Talk:GWR 3031 Class

Some issues in the linking

The links on the locomotive names seem to link to the term, rather than the pages for the locomotives - which would be more appropriate where they exist. Where there are diambiguation pages, and there are entries for the locomotive name, I am substituting that (only one so far). There are also links on the disambiguation pages to the Iron Dukes. Could somebody confirm whether these are different models from two classes with the same name, or Iron Dukes that were converted to this class? Also, Avalanche disambiguation links the name to a GWR Banking Class locomotive which is detailed as 0-6-0. It says that this was originally broad gauge. There is no reference to the Avalanche on the GWR Iron Duke Class, so I am wondering whether there is some discrepancy between the three pages. I am requesting WP:RS that confirms the entry on the Banking Class page as well as here, so that we can clear this up. Note that there are few (if any) sources for much of this information. Mish (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Loco names

Need to verify that the linked articles are the real things that these locos were named after. Some of the explanations need to be checked too. This is an observation based on this recent edit: the expln for "Royal Sovereign" seems suspect. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've relinked the names, where the notes column was explicit about what the loco was named after. I've also edited away some of the descriptions, for example, the ones that just define perfectly ordinary English words. Dricherby (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Replica

What does 'the tender was originally of the LBSCR' mean? Seems like gibberish to me. 8474tim (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Partially fixed, The tender was an LBSCR one, modified to look like a GWR tender. The tender couldn't be extracted in one piece, so was cut up and sold to a scrap merchant. Ning-ning (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

3060 John G. Griffiths

I suspect that 3060 John G. Griffiths was named after John George Griffiths, a partner of the Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths & Co. (now known as Deloitte) since 1869. Deloitte's founder, William Welch Deloitte, was the first person to be appointed external auditor for a company, in 1849: that company was the GWR (Deloitte timeline), so it's reasonable to imagine that Griffiths was the GWR's auditor. Perhaps the locomotive was named after him when he retired as auditor, for example. If anyone can confirm this, it could be added to the article; for now, it's speculative WP:OR. Dricherby (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The GWR Auditors were Deloitte, Plender & Griffiths, and the loco was indeed named after that Griffiths, but not for that reason. See

• Davies, Ken (1993). The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part fourteen: Names and their Origins - Railmotor Services - War Service - The Complete Preservation Story. Lincoln: RCTS. p. P127. ISBN 0-901115-75-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Griffiths was a Director of the GWR between 1908 and 1922; it was common practice for the GWR (and a few other railways) to honour their more distinguished Directors with locomotive names. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So a partner of the GWR's external auditors was a director of the company? Conflict of interest, much? :-) Thanks for the cite; I'll add it to the article. Dricherby (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)