Talk:4-6-2

Germany

I do not know a BR 04 pacific, therefore emoved that. --Sunshinemind 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deutsche Reichsbahn Baureihe 04

• DRB 04.001 - 002 2C1-h4v Krupp 1194 - 1195 / 1932.

Four cylinder superheated compound Pacific type locomotive with Heusinger ( Walschaert ) valve gear. German type mark S36.18. Later renumbered by DRB 02.101 - 102. These two locomotives were built with high boiler pressure ( 25 kg / cm2 ) and 420 grade celsius superheating. Cylinders (2) 350 x 660 / (2) 520 x 660, driving wheels 2000 mm. Weight in working order 105.7 ton. 02.101 was withdrawn after an accident on 03.04.1939 and the sister locomotive 02.102 remained as solitary example of the class and was abandoned later in 1939 by DRB. Its final fate is not known if it was scrapped at ones or placed somewhere to store, or destroyed in Allied bombings later during the World War Two. Krupp works were bombed in October 1943 and the Works were so badly damaged that the Works had to cease the locomotive production for the rest of the war. Last delivered locomotive was 1E-h2 ( 2-10-0 ) DRB class 50.3069 Krupp 3144 / 1943 which was also damaged and abandoned ( with Allied permission ) on 12.09.1946.

reorganise "History" section?

The history section is rather long, and doesn't contain specific headings for the development of the Pacific in the United States and Britain. Should we limit history to the original NZR Q class, and then a more general discussion of the features of the Pacific that made it attractive to other railway companies before discussing development in the USA and UK in separate sections?

I also suggest we use the picture of the famous LNER_4468_Mallard locomotive (Mallard locomotive 625.jpg), as this will better represent British design and the popularity of streamlined Pacific locomotives of the 1930s. Zzrbiker 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New paragraph to discuss limitations of Pacific type?

I suggest that the history section include the following paragraph between the current last and second last paragraphs of the section. (If anyone could tell me the prevailing axle load on PRR lines for the K5 example, that would be great!) Your thoughts?

"As requirements for higher speed and greater tractive effort grew, locomotive designs of the Pacific type were increasingly constrained by the grate size able to be supported by a single trailing axle, and the factor of adhesion possible within a given axle load. In the USA, the Pennsylvania Railroad class K5 of 1929 developed a very credible 54,675 lbf (243.21 kN) of tractive effort, but with only three powered axles and a 31.5t(?) axle load its 208,250 lb (94,461 kg) adhesive weight was insufficient to allow that tractive effort to be fully exploited without risk of wheelslip. Similarly, in France some of Andre Chapelon's rebuilt Pacifics were developing such high tractive effort for their weight, they had to be converted from a 4-6-2 to a 4-8-0 layout for the increased tractive effort to be reliably utilised under all conditions." Zzrbiker 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Zzrbiker is not correct stating that some of Andre Chapelon’s re-built Pacifics were converted from 4-6-2 to 4-8-0 configuration.

The Toulouse line was always a thorn in the heel of the Paris-Orleans Railway. The heaviest trains ran over the most difficult section in the small hours, when dew impaired adhesion. Four coupled axles were necessary, but the existing two-cylinder 5800 class 2-8-2s developing 2,100 ihp were of insufficient power. The 100 Pacifics of the 4500 class (built 1908) with 6 ft. 0.75 in. wheels used on the Toulouse and adjoining lines were, however, in good condition and it was decided to convert them into eight-coupled engines. By substituting a new boiler with a narrow grate for the old one in engines that needed re-boilering it would be possible to retain the frames and add a fourth coupled axle in place of the trailing truck.

With improvements in the stream circuit similar to those obtained with No. 3566 (Chapelon’s prototype Pacific), an inclined grate of about 12 ft. 6 in. long, giving an area of 40.5 sq. ft. and a short boiler with Serve tubes 14 feet long, carrying 285 lb pressure, it seemed possible to obtain a 2500 ihp engine with 72 tons on the driving wheels, capable of handling 600 ton trains at 35-37 mph up long 1/100 gradients. At the same time many parts of the old engines could be used again. The decision to modify engine No. 4521 was taken at the end of October 1931 and the converted locomotive was delivered by the Tours workshops on 16th August 1932.

