Talk:Highland Railway W Class

Untitled

This article, like the one on the Railway itself, is very poorly written. Statements such as "get very little mention" (why? because the writer cannot find any? there must have been an article in Railway Magazine at the time when a new loco is built) and the words "obviously intended for working branch lines ...." and "it is not known how many were built" can hardly be of much help to a reader. As to the latter statement, the article itself, which looks as if it were taken from an Ian Allen loco list (I have one in front of me!) gives the numbers in BR days as 15051 and 15053, explaining the cryptic note "the numbering of survivors ... " but the article itself in the previous paragraph shows there to have been #25 and #46: if the BR numbering added 150 to the numbers, logic suggests a much larger number than two, surely? Peter Shearan 18:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

15051 and 15053 were their LMS Nos. BR added 40000 to most LMS Numbers and these became 55051 and 55053. See . I'd be very surprised if the research hasn't been done and published, but it'll be in books that I don't have. — Dunc|☺ 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to find someone with Highland Railway Locomotives - Vol 2 - The Drummond, Smith & Cumming Classes by J.R.H Cormack and J.L Stevenson ISBN 090111572x {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: invalid character (help) — Dunc|☺ 13:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Near-clones of Dunrobin

This is referenced but it sounds dubious because Dunrobin has inside cylinders and the W Class (according to the infobox) had outside cylinders. Perhaps the infobox is wrong. It is unusual for a British 0-4-4T to have outside cylinders. Biscuittin (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not just unusual, but unheard of as late as 1905 - the front overhang would be colossal, and the yawing unacceptable even with a carefully-sprung rear bogie to stabilise it. Casserley & Johnston don't give the cylinder position, which normally indicates inside cyls; Cormack & Stevenson don't just state inside cylinders, they give photos to prove it; Haresnape also shows photos confirming inside cyls, but gives no dimensions. The error almost certainly comes from Baxter, which on p. 199 says "Cyls 14 x 20 O/S". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No. 55?

The new picture clearly shows the class W locomotive ‘Strathpeffer’. Does anyone know why it has the clearly visible number 55? According to the article, the locomotives had the numbers 25, 40, 45 and 46, the ‘Strathpeffer’ is mentioned as No. 25. These numbers are also mentioned in all the literature I know. So why the 55 now? --Wahldresdner (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Wahldresdner: If you look carefully at the numberplate, it's not 55 but 53. As such, it matches a loco listed at Highland Railway – Jones locomotives. See

• Cormack, J.R.H.; Stevenson, J.L. (1988). Greenwood, William (ed.). Highland Railway Locomotives Book 1: Early Days to the 'Lochs'. Locomotives of the LMS. Lincoln: RCTS. pp. 109–112. ISBN 0-901115-64-9.

Key events are:

• May 1890 – Built as 0-4-4ST, numbered 13, named Strathpeffer
• December 1899 – Renumbered 53
• October 1901 – Rebuilt as 0-4-4T
• May 1903 – Renamed Lybster
• March 1917 – Renumbered 53A
• by August 1927 – LMS black livery, renumbered 15050, name removed
• December 1929 – Withdrawn

So the photo shows this loco between October 1901 and May 1903. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you very much for the explanation, that really helps. I had also found the conversion of No. 13 to a 0-4-4T and the name ‘Strathpeffer’ in my literature, but not the new number 53, so I hadn't thought of this solution when I wrote the article on class W in the de-WP. Unfortunately, this also means that the picture on Commons is incorrectly named and labelled. Unfortunately, that was also the case in the source from which I took it. So it is not a class W locomotive. --Wahldresdner (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

P.S. The book I used did mention No. 53, as I have now realised. Unfortunately, I had overlooked it the first time. --Wahldresdner (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)