User:Tony May/A1

Comment from Tony May

{{essay}}

Preface

Thank you for your attention. Firstly, I really apologise for the length of this essay, but there are several points that I would like to discuss. I have chosen to present a case here rather than get into tit-for-tat arguments on talk pages, which serve no purpose whatsoever. As a result of points (whether sensible or not) made by others, or misconceptions, I have updated this page here. Most importantly, and contrary to assertions by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) my main points regarding content here have not changed, though some of the explanations of these points have been elaborated upon as necessary.

I will now explain the importance of a historical approach, MacNee's flawed arguments and point out other secondary arguments which could also be considered. I think MacNee has misunderstood or misrepresented my views here, so please allow me to explain them properly.

Introduction

Schematic of how the article should flow chronologically (red arrows). I think nothing better illustrates the historical gulf between the original 49 engines and the new build.

This dispute is primarily about how to deal with two separate productions of the Peppercorn A1s - should they be treated together as MacNee wants (producing IMVHO a mess), or separately which is the more logical (and professional) way of doing it, and one which reflects all sources? IMVHO, this dispute is primarily about article structure, and I think we should concentrate on that and not be distracted by side issues.

I believe that the summary of the articles should be as follows: This article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should primarily be about the LNER Peppercorn Class A1s, i.e. the original engines. The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado should be mostly about the new build engine. Both should be cross-linked however and appropriately mentioned in both. This should be done as follows:

• The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should have a #Tornado section, which should be the last section (excluding models, references/footnotes/external links etc), and should consist of a summary of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado.
• The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado should have a #Background section, which should be the first section, and should consist mostly of a summary of the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article.

The 49 original locomotives should therefore be treated completely separately from Tornado. In particular for the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article:

1. Tornado should not be listed with the original engines in the stock list - doing so is completely absurd.
2. Technical information about Tornado should be removed from the infobox as unnecessary clutter. If appropriate, a technical comparisons section can be made in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado article instead and the basic differences noted in the text in the Tornado article. Tornado is not sufficiently different to warrant the extra clutter (Update - this has been done and largely been agreed upon now).
3. Tornado should be mentioned in the A1 article, in its own section, equivalent to the standard preservation section on other articles. This should be done in two places and in two places only; briefly in the lead section, and then a short dedicated section under the name #Tornado or similar. This should go chronologically, below the "#Withdrawal" section and above the "#Models" section.
4. Whenever the original 49 engines in the class are discussed, this should absolutely be made explicit to avoid any potential confusions.

I believe Biscuittin (talk · contribs), Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) and I are in general agreement of those points, but MickMacNee (talk · contribs) and Captain Nemo III (talk · contribs) are not.

I would just like to clarify one further point because of a deliberate misrepresentation. I do not think there is any call whatsoever for an additional article on Peppercorn Class A1 design. I also am not calling for the removal of all material related to Tornado in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article - merely that such material is appropriately located.

Please some time to familiarise yourself with these articles if you have not done so already.

The historical approach

An historical approach is of paramount importance:

• This article contains two main elements: history and engineering. The engineering cannot be understood without reference to the history, whereas the history can be understood with only an elementary understanding of engineering. Hence the history is far more important, and this is primarily a historical article. One can write about the history of engineering, but one cannot write about the "engineering of history"(!).

• Tornado was never a BR engine, i.e. it never entered BR stock - there was no BR engine with the number 60163. This is, from a historical point of view, of the highest importance, and I really cannot emphasise this enough.

Anyway, we will come back to this historical approach later, but first I wish to examine what Tornado is and what she isn't:

What exactly is Tornado?

How Tornado is defined is not a black and white issue; like the engine itself, it is grey.

Biscuittin (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are concentrating on whether Tornado is actually an A1. I will say two things about this. Firstly, both seem to think that this is a black-and-white issue; I consider it to be a grey area. Secondly, I do not believe that this debate is of much more wider significance than the particular relevance to this article. I also believe that this debate is holding back the progress of the article by causing a distraction. This largely revolves around how we define what Tornado is.