Breaking in the entirely new locomotive took time; the proper flow of gases required in particular some adjustments in the tubes and flues. However, when the engines could be finally tested from the beginning of March 1933 onwards, performances were produced, which had no relation whatever to those expected. Eleven additional 4-8-0s were built between February and May 1934 numbered 240.702-12. From 1940, another twenty five 4500 class Pacifics were re-built as 4-8-0s and all were in service by 1942 on the SNCF South-Eastern Region as 240.P 1-25.

Source: Railway Reminiscences of Three Continents. Baron G. Vuillet 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.75.9 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Q class.jpg

Image:Q class.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a tidy up

I re-ordered the regional examples alphabetically to make them easier to read and more accessible, though someone more knowledgeable about such things might want to tease the Canadian and US stuff apart. At the moment they're stuck together for no obvious reason. Anyway, I also pulled apart the history and naming sections so they'd be easier to read. Citations as to which explanation of the name come from what sources would be helpful. The previous statement that 'one was right and the other wrong' may well be true but was hardly an encyclopaedic entry! I'd like to see some explanation (and citations) that say how and why the Hudson and Mountain types were [a] developed from the Pacific, and [b] better than the Pacific, which was what the previous version seemed to suggest by the words "developed from". Surely its better to say that in certain situations those two designs offered advantages, and then list those advantages. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tunisian 1000 mm gauge Pacifics

One wonder where these were forgotten? I add the details in main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.84.195 (talk • contribs) 08:15, April 21, 2008

One reason is likely that other editors didn't have any information about them from reliable sources that could be cited. Slambo (Speak) 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info. Now, do you have any sources for the information that can be cited in the text? Slambo (Speak) 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging the article

At first, yes I have lot of sources which I sent when finished listing the Pacific type locomotives used all around world. I am missing some builder details, but I can ask them from some friends, who should have them.

May I suggest that you re-arrange the list dividing it as this to make it more easy to read:

Africa

• Egypt
• Ethiopia
• Ghana
• Ivory Coast
• Malawi
• Mosambique
• Namibia
• Nigeria
• Senegal
• South Africa
• Sudan
• Tunisia

which all had Pacific type locomotives in service.

Asia

• Bangladesh ex East Pakistan
• Burma
• Cambodia
• China
• India
• Indonesia
• Iraq
• Japan
• Korea ( Chosen )
• Malaya / Malesia
• Manchukuo 1932 - 1945
• West Pakistan / Pakistan
• Philippines
• Siam / Thailand
• Taiwan
• Vietnam

Australasia

Australia

• Commonwealth Railways
• New South Wales Railways
• Queensland Railways
• South Australian Railways
• Tasmanian Government Railways
• Victoria Railways
• Western Australian Government Railways

New Zealand

• New Zealand Government Railways

At least Western Australian Government Railways is missing from the list. This railway was one of the first in world to use Pacific type compound locomotives, according to Baldwin Works list.

Europe

Going in alphabethic order through countries where Pacific type locomotives have been in service.

North America

• Canada, United States, Mexico

South America

Country by country survey of Pacific locomotives.

There are lot of literature published since from the introducion of 4-6-2 locomotives. Most of them from 1940´s to 1970s.

In addition may I ask to change the title to:

Pacific type locomotive 4-6-2 / 2-3-1 / 2C1

Thanks. More information are coming, but the figure of 7600 Pacific locomotives which have been running in Canada and United States since Pacific type locomotives were introduced to US rails in 1902, is really too high. Regarding the Pensylvania Railroad I have understand that only two types of Pacifics ( with sub-classes ), K2 and K4 were used. The last two K4s built become class K5 for some reason. Peharps heavier axle load than K4? Last K4´s running at New Jersey as late as in 1958. From 1938 on, newly formed French National Railways SNCF owned more Pacific type locomotives than Pennsylvania Railroad.

There are many reliable writers who devoted their entire life for steam locomotives, such as O.S.Nock, Cecil J. Allen, Paul Walter Kiefer ( for US locomotives ), Anthony E. Durrant, ( mainly to African steam locomotives ), Frances M. Page, Peter Kalla-Bishop, Bernhard Schmeiser, G.S.Moore, Hugh Hughes, Gerard Vuillet etc, who all have passed away, just to mention of few world wide known authorities regarding of steam locomotives. Lucky some old "iron dinosaurous" are still among us, the experts such as Martin Murray, Hansjurgen Wenzel, Reimar Holzinger etc just to mention of few.

