Talk:British Rail Class 52

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

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 Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

The content of List of British Rail Class 52 locomotives was merged into British Rail Class 52 on 12 May 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Untitled

I am presently editing the Diesel Traction Group (NZ) page and placed a disambiguation on it to Diesel Traction Group (UK). A reference to Diesel Traction Group on this page has been edited to link to Diesel Traction Group (UK) in the hope that such a page will eventually be written. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

List of British Rail Class 52 locomotives merge

List of British Rail Class 52 locomotives is basically a duplicate of British Rail Class 52#Names and numbers. Suggest one way or the other they be combined. For mine, merge the list into the article. Ligtomet (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's mostly repetition, and better merged into the parent article. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western Legion(n)aire

Regarding D1029, the article twice shows that it was originally named Western Legionaire [sic], but renamed Western Legionnaire in 1969, the nameplate being cut to allow the additional letter to be inserted., it's cited to Walker, M (September 2002). "Loco profile of the Westerns". The Marlow Donkey (101): 8–10.. I have discovered a contrary source: Reed, Brian (1978) [1975]. Diesel-Hydraulic Locomotives of the Western Region. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. p. 73. ISBN 0-7153-6769-2. which shows the original name as Western Legionnaire with a footnote Ran from about 9/1967 with nameplate reading Western Legionaire. One of them must be wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know for article purposes we don't accept Flickr due WP:SPS, but here it is in 1974 with "NN" in the nameplate. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowle and Dorridge rail crash

The entry under Incidents concerning the Knowle and Dorridge rail crash is cited to the Ministry of Transport accident report, but that report does not mention the identity of the locomotive, simply saying The locomotive was a Class D 1000 diesel-hydraulic with C-C wheel arrangement; this type of locomotive has two 1350 H.P. Mayhach engines and Voith transmission, and weighs 108 tons in working order. Clearly a Class 52, but which one? There has been some long-term edit-warring on the matter. Unless the locomotive can be positively identified from another reliablesource, I propose that we remove both number and name.

Similarly, the sentence The locomotive was repaired and returned to service. is also not supported by the cited source, although this must have happened because none of these locos were withdrawn from service until 1973. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number shows up clearly in photos taken at the time. 11th image in gallery. The confusion over the number is because the current operators of 1062 renamed and renumbered the loco temporarily to commemorate the three loco crew killed in the crash. Severn Valley Railway I've added the ref to the article Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet list

@Geof Sheppard I don’t quite understand why you made the edits you did to the fleet list - it’s already tagged as needing more citations, and you’re now removing citations and notes? I do agree some of the references need combining, but given the full work is cited in the table title, I feel as though R and RP would be more sensible than SFN. The other source removals I can’t quite fathom. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tag for improving the citations is precisely why I have spent several hours researching and editing this table.

When I started work on this table there were multiple rows with no information other than the name and number and most of the other information were uncited (build dates and liveries in particular). The citation in the table title was one that I provided, but your reversion has removed it.

I have spent several hours checking the uncited information. I have added days to the withdrawal months to match the build dates, and I have corrected a few errors along the way. A few notes about liveries have been removed but these livery variations can be covered better in the Liveries section. To claim that "D1039 was one of the few Westerns to have full yellow ends applied to Maroon livery" is misleading as there were 13 other maroon locomotives with full yellow ends. The preserved locomotives were all covered in more detail further down the page and so I provided links to that section. I can't find any consistent scrapping dates and, as these were uncited, I removed them. All 67 scrapped locomotives were cut up at Swindon, so do we need to include that?

Everything that I changed or added was cited, and these citations are equivalent or better than the ones that I removed. They are also easier to find in a library or bookshop if anyone wants to check my work. I thought it was now almost ready to have the citations improvement tag removed, but as all this work has been undone we are back to square one with lots of missing information and less of the information showing citations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget a reversion can itself be reverted… we haven't lost anything.

I am confused however - looking at your diffs, you do appear to be removing some sources as well as the rearranging and addition of sources, that's what flagged the edits up. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Geof on this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re both satisfied that the sources are better… then I guess no further explanations will be forthcoming or necessary 🤷‍♀️ Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#question regarding BRDatabase. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]