Difference between revisions of "Talk:Steam locomotives at the SVR in preservation"

Latest revision as of 16:27, 3 May 2024

I've been meaning to create a page collating all the locomotives that have been at the SVRSevern Valley Railway in preservation, to see how many there have been and as a quick way to see how many of each type have been here. I'll be adding the others in batches as time permits, so I'd suggest only editing existing entries for now. I won't link anything else to this page until it's complete.

I've not used a sortable table to avoid problems with the grouped loco types. I'd welcome any suggestions for changes in format / layout etc. --Robin (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

First thoughts. I'd add to the list testing (Blue Peter), high-speed testing (Metro E) and storage (Strathspey's Mickey Mouse) to the list. For contracts I'd think about whether to include boilers, but I'd be inclined to stick with frames = loco. More thoughts will no doubt follow.--Patrick Hearn (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed on "frames=loco" and those you propose to add. I've checked the ones you've added against my working list and added a couple more - all the categories to date now agree. I've got all the WD and other ones listed so just need to copy and paste in, unless you're already on the case. Edit - I see you're already on the case!

You're welcome! I did a data dump and sorted it, so it was easier to carry on with the rest!--Patrick Hearn (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We obviously think alike! --Robin (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A few other thoughts:

• I think for consistency we could refer to all the 'testing' and 'running in' entries as 'test running' with additional notes about high speed, loaded tests using the MK3 stock etc as appropriate. Which I suppose means we need to create a separate page for Steam and diesel locomotives visiting the SVR for test running in addition to the Steam and diesel locomotives visiting the SVR for contract overhauls page.

We have a high speed testing page and rather unsatisfactorily I've added some testing to the Mk 3 Sleepers page. I think moving the high speed testing to an overall testing page would work, with the high speed and the Mk 3 testing as separate sections. We can then have an 'other' section as needed. Thoughts?--Patrick Hearn (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, although the article may need a bit of changing around to make it sensible. If you want to go ahead, please do, if not I'll have a go but not today. --Robin (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• To be fair to the Diesel groups, we ought to create a similar Diesel locomotives at the SVR in preservation page. Probably grouped just by 'Main line' and 'Diesel Shunters' unless you've got any better ideas. --Robin (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know there's many preserved locos that have appeared except on hire and for galas, both of which we capture, perhaps the 69 on test is one. Otherwise I think it's more problematic: the recent comings and goings of 37/43/47/66 etc would be a nightmare to record. Do you include a 66 dropping off a drain train, or do you include the Hymeks dropping off steam locos in the 1970s? Let's take some time to think it through--Patrick Hearn (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If we do the page, then we should include a preamble ruling out casual visitors delivering stock etc. It would need some careful wording. Some of the diesels are rather blurred between resident, hired, visiting and so on, which doesn't help. I still kind of want a page where I can quickly see how many Deltics (for example) have been here; it's not easy to determine from the Gala page especially when they appear with different numbers. Further thoughts welcome. I'm happy to take time to ponder and/or not bother!--Robin (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you've added 82045. I haven't yet added Catch Me Who Can. And yes to the commonality of language around testing and running in. Please can you pick these up, I suspect you'll spot other corrections and consistencies, though I have tried to keep it consistent! Thx.--Patrick Hearn (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Added Catch Me Who Can and changed to test running. Formatting is mostly consistent; one obvious difference is that in GWRGreat Western Railway and SRSouthern Railway I only prefixed the pre-grouping companies but not GWRGreat Western Railway and SRSouthern Railway (because they were in that section already). I guess we should be consistent between that and LMSLondon Midland & Scottish Railway/LNERLondon & North Eastern Railway where we have used a prefix. Since BRBritish Rail or British Railways is also prefixed, I guess that tips the balance so we ought to add GWRGreat Western Railway and SRSouthern Railway. Again, will do but not today.--Robin (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

SRSouthern Railway/GWRGreat Western Railway prefices are done. Inconsistency though in PrairieLocomotive with a 2-6-2 wheel configuration, prairie and 2-6-2 to be thought through. I've put all the 2-6-0s to MogulLocomotive with a 2-6-0 wheel configuration. That's me done too!--Patrick Hearn (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Since it cropped up on the Diesel page, I wondered if we had any steam locos visit and actually work along the branch. I remembered 9600 and 9466 arriving at Kidderminster in 2009 when 4566 and 5764 worked the tour to Bridgnorth, and promptly found I'd also photographed both 9400 and 9466 at Highley in November 2017. I think that qualifies 9600 to be added. It would probably be pushing it to add locos (if any) which brought railtours in but were only serviced at Kidderminster, and can't think of any others that worked along the branch, but open to ideas. --Robin (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I too had incoming railtours in mind. I remember about 2016 an incoming tour (with an LNERLondon & North Eastern Railway PacificLocomotive with a 4-6-2 wheel configuration?) with Taw Valley taking it forward from Bewdley and huge crowds on the platforms. IIRC, LSL ran a series of incoming tours with some locos detaching at the south end of the line and some at BH? NB where we've said Kidderminster as the trigger for including them, I woder whether BY would be better. As a diesel tour I've had mainline locos certainly to Foley Park, if not BY--Patrick Hearn (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added 76039 which did a full line inspection between BY and BH in February 1966. The line was still BRBritish Rail or British Railways-owned, but it was closed beyond Alveley and was part of the early stages of the SVRSSevern Valley Railway Society acquiring the north end of the line, so I think it's valid to include it. --Robin (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)