Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSteamtown, U.S.A. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2014.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 28, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
December 31, 2013Featured article reviewKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 22, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Steamtown, USA was a steam locomotive museum (pictured) that ran excursions out of North Walpole, New Hampshire, and Bellows Falls, Vermont, from the 1960s until 1983?
Current status: Featured article

Help request[edit]

I started this article and saw it through the process of GA and FA review. Now it has been tagged for not being encyclopedic and being too technical. I do not agree and I assume those who have reviewed it did not see it that way either. I no longer edit on Wikipedia and I have forgotten most of what I knew about doing it. My question is: can someone please take a look at this article and determine if the tags are deserved? I wish the person who tagged it could have started discussion about the concerns so that I could see exactly what they are talking about. This article was thoroughly researched using every newspaper article available on the subject on Google Archives back when it was usable. Please help. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since my help request the tags have been replaced by other tags. This article went through FA review and now, all of a sudden everyone wants to tag it. Would someone knowledgeable please advise me?--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would start by trying to reduce the length of the lead. The lead should just say what it is in the most basic terms possible, moving the rest of the detail into the main body of the article. Three or four sentences should establish that it was a private locomotive museum, it moved to Scranton, and then was bought by the government with pieces being disposed of.
As a member of the specific audience who is interested in steam locomotives I am not really qualified to take a neutral view on the other tags, but I wonder if moving the list of locomotives into a separate page would help? Consider National Railway Museum where a separate article discusses the National Collection, and even No. 4468 Mallard and No. 4472 Flying Scotsman receive only short treatments in the article itself. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: WP:BRD. Count the tagging as the Bold phase. If you disagree with it, or can't see how to address it, then remove it, and ask the tagger(s) to explain/discuss it.
Personally, I think the article is pretty much ok. You could reduce the lead a bit if you wanted to, but saying it's "too long for the overall article length" is not something I'd be inclined to say is necessarily correct. WP:LEDE doesn't seem to imply that this is too long, either.
  • "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." and
  • "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."
In essence, I view the ideal lead as something that could stand pretty much alone as a "mini-article" up to 4 paras, and then the reader will look further in if they want to. Often the lead will be the only thing I'll read too, if all I want is a quick overview - and I appreciate leads that work that way.
If you don't understand what to do to address the issues that any of the tags imply, then in my view it's perfectly reasonable to remove them and ask for a discussion/explanation. Presumably the tagger(s) know why the tagging was done, so explaining/discussing it should be straightforward for them.
I'd be particularly interested, as it seems would you, Ishtar456, in where the tagger(s) opinions differ from the Featured Article review, which seemed fairly comprehensive and thorough to me, performed by editors with much experience in reviewing articles for style, content and structure at the level of FA. I do note that you made many changes during that review, with a result that seemed to satisfy all of their comments, and in my view resulted in a worthy featured article.Begoon talk 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not explaining my actions of changing the tags last night. I will do so now (just a quick save to toggle the help me template so other helpers know I'm working on it). Okay, so here's the scoop. It's a great article in my opinion (although I may be biased having grown up in New Hampshire myself). Now, to explain why it is tagged as it is.

