Talk:GWR Cathedral Class

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Wrong Cathedral

[edit]

The Cathedral Class mentioned in Jackson p175 (the only page I can see on Google Books) is obviously the 1927 Super-Castle that was produced as the King Class. That reference therefore seems to me to be irrelevant. Does Jackson mention Hawksworth's Cathedrals anywhere else? -- Verbarson  talkedits 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 July 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No strong consensus against or for the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 12:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GWR Cathedral Class → GWR proposed Hawksworth Pacific locomotive – I have searched for any association between Frederick Hawksworth's proposed Pacific locomotive and the name 'Cathedral' or the number '8000', and found nothing remotely contemporaneous or authoritative. (There is evidence - as I have added to the article - of the name being initially proposed for the King class.) I deduce that 'Cathedral' and '8000' are recent inventions, probably for marketing purposes, and are therefore not suitable for the title of this article. Either the article should be moved to a better title, or it should be merged into the article on Hawksworth. -- Verbarson  talkedits 22:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Cathedral seems to have enough recognition to pass commonname and if not contemperaneous, it is at least several decades old. However 'GWR proposed Hawksworth Pacific locomotive' is a reasonable alternative. But how much did Hawksworth have to do with it? He denied most connection to it and the one diagram that was definitely produced (a side view and weight diagram) had no connection to him, except he's alleged (with at least as much evidence as the Cathedral name) to have then ordered such speculations to stop.
I would oppose a move to '8000 class' etc. though as that has even less to back it up than Cathedrals. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these decades old usages? -- Verbarson  talkedits 23:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be misunderstanding something in the nom, but a recent invention is fine so long as it has support in reliably published secondary sources. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that some of the sources are merely repeating information that was published elsewhere. It is also possible that at some point a purely speculative piece was published somewhere, which subsequent authors have assumed was bona fide. How many of the sources offer genuine information? Can we show that there are multiple reliable sources? Also, this addition by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) puzzles me: the text of our article describes a four-cylinder loco, so ought not to be in that book (the GWR 4-6-0s, whether two- or four-cylinder, are all described in ... Part Eight: Modern Passenger Classes). The citation also has no page numbers, and I've been through the book (and also Part Eight) looking for mentions of either 8000 Class or Cathedral, and drawn a blank. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part Nine is the one with the speculative schemes slipped into it, although you need one of the later editions of it. Barnes cites it as a source for the Pacific. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if by "speculative schemes" you mean the "Projected Designs" section (pages J51-J54); but I cannot find anything there that concerns either 8000 Class or Cathedral class. The closest are on page J52, concerning two proposals of 1919 for an enlarged "Star" and enlarged "Saint", both using the Standard No. 7 boiler of the 4700 class; also a 1926 proposal for a compound version of the Castle. Page J53 concerns several alternative schemes for what became the County 4-6-0, and page J54 mentions a 4-6-2 proposed in 1946. None of these correspond with the 8000/Cathedral of this article. AFAIK there was only one edition of Part Nine, but it did get reprinted in the 1970s with no changes apart from the cover. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rumours: there was a discussion on RMweb in 2010/11, that referred back to an article in Railway Modeller November 2008 pp 754/5 about building a 4mm 80xx 'Cathedral'. If anyone can locate that, does it have references to justify the name and number? -- Verbarson  talkedits 13:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the Railway Modeller website, it is possible to search the ?entire collection courtesy of Exact Editions. A search for 'cathedral' brings up this page, within which I found this snippet of text from the November 1994 issue, page 37 (slightly interpreted):

...No. 8029 Truro Cathedral. Thus encouraged, my second project was the 4-8-0 "might have been" devised by J T C Long, which had its origins in the February 1942 MRN article by WiIliam Bolton where he described an 80xx "Cathedral" Class with better route availability than a "King".

I assume that MRN is Model Railway News? Here we have a potential source for both 'Cathedral' and '80xx' during Hawksworth's time in office. Has anyone got a Feb 1942 MRN to hand? -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to source Feb 42 MRN via Ebay. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ordered -- Verbarson  talkedits 10:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have obtained the issue of MRN, including this article: Bolton, William F. (February 1942). "Free-Lance Loco. Designing: The Model Railwayman on National Service". The Model Railway News. Vol. 18, no. 206. pp. 41–46. Bolton writes in a wartime context, when many would-be modellers lacked the leisure or resources to continue building, and he suggests that they could instead plan free-lance models. Among other suggestions, he provides a design of his own (commissioned by another modeller):
A GWR 4-cylinder 2-8-2 with 6' driving wheels, intended to provide enough power to single-head trains between Newton Abbot and Plymouth (where even the King class had to be assisted). All four cylinders connect to the second driven axle. Outside valve gear drives poppet valves through a carden shaft. The 8-wheel tender (rigid wheelbase) has sides raised and curved to match the cab roof profile. The illustrated locomotive is No. 8003 Truro Cathedral, the suggestion of the commissioner, who also said that No. 8000 would be St Pauls Cathedral. The locomotive is otherwise in the GWR style: tapered boiler, brass safety-valve cover, cast numberplate on the cab, curved nameplate on the third splasher, Collet-style cab etc.
At no point is there any suggestion that this design arises from, or is inspired by, any output of the GWR drawing office at Swindon, nor is there any mention of Hawksworth. Bolton does say that he tried designing a Pacific, but found it an unsatisfactory derivative of The Great Bear or the LMS Princesses. The design is pure imagination, in a context of free-lance modelling.
If this is the ultimate origin of the hypothetical GWR 8000 Cathedral Class, then there is nothing to link it to Hawksworth's proposed Pacific which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. The suggestion to rename the article is not shaken. -- Verbarson  talkedits 12:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Next article: Foxell, Clive (November 1994). "Locos that never were! Mythical GWR 4-8-0 and a 2-10-0 in 7mm". Railway Modeller. Vol. 45, no. 529. pp. 516–517.
Foxell refers back to many previous speculative GWR designs, by Vivian Cornish and J T C Long, published in Model Railway News. He then presents his own models: Firstly No 4750, a 2-10-0 with 4' 7+1⁄2" driving wheels and 19" x 30" cylinders based on a design by Stewart Hine, and secondly No 8029 Truro Cathedral, a 4-cylinder 4-8-0 with 6' driving wheels and a King-style bogie, based on a J T C Long design. Finally he comments: "What next? Perhaps the Pacific that Hawksworth was never alowed to build!"
Again we find the combination of 80xx and Cathedral, but not a Pacific and not related to Hawksworth. -- Verbarson  talkedits 09:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on: Parsons, Nick (November 2008). "Exeter Cathedral How 4-6-2 Pacific 8001 might have appeared NICK PARSONS' 00 scale model of a never-built Hawksworth design". Railway Modeller. p. 754. (Note: incomplete cite: all I can see is the search result here)
Parsons positively links number and name '8001 Exeter Cathedral' with Hawksworth's design. Was he the first to do so? I do not have access to the article, so I don't know what earlier instances he may credit. -- Verbarson  talkedits 10:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject United Kingdom, and WikiProject Trains have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.