Talk:2-8-0

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 8, 2007

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

High

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

2-8-0 was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: November 15, 2006.

delisted[edit]

Lack of inline cites; arguably lack of broad coverage--Ling.Nut 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail on Australia?[edit]

Is the section on Australian 2-8-0s too long?

If every other country had such detail on their various classes of 2-8-0 locomotives, this would end up being an extremely long article. I note also that there is no linking to articles on other pages. Eg, Victorian Railways 2-8-0 locomotives are described, but instead of a link to the Victorian Railways K class there is a comment that these locomotives "are described elsewhere".

I feel that unless there is something very compelling about a certain country's implementation of a particular locomotive type (eg, Great Britain's various record-breaking Pacifics) that justifies the extra verbage, the country-specific description should perhaps be kept to a paragraph or two at most and all the various detail described in other, more specific pages (eg individual pages on locomotive classes).

Zzrbiker 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. Links to the relevant class articles should be used where appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I constructed the Australian section. For a country that operated hundreds of 2-8-0s on various state and private railways in numerous classes(well after the USA and UK abolished steam)and for Aussie workshops that re-built these locos in numerous guages and still has operational 2-8-0s, I figured the 'land-down-under' deserves a bit of coverage. There are comments the 2-8-0 article was too USA-centric. Is it now to Aussie-centric? God is this because we beat everyone in the cricket? ( I loath cricket). I might point out that the overall article lacks citations - I also put in the bits about Swengel's book and the first 2-8-0 orders and the evolution of the loco from the 0-8-0, which contradicts several other uncited claims in the article. As I'm a new comer to Wikipedia I'm unsure of the linking process to other articles - would appreciate some help there. Tonyob 07:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a "bit" of coverage. Key issue here is that we should be aiming to restore this article to Good Article status, and taking note of the criteria according to Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Point 3b: "it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia)" is probably not being adhered to when we list all of the builders of the NSWGR T class - and the numbers of the locomotive that each built - in a general article on the 2-8-0 locomotive type.

Similarly, it would be of little interest or value for someone from an international audience researching different locomotive types to know that an inexpensive HO model of the V class is available, or read a short history of the superheater arrangements and boiler pressures of the NSWGR J class. This is the sort of information that should be spun off into a separate article on the NSWGR J class, where for someone researching that locomotive such information is of value. If no articles exist on the NSWGR J class, perhaps you could write one or request one be written (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Todo/Write).

If articles already exist on the locomotives, just link to them by using the double square bracket tags, eg. [[4-8-2]] renders as 4-8-2. If you're new to all of this, please note the Wikipedia:Sandbox for testing your edits.

While it's good to see your facts being supported with references, could I also suggest that you note the Wikipedia guidelines for citation of references, particularly Wikipedia:Footnotes. Zzrbiker 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zzrbiker - thanks for the constructive comments. I'm happy for the Aussie sub section to be tightened and edited. Thanks also for the direction on linking and where to find citations. Will improve my stuff. Tonyob 07:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Australia also is incorrect in it's details, and contains omissions. The NSWGR J-class was not the first 2-8-0 locomotives to operate in Australia. The South Australian Railways took delivery of a pair of 2-8-0's from Baldwin Locmotive Works in the year 1881. The locomotives were originally the M-class, but at some undetermined time were changed to O-class. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.41.201 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.comrails.com/sar_locos/r_b_o1.html

Italy[edit]

"After wartime, took again the supplying of Italian built Gr. 740. Both Gr. 740 and Gr 735, very similar about their performances, stayed on truck until the end of sixties of last century." does not make any sense! Also wrong spelling "truck" instead of "track" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.136.145.151 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian 2-8-0's[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering about 2-8-0's in Canada. I noticed a lot about them in Australia and Africa, but nothing in Canada. This should be fixed. I made a quick edit pointing to an article that I wrote about CP's larger 2-8-0's, but I know there are and can be a larger article about them in both the 2-8-0 page and Canadian railways in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC Model Railroading (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ BC Model Railroading - Yes, Canada is absent, waiting for someone (a Canadian perhaps?) to add a paragraph or two on Canadian Consolidations. Plonking a bare wikilink into the middle of the United States section is, however, not the way to do it. A short extract from the article you linked to, say from the article's lead, under a heading between Belgium and Finland would be a much better way. Have a go at it, friend! - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one[edit]

Based on a Postcard photo it would appear that the Georgia state railroad museum has an engine with that wheel configuration. Dies anyone have more info on that? 71.213.46.36 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

USATC-5740 locomotive.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.comrails.com/sar_locos/r_b_o1.html

[1]