On September 16, 2013, Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) added {{Essay}}, {{Tone}}, and {{Technical}} to the page. The {{Essay}} tag implied that the article appeared to be a non-encyclopedic essay (policy) for use as an example of what or what not to do on Wikipedia, {{Very long}} is what I "think" Oanabay04 was going for here. The {{Tone}} tag also implied that the article was not encyclopedic, {{Long lead}} is what I "think" Oanabay04 was going for here. The last tag, {{Technical}}, was the only one that "kind of" applied; although I think it was the wrong tag to use and felt that {{Overly detailed}} was more accurate and appropriate (I "think" that was what Oanabay04 going for here).
Now, how is this fixed? First, shorten/rewrite the lead into less than four, three to five (properly formed) sentences. The problem with the current lead is that the five sentences in the first two paragraphs are comprised of poorly formatted run-on sentences. These first two paragraphs are actually closer to eight to twelve sentence paragraphs from what I can pick out. This is way too long for a paragraph.
Next, there are two sub-sections which are particularly long and may be overly detailed.
Finally, Steamtown in Vermont and In operation at Bellows Falls are both seven or eight long paragraphs long. These sections should be broken up and there should be a discussion as to whether or not there is enough detail for any of the sections on the page to have a spin-off article of their own.
I hope that this has been informative and I look forward to seeing these changes to the article progress (when completed I would be happy to see this nominated as a Great Article or nominate it myself). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it would be helpful to nominate a Featured Article (since 2012), which achieved Good Article status in 2010, as a "Great Article" (whatever that is - I see you linked WP:GA). Sorry, just confused by that. Additionally several of the points you made above seem to contradict the Featured Article reviewers' comments. Do you, therefore, disagree with that review, and the status? Begoon talk 12:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA == Great Article in my mind, and I do not see that status on this page and I do not think it qualifies as such at this time, no. I'm unsure why it was featured before it was marked as a GA. Technical 13 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. It was promoted to FA just over 18 months after promotion to GA. If you're unsure about these things there is often, as is the case on this talkpage, a link in the header labelled "Article milestones", where one may examine the dates of promotion, and the relevant reviews/discussions.
I'm afraid that in this particular case I have to disagree with your assessment and agree with that of the very experienced reviewers who judged the content, style and structure worthy of FA status. The points you make contradict their recommendations, with much of what you criticise having been put in place specifically to meet the FA reviewers' requirements. A thorough lead section and more detail in the sections were specifically requested at those reviews.
The FA review process is very stringent and formalised. GA can be less so, with less experienced reviewers. I've done a couple of GA reviews and helped take articles to GA, but I wouldn't attempt to involve myself in the FA process unless I was much closer to the level of experience and judgement of the guys who reviewed this.
Obviously, even a Featured Article can always be improved, and I'd encourage that, but I see absolutely nothing here that rises to the need of an obtrusive "fix me now" maintenance tag, and I'd certainly support their removal. I'll do that myself if the help-requesting editor doesn't wish to. Begoon talk 13:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All - First off, let me apologize for not starting a Talk page after tagging the article to the extent that I did. The result is all of this conversation that probably could have been reduced or avoided. Again, I apologize. Technical 13 (talk · contribs) brilliantly summed up all of my tags and is spot-on. That is exactly what I am going for and what all Wiki articles should go for. One should be able to take what I call a "base article" such as this and essentially cut to the chase. The lead is too long. Most of the subheaders have a great amount of what I consider both {{Technical}} and {{Overly detailed}}. All of it is good to have, but are better placed in their own articles so that the info is not lost. I did this to Washington and Old Dominion Railway article, which was overly detailed and had a sub section pertaining to every station. That lengthy section is now housed in List of Washington and Old Dominion Railway stations. An article should not be difficult to understand and navigate. Like most experts on this sort of material, it is easy to get caught up in every detail and we lose sight of the casual reader who does not know that a grade crossing and railroad crossing are the same thing. This article could be great; it just needs to be tighter and have several detailed sections given their own entry. Too much of anything is not good for Wiki; it is more appropriate for a fansite, which of course, would be added as an External link. Thanx all.Oanabay04 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I say above, if the article can be improved then great. If you think you can improve it, then great. But do you really think we need the obtrusive "fix me now" tags on a featured article in the meantime? I don't. Surely it's not that desperate? You're talking about potential for improvement, which is always there - the tags say - "this article is broken and needs maintenance to be a proper article" That's not a valid assessment in my opinion, or that of the FA reviewers. With that approach you could tag every article on the encyclopedia for something, and what would that really achieve except an encyclopedia full of articles with bright orange warning boxes at the top? Discussion on the talk page seems like a far better solution to me for good improvement ideas like this,to an already excellent article, than urgent looking obtrusive tags. Ymmv, obviously Begoon talk 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the issue of it beig overly technical: I am not an expert and not very technical. I feel I wrote it so that someone like me ( a novice, really) could understand it. It does not have one word of opinion in it. Everything is cited from a source. Please quote that which you think makes it read like a fansite.

