Talk:British Rail Class 98

VoR locos

The VoR locos should probably be moved to a new page - perhaps GWR Vale of Rheidol Railway locomotives. This page should give a brief description and a link to the new article. The GWR loco page should be categorised under the Category:Great Western Railway locomotives. Our Phellap 00:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with moving main details, they were only Class 98s for a few years to fit in the with BR system and they never carried the numbers.

Wouldn't it be better to just call them Vale of Rheidol Railway locomotives, that way one page can cover the two 1902 engines, 'Rheidol', the three GWR engines from 1923/24 and the diesel. Still include in Category:Great Western Railway locomotives.

Also 7,8 & 9 want tanking out of GWR constituent heading and replacing with VoR 1 & 2. AHEMSLTD 13:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

real example?

The example given is poor. Can we work out a real duplication? 46200 Princess Royal is not preserved, though 71000 Duke of Gloucester is. 46100 Royal Scot is preserved but that's only 6P/7P (not sure), not 8P. Any other ideas? Tony May (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I maybe have an example: LMS Crab No. (4)2700, and Black Five No. (4)5000. The black five has worked the main line, I'm not sure about the Crab. Both are class 5 and end in 00. But the next question then is which is the real 98500? Tony May (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought maybe 76079 and 80079 would fit the bill here as both should be numbered 98479 by the scheme but 76079 has the TOPS number 98476, presumably taking its cabside number's first two digits rather than the last. A better example is 60800 which should be numbered 98700 on TOPS. This number's allocated to Britannia (70000) but as 60800 has an alternative identity of 4771 it carries 98771. I also notice that LMS Compound (4)1000 and GWR 9600 should both be 98400 but the GWR loco is 98457 reflecting its history as a development of the GWR 5700 Class. None of these examples have numbers increased by one to obtain the last two TOPS digits. Maybe the section should be altered to mention these alternative numbers but this is something I worked out rather than having any other reference for it. Patrick lovell (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Failure to distinguish between power classification and engineering classification

The list of steam locos fails to distinguish between power classification (e.g. 5MT, 8P) which is a key part of the number, and the engineering classification. So Duchess of Sutherland for example is an LMS Coronation Class engine and power class 8P. Tony May (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing

Aren't Bittern and Royal Scot (possibly others) missing from the list? Tony May (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added Bittern from the uksteam.info website [1]. Royal Scot hasn't got a TOPS number allocated yet, so I've left it off. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is my memory failing me? Didn't Royal Scot run on the mainline during the 1970s though before being stuffed and mounted at Bressingham? Tony May (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly - I think uksteam.info only lists locos that have run since that website was set up in c. 1996. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.