The classic British Pacific Locomotives by Cecil J. Allen ( last published edition 1971, SBN 7110-0261-4 ) is highly recommended to those who want detailed information of British Pacific locomotives performance in their hey-day service on the road.

According to late Dr W.A. Tuplin,British Steam Since 1900 ( ISBN 7153-4326-2 ) there were on 31.12.1947 279 Pacific type locomotives running in Great Britain of the total stock of 19.843 steam locomotives, then on books of the four big railway companies. This presents only 1.4 per cent of the steam locomotive total, but this 1.4 per cent is the best documented in British railway literature and in articles published by railway magazines. Since 01.01.1948 only few Pacific type locomotives which were ordered by the private big four railway companies entered out of works: LMS 1 ( Number 6257 "City of Salford" ), LNER] 64 ( Peppercorn classes A1 and A2 ), Southern Railway 50 Builled Pacifics; Battle of Britain class numbers 34071 - 34090, 34109, 34110, West Country class numbers 34091 - 34108, Merchant Navy class numbers 35021 - 35030. Nationalised British Railways built 10 class 6P5F ( Clan ), 55 class 7P6F ( Britannia ) and one class 8P ( Duke of Gloucester ) Pacific type locomotives in 1951 - 1954.

Those who want more detailed information of the " Standard Pacifics " E.S.Cox British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives published by Ian Allan, London 1966 is a valuable source. I am afraid that these three books are rareties today, difficult to obtain from secondary book markets.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.186.76 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous/trivial details - lists of individual locomotives

Greetings,

I've noticed recent edits which list individual locomotive details for Pacific locomotives in selected countries.

I think these greatly diminish the quality of the article. This level of detail is almost unwarranted in articles on a specific class of locomotive (eg, we don't provide individual details on every Pennsylvania RR K4, or every DR Kriegslokomotiv, even in articles on those specific locomotive classes), let alone being rolled up into an article on the locomotive type.

If noone has any objections, I would like to revert these edits or at least remove the unnecessary detail.

Zzrbiker (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

-- I fully agree. The details in this article turn it into a completely useless page. There is too much information to be of use.

If the WikiTrains project wants to compile lists of locomotives, like this.... I suggest creating pages for that purpose, and removing the ridiculous amount of useless information from this page. It really detracts from the simplicity the article could convey. --Squirrelhollow (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - you can see from the thread immediately following this one that I did *try* to work out a solution with the editor who had a view that builder serial numbers were extremely important. I think at the same time that the list stuff needs to be split out, a lot of the WP:NOR-offending copy probably needs to be pruned right out. Once again, if anyone has any suggestions or objections, please let me know. - Zzrbiker (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with comments above. Should we rename this to "List of my favourite Pacifics from my own country"? There's very little structure or content in here now, relative to the overall size. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• • If you feel that way then help to improve it! It is much better now than it was three months ago when it was largely a series of lists.--Das48 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Identification of locomotives by works numbers

Dear Zzbiker I can see that you have not any idea how seriously- all around the globe - the steam locomotive history is taken to provide a correct information of the classes or locomotives with certain wheel arrangement, in this case 4-6-2, and provide information that satisfies even those who visit Wikipedia to seek more detailed information. If adopted your policy of editing these pages which are made for steam locomotives without information all can be classified TORSO and have no value at all among real experts in this subject. It is, as peharps you have noticed, to identify nearly every steam locomotive which have been built, by the builders works number at least in United States and Europe and that number is the key for postive identification. Most of the steam locomotives which have been built were built with works numbers. How would your policy of editing these articles feel of a individual Englishman who spent several days in Iranian heat near Ahwaz to find out which locomotives were actually shipped to Iran during World War Two? From still existing works plates he was able to correct several errors which had appeared in railway literature. Peharps the problem is that most visitors in Wikipedia are young people - age under 35 - and they have not a slightes idea even from steam locomotive builders. Please look some articles of locomotive builders in which are asked more information, and clssified stub. You can improve the article. So, if more detailed information is provided of Pacific type type locomotives through these pages, why should they be removed or reduced to stub. Peharps you have time and patience to provide for those, who really are seeking more detailed information, an good article of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Pacific locomotives or of American or Japanese built Pacifics which worked on South Manchuria Railway Company´s main lines in Manchuria. Not to mention of Italian Pacific type locomotives which hauled still in early 1950´s most of the express trains between Milan and Venice. or list of Jananese Pacific locomotives. I am next adding the information of Pacific locomotives which worked in ex Gold Coast Railway in former British Colony which become Ghana. If removed, I quit and stop making torso articles without any true historical value. I leave United States for Americans to provide articles of their Pacifics which run on their Railroads. The number of US Pacific locomotives (7000) is certainly too high. The main production was in 1902 - 1915. In 1916 - 1919 only few were built. In 1920 - 1928 the production figures were not as high as in pre Great War period and were concentrated to certain Railroads. This, according to ALCo, Baldwin and Lima works lists. After 1928 practically none. Production was changed to more powerful types as 4-6-4, 4-8-2, and 4-8-4. Only exceptions being ten for Boston & Maine and those two to Alaska Railroad in addition to Reading Co´s ten in 1948. (Built at their own Workshop at Reading.) I add for last Lima production figures for Pacific type locomotives. A few, when compared to Works total steam locomotive production, but presenting the general pattern. Greetings.

