a royal visit in 1913 - not sure when in 1913? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2016

April 1913 according to this link http://www.blueheron.co.uk/railway-books/item140-crewe-works-royal-visit.htm (sorry for butting in!)--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the date, but the relevance. There were ten John Hick, and eighty George V; of those 90 locos, just six pairs had names in common. Why are we not mentioning the origin of the other 74 George V names? Why are the John Hick names so special? That is what is WP:UNDUE about it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Davidvaughanwells for supplying the link and date - there is no obvious connection between 2 Feb 1913 and the royal visit to Crewe in April 1913, but there may be photographs and an account that might reveal a connection. If any readers that have access to A Tour of Crewe Works in 1913 Photographs Taken For The Royal Visit any references, would be helpful.

Unfortunately I do not have immediate access to the two volumes by Goodman proved by Redrose64, information about the John Hick Class names and their transfer would be of assistance. In the meantime I will study the list of George V names and subject them to Redrose64's test that will I hope establish whether or not the John Hick Class names are an exceptional case. My impression is the intention was to notionally reincarnate the withdrawn John Hick Class within the new George V Class?

The more factual information the better, any contributions are welcome.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, the LNWR frequently re-used the names of withdrawn locos; and the re-use of a particular name (or group of names) on some locos of a new class was really nothing remarkable. As Goodman notes, "as a result of the swift withdrawal of Webb's Compounds, their names were queueing up to be re-used". What you need to show is that there was a deliberate decision to select John Hick names in preference to the others that were available at the time. Since all ten John Hick names were re-used after the locos were withdrawn, my question might be "why were the other four names not re-used on the George V class?" - these four names weren't passed over entirely, since they were used on locos of the Experiment class; so it's not as if there was some conscious decision to keep them all together, otherwise all would have been re-used on George V, or all on Experiment. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the list of Locomotives under the LNWR, unless I am mistaken there are only two classes named after a LNWR director - John Hick and Claughton, the building of the first loco of the latter has no obvious date relationship to Gilbert Claughton, e.g. date of birth. Bear with me for the others.80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Claughton Class were introduced January 1913. The 5 John Hick Class names were transferred to the George the Fifth Class 2 February 1913. Charles Bowen Cooke is common to Claughton and George the Fifth classes.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The twenty Claughtons built in 1913 and 1914 were (with one exception, Lord Kitchener) given names of LNWR officers and directors, as were many of those built in 1916. No Claughtons were given re-used names until 1917.

I don't see that there necessarily needs to be a date relationship. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The John Hick Class was unless I am mistaken, exceptional in that it was the only LNWR class named after a deceased former LNWR director 'in memoriam'. Many engines were named after officers and directors, but only one class of locos after a deceased director. The original John Hick, no. 20 was therefore the first of a unique class and group of names. no. 20 was effectively Hick's 'living' memorial in steam. I expect the names were chosen for a specific reason, but I am non the wiser as to what the reason is?

I expect Kitchener was also chosen for a specific reason, but not 'in memoriam'.81.149.141.199 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots and lots of LNWR locos were named in memoriam. John Hick was in no way special for that. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

John Hick was like many others in that respect, but for reasons we may yet discover his contribution to LNWR was awarded some significance that no other LNWR director was afforded.81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That is until the arrival of the Claughton Class January 1913, not long after the last John Hick was withdrawn. Gilbert Claughton [2] was LNWR Chairman 1911-1921. It might be worth looking for any common ground between Hick and Claughton?

It may help to find the precise dates of withdrawal of each John Hick Class loco?80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The last name on the LNWR Claughton Class list for 1916 is J.A.F. Aspinall [3] who about October 1910 with Alfred Yarrow [4], Michael Longridge [5] and 2 others proposed Benjamin Hick (b.1876) as an associate member of the Inst. of Mechanical Engineers. BH was John Hick's great nephew.81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You are straying deeper into WP:OR territory. We do not seek to discover connections, we are here to report on conclusions that others have already published. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Vacuum brakes applied, but it is not possible to prevent readers making connections, in fact there is software available that does just that [6], combining Wikipedia and available online free to all until recently; Wikipedia might consider including this facility on its site instead - What does Goodman have to say about the John Hick Class?81.149.141.199 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The group of 5 John Hick Class names is preceeded by one, Charles Dickens no. 5118, the first name in a larger group of Crewe Works numbers from January 1913 following a break of 15 months since October 1911. Dickens is the odd man out of the first 6 names, however both Dickens and Hick have in common the Royal Society of Arts, [7], [8] as do Rennie [9], [10], [11], p.187-188 and Siemens.[12], [13], [14], p.187-188. I am not certain about Arkwright and Froude. Presidents of the RSA include the The Prince Consort (Albert) and The Prince of Wales (later Edward VII and George V). Frederick Bramwell nominated Hick for membership of the Inst. of Mechanical Engineers, 1874.[15] It seems that Claughton's father was a member of the RSA - was Claughton a member?81.149.141.199 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Speculation again. Wikipedia reports on what others have already described. We do not carry out original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Redrose, most of this information is taken from Wikipedia and/or published on the internet. Try being more positive - I am still waiting for your answer on Goodman?81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

