Talk:4-4-2 (locomotive)

Reed/Reid references

Are the Reed, Brian (1972) and the Reid, p. 25. references the same reference book, and just a spelling mistake? --TubularWorld (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes – well spotted! I have now fixed it. Regards, Iain Bell (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Preserved 4-4-2 locomotives

The following information was omitted from the 4-4-2 article since I believe it to be better suited to locomotive-specific articles. Stored here for easy retrieval. André Kritzinger 01:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Survivors In the UK

• Great Northern Railway, 990, Henry Oakley. National Collection. Now static at Bressingham Steam & Gardens.
• Great Northern Railway, 251. National Collection. First large-boilered Great Northern Railway Atlantic type C1.
• The Bluebell Railway is building a replica of a LB&SCR Atlantic, similar to the GNR large boilered Atlantics. They are also in possession of a LSWR 0415 class locomotive No. 488.
• The Great Western Society is working on a replica of a 4-6-0 'Saint' class locomotive. Some of these ran as Atlantics for comparative purposes and the replica will run as an Atlantic from time to time.
• One of the 4 LT&SR 79 class, No. 80 Thundersley, is preserved at the Bressingham Steam Museum in Norfolk.

Survivors In the USA

As a result of these engines being superseded by more modern steam traction, few have survived.

• Southern Pacific, 3025. Travel Town Museum, Los Angeles, CA.
• Chicago & North Western, 1015. National Museum of Transportation, St. Louis, MO.[1]
• Pennsylvania Railroad E6s 460. Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, Strasburg, PA.
• Pennsylvania Railroad, 7002 (formerly 8063) Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, Strasburg, PA. Has steamed since preservation, now static.
• Detroit, Toledo & Ironton No. 45 Henry Ford Museum Dearborn, MI
• CNJ 592 B&O Railroad Museum, Baltimore, MD

• I'd be inclined to keep this list. We have space, there aren't (unlike 4-6-2s) many of them surviving.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Been thinking that too, having slept on it. I'm far from done yet - most of these articles take me about 5 days to complete. Some are a real mess to start with! André Kritzinger 12:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Origin?

Is this a 4-4-0 or a 2-4-2? Because the article says both and there's no sourcing either way. Diaph0nous (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It could be either, or both. If you start off with a 2-4-2 and want to fit a longer boiler (or just spread the weight), you add another axle: this could make a 4-4-2, 2-6-2 or 2-4-4 depending upon where you put it. Similarly, starting from 4-4-0 could produce 6-4-0, 4-6-0 or 4-4-2. Conceivably, you could add another axle to a 4-2-2, which would make 6-2-2, 4-4-2 or 4-2-4.

In the United Kingdom, no railways had 2-4-2 tender locos (the LNWR had two classes of 2-2-2-2 which were like a 2-4-2 but without coupling rods, but then the LNWR never went for 4-4-2) and some of those that did use the 4-4-2 may have done so by developing a 4-4-0 design - this was certainly the case on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. But not all railways did this: the Great Western, for instance, having bought some French 4-4-2s produced their own 4-4-2 designs by amending existing 4-6-0 types. The first 4-4-2s of the Great Northern Railway are more likely to have been entirely new designs, not developments of earlier types - although that railway had both 4-4-0 and 4-2-2 types, there was sufficient difference that the 4-4-2 can be seen as new. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Having been involved in this article earlier I was fascinated by this conversation by was incarcerated and unable to contribute. Oee should write a book on the evolvement of 4-4-0 (tender) through 4-4-2 and to 4-6-0. "The Aspinall era" bio book, of which I have a good copy and a somewhere seriously water damaged copy covers (from memory) the involvement of Aspinall & Henry Ivatt; great friends, coleagues and the latter succeeding the former at Inchicore and how they regularly swapped notes on the development of their atlantics. I again recall the reasoning of the 4-4-2 was in the book was that it was felt the 4-4-0 design had reached its limit (though as newer technologies/manuafacturing evolved somewhat by trial and error the Schools class perhaps showed different). The conservative Ivatt's first design didn't really exploit the opportunities of the altantic layout, somewhat like Mcdonnell's first use of the swing link on the Kerry bogies, (try out something new on something not critical that wont break the bank it its a turkey). Perhaps more important the 4-4-2 (from memory of that book I hope) gives some lattitude in the degree of firebox design and issues could be fixed somewhat easier. They were aware, even at that stage, that going to 4-6-0 the firebox design was dimensionally critical and mistakes very hard to fix in the UK loading gauge: as many of the early twentieth 4-6-0 designs would to their cost : notable the Hughes 4-6-0 under Aspinall's General Managership at L&YR Horwich. I will try and cite some this on the article at some point. The tecnder 4-4-2 is in my view the major strema pushing the design envelope, The 2-4-2T/4-4-2T in to some extent a 2-4-0 / 4-4-0 with a coal bunker over the trailing axle and while the 4-4-2T allows for a bigger boiler it doesn't really push the design/power limits. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ivatt / Aspilnall copied Baldwin's idea's

(Bullied, 1967, p.143-4) refers to an after dinner re-union meeting at 27 November 1896 at the St. Pancras Hotel where Ivatt and Aspinall discussed ways for building larger engines the former's Sterling singles with a trailing axle and Aspinall's 4-4-0 high flyers needing a larger boiler. At said meeting Ivatt was opined towards the 4-4-2 arrangement. It was recognised two driving axles would provide less adhesion than three - but believed adhesion was not an issue for express passenger work,(at that time I believe train weights were shortly to increase), but the 4-4-2 arrangement gave more freedom in firebox design. It was also discussed how they could leverage successful elements their existing designs onto a 4-4-2 format, (Bullied, 1967, p.109 indicate Aspinall read American technical literature and made a technical visit to the USA in 1890 to assess the latest techniques in locomotive engineering and steel-making. As such "copied" is a slightly trite word, though awareness of Baldwin/American (and much else) practice would have entered into their considerations. (It is do be noted many 4-6-0 designs at the start of the twentieth century were not fully successful, The Hughes' 4-6-0 for the L&YR (under Aspinall then as GM) one notable exception being GWR 4-6-0's). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)