• Lima 1230 - 1234 1913 std gauge 4-6-2 27x28 79 130.3 tons Erie K2 2900 - 2904
• Lima 1339 - 1363 1914 std gauge 4-6-2 23 1/2x30 73 113.1 tons Great Northern 1461 - 1485
• Lima 1381 - 1394 1914 std gauge 4-6-2 25x28 69 132.1 tons Delaware, Lackawana & Western 1158 -1171
• Lima 1424 - 1443 1914 std gauge 4-6-2 25x28 77 123.9 tons Union Pacific 181 - 200
• Lima 1444 - 1448 1914 std gauge 4-6-2 25x28 77 123,9 tons Union Pacific O.S.L. 3129 - 3133
• Lima 5217 - 5220 1916 std gauge 4-6-2 23x28 69 101.2 tons Central Railroad of Georgia 1661 - 1664
• Lima 5424 - 5425 1917 std gauge 4-6-2 25x28 73 125.3 tons Southern Pacific (AE) 701 - 702
• Lima 5960 - 5969 1920 std gauge 4-6-2 25x28 73 122.6 tons Missouri - Kansas - Texas 399 - 408
• Lima 6317 - 6320 1922 std gauge 4-6-2 22 1/2x26 73 111.2 tons New York, Chicago & St.Louis 160 -163
• Lima 6321 - 6326 1923 std gauge 4-6-2 27x28 79 152.5 tons Chicago & Eastern Illinois 1018 - 1023
• Lima 6477 - 6481 1923 std gauge 4-6-2 25x28 73 123.9 tons Missouri - Kansas - Texas 409 - 413
• Lima 7008 - 7009 1926 std gauge 4-6-2 27x28 73 137.6 tons Atlanta & West Point 290 and 190
• Lima 7622 - 7626 1934 std gauge 4-6-2 23x28 80 153.9 tons Boston & Maine 3710 - 3714
• Lima 7655 - 7659 1937 std gauge 4-6-2 23x28 80 153.9 tons Boston & Maine 3715 - 3719 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.238 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the following is intended to be taken as constructive criticism:

Firstly, in response to: "I can see that you have not any idea..." - this sort of comment is inappropriate, as well as ill-informed. Please refer to WP:EQ and WP:NPA, specifically the policy of "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

As far as builder's numbers go, these details are of questionable value to the understanding of 4-6-2 locomotives as a type, as distinct from a detailed study of an individual class of locomotives which should be handled on a separate page. For example, we don't list every single LMS Princess Coronation Class locomotive ever built on the 4-6-2 page, rather we have those details on the Princess Coronation Class page. Please refer to WP:N, and note also that Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a repository of basic source data.

If we cover every 4-6-2 locomotive ever built with individual locomotive details on this one page, the article will become unreadable and too long according to Wikipedia's manual of style. Please refer to WP:SIZE.

Nothing that you have posted is appropriately referenced. Please refer to WP:CITE.

There is also a considerable amount of editing that relates to unsubstantiated supposition. Eg: "There is a story circulating around the world of setting the world record for Cape gauge." This is not appropriate for an encylcopaedia. Please refer to WP:V.

These edits lack objectivity. For example: "They were among the finest looking steam locomotives which run in Australia." That's opinion, not fact. Please refer to WP:NPOV

While we're dealing with Wikipedia policy, can I also draw your attention to the fact that you are not signing your posts. Please refer to WP:SIG

Further points to consider:

• There is a vast amount of completely redundant information in these edits. This article is about Pacific 4-6-2 locomotives. It therefore stands to reason that every locomotive on this page will have a 2C1 wheel arrangement.