...now that is a puzzling dilemma, or so it seems - the apparently reliable sources we use are not reliable?80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Crewe Works numbers Sir Gilbert Claughton no. 5117 and Charles Dickens no. 5118 were both built January 1913.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

LNWR no. for Sir Gilbert Claughton is 2222, the John Hick Class locos were 2-2-2-2 configuration; this leads us to Francis Webb. Hick and Webb have in common the Bolton Iron & Steel Co., Bessemer steel, both employed by LNWR during 1871 under the Chairmanship of Sir Richard Moon and were members of the Institution of Civil Engineers and Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Did Hick have a direct involvement with Crewe? Who was responsible for assigning LNWR and Crewe works numbers 1910-1913?81.149.141.199 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't know; unless you have firm evidence, please stop speculating. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages, this information is taken from Wikipedia sources and/or published on the internet, I am yet to hear back from Redrose about Goodman and who has appointed Redrose to speak on any other reader's behalf? Any reader is free to answer these questions if they have factual information that might be of assistance.80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is "to discuss improvements to an article". Since we are supposed to be discussing what to include, then of course WP:NOR applies. If what you want to discuss is something not intended to be placed in the article, then you're in violation of WP:TALKNO, last bullet (Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Redrose, I am very sorry you feel the need to behave like this, there is no of cause, it would seem this is your attempt to shut down free discussion, I find no evidence of the talk page being used as a soapbox, the purpose is to find factual information and establish relevance - your request was for a discussion about relevance. Kindly, allow this to continue without excessive reference to the rule book. I am not here to debate what Wikipedia is or is not. And I am still waiting to hear from you about what Goodman has to say about the John Hick Class?81.149.141.199 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@81.149.141.199: to answer a question you posed above. We give the readers the figures "2" and "3", but we leave them to come up with the answer "5". Redrose64 is a very experienced UK railways editor, and knows what he is talking about. As for the actual question of the name, it's not something I can assist with. Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In any event, RedRose is absolutely correct to say that we can't [in the article space] add our own speculation or indeed our own inferences or conclusions though it may seem [to us] to be perfectly obvious. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, whether it be trains, wombats or the colour of a One Direction band member's underpants. That principle applies to you, me, RedRose and everyone else. Find a reliable source that says so and cite it. Or write your own book, get it published by a serious [=non vanity] publisher and then we can cite it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

See Rennie and FSA above. Also Siemens.80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Froude FSA.[16] - see page viii. Arkwright as well. [17] Dickens and others above.81.149.141.199 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I can not see any evidence on the internet that Henry Maudslay was a member of the Society of Arts. Of the 6 John Hick Class names mentioned above Henry Maudslay is the odd one out if Maudslay was not a member of the Society of Arts. George the Fifth Class Loco no.2168 Henry Maudslay was built January 1911, the remaining 5 locos with JH Class names built February 1913.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Henry Maudslay (b.1822) [18] was a member of the RSA [19], p187-188. Henry Maudslay (b.1771) died 1831.

Of the 10 John Hick Class names, 4 were knighted, 6 were not, however Sir is not included in any. The first loco of the Claughton Class was Sir Gilbert Claughton, followed by 3 others in succession with the prefix Sir - 4 in total. There is 1 example in the George the Fifth Class, loco no.2025 Sir Thomas Brooke.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

More strictly than above John Hick was the only LNWR Director to have a locomotive class named after him in memoriam (in his honour) and Gilbert Claughton was the only LNWR Chairman to have a locomotive class named in his honour. Hick deceased, Claughton not.80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The two classes of locomotive John Hick and Claughton, with the first locomotive of each class (names ascribed), John Hick and Sir Gilbert Claughton are representative of the LNWR's senior strata of management.80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Claughton Class is not referred to as the Gilbert Claughton Class or the Sir Gilbert Claughton Class.

Locomotive no.20 John Hick and no. 2222 Sir Gilbert Claughton are also representative of two strata in society.

The three classes of locomotive John Hick, Claughton and George the Fifth are tied by serial numbers, names, association with the Royal Society of Arts and the anniversary of John Hick's death February 1913.

The first locomotives of each class no.20 John Hick, no. 2222 Sir Gilbert Claughton and no. 2663 George the Fifth are representative of three strata in society.

Locomotive no. 82 Charles Dickens holds the first (LNWR) serial number of the George the Fifth Class.81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Further cite for Rennie, Siemens and Maudslay above.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Books, etc.

Thank-you both for your comments, I will return in good faith to the facts.

