Talk:British Rail Class 59

There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named.  
Before making such a request, please read the past discussions 
at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.
Biscuittin (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"In 1997 one of the Foster Yeoman locomotives, 59 003 Yeoman Highlander was exported to Germany by Heavy Haul Power International where it was renumbered 259003 and subsequently 29002." (my bold)

Is this correct, or should it be 259002? My understanding of the DB classification system is that (0)29002 would make it a steam locomotive!? Thryduulf 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going on http://www.kolejbaltycka.pl/images/adhesion_train.jpg but dammnit that's a 66 not a 59. — Dunc|☺ 09:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"They are the first US built (and privately-owned) locomotives to operate regularly on the British main-line" This is not true, the Midland had some US built locos, there is even a book on them! http://www.transportdiversions.com/publicationshow.asp?pubid=2661 Talltim 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

and they were built in Canada anyway! —Sladen (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The 59s? they were built in the US, 66s were built in Cananda. Talltim (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2008 (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.

SD50 or SD40-2

This article says the locomotive is based upon the EMD SD50. However, there's no mention of it there, but the EMD SD40-2 article describes the class 59 as a variant. Which is correct? --98.254.202.225 (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 59. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008091653/http://www.hhpi.org:80/track_record.htm to http://www.hhpi.org/track_record.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018204741/http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/yeoman-highlander-to-return-to-uk to http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/yeoman-highlander-to-return-to-uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204034406/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_59.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_59.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Southall

The involvement of 59101 in the railcrash at Southall keeps getting added and then removed on the grounds that it wasn't damaged. This doesn't make a lot of sense. It was there and involved in the incident. Should we ignore the trailing power car at Stonehaven because it wasn't damaged? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

59101 just happened to be the loco was hauling a train that came to grief. It was the train that was sideswiped, there was no fault in 59101 or the wagons that it was hauling; the driver was carrying out his duties correctly, obeying signals for the track upon which he was running. Some of the wagons were victims: but 59101 was essentially an innocent bystander. The question is this: would events have been different if another loco had been hauling that train? No, they wouldn't. The loco is irrelevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It was still involved in the accident. The driver of the express at Ladbroke Grove was similarly carrying out his duties correctly, obeying signals for the track upon which he was running. Are you not going to include that fact in the relevant article?Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that at Ladbroke Grove, the HST collided head-on with the DMU. At Southall, 59101 was some distance away, and undamaged: indeed, the official report by Prof. Uff (page i, bottom two lines) explicitly states The freight locomotive was not involved in the crash. The loco number 59101 is only mentioned in three places in the entire report - all being in paragraph 1.10 on page 6; and the phrase "Class 59" only twice - once in the same paragraph, the other in para. 1.14, page 9. Please consider WP:UNDUE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've considered it and don't see the relevance, it is not a minority view that 59101 was hauling the freight train involved in the accident. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that 59101 wasn't hauling the train. I don't see how it could be a "minority view" either. But the fact simply isn't relevant, any more than the colour it was painted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What colour locos and other rolling stock is painted is an obsession with many editors! The fact is the loco and its train was involved in the accident. You don't think it is relevant, others obviously do. What I am concerned about is stopping the slow-motion edit wars over this point. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The train was involved in the accident but not the locomotive, therefore I don't see why it is an "incident" in this article about locomotives. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hair-splitting, without the loco pulling it the train wouldn't have been there. The loco is an integral part of the train. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Marsden 2008

This article makes several citations to "Marsden 2008" and it's unclear which work this is meant to be. Mackensen (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted! There was a typo in the citation template but I've fixed it now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you and one more--Marsden 1987. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

There are just too many Marsden publications. Fixed that too. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox measurements

The dimensions that I put in the infobox came from Marsden (2008) and this uses the imperial measurements that EMD used when the locomotives were designed. @XAM2175: what source do you have that uses the metric units you give? Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's in the "notes" field at the bottom of the infobox: the Class 59 diagrams in this copy of BR's Diagram Book No. 100 (pages 115 and 116). I think the "drawn up" argument is not hugely relevant in this case; the MOS guideline for UK-tied engineering topics seems to be written more with infrastructure and other large-scale civil engineering topics in mind – and in any case, does Marsden actively claim that EMD designed in customary measurements, or is it an assumption? XAM2175 ^(T) 18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)