• This redundant information is further compromised by factual errors. For example, the Victorian Railways S class locomotive is a 3 cylinder design and as such, its UIC classification would be 2C1-h3, yet it has been incorrectly listed as 2C1-h2.

• There are also numerous errors in spelling and grammar in your edits.

Lastly, you should note that the effort you put into editing information on New Zealand 4-6-2 locomotives was lost when the edit was reverted by another editor, citing it as "a completely unreferenced, unsubstantiated, unencyclopaedic mess of argumentation and trivia". If you continue to edit Wikipedia without paying due attention to Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines, it is highly likely that others will similarly revert the pages to not include your edits, which makes it a waste of your time and effort. This would be most unfortunate.

Zzrbiker (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments. I try to follow the general "laid down rules" in Wikipedia. Regarding my English it is not 100 per cent as it should be when writing these Pacific type locomotive summaries for countries. English is not my mother language so I am grateful if you and others find out errors in writing, please correct them to proper English language. It is more than 50 years ago when I learned this language and do not use it in my daily life. Sorry about that.

To overcome the 32 - 35 KB problem may I suggest that 4-6-2 is divided to sections Section 0 Australasia, Section 1 North America, Section 3 Europe, Section 4 Africa, Section 5 South America. With this non of the sections (peharps only sub-section United States with 6420 Pacific type locomotives) should exceed 32 - 35 KB.

Regarding the Victoria Railways Class S 301 - 303 locomotives to present them as two-cylinder version. Of course they were three cylinder engines 2C1-h3. My mistake. Generally, Australia and New Zealand are the less known countries with their Pacific type locomotives. I know that there are published in Australia even "Birth Certification" ie Works lists for every Pacific locomotive which were built in Australia. But such a lists are not in my collection. These "unknown" include Victoria Railways Newport Workshop, Western Australian Covernment Railways Midland Junction Workshop, South Australian Government Railways Islington Workshop, Queensland Railways Ipswich Workshop and complete Works lists for New South Wales Government Railways Eveleigh Workshop and Gardiff Workshop. Also Walkers works list is missing completely from my " Factory catalogues" as well as Perry and Clyde Engineering Company. I left the Australian built locomotives in the list one by one, in hope that some friedly soul from Australia is able to provide the missing works numbers.

Regarding the New Zealand Railways Pacific type locomotives. When visited that country only ones a long time ago I bought some railway literature from Wellington such as E.J.McClare: Steam Locomotives of New Zealand Part Two: 1900 to 1930 published by New Zealand Railway and Locomotive Society Incorporated, Wellington, New Zealand ISBN 0-9088573-49-9 and recently ordered through one specialised railway books store; W.G.Lloyd: Register of New Zealand Railways Steam Locomotives 1863 - 1971 ISBN 0-9582072-1-6 where every steam locomotive running on NZR is recorded by its works number and each of them had such "birth certification". Even all NZR Workshops placed their own worksplate to every locomotive they builtshowing locomotive´s construction number and year. It is not my fault that NZR numbered their North British Locomotive built Class Ab Pacifics in such an order I presented them according to most reliable New Zealand sources. Thus every Pacific type locomotive of the total of 225 Pacifics which run in New Zealand can be registered with the Works number.

Then looking through records there were relatively small number of Pacific type locomotives which run in Australasia.

• Commonwealth Railways -
• Midland Railway Company of Western Australia: 5 Pacifics 1067 mm gauge
• New South Wales Government Railways: 30 Pacifics 1435 mm gauge
• Queensland Railways: 138 Pacifics 1067 mm gauge
• Tasmanian Government Railways: 14 Pacifics 1067 mm gauge
• South Australian Railways: 20 Pacifics 1600 mm gauge
• Victorian Government Railways: 4 Pacifics 1600 mm gauge
• Western Australian Government Railways: 199 Pacifics 1067 mm gauge

This makes a total of 636 Pacific type locomotives which have been running in Australasia. The most numerous being 1067 mm gauge with 581 Pacific type locomotives. Of these the information of Queensland Railways Classes B18 1/4 (83 engines) and BB18 1/4 (55engines) are less described in railway literature, even today. They represent "grey zone" in complete Pacific type locomotive history.