sorry, wasn't logged in and typing too fast. I gotta wait 'til later to do this. --Ishtar456 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Begoon has validated everything that I was thinking when I saw the tags. 1. If there were multiple issues with the article, they would have been addressed in GA and FA review. 2. If there are issues then the discussion should occure BEFORE the tags are put on. It isn't that you should have discussed it when you tagged it-you should not have tagged it unitl you discussed it. and 3. Some of the issues you bring out are things I was told to do during the reviews. For example (notice that I give examples) the length of the lead. A lead needs to summarize the article. It is not uncommon for a GA article or a FA to have leads the length or this one. As for making a separate article for the national collection-this article is not about the national collection. If you read it you would know that I have only included pieces that were at the VT location. The article is about the Vermont location. Several have been sold or traded away and some are still in Scranton. There are some in Scranton that were never in VT. I am removing the tags. If they are put back then I will ask that someone mediate this discussion. I do not feel that this article needs to be tagged.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you'll have my total support if you do need to discuss it further. There's nothing at all here that means that readers (who I believe we write this for...) need to see This article has multiple issues and big orange warning icons as the first visible thing when they arrive. That's total overkill for something that could be addressed simply, here on the talkpage, or by editing. The article is excellent, and not broken in any way. Improvements, while obviously welcome, are far from urgent or immediately imperative, to an already comprehensively reviewed, featured article. Begoon talk 18:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't butcher this article[edit]

I understand what you are trying to do by moving the loco's to their own pages, but they are not long enough for their own articles. Those little articles are stubs and, for now at least, they belong in the larger article. Please do not butcher that article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not agreed that it was to long. Maybe you agreed with yourself, but I did not agree and neither did Begoon.

