Talk:BR ex-WD Austerity 2-8-0

Category:British Railways standard classes

These should not be in Category:British Railways standard classes - being listed in the BR number series does not make them British Railways standard classes. BR bought them secondhand. Although designed by R.A. Riddles, who later schemed out the BR Standard steam locomotives, he was acting in his wartime capacity as Deputy Director General, Railway Executive Equipment. They were ordered by the Ministry of Supply, and construction ceased in 1945 - over two years before BR came into existence. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

They are not BR standard designs, but were listed in the BR standard numbering series for standard heavy freight engines: (GWR 1-9999, diesels 10000-19999, electrics 20000-29999, Southern 30000-39999, LMS 40000-59999, LNER 60000-69999 BR mixed traffic and passenger tender engines 70000-79999, BR mixed traffic tank engines 80000-89999, BR heavy freight engines 90000-99999). Tony May (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Where else should they have been numbered? The LNER had bought 200 of them, which were numbered 3000-3199 (BR 63000-63199); but there was no space in the LNER series for another 533, which the BTC bought in 1948. They weren't GWR, SR, LMS or LNER designs, so those series were inappropriate; and they certainly weren't Diesels or electrics - therefore, there were no suitable numbers below 70000 for the extra 533. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes but there it is. Also while the LNER O7s were used on the ex-LNER Eastern/North Eastern/Scottish Regions, quite a few that BR later bought were allocated to the ex-LMS London Midland/Scottish Regions. The same also goes for the locomotive diagrams assigned to them. Tony May (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

They should not be categorised as BR standard engines. As Redrose64 says, the were designed, built and in service well before BR came into existence. The numbering system has nothing to do with the design. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather curiously, the "Observer's Book of Railway Locos" (1964 edition) says that the 2-10-0 version "embody features common to other British Railways Standard types" without explanation. I can only think that because the locos passed directly from the MoS to BR Casserley thought of them (but not the 2-8-0s) as a BR type. I agree that both classes shouldn't be categorised as BR standards on the basis of their numbering. --Ning-ning (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that the number series makes them BR Standards so, no, I don't think they belong in that category. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• against They're not one of the standard designs. We might otherwise just as well start listing any of those Big 4 designs that were still produced after 1948. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since consensus seems to be that they're not, I've removed the category from both this and BR ex-WD Austerity 2-10-0. Ning-ning (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)