Talk:British Rail Class 14

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 14. 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/20101110044331/http://www.andrewbriddonlocos.co.uk:80/cl14-new to http://www.andrewbriddonlocos.co.uk/cl14-new/

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) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Bears?

Where did that ridiculous Great Bear/Teddy Bear story start? We called them 'Teddy Bears' because of the 'sad eyes' expression of the cab windows when the loco was seen end-on. The Great Bear was built 56 years before. Nobody working at Swindon in 1964 would even remember it. 92.26.157.153 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Road Switcher?

Should we call it a road switcher since it is designed for both mainline freight and yard switching duites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.152.192 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, for several reasons: one, you need to satisfy the policy on verifiability; two, these are British locomotives, and "road switcher" is an American term; three, the primary purpose was to haul goods trains from station to station. Although one of the stations might be a marshalling yard, and a certain amount of shunting could be carried out at a station, this was always a secondary task. Indeed, all UK locomotives - not just diesels - that might haul trains on the main line could be called upon to attach or detach carriages or wagons at any of the stations where it called. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are several reasons why not:

"Road switcher" is a term with no recognition in the UK. This is beyond COMMONNAME, UNDUE, ENGVAR or whatever, it's into "Don't write country-specific articles in a foreign language."
There was no call for road switchers in the UK's 1955 Modernisation Plan. The Type 1s were working on branch lines where the speeds were inevitably lower than those which involve the "road switcher" concept.
There is an argument that the class 20s (and nothing else) were the same thing as road switchers, and were used in a way similar to road switchers. Except that this would only be over a few years: they did both things, but not at the same time. Also, see #1.
This is the article on class 14s. Really? Do you know anything about the class 14? You're just spamming this term randomly because you want to, not because there's the slightest justification for it. On the class 20 you'd have an argument (you'd still be wrong, but you'd have a reason) But here? You're just doing this to be disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]