I hope you and others agree this kind of sections. The total 628 Pacifics goes well inside 32 - 35 KB. If you can divide the main article to proposed form I would be grateful. I am personally peharps too old to learn more of computer techniques to provide such new paragraps. I add the first country to South America section as soon as possible.

The one DRB Baureihe 52 was mentioned such as note. There is enough literature available in German language of that class. I keep going this way without creating any user name. Numbers are enough for me. Opinions, please. Greetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.238 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking that the article on 4-6-2 locomotives be split up into separate regional articles so that you can accommodate a long list of individual locomotive numbers and corresponding builder's numbers over several articles?

I would make a very strong argument that this will still result in an article (or series of articles) that are of very little value to the average reader. Instead of someone being able to browse the 4-6-2 page to quickly and easily get a general understanding of the type, they would have to wade through five or six articles full of builder's numbers. If I want to understand what the benefits of a 4-6-2 locomotive are and the various reasons why different railways around the world built them, would I want to have to sift through five or six separate pages full of long lists of meaningless builder's numbers? The fact that LNER 4468 Mallard has builder's number 1870 from the Doncaster works might be of some value or interest on the LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard page or even the LNER Class A4 page. But is trivial, virtually useless detail on the 4-6-2 page that does nothing but clutter the page.

Take the example of Australian 4-6-2 locomotives. There is already an extremely detailed article on the Victorian Railways S class. Why put details of each individual locomotive in the class on the 4-6-2 page instead of putting such detail in the specific Victorian Railways S class page? Similarly, why would you list every NSWGR C38 locomotive on the 4-6-2 page when the reality is that anyone who was interested in such specific detail on C38 locomotives would probably expecting to see this in the specific New South Wales 38 class locomotive page? Why do you not expand the 38 class article? And why not create a new page for each of the Midland Railway Pacific, SAR 620 class, Tasmanian Railways M class, etc?

If you disagree with putting builders numbers in specific locomotive class pages, I would suggest as an alternative that such lists of the builder's numbers of locomotives could arguably be of interest on a page about the builder, eg North British Locomotive Company, and preferably on a separate list page. (eg: List of locomotives built by North British Locomotive Company).

For an example of a correct use of a "List" article, see here : List of Nobel laureates. Note that the article for Nobel Prize itself is not a long list of recipients, but a summary of what the prize is actually about. It then links to the relevant List page for those who want to see the extra detail of everyone who's ever won one.

I would also ask you to please cite references for the information you are including. You must understand that anything on Wikipedia that isn't appropriately referenced is liable to removal at any time, because the information simply cannot be considered reliable or verifiable. Please refer to the links I have posted earlier for you on this point. On the talk page you suggest you are obtaining your facts from various published books, but you don't actually cite any details in the article which is where this information needs to be. It is the simplest thing in the world to insert in the edit screen a quick reference, for example: "All but one of the N class locomotives were scrapped.<ref>{{cite book|author = Oberg, Leon| title=Locomotives Of Australia 1850's - 1980's| publisher = Reed Books| location = NSW | year = 1984| pages = p.140 | id = ISBN 0730100057}}</ref>", which then renders as "All but one of the N class locomotives were scrapped.", and creates a link to the "References" section of the article. As well as making your edits verifiable it also allows those interested to know where to look if they want to do further research.

Thanks

Zzrbiker (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To further ZZR's comments... If we look at other numbers, Pennsylvania Railroad's K4s class, there were 425 of this class alone produced between Baldwin and PRR's Juniata shops, and this is just one of five classes of PRR's pacifics. With all of the railroads in the US, listing all of the locomotives of a wheel arrangement with builder serial numbers on this page very quickly overwhelms the basic information about the wheel arrangement itself. That kind of detail is not needed on a general article about the wheel arrangement's development on a worldwide scale. Slambo (Speak) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. I do not mean that every single locomotive should be listed in separate column. I give here as an example of Italian Pacifics.