• Firstly, regarding classification: In one way certainly, "60163" is not an A1. The LNER, classified its locomotives using a letter + number system, and this approach was continued by British Railways (BR) for ex-LNER locomotives. BR was obviously only able to classify locomotives it owned (or hired), which were taken into stock. BR does not exist any more. This therefore, is essentially a subset of the historical point above. (Indeed, the modern day classification used is not "A1", but Tornado is classified by Network Rail for the TOPS purposes as Class 98, No. 98863).

• Secondly, regarding engineering. It is impossible to create an exact replica of any locomotive for various reasons. Firstly, a working locomotive must be fit for the 21st century railway, so Tornado is necessarily slightly shorter to avoid fouling OHLE, and also the coal/water capacity is different and she has no water scoop as there are no water troughs from which to pick up water en route. Secondly, construction is necessarily different, as for example you can't use asbestos any more, and Tornado has a steel firebox rather than a copper one because of the German experience with steel fireboxes. Thirdly, it may be considered a good idea, purely for engineering reasons, to add slight improvements to the design, (e.g. rebalancing the bogie). An exact replica is therefore impossible.

MacNee is right of course that, from a purely engineering point of view, Tornado is an A1. If it had been a BR engine, it would have been classified with the others, despite the detail differences. But the point we again come back to is the historical one because the engineering cannot be understood without reference to the history.

• Furthermore, Tornado is also different from the original 49 engines in other ways. In addition to the historical difference;
  • It is operationally different, as Tornado will principally be used to haul occasional railtours over the national network, whereas the original engines were used in everyday mainline service.
  • The name Tornado does not reflect the LNER's naming policy. Tornado is named after an aircraft that first flew almost ten years after the last A1 was scrapped. The original 49 were named after racehorses, houses, people. The LNER absolutely had a naming policy for its locomotives; racehorse names in particular were applied to many pacifics.

• Finally regarding history (again) - Tornado is herself of tremendous historical importance. But she is history from 2008, not 1948. She is the first mainline steam locomotive built in Britain since 1960, and given other new build projects, probably not the last. By herself she is more historically important than any one of the 49 original engines, and maybe arguably even the whole of the original class. That is one reason why she has her own separate article.

Specifically, is Tornado the fiftieth A1?

Now we come to the issue of whether Tornado should be described as the "fiftieth A1". Once you appreciate that the A1LST are engineering, their quote becomes understandable. They are approaching Tornado from a purely engineering perspective:

From the very beginning the Trust regarded Tornado not as a replica or copy of any one of its 49 predecessors, but as the fiftieth A1. This simple decision gave the Trust licence to make small changes to the design to better suit modern manufacturing techniques and to fit in with the modern high speed railway, while remaining demonstrably faithful to the greater part of the original design

Now let us consider specifically this quote:

1. Firstly must note the word regard - they are clearly expressing their own opinion. I assume they regard because they are aware of the history outlined above. Also please note that regard is not as strong as, for example belief, but is synonymous with view, see, or envisage.
2. Furthermore, MacNee completely fails to take into consideration why this decision was made, i.e. "This simple decision gave the Trust licence to make small changes to the design to better suit modern manufacturing techniques and to fit in with the modern high speed railway, while remaining demonstrably faithful to the greater part of the original design".

As explained above, historically Tornado did not belong to LNER Class A1 as it was never owned by BR. Therefore, I think describing Tornado as the "fiftieth A1" is a slight oversimplification and one that while not technically true is close enough to the truth to be acceptable for most purposes.

If I may use an analogy, an engineer would also probably tell you that he regards pi as being equal to 3.141. For most engineering purposes this is close enough to the truth. But saying pi=3.141 (especially without any qualification) is demonstrably false and would horrify a pure mathematician (maybe all this shows is that engineers are funny people!).

Most, if not all, of the articles describing Tornado as the "fiftieth member of the class" are secondary sources such as journalists, who are making this slight error. Presumably they are not railway historians. I note that the primary source (the A1LST) does not simply say say Tornado is the fiftieth, but only regards. I assume they regard for the historical reasons outlined above.