It seems that one editor believes this article is too long and has begun to butcher it. Can someone please intervene as I do not wish to participate in an edit war, especially over an article I started and brought through GA and FA review.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to use that template here. I said I was willing to discuss it. Technical 13 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just went back through and what I see is that Oanabay04, Pinkbeast, and I all agree it is too long and you and Begoon don't agree. The arguments given on each side indicate that it is indeed too long, and where as some of the WP:SPINOUT articles have already existed for three years or more, they should be used. Link to main article (the spinout) and just give a summary of how it affects this topic. Technical 13 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need an intervention. I would like one, or more admin, opinions on the matter. The issue you are concerned about was not an issue in FA review and I do not think that it should be an issue now and I wish that you would drop it, But since you won't I want some intervention and I want to leave that template there until we get it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the proper way to get it. If that is what you really want because you refuse to discuss it, then the proper thing to do is post a request at WP:DRN. Technical 13 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are talking about what's proper? First you tag the article without discussion. Then you start splitting it up without discussion and now you're saying I'm not asking for help appropriately. I do not live and breath wikipedia, so I guess maybe the reason I asked for help was to find out how to get the intervention that I want. I think asking for help when you are looking for help is appropriate, don't you?--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not tag the article without discussion... I changed the existing tags that I thought were improper and got distracted by real life. I promptly came back the next day to add discussion explaining my actions and encouraging discussion. Yes, asking for help is always appropriate when you are looking for it, however, {{Help me}} is for technical help with editing and not WP:Content dispute questions. This is a content dispute, and since there are already five editors involved, the WP:3O phase is inappropriate and the next proper step is WP:DRN. If you do not wish to discuss this here rationally, and listen to experienced editors (not me specifically, but Pinkbeast has been editing since January 12, 2010 and Oanabay04 since December 13, 2005). Technical 13 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bottom line is this discussion is that I do not think that this article needs to be tagged or broken up. Neither of the two sets of tags that were put on this article were discussed before they were placed. And neither were place appropriately. It is an FA and very little has changed since the FA review. The section that the other editor began to remove from this article are not long enough (an probably never will be) to warrant stand alone article. This article does not require drastic changes.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading, I realise many of the locomotives listed aren't actually there anymore and haven't been for some time - I had something of a double-take when I got to No. 926 Repton, which I last saw in the NYMR's works at Pickering. I fear I feel that strengthens the argument that the list of locomotives and the amount written about each one is excessive for this page.
I would suggest writing a new page about those locomotives actually present at the site now, and reducing each locomotive's entry on this page to a link to a page about them (either that new page, or an existing one - eg Repton would link to SR V Schools class) with only a short sentence about what the locomotive is and when it came to/left Steamtown. The material written on this page wouldn't be wasted; it could in many cases go on the destination page of those links. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's the case. You have superior knowledge to me on the subject, and you give a fine example of the right way to discuss it. The tagging, though, was never warranted, certainly not without discussion, and the Pointy way that Technical13 has dealt with this situation, and this editor, ever since being embarrassed by his initial failures to understand the article's history, in some, sad to say, typical attempt to battle, ruleslawyer and save face, frankly makes me ashamed to be a wikipedian. Sorry to burden you with all that in my reply, but it needed saying. Wikipedia is not Dungeons and Dragons with human playing pieces. Sadly, I know the kind of response I'll get to this comment - but there it is anyway. Begoon talk 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Begoon, I'm sorry, are we discussing the article or editor behavior? I wanted to discuss it here, Ishtar456 felt it needed to go to a noticeboard and then failed to notify anyone. I'm not the one that initially tagged it, and as i explained above, I just corrected the tags to more appropriate ones for the other user. I still don't find this overly long and intricate article as FA worthy. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns, and would be happy to discuss changes to this article. The spinout articles for many sections exist, and there is content on this page that is not directly related to Steamtown, U.S.A. but instead to the spinout articles. That information does not belong on this article, although a summary of how those articles are associated to this article is fine with a {{Main article}} under the headers. Technical 13 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes T13, you're a paragon of correctness, and I apologise for suggesting anything otherwise. Thank you for reminding me of the facts, and how to use a talk page. I stand forever in your debt. Now if you don't mind I'll leave it there. You could probably just stick some sort of a template somewhere and all the human interaction problems would magically go away. But I'll leave that up to you. I'm sure you'll find a way. Begoon talk 01:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical, if there were steps in the process that I did not follow, it is because I was not born knowing all the dos and don'ts of Wikipedia, that is why I asked for help. You removed my request twice. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that the processes are so drawn-out, as are the explanations, that it could take days to decipher the instructions for what I am supposed to do when some one starts to butcher an FA article. I won't be back from real life for a few days. I have not dropped this. I do not think the article needs to be tagged or split up. --Ishtar456 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtar456, after reading these discussion, it appears to me you are too emotionally attached to this article and are taking great offense to the thought of it being edited, particularly since it was bestowed a GA and FA award. GA/FA does not mean the article becomes a sacred cow where it is now bronzed and cannot be altered in any way (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Featured articles) (Frankly, I am surprised it was even nominated for either award — it is nowhere near the quality of other GA/FAs.) It is a good article; it just needed tighter text and different outlets for the wealth of information. Try not to assume complete ownership (WP:OWN) of the article, a very common problem with U.S. rail-related articles. Technical 13 is spot on with his suggestions and process of doing things. I would advise we follow this concerning anything further related to this article. I look forward to resolving.Oanabay04 (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify something: None of the locomotives are currently at the site. The place no longer exists. The article is about a train excursion/museum that was once in VT. It moved to PA and was then nationalized. This article is about the history of and the collection at the Vermont location. The last time I checked there is a Ben and Jerry's ice cream plant at the location. To take out the summaries of the pieces in the collection would be to take out half of the point of the article. They are actually short summaries, not lengthy, in my opinion, and are too short to make articles of their own. I, personally, cannot see them in any other way but as part of longer articles. Since the thing that each one has in common is that they were all once part of the collection on which the article is written, I think that they should be included in this particular article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cough, I missed that, and I'd like to use the excuse that the article's length makes it unclear that it's about the historic site not the collection... but I can't. My mistake. However, I don't agree that they are too short to make articles on their own (although they might end up like SR V Schools class, discussing the class with examples of the preserved members). As I see it, any steam locomotive class that has surviving members is notable. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on the Schools class, and the Repton is mentioned in it, just as it is mentioned on this article, but to have a whole article for one locomotive does not seem practical as there just isn't enough to say about one. I know that it is done, but those articles are just stubs. Rather than have one article about the history and a dozen or so stubs regarding the collection, why not have it all in one article? It does belong together, after all.
Also, with all due respect, can the people who are involved in the dispute actually read the article first before disputing it?--Ishtar456 (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that confusion materially changes my view. There's nothing wrong with a stub if a stub's worth is the information that exists; and I think essentially the objection you face is that much of this information about locomotives is valuable and about notable things, but is not about Steamtown, U.S.A.. As mentioned, this is why National Railway Museum only briefly mentions No. 4468 Mallard even though it is one of the most notable locomotives ever; more content about it would not be about the museum. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Format / styling consistency[edit]