FS Had only one class of Pacific type locomotives. They were 4-cylinder simple expansion locomotive fitted with superheater. Boiler pressure was 12 kg / sq cm. They had driving wheels of 2030 mm diameter. At first numbered by FS 69001 - 69033, renumbered in 1918 to 690.001 - 690.033. Their axle load of 17.1 tons was in general too heavy for most of the FS main lines in Southern Italy. They were allowed to run only on the heavy railed main lines Milano (Milan) - Venezia (Venice), 267 km (166 miles) and Milano (Milan) - Bologna - Firenze (Florence) 316 km (196.4 miles). Later, when the upgraded main line Firenze (Florence) - Roma (Rom) the Italian Pacifics were allowed to run south from Firenze (Florence) to Chiusi, 151 km (94 miles). Later, when the FS electrification program progressed they fell victims of it. First they were viped out from Bologna - Chiusi section, when the wired reached from south Bologna.

The original trapezoidal shaped boilers of Pacifics gave troubles, so that the front of the grate could fit between the rear driwing wheels, and this design proved to be expensive to maintain. In 1928 it was decided to rebuild the whole class with new boilers fitted to FS Class 746 1D1-h2 locomotives. The boiler tube arrangement was altered and bissel truck taken from Class 746 was also provided. All engines were rebuilt in 1928 - 1931 with new type E superheaters and Nielebok - Knorr feed water heaters. The rebuilt Pacifics become Class 691.001 - 691.033. The Class 691 had its maximum axle load increased to 20 tons and again this restricted their use to northern main lines. The electrification reached Milano (Milan) in 1930´s, and the Milano - Venezia in 1958. This left Pacifics out of work. For a couple of years they run on the lines which were to be electrified like Vorghera - Piacenca 58 km (36 miles), and Venezia (Venice) - Udine 136 km (84.5 miles), but the whole Class was withdrawn in the early 1960´s. Pacific 691.022 is preserved and belongs to Leonardo da Vinci Museum at Milano (Milan).

Builder details:

• 691.001 - 691.006 2C1-h4 Breda 1255 - 1260 / 1911
• 691.007 - 691.010 2C1-h4 Officienne Meccaniche 349 - 351 / 1911
• 691.010 - 691.023 2C1-h4 Breda 1459 - 1472 / 1914
• 691.024 - 691.033 2C1-h4 Ansaldo 1066 - 1075 / 1914

For more details Reference: P.M. Kalla - Bishop: Italian Steam Locomotives ISBN 0-9055878-03-5

References: Unpublished works lists compiled by Dr.Ing.Bernhard Schmeiser for Ansaldo, Breda, and Officienne Meccaniche.

That ´s it. Whole class described, their whole life and some technical details. If OK dould you move this to main article?

If you are satisfied with this style, every Pacific locomotive in the world (which are known), is included way or other in such summaries. May I point out that only a small percentage of the steam locomotives were Pacifics. Many railways had not them at all, and their number is less than one single class, the Russian (Soviet) Class E with its variations (E-h2 or 0-10-0). I lost in the list of total eight Pacific type locomotives, five at Queensland Railways and three at New Zealand. Thus, the Pacific total for Queensland was 138 not 134, and in New Zealand 225 instead of 222.

Then, about this unoffical speed world record 92 mph (148 kph) in South Africa in 1946 for Cape gauge 3ft 6in (1067 mm). I heard of it first time from Ron Zeal when he visited Europe to take photograps for his coming book. He had been visited earlier in South Africa and visited the main steam centres in the country. I think he was there about the same time than an other American steam minded person. The story was told to him by the shed foreman who was personally in the dynamometer car and followed carefully the speedometer. This record holder locomotive was of course photographed by both and the story has been also published in the book "World Steam In Action" page 89 by Harold Edmonson. SBN 7110 01901 First published in 1970. I believe the locomotive was SAR 856 "Harrismith" (Henschel 22586 / 1935) as it has been photographed by both Ron Zeal and Victor Hand. Why this record run was kept in out of publicity is clear, the offical speed limit for any train in passenger service was then 55 mph (88 kph) over SAR rails and had it been commonly known that such a speeds over 65 mph could be easily achieved, it would have also increased the public demand for faster passenger express train schedules in the country.

I know there are some problems especially within the combination of Baldwin and Pennsylvania Railroad. Baldwin had a habit up to 1920´s not to reserve certain number groups for certain orders. Instead the completed locomotives rolling out from paint house received the next works plate from plate shops. For such a reason of single production of works plates Baldwin Works list have more sheets than the Bible. Pennsylvania had a habit to give locomotive number of just scrapped locomotive to a new locomotive which was completed at Juniata Works. Some other railways followed this practice, Baden State Railways, Badische Staatsbahn and Etat Belge just to mention of the worstest examples in Europe. In Belgium same running number was used for four times. Different countries, different methods.