This "Tornado=50th" is nevertheless an error however and it is not necessary to make it. I think therefore describing Tornado as the fiftieth member of the class, without qualification (i.e. the who and why) is sloppy. The fact that this simplification is not completely true/is ambiguous/is slightly misleading really means that Wikipedia needs to choose its wording carefully to avoid such a situation. Let's not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Specifically, is Tornado a replica?

This brings us onto the what is a slight side issue, whether Tornado is a replica. First, let us clear up definitions: Replica can be defined as "any close or exact copy or reproduction". Given the engineering point explained above, an exact replica is impossible, which reasonably leaves the only possibility being a close replica.

The points made previously about the A1LST approaching this from an engineering perspective (regarded) remain valid.

Furthermore, please note the subtle semantics involved: "...regarded Tornado not as a replica of any one of its 49 predecessors...". This is quite different to "...regarded Tornado not as a replica". The trust explain why they didn't try to make an exact copy of No. 60126, for example. The question of whether she is a generic replica or non-exact is not actually addressed in this quotation.

Schematic diagram showing the 2-way non-exact replication relationship between each of the original 49 locomotives. In contrast, non-exact replication of Tornado is one way.

Of course, in one sense, and once constructiod had finished, every one of the original locomotives was a non-exact replica of each and every one of other 48. But all the 49 Peppercorn Class A1 locomotives classified A1 and existed concurrently with each other. And that's the most important thing about them. Even more importantly however, the original 49 were not all non-exact replicas of Tornado which was built 60 years later. Thus (non-exact) replication is one way in the case of Tornado v. the original 49 but two way within the original class. Tornado is clearly different and this arises because of the historical difference.

There are other opinions as well; both Michael Binyon of The Times (2008-08-02 & 2008-10-09) and by Graham Tibbetts and Andrew Cave of The Daily Telegraph 2006-05-07 & 2008-08-01 use the word "replica". However, I would prefer to eschew press sources as the quality of journalism varies. Rather I'd prefer to rely on the primary source of the A1LST themselves, and common sense.

Regarding self-identification - that the A1LST choose not to use the word "replica", is their prerogative. The A1LST also seem not to use the word "preservation", despite the fact that they are clearly part of the British railway preservation movement. Hence, on reflection, I think that the words "replica" or "preservation" should not be used in the article, out of deference to their views, and to avoid any confusion. However, I think that this means that the wording has to be appropriate. Presently, it is extremely crude and inaccurate. Let's not try to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Article structure (very important)

My rather crude chronology diagram again.

Now we have (hopefully) clarified (1) the importance of history, and (2) what Tornado is and what she isn't. The next question is how to structure the article. Structure is of importance because an article needs structure in order to (1) be accurate and (2) in order to meet WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR standards. I also humbly suggest that structure is necessary to meet relevant professional academic standards, as I will explain.

After the lead section, which summarises the entire article, there should be a chronological flow of the article. This is because it is historical article. (If anyone has any other sensible suggestions on how to structure it, then please say because I can think of none.) So a typical outline would be:

1. Background
2. Construction
3. Stock list
4. Service
5. Withdrawal
6. Tornado
7. Models
8. References/ External links, etc

Structuring the article chronologically clearly makes any inclusion of Tornado in the middle of the discussion of the original engines completely anachronistic. There is a reason why time travel is science fiction.

This approach is logical, and follows the general format of what I have read in railway books. Not to be content with just asserting this without evidence however, I asked expert railway historian Dave Hunt this question. Full details of the exchange may be found at (User:Tony May/A1/BDH), but I shall quote the most important part:

Were I to be writing about the A1s, I would mention the building of Tornado in the postscript but omit any reference to it in the main text. I would also consider putting an appendix at the end covering its construction but only briefly.

If I were reviewing a book that included Tornado in the A1s, it would detract from my opinion of it and I would say so in any review.

To repeat then: Tornado should be discussed extremely briefly in the lead (~1 sentence) and then briefly under a separate heading (~1 paragraph).