I was just having a glance at this, having noted it was at FAR, and there is no consistency in the styling of locations in the image captions. Is it "Steamtown U.S.A." or "Steamtown"? Vermont, VT, Vt? Can one of the editors working on this article choose a styling and then work through the article for consistency? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

no citation[edit]

This information was remove prior to feature article appearance on front page because there is no citation with it. If you can add the citation, please put it back:

Steamtown eventually donated the engine to the Nevada State Railroad Museum, who had intended to restore it for use at their Nevada Southern Railroad Museum facility in Boulder City, Nevada. However, due to lack of space, the engine was loaned to the Portola Railroad Museum in Portola, California. The NSRM later decided not to use the engine, and transferred full ownership to the latter.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming down the bloat of this article[edit]

Okay, let's tally up all of the participants in the discussion of whether or not this page needs to be expanded and bloated out more or trimmed down a little...

Just about everyone that contributed has said that some sections could probably be trimmed down at least a little. Let's get this trimming done please. Technical 13 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is slated to be TFA in a few days it's my understanding that once it's in the TFA queue we really shouldn't change the article with the exception of minor spelling/gramar fixes. Hasteur (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked that it be removed from the FA it was scheduled for. --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtar456 asked me to unschedule this as TFA (which I am relucant to do) and having looked at the recent history I think there is a compromise to be found here between the two versions of the article, both of which go slightly too far in opposite directions. Using {{main}} does not mean that basic points such as "Big Boy" being one of the world's largest steam locomotives should be cut out of this article and found only in the "Big Boy" article. However, {{main}} does mean that extra details of less general importance, such as Big Boy's working career, can be left to the Big Boy article. I have added some of the extra information in the edit history of this article on Big Boy to Union Pacific "Big Boy" No. 4012 - if material about a loco is in the article here but not in the loco's individual article then I would suggest that that could well be a sign that this level of detail is in the wrong place - if it is removed, please add it to the individual loco article so that the information is not lost. What do people think of Steamtown,U.S.A.#Union Pacific No. 4012 now? BencherliteTalk 08:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do believe that the original read just fine. But I'm really not going to fight about it. A ton of stuff was also removed on the Meadow River Lumber Company #1 and two images were removed. If that information really needs to be removed from those sections then it really becomes inconsistent because similar information can be found in there on other locos and I am about to start me 75 hour work week. I really do believe that the original FA review should stand. I also think that ANY changes should be discussed here. NOTHING that was done was ever discussed. --Ishtar456 (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bencherlite, I have no issue with your compromise, but will note that as time permits, there are still some more sections that need trimming. I would be happy to see your compromises (or your initiative to trim those other sections down) as well. Mostly, any section that has its own individual article (even if it is a stub) should be trimmed to not include anymore about the engine than is absolutely necessary to relay its association with Steamtown (the one sentence that you re-added giving context about the name of the engine and a couple details was fine to add context to the section). Technical 13 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you like it - I did one sub-section as an example of what I thought would be a way forward, as I didn't want to spend lots of time on it if people disagreed with me. Anyway, somewhere betwen "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and "including the kitchen sink" we probably can between us find a decent balance. BencherliteTalk 14:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steamtown, U.S.A.. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steamtown, U.S.A.. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Steamtown, U.S.A.. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the Locomotives/Edit Request 3/29/2018[edit]

While I know that some of the steam locomotives at Steamtown, U.S.A were relocated to the Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton, Pennsylvania, not all of them were. Some where relocated to other railroads or to other museums. I have a source disguising where the steam locomotives went to after they left the Steamtown, U.S.A site in Bellows Falls, Vermont. Is it alright if the full list of locomotives of the former collection gets added to the article? It would make a lot more sense to list all of the former collection rather than just a part of it.

Locomotives from Bellows Falls that are located in Scranton today[edit]

These are the locomotives that are currently at the current Steamtown Historical Site today.

