User talk:Bulleid Pacific
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bulleid_Pacific. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1, to March 2007, |
Contents |
[edit] LSWR N15 class
Hi - I've made some changes and left comments about stuff I'm not sure of on the article page. Perhaps if you get chance you could have a look at Talyllyn Railway, which is also being brought up to FA standard. Good luck! — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hope the PR was helpful - I did not look at the list, so if the links are there in general that seems fine. Since the Sir Lamiel is mentioned a fair amount in the article and is a pretty obscure Arthurian character, I think it would be helpful to identify him with a phrase or at most a sentence. I replied on the PR itself too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Ruhrfisch here. A link to somewhere describing Sir Lamiel, even if only to place him in context, would seem to be important to this article. I've discussed this further on the article talk page. EdJogg (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A1/A3GA
Hello, nice to hear from you again. Just a quick word. If we can go for a GA, then let's do so, but as you know I'm not very well up on that side of things. What exactly are the "technical bits" that need clarifying? Congratulations for all these rises in article standard. I'll get back to you on the double-single thing.--John of Paris (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that the "sadly withdrawn V2" could be a blessing in disguise as it does not have the iconic status of Flying Scotsman, For me the big problem in writing A1/A3 article was giving an adequate idea of the appearance of Gresley big engines in Gresley days, especially with the persistent image copyright hassle. Presenting Gresley non-streamlined big engines of course includes the full livery and the general finish of the time. I can see an excellent argument in favour of applying that to Green Arrow as the appearance is sensibly unchanged since its introduction with the monobloc 3-cylinder casting (difficulty and expense in producing this is of course the reason for the withdrawal). I have to say that I for one am absolutely appalled by the recent invasive fashion for BR blacks and greens in preservation. Anyway, I repeat that the withdrawal of the V2 could be a blessing in disguise, provided that the deciders reflect on the potential outcome of their decisions. Cheers,--John of Paris (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we had better beg to differ on this. It's a much wider issue than that of liking or not liking colours. The way I see it is that the liveries and forms of the component parts are intrinsic to the design culture of a given period. But wasn't the Malachite Green persisted with by BR Southern Region right into the 1960's? (I have no personal recollection of a Bulleid Pacific painted Brunswick Green). Both steam and electric stock had it and I don't remember it being a particularly bright colour. I don't think Bulleid chose Malachite Green because he thought it was "bright" or pretty but was mainly looking for a hard-wearing finish similar to those found at the time on the continent. But what really infuriates me with the preservation movement is the sort of thing happened to Butler Henderson that was loaned twenty-odd years ago in running order by the National Collection to the Great Central Society. During the last couple of months of its boiler certificate someone had the bright idea of overpainting the beautifully researched and executed Great Central livery (Brunswick Green, by the way) with BR mixed traffic black - a Philistine act if ever there was one - and this sort of thing has been going on ever since in the preservation world - jist so some old fogeys (of my generation) can wallow in nostalgia for the Fifties' "Golden Age of Steam".
Anyway, going back to the V2, what I had understood was that they don't want to restore it to running condition because the monobloc cylinder block replacement would be horrendously expensive and perhaps no foundry would nowadays take it on. Replacement of tubes is surely a minor issue and may not be worthwhile for the few months remaining. --John of Paris (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been absent from the web for a short time, but was saving this up.
Delighted to see we've got GA status for A1/A3!
I think that the V2 is also part of the National Collection, which means it can and should be kept as a static exhibit.
I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed by the ideas expressed in your last post on my page which I find very worrying for the future of railway history as it is now being presented to the public. As I have worked in an ethnographic museum (not a railway one) and have close contact with museum deciders, I take this matter very seriously because it is much more than a conflict of railfan allegiances or wishful thinking, which is the rather trivial level to which you are reducing this important debate. The very idea of periodically inflicting alternate liveries on a historic locomotive in the National Collection (which Butler Henderson and the D class are) in order to satisfy the whims of a few fans, and your arguments supporting such a practice are surely not properly considered and frankly smack of cloud-cuckoo land, which surprises me coming from a locomotive historian. Researching pre-Grouping liveries is not just a question of comparing colour charts and lining out (this particularly terrifying in the clip on the Flying Scotsman “restoration”). The integral paint technology of a particular moment in history has to be taken into consideration, including preparation and filling of the surfaces, leaving time for each coat to harden. The reason why the restorations of the late 1950’s and early Sixties are of such great historical importance including the Scottish collection in Glasgow, the Midland compound (perhaps the most remarkable of the lot), SECR no 737 and ‘Butler Henderson’, to mention) is that they were done in close consultation with people who remembered the the technologies using methods that were still current at the time (hand painting, lead and oil-based paint etc.); you can take it from me that modern finishes have a coompletely different aspect, even for BR black. To go back to the Butler Henderson, it’s very easy to pick out photos of the early and later versions of the Great Central livery restoration; the earlier moreover had countersunk rivets on the smokebox filled in with lead primer giving a smooth finish, whereas the present-day leprous appearance comes from the use of normal round-headed rivets. If you can get hold of an old picture of the locomotive in 1970s condition and compare it with this garish horror, you will see what I mean.Image:506 Butler Henderson (Simon Edwards).JPG
Ah well,as Livio Porta used to say: “Nobody loves what he does not know”.--John of Paris (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PR of a dab?
Hi Bulleid Pacific, you submitted a PR request for LNER Class A1 which is a dab - please resubmit the PR request for the right page and let me know and I will archive this one to the dab (or you can archive itself if you want). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- UGH - "Houston, we have a problem..." The page title is 'wrong'. I have added comments at the PR entry and on the article talk page. (Bother!) EdJogg (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] LSWR N15 class
Hi, I see that you have struck through my comments at FAC. You may have mis-read the instructions; nominators do not strike through the reviewer's comments. The reviewer does this when she/he is happy that the issue has been resolved, and only then as a courtesey to the FAC director. Could you return to the FAC page and remove your <s> and </s> ? Thanks. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 15:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done, though this has never been an issue before.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi, I have finally found the time to strike and cap my comments at FAC. I've changed my "oppose" to "support" and I wish the article the success it clearly deserves. With regard to your comment above, this has been an issue before, I don't want to bore you with the examples, but here is the relevent section from the FAC instructions:
- If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary.
Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColmTalk 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
Please try to use edit summary which was not included in the article SR Lord Nelson class. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- See Help:Edit Summary. You have not done anything wrong, I was saying that a use of edit summary is helpful for other editors. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