The lumper-splitter problem

The original 49 engines present a rather homogenous grouping, but Tornado is an outlier and should go in its own outgroup.

A further point to be made is that what is presented to us is a cladistical or "lumpers and splitters" problem, in which case it is IMVHO usually better to split rather than to lump. The 49 original engines are present a very homogenous group; Tornado is an outlier which falls outside this homogeneous group and so should be treated as an outgroup.

If necessary, we can even do some maths to show this. If we quite unnecessarily lump Tornado with the original 49 engines, the average build date of the whole "class" is 1949, but the variance of this is 71. If they are kept separate, the average build date for the original engines is 1948, the variance is 0·25 - (i.e. very compact).

This is reflected in the structure of the articles themselves to some degree - it is why we have a separate LNER Thompson Class A1/1 article, and a separate 60163 Tornado article.

Inter-article structure

In terms of inter-article structure I will say the following: Normally, we would expect an article on a particular locomotive to be the child of an article on its class, e.g. LNER Peppercorn Class A2 is the parent article of LNER Peppercorn Class A2 60532 Blue Peter. However, I do not think that this approach is appropriate here: LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should be seen as the parent article of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado. Rather they should be seen as existing in parallel, and they should concentrate on slightly different subject matters.

However, it is important that in terms of structure, the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article matches its parent articles, of which it is a child, as per WP:SS. These are in particular, Steam locomotives of British Railways, on those locomotives in BR stock, and LNER Pacifics, on the pacifics in LNER/BR stock, and Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway, which should include a post-nationalisation section.

Specifically regarding the list of locomotives/stock list

The main problem at the moment with regards to the article is the listing of Tornado within the list of locomotives. This arises out of the problem of the article structure question above. I think that this list is of fundamental importance to the article and should not be shunted aside.

Firstly, I must deal with a side issue regarding the name of this list. This is because MacNee is disingenuously complaining about the use of "stock list", as jargon, which only perhaps serves to indicate his ignorance of railway history. Anyway, either "BR Stock list", or "list of BR locomotives" (or similar) would be acceptable (per above to consider the 49 engines separately but explicitly so). MacNee's preferred "list of locomotives" is not acceptable because it is deliberately vague and ambiguous - MacNee wants the table to be vague and ambiguous so that it quite inappropriately and unnecessarily forces Tornado to be listed there. MacNee apparently objects to the word "stock" as jargon, though I note that it is (a) accurate, and (b) widely used, and (c) that is no more jargon than say "firebox" or "Kylchap". I'm sure if readers were indeed confused and look up stock in the dictionary they'd quickly understand.

Anyway, stock lists are very important, and we must strive to get them as accurate as possible. A stock list reflects the railway company's investment, its operational capabilities, the history of the class members, and so on. Listing Tornado as a member of a class of locomotives wasn't historically part of makes this list decidedly inaccurate and as a result far less useful.

Another point to make is the structure of the stock list itself. Implicitly, the build date column is the date a particular locomotive was taken into stock, and the withdrawal date the date withdrawn from capital stock. Tornado was never taken into stock by BR, and hence never withdrawn. Therefore many of the columns (especially the withdrawal column) do not make sense. There is potential for other details to be added, such as disposal dates, disposal (i.e. scrapyard), liveries, first shed, last shed, etc. None of these makes any sense whatsoever for Tornado.

Even worse news for the stock list including Tornado is that it fails to match any sources and is I suggest original research. I will explain this next.

Sources and original research

To meet quality standards, sources must be reliable, NPOV and contain no original research. I will cite the following sources in support of the fact that they deal with the original 49 engines separately from Tornado (which the first three all mention, and the fourth ignores completely but is presumably kept up-to-date). All of these include a list of locomotives:

• Hugh Longworth - British Railway Steam Locomotives 1948-1968
• Richard Marsden - LNER Encyclopedia
• The A1 Locomotive Steam Trust
• Railuk database

In addition, the above are also consistent with stock lists as available in:

• RCTS LNER Locomotives Vol 2 (often known as green books)
• Yeadon's Register, Vol 2

I also offer the source Classic British Steam Locomotives by Peter Herring which does not include a list of locomotives, but does discuss Tornado as being under construction for roughly one paragraph at the end of his two page treatise.

Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that MacNee can find similar sources which support Tornado being included in such a list. A list must be considered to be more reliable source than a misinterpretation of a quote. Lumping Tornado together with the originals in a list, without providing sources which themselves are lists, is tantamount to original research, and this is especially true when it goes against accepted academic standards. This should clearly be avoided at all costs.

Precedent

Using false (usually vacant) numbers is actually quite common in preservation. I can probably give you a dozen examples if you wish. Lumping Tornado with these is not only inconsistent with other articles, not to mention common sense, it sets bad precedent. This is partly because Tornado will probably not be the last new build steam locomotive built this century.

For example, many Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0STs which were only industrial locomotives, have, in preservation, used false numbers to appear as LNER Class J94. To all intents and purposes they are in engineering terms, identical to the J94s, and appear to be so, but they were never members of that class. It would be absurd to list these together, even if one preservation group decided to "regard x as the 76th member of Class J94".

It is also fairly common to name preserved locomotives with names they did not carry in service. Again, it is customary to treat these engines, as preserved, differently from the main engines when they were in service. Lumping them together in this case sets a very bad precedent, and is inconsistent with other articles and accepted academic convention (again see User:Tony May/A1/BDH.

I will also give another example which will may soon arise. The LMS Patriot Class. In the case of the Patriots there are no free numbers at either end; (4)5499 was an LMS Black Five, (4)5552 was a Jubilee Class. They will therefore duplicate No. (4)5551 - are we now going to have a list with two 45551s? Listing replicas, or new build locomotives, with the originals should never be done - it is really bad practice.

MacNee's arguments

I will now deal with MacNee's arguments, and show that it consists of poor reasoning and over-interpretation of a single source.

I have already dealt with the first quote above.

MacNee's second source is apparently the IMechE. Let's have a look at this in more detail. It is actually a lecture given to the IMechE by David Elliott, who is "Director of Engineering, The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust". We do not have the lecture slides however, or a video or full transcript or anything like that. All we have is an extremely short abstract which I shall quote in full:

The last of the renowned Peppercorn class A1 steam locomotives was scrapped in 1966. But, a brand new A1, 60163 Tornado, has been built at the Darlington Locomotive Works by The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust. Tornado was due to move for the first time under its own steam in August 2008 and enter main line service by the end of 2008. This lecture will cover the history of the Peppercorn Class A1s, the design and manufacturing of the 50th A1 Tornado and its first 6 months of operation in main line service.

Firstly, Elliott represents not the IMechE, as MacNee might lead us to believe but again the A1LST, so the source is in effect the same as the above (it is likely that Elliott wrote his own abstract). I have already explained the reasons why it is a non-exact replica, and this does nothing to contradict this. MacNee reads far too much into this extremely short paragraph. Elliot separates the two with a comma, which is reasonable given the shortness of the abstract. He categorically does not for example "...cover the 50 Peppercorn Class A1s" or anything that would be unambiguous. Indeed, I would expect Elliot's lecture to consist of two parts; the first part covering the 49 original engines, and the second part the replica. This is exactly how it should be done because it is the only logical way of dealing with it.

MacNee's assertion that the IMechE would, if they disagreed with Tornado being the "fiftieth A1" issue a note saying so is clearly absurd. I expect that the IMechE's committees have far better things to do than to look into such matters and quarrel over an issue of history with one of its speakers who has been invited to talk about engineering.

If MacNee has any further sources available for examination then I will deal with those as well. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant copy of The Railway Magazine, to which he refers.

MacNee's secondary points

I will now deal with MacNee's secondary points:

• MacNee's point that the reader won't miss that 60163 exists as a new build if it is listed with the originals is not really a point at all. Clearly, if they are separated, the reader will still realise that Tornado exists because he (or she) is told in the lead and it is further explained, chronologically, further down the article, and further elaborated upon in a separate article. So I don't understand that argument at all.
• MacNee's accusation that this structuring is "original research" is stretching that definition to its limits. I can back up structuring the article appropriately with sources. MacNee apparently cannot produce a complete list including Tornado.

