Talk:British Rail Class 07

Extra detail

I think these locos were built with a very short wheelbase of 2.63m (as had the USA tank engines) to cope with the sharp curves in Southampton docks - they only seem to have worked there and otherwise an 09 could have done similar work? In contrast the 09 wheelbase is 3.51m. Perhaps add this detail, however I can't find any refs for this - was this true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.70.168 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There were quite a few BR 0-6-0 Diesel shunters with a short wheelbase; in fact, apart from the large Diesel-electrics (the class 08/09/10 family), all had a wheelbase of 9 feet 0 inches (2.74 m) or less. These included classes D2/5 (8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)), D2/7 (8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)), D2/8 (9 ft 0 in (2.74 m)), D2/9 (9 ft 0 in (2.74 m)), D2/12 (8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)), 03 (9 ft 0 in (2.74 m)), 04 (9 ft 0 in (2.74 m)), 07 (8 ft 7+1⁄2 in (2.629 m)). Several of these were used on dock work. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Those seem to be diesel mechanical, lower power and slower (roughly half) of an '07 (but the 07 'failed' in service on the speed front due to hot axle boxes). I believe the 07s were specified for the Southampton docks, which I have read had tighter radius curves compared to other extensively rail serviced dock areas, as no other loco had suitable characteristics (those with high enough power were too large, those with a short enough wheel base were not powerful enough). I envisioned that the intro text could be changed from 'used in Southampton Docks' to 'designed for and used in Southampton Docks' and perhaps a reference to tight curves and heavy use requiring a new shunter design in the text somewhere. I'll try to dig around for some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.70.168 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Don't use preservation photos

This is what we need

We have a photo taken from the 1970s. Although it isn't technically fantastic - Replacing it with a preservation-era image is not ideal. Tony May (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically it is awful, it is barely recognisable as an 07, looks more like an 03. The picture quality is frankly unacceptable, I've done my best to improve it but the original is too poor. Using it makes the article look shoddy and amateurish. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Noting additionally that File:07007 at Eastleigh 100 (1).jpg was taken in 2009, which is clearly a preservation-era image, and 15 years or so after BR blue started to be superseded by sectorisation liveries. It cannot therefore be claimed to be a "BR blue" image. Tony May (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Apart from your obsession with the subject, what is wrong with using more recent pictures that actully illustrates the subject? As I noted above the picture you prefer doesn't even show tthe important characteristics of the loco, ie it is a centre-cab design. If you want to get pedantic, it is not a preservation era photo as the loco was never preserved. After withdrawal from capital stock it was used by BR (SR) as a mobile generator then later as the Eastleigh works shunter, a function it still carries out. AS you will note, I have reverted the picture to one more suitable for illustrating the article. Please don't change it back again unless you can establish a consensus that that is what people want. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• We should use perfect, contemporary photos. As they're in short supply, compromise will be unavoidable. I'd rather compromise to a good photo in preservation, rather than a bad one of the original service.

Why do we have photos? Are they to show the loco, or the loco at work? There's something to be said (especially for a class which worked notably in one distinctive location, such as a street-running dockside) in having a contemporary photo to show the work being done, but if the photo is only showing the loco in isolation, any losss from this being in preservation is likely to be negligible. Thomas paintjobs apart. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want a photo of it taken in BR days (just) then there is this one:

It was taken in 1994 when Eastleigh works was still a BR depot. OK, it's one of mine so I'm biased but it is the livery the loco started and finished it's BR career in. I'd love to have a photo of one of the class working Southampton Docks instead but I've not come across one that coud be used. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My strong preference is for one from the 1970s when they were working and did most of their work. Such photos exist, but we don't have licences for them. It is a good idea to have consistency across articles, so that not only do we have historic photos for class 07, but also for class 08, class 09, class 10, class 11, etc all the way to class 960 or whatever it is. There are often changes made for preservation, and often the preservationists get the livery wrong, so it's better to go with a historic image when available. The photo I suggest is clearly technically deficient, but it's not the worst I've seen. I like the one from 1994, but it's not especially typical. Tony May (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of a good photo (and the 2009 has an overexposed sky - not technically good), the best thing probably is to include 3 subpar ones until such time, but to keep the main image as the historical one because it is fundamentally important for images to be historical. I did this but have been told to wait until consensus here. I obviously respect Andy's opinions, and respect most of what User:Murgatroyd49 says. Tony May (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The 70s one not ony has burnt out sky but colour banding down the left hand edge which I have tried to reduce as much as possible. I've got some sky detail into the later photo but there is a limit to what I can achieve. The livery in the current photo was applied in the same paint shop by the same team as would have done it in BR days so should be reasonably accurate, though I notice they've got the double arrows and TOPS number the wrong way round!

I certainly don't agree the historical photo should be the main one as, apart from the technical deficiencies, it doesn't adequately illustrate the loco, you would never realise it is a centre cab layout. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the sort of mistake with liveries that preservationists routinely make. Looking at it a bit more closely, User:Murgatroyd49, I suspect the photo File:D2991 (07007) shunter at Eastleigh.jpg actually dates from her departmental use in the 1980s, in use I believe as a mobile generator, so while part of her history, it's possible to argue that we completely lack an appropriate 1970s-era photograph. In which case, in the absence of well-suited photograph, it may not matter so much which less well-suited one is used, but I would reiterate the point that it's probably better to use 3-4 of these not so good ones to cover deficiencies. Tony May (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

So hang on, I've found one from 1973 that shows the layout fairly well. Tony May (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Which is? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's better, where did you find it, I couldn't see it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit to get more detail in the chassis Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)