Talk:SR Class N15X
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force. | ||
 |
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this image request. |
[edit] Hybrids?
I have some problems with this article, especially the sentence in the first paragraph: "The final design was based upon that of the N15 Class locomotives, creating a hybrid locomotive that was created out of several standardised parts". Starting with the last point, what standardised parts are we talking about? The cab - the tender? What were they supposed to use? When you convert a tank into a tender engine you have to supply the missing parts from somewhere; you will sure avoid wasting time and money on new design. 2) In this respect, can we consider the U and U1 classes as "hybrids" because they were based on rebuilds from tank engines? 3) In what sense were these engines based on the N15? It seems pretty evident that they were so classified because it was hoped that they fit into the same slot. 4) As for the King Arthur front end, in the case of this locomotive it was an update on older Urie versions; it was therefore only natural that they would try this improvement on the N15X. I would also be interested in knowing the importance of the Sevenoaks derailment in the decision taken to convert the Baltics. A final nit-pick: is it valid to call this a "rebuild"? The locomotive was very little changed materially - and the improved front end could just as well have been applied to the Baltics. One more thing - IMO the label "unsuccessful" (like failure) is attached with a little too much relish by many writers.--John of Paris (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
