Talk:GWR 6000 Class 6000 King George V

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Mid‑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

Mid

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

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

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

National Railway Museum (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Railway Museum project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National Railway MuseumWikipedia:WikiProject National Railway MuseumTemplate:WikiProject National Railway MuseumNational Railway Museum articles

Route restriction[edit]

Recent edits have added claims that the severe route restriction of the "Kings" was due to their height. Their maximum height of 13 ft 4 3/4 in was actually less than that of a "Castle", at 13 ft 5 1/2 in. No mention of the maximum axle load is given - the "Kings" were 22 tons 10 cwt; the "Castles" 19 tons 14 cwt. This was a far more significant factor, and one supported by many books. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GWR 6000 Class 6000 King George V. 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/20160211090556/http://www.steam-museum.org.uk:80/aboutus/Pages/Swindon-175.aspx to http://www.steam-museum.org.uk/aboutus/Pages/Swindon-175.aspx#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film Robbie[edit]

According to a link on the Robbie (film)'s WP page, the locomotive used for the "non-electric" version was a diesel. {{CN}} added.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard: this item has now been deleted.--AntientNestor (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AntientNestor: When we mention the use of a given locomotive in a film (or TV series), we should consider: was the use of that particular loco significant in some way, or would it have worked just as well with another loco? It would be like adding content to our article on the Ford Fiesta that it featured in Casualty, on the grounds that one of them was involved in a road accident that was part of an episodes's story - the story would probably not have played out any differently if a VW Polo or Vauxhall Corsa had been used instead. For the specific case of Robbie, the point of the film is about safety on the railways, not trespassing and staying away from dangerous areas. It would not have altered the film one bit if either (a) a totally random selection of locomotives and multiple-units had been used or (b) every sequence featured the same loco as every other sequence.

Look at it this way: when writing about locomotives in films or TV series, are there any reviews which state either in a positive or negative manner that this locomotive was used? For example, a review of a new dramatisation of 4.50 from Paddington might state "The use of the locomotive 6000 King George V was exactly the right choice, being the type of loco used on those services at that period" or a review of a new dramatisation of The Thirty-Nine Steps might point out "A glaring error in the railway scenes set at St Pancras and in southern Scotland was the use of 6000 King George V because that type of loco was never seen in those parts of the country, and moreover, was not introduced until twenty years later". If other people have commented on the loco, we can use it; otherwise, pointing out locos in films is just trainspotting.

See WP:IPC, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, but why address this to me and not to the editor who posted the item?--AntientNestor (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you raised the thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]