Locomotives that either were not moved to Scranton or were there and relocated later[edit]

  • Tralee and Dingle Light Railway 2-6-2T #5: It was returned to Tralee, Ireland in 1988.
  • Eastern Gas & Fuel Co. Baldwin 0-6-0 #4: Sold to the Gorham Historical Society. It was restored as Grand Trunk #7531 (which it never was) and put on display at the Gorham Depot.
  • Simon Wrecking Co. Porter 0-6-0T #2: Sold to a private owner in Newbury, Massachusetts. In 2006, the engine was removed from the junkyard by Peabody, Massachusetts Public Works Director Dick Carnevale, and restoration began in hopes for it to be displayed in a city park in Peabody. The restoration of the engine was done by Carnevale personally, along with some volunteers. After he resigned in October 2008, the city gave him 60 days to remove the engine from city property. Local residents contacted the Valley Railroad in Essex, Connecticut, who purchased the engine from Carnevale and transported it to Connecticut where, as of July 2010, the locomotive is undergoing cosmetic restoration and will be displayed at Essex Steam Train and Riverboat.
  • Simon Wrecking Co. Alco-Cooke 0-4-0T #6: Was reported in L&RP as becoming property of Clark's Trading Post in New Hampshire. Curiously, the old Steamtown USA brochure lists their Simon 0-4-0T as being a 1925 Baldwin numbered 1. However, the original documentation that Simon Wrecking provided to Steamtown USA back in 1968 says it is a Baldwin numbered 6. Steamtown USA researchers determined that it was actually an Alco-Cooke and the current owner concurs with this.
  • Bevier & Southern Railroad Brooks 2-6-0 #109 (was IC Railroad #560, then #3719, then #3706): Sold to Dave Conrad and resold to the IRM.
  • Canadian National 4-6-0 #1551: Traded to the owner of the Ohio Central Railroad in exchange for Baldwin Locomotive Works 0-6-0 #26.
  • Cavan & Lietrim Ry (Ireland) 3' gauge 2-6-2T (either #2 Kathleen or #3 Lady Edith): Kathleen was mentioned of being donated by owner Edgar Mead to preservation society in Ireland and now exhibited in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. On the other hand, Lady Edith is mentioned of currently being in storage at the New Jersey Museum of Transportation. The locomotive at Steamtown was likely Kathleen.
  • Canadian National 2-6-0 #96: was sent from Bellows Falls to Scranton but never made it. It went only as far as Binghamton, New York when it was traded to a private owner from Canada in deal to get DL&W #565. 96 was later sold to the Ohio Central Railroad. It is currently stored and in pretty rough shape.
  • Canadian National 2-6-0 #89: Was under ownership of the Green Mountain Railroad when it was sold to the Strasburg Rail Road in June 1972.
  • Canadian Pacific Railway 4-6-2 #1246: In June 1967, Canadian Pacific 1246 was sold to the Green Mountain Railroad and relettered to GMRy 1246. It remained under Green Mountain ownership until was sold back to Steamtown six years later in July 1973 and relettered back in its Canadian Pacific lettering. After operating in Steamtown in Scranton between 1984–1986, it was determined that 1246 was inadequate for service as it was "too light for the heavy grades and sharp curves of the Steamtown line". The National Park Service sold it in 1988, and it was on static display from 1996–2008 at the Valley Railroad in Essex, Connecticut. In 2008, it was moved to the Naugatuck Railroad which is operated by the Railroad Museum of New England, Thomaston, Connecticut.
  • Canadian Pacific Railway 4-6-2 #1293: Now operates on the Ohio Central Railroad.
  • Norfolk and Western 2-6-6-4 #1218: Now on display at the Virginia Museum of Transportation.

Locomotives that were sold or traded before the NPS takeover[edit]

Locomotives sold at final Steamtown USA auction in 1988[edit]

Other Former Steamtown USA Locomotives[edit]

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pennsy/steamtown/bellowsfalls/ --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I listed all the known locomotives that were at Steamtown, U.S.A, hopefully some will answer this request soon. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go ahead now you have collated this material anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late reply, Pinkbeast. Thanks for giving me the okay. However, I do think that all this info I got would probably be too much for the article. Do you think it would be a good idea if the info was put on a new article? Maybe the article could be named List of Steamtown, USA Rolling Stock or something like that? The new article could mention all the information above of what happened to the locomotives after Steamtown USA shut down and where they are located now and such. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should just add it to this article. It can always be split off later. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steamtown,_U.S.A.&oldid=1210382423"