Captain Nemo III's point

The impression I get from comments by Captain Nemo III (talk · contribs) is as follows: Apparently he thinks that history - the study of the past - is not relevant to events which happened in the past. I think he basically thinks what actually happened in the past is not relevant as our "perception" of events changes as we move forward in history.

I think this is absurd. Wikipedia should be straightforwardly reporting events that occurred historically (and they are really quite straightforward in this case, which means that any new research isn't going to change our perception a great deal), not any particular viewpoint or perception of such events. Apparently he thinks that this is a misrepresentation of his views. I have tried my best to summarise them here but because I think they are nonsensical, I don't think can really explain them properly.

Instead of trying to discuss content, he has tried to have this page deleted as an "attack page", despite the fact that it clearly concentrates mostly on content. He has also tried to edit this page, which is in my userspace and contrary to my request for him not to do so. I do not want this page to turn into a tit-for-tat discussion - it is intended as an essay. He has shown himself quite able, as I requested, to leave comments at user talk:Tony May/A1. I promise if such comments clarify his views, I will take them into consideration and address them properly in this essay.

Behaviour of others

So far I have mostly restricted myself to arguing on the basis of content. However, to this I would like to add the following. I'm sorry to make such accusations, but I do so based on experience of dealing with them. I do not feel that MacNee will be genuinely offended by them, though they may anger him enough to accuse others, of being rude.

MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IMVHO has engaged in attempted bullying, edit warring, violation of WP:OWN, and wikilawyering, editing the article to specifically support his opinion, by selectively quotation and interpretation of said quotes (and in doing so reducing its quality). He seems to think that negotiation and discussion revolve around him having to have the last word. When he can't discuss actual content, he either whinges about being "personally attacked", or disingenously tries to raise irrelevant side issues. Furthermore, he has form for being tempestuous, having been blocked 13 times for variations ranging from 3RR to incivility and swearing.

Captain Nemo III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) meanwhile arrived on the scene in support of MacNee. I cannot find any edits of his to railway articles, and very few in general, which makes his interest in this one curious. I note that on 4 April 2008 Captain Nemo III was blocked indefinitely by JzG (talk · contribs), the reason given was Contributions indicate agenda-driven editor (aka "SCOX troll). He was unblocked 20 hours later by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs), who thought the block somewhat excessive. I have no opinion on the rights or wrongs of this block. However, it certainly does not mean that he should pursue a vendetta against JzG (talk · contribs). Their confrontation was a long time in the past and any vendetta WP:POINT. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case however, and one should always assume good faith.

Conclusion

The danger of course is that people say, "oh go on then" and let MacNee have his way. I fear that this is what might happen if you are not a well-read railway enthusiast and so not understand the historical points above. This point has also been made by User:Biscuittin, and I agree with him (though in claiming to be reasonably well read, I'd hate to think I was patronising anyone, I wish to merely offering a humble opinion based on experience). Unfortunately, MacNee's way is so very wrong that it fundamentally ruins the article.

I have tried to compromise with MacNee, and ignore or sidestep most of his more illogical points, but he has just continued nevertheless.

Rather than addressing the points in this essay, or attempting to explain himself further, MacNee has dismissed this essay because he claims it keeps changing. My main points however have not changed, indeed if anything I have softened my position slightly.

I will also say FWIW that MacNee has (I think) written much (if not most) of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, and on that he has done a reasonable job there (though like many Wikipedia articles though its structure is a bit of a mess). That however does not make him the be-all and end-all expert on a collaborative Wiki. IMVHO he has not doing a reasonable job here. Thanks for your attention --Tony May (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Other users in agreement

I am broadly in agreement with what Mr May says. I am particularly annoyed that Mr MacNee refuses to accept that there is a controversy about this article and relies on legalistic arguments. I think the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Biscuittin (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)