Talk:GWR Cathedral Class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 November 2023 by reviewer Pbritti (talk · contribs).

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trains

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 5 July 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to GWR proposed Hawksworth Pacific locomotive. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Wrong Cathedral

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 ^talk_edits 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 July 2025

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 ^talk_edits 22:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 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' 71⁄2" 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 10:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject United Kingdom, and WikiProject Trains have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 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.

Should this page be removed?

It mainly consists of enthusiasts and railway modellers pipe dreams.

The reality seems to be that the chief draughtsman - actually a senior executive - had the authority to start off quite significant design studies without reference to the CME. Frank Mattingley, appointed to the post in 1946 seems to have initiated a study of a 4-6-2 and an appreciable amount of work was done on it. However when it was brought to Hawksworth's attention he had the work halted, apparently stating there was no need for such a machine, and according to some sources even had drawings associated with the study destroyed. However a copy of a very basic weight diagram survived, and has been reproduced, notably in RCTS part 9 as mentioned above.

All talk of names, numbers , all the rest of it has no connection to anything the GWR did, harmless fun though it might be. The name Cathedral seems, according to K J Cook, who was after all there, to date back to a humorous piece written anonymously by Drawing office staff for the Swindon local newspaper in 1926/7 when the King design was being worked on (Cook, Swindon Steam, p55). As for the number series 8000, it would be a logical number for a new class of 4 cylinder 4-6-0 in the GWR numbering scheme of the 1930s and 40s, so its easy to see how enthusiasts picked on it. Whether this harmless fun is appropriate for inclusion in a category otherwise dedicated to real GWR locomotives is perhaps another matter.

Les Summers book "Swindon Steam", has a chapter entitles "The Myth of a Hawksworth Pacific", which is a comprehensively researched study of the topic, and would be a good starting point if this page was to be reworked without all the fiction

212.159.44.170 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is admittedly a mess. Now the lede contains information that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, and contradicts info later on (the earlier proposal for "Cathedral" instead of "King" is well-sourced - though that doesn't mean it is correct, admittedly).

There are three issues tangled up here:

Proposed 4-6-2 during Hawksworth's tenure as CME, which at least got as far as a weight diagram; uncertain who started it or stopped it. Worth an article as a well-known (these days) proposal.
"Cathedral" class name, originally put forward (by ???) and known by rumour in Swindon area, but replaced by "King". Name subsequently picked up in railway modelling circles and applied to various fictional GWR classes but more recently linked only with #1.
"8000" class numbering, never used or even proposed by GWR, but applied to fictional classes, similarly to #2.

Personally (as seen in the no consensus discussion above) I would centre the article on the proposed 4-6-2. More evidence having been forthcoming would make it a better article. The "Cathedral" and "8000" aspects could be included as a ==Later usage== section. This would probably be better than a separate article, given how closely (however unjustified) they are now linked to the 4-6-2. But it would also be reasonable to put it in a separate article and link from here. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 18:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to reflect point 1 I suggest it would be best titled 'GWR 1946 Pacific proposal' . To label it Hawkesworth Pacific, even though that's the most commonly used title among enthusiasts, seems inappropriate as all the later research states Hawksworth had no part in it and even sought to disassociate his name from it. I suppose 'GWR "Hawksworth" Pacific proposal' might be an alternative. GWR Mattingley Pacific would be accurate, but probably not helpful.

Point 2 is probably now adequately and best dealt with in the King article unless it was thought appropriate to have a section on the railway modellors mythology surrounding the proposal as per 'Later Usage'

Point 3 is perhaps best dropped as it appears in no authoritative sources, but again could appear in a mythology section if desired.

212.159.44.170 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Rework

I've made some significant changes to cover the conflicts between sources and generally aligning the piece so its better aligned to sources like Nock, Summers etc and has much less speculative content. I've deemphasised Cathedral class and 80xxx and separated the 194os proposal from the association of the cathedral name, plus added some more examples of fictional projects using Cathedral and XXX to highlight how the myth comes about. The various references to Summers could do with neatening up a bit, I'm not great on the minutiae of managing Wikipedia refs. The title of the entry is getting increasingly inappropriate, but as bearing in mind the recent failed rename I'm not going to propose another. ~2025-31158-82 (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone? @Verbarson ? Might like to add the Bolton and other references to the models and games section, I don't have the source article to do it. There's possibly a better section title to be found too. ~2025-34191-55 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks like becoming original research. Passages like The Great Western Railway (GWR) never constructed a locomotive class with a number series from 8000 or named after Cathedrals. The name and or number series have been attached, most often by enthusiasts, to one genuine class, one abandoned GWR proposal and a number of fictional creations. do not belong in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the OR a little over stated?

"The Great Western Railway (GWR) never constructed a locomotive class with a number series from 8000 or named after Cathedrals" could be said to be analagous to "the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it is not something that one thought up, and because it is easily verifiable;", It is indeed easily verifiable, whilst the second sentence is completely supported by the references given in the body of the article.

The whole article is problematic in many ways, and one could argue should be deleted, but the "Hawksworth Pacific" does seem solidly placed in popular imagination, and would surely come back in some form, even though its otherwise not obvious why it rates an article and other abandoned proposals like the Hawksworth/Stanier "Compound Castle" or the Churchward Std 7 boiler 4-6-0s do not. ~2025-41379-11 (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]