The Greater Britain and John Hick Class were the only British tender locos of 2-2-2-2 configuration. [20]

The JH Class were intended for the Northern Division (Crewe to Carlisle line?). [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

The Claughton Class were intended for the same Division (north of Crewe, Crewe and Carlisle) [27], [28] bear with me for the moment.81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Gilbert Claughton was knighted 13 June 1912 (George V’s birthday honours) [29], [30]80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The following book may have information relevant to the above [31], I do not have ready access to a copy.81.149.141.199 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The following in relation to the April 1913 Crewe royal visit. [32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Brief para on John Hick Class p.465. [33]

Crewe - see NRM chronology 1858-1913. [34] - no mention of Hick.

LNWR publications by Nock, not immediately available to me. [35], [36], [37], [38]80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hick was a member of the RSA in 1870, [39] and 1856 [40], p.187-188, he had an association, possibly membership going back to 1839.[41]

"As a director of the London and North Western Railway Company he (Hick) took an active interest in the development of that system." - very little information about Hick and LNWR. [42]

Reed on Crewe, not immediately to hand. [43]

Harris, Brian. Frank Webb's friends at Bolton. LNWR Society J., 2012 - not to hand.

Dunn, J.M. F.W. Webb, Crewe. Rly Mag., 1961, 107, 756-62; 840-4. [44]

Isambard Kingdom Brunel, A Biography., L. T. C. Rolt, Book Club Associates., 1972

Townend, Peter (March 2016). "The first three cylinder locomotive.". Railway Archive (Lightmoor Press). Steamindex Volume 5 (Issue 50): 53–58

Aside from those refs missing further up that I will fill in, the conclusions are open. There may be information there relevant to other pages as well, not only George the Fifth Class locos as the serials cross over to the Claughton Class. It will be interesting to see what Goodman has to say.81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Compare Hick [45] with Webb [46] - Hick is 21 years senior.

'F. W. Webb - In the right place at the right time' by J. E. Chacksfield: The Oakwood Press, 2007 - Webb biography.

[47] "He (Webb) continued developing Crewe Works, and was very interested in the civic affairs of the town of Crewe, becoming mayor in Queen Victoria’s Jubilee year, 1887. He not only took an interest in the company hospital but instituted a separate hospital in the town for non-railway people, and chose the charming and varied names borne by LNW passenger locomotives."

Web was Chief Mechanical Engineer of the LNWR at the time the John Hick Class were named; Bowen-Cooke was Chief Mechanical Engineer when the George the Fifth and Claughton Class were named, he was also CME when the four JH Class names were given to the Experiment Class.

Compare Bowen Cooke [48] with Hick and Webb above - Webb is 22 years Bowen Cooke's senior.80.229.34.113 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

John Hick and Gilbert Claughton were both members of the Iron and Steel Institute in 1888. [49],[50], [51],[52]81.149.141.199 (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"EXCURSIONS". Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: 404–407. July 1894.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

HRH the Prince of Wales (crowned King George V, 22 June 1911), president of the RSA 1901–1910 [53]

King George V awarded the Albert Medal (RSA) in 1913. [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So you've found some websites and a book about Francis Webb. What does any of this have to do with improving the article LNWR George the Fifth Class? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Redrose, are you trying to shut the thread again before any conclusions can be drawn?81.149.141.199 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What conclusions are you looking for? Nothing is clear from your last fifteen (or so) posts. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still working, bear with me there is no hurry after all.80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

See Bowen Cooke above.80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Of the 4 John Hick Class names transferred to the Experiment Class, Hugh Myddleton is the exception as he was knighted, the remaining 3 were not.80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Further cite for Hick above.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I.K. Brunel above.80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Murray also Royal Society of Arts81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"The first three cylinder locomotive." above80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In "EXCUSIONS" above - Ramsbottom, Aspinall, Webb, Hargreaves and others.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed again

I removed the whole entry. If the person who added it feels that they need to support its inclusion with that much comment, the connection can only be seen as very shaky. Five references were in that lot, but only one of them mentions locomotives, and says nothing about a connection between the two classes, nor of a reason for that choice of name. The other four refs are about people, not railway locomotives. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Readers have no idea whether you used Goodman (or any other source) or what if anything Goodman (or any other) says about anything above (if any) to confirm any of the above is original research or not - it is possible that someone else has seen all this before. There is no surprise that some of the references are about people. Help the readers with more information, the principle source in the article is Goodman after all.

Glad to see we retain a link to the Prince of Wales Class.81.149.141.199 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In the section for the John Hick class, Goodman lists ten locomotives (the entire class). There is a column "Subsequent name holder", in which six of them have "George the Fifth" shown against them; the other four have "Experiment". That is all. Goodman says nothing at all about the reasons for those selections, nothing at all about any other connection between the two classes. Unless and until you can find a reputable author who has explicitly stated that the choice of former John Hick names for a tiny proportion the George the Fifth class was deliberate, please stop your WP:SYNTHESIS. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References