To make my idea clear I show how the Pacific locomotive list of WAGR needs space.

• Ec 236 - 245 2C1-n2v Baldwin 18826 - 18835 / 1901 rebuilt to Class L 2C1-h2 renumbered to 471 - 480
• Ec 246 - 255 2C1-n2v Baldwin 18857 - 18866 / 1901 rebuilt to Class L 2C1-h2 remumbered to 481 - 490
• C 264 - 270 2C-n2 Baldwin 20152 - 20158 / 1902 rebuilt to 2C1-h2
• C 271 - 274 2C-n2 Baldwin 20170 - 20174 / 1902 rebuilt to 2C1-h2
• Ca 431 - 439 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1915
• E 291 - 294 2C1-n2 Nasmyth, Wilson 641 - 644 / 1902
• E 295 - 305 2C1-n2 Nasmtyh, Wilson 645 - 655 / 1903
• E 306 - 335 2C1-n2 Vulcan Foundry 1844 - 1873 / 1903
• E 336 - 355 2C1-n2 North British Locomotive 19604 - 19623 / 1912
• P 441 - 450 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 23143 - 23152 / 1924 Renumbered 501 - 510
• P 451 - 452 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1927 Renumbered 511 - 512
• P 453 - 457 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1927 reclassified to Class Pr
• P 458 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1927 Renumbered 513
• P 459 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1927 reclaasified to Class Pr
• P 460 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1927 Renumbered 514
• P 461 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1929 reclassified to Class Pr
• P 462 - 463 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1929 Renumbered 515 - 516
• P 464 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1929 reclassified to Class Pr
• P 465 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1929 Renumbered 517
• P 138 - 143 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1938 Renumbered 521 - 526
• P 144 - 147 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1939 Renumbered 527 - 530
• P 453 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1941 Renumbered 531
• P 454 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1942 Renumbered 532
• P 455 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1941 Renumbered 533
• P 456 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1942 Renumbered 534
• P 457 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1941 Renumbered 535
• P 459 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1941 Renumbered 536
• P 461 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1944 Renumbered 537
• P 464 2C1-h2 Midland Junction Workshops - / 1944 Renumbered 538
• U 651 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24854 / 1942
• U 652 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24859 / 1942
• U 653 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24864 / 1942
• U 654 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24862 / 1942
• U 655 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24863 / 1942
• U 656 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24867 / 1942
• U 657 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24865 / 1942
• U 658 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24866 / 1942
• U 659 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24861 / 1942
• U 660 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24843 / 1942
• U 661 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24844 / 1942
• U 662 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24860 / 1942
• U 663 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24842 / 1942
• U 664 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 24841 / 1942 1957 rebuilt to 2C2t-h2
• P 701 - 719 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 26545 - 26563 / 1949
• P 720 - 725 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 26564 - 26569 / 1949 Fitted with roller bearings
• P 726 - 735 2C1-h2 North British Locomotive 26921 - 26930 / 1949 Fitted with roller bearings

For more detailed information see: Adrian Gunzburg A History of W.A.G.R. Steam Locomotives ISBN 0-9599690-3-9 Published by the Australian Railway Historical Society 1984.

Other sources: Kitson Works List Compiled by Reg Carter 1997 (for Midland Railway Co of Western Australia Pacifics)

• Baldwin Works List
• Nasmyth & Wilson Co Works list compiled by G.S.Moore. Published by Arley Hall Publications, Bristol, UK.
• North British Locomotive Company Works List compiled by several authorities including G.S.Moore, F.M.Page, Bernhard Schmeiser with later additions by several other specialists.

Not so much room for one whole railway which had quite large allocation of Pacifics. What do you think?

OK - my advice comes in three parts:

1/. FS Pacific:

This information is entirely appropriate for a separate article on that one class of FS Pacific. You would have a single brief reference to it on the on the 4-6-2 page - no more than a single sentence to indicate that FS ran a class of Pacific locomotive, and then link to the separate article. Here's a suggested page title: Ferrovie dello Stato A691 class. Click on that link, cut and paste your detailed information into it, cite references for that detailed information, and save it. In the 4-6-2 page, insert comment with a link to your new FS Pacific page that explains, in no more than one sentence, what is notable about it as a 4-6-2.

The service history of these locomotives, their axle load, and their road numbers and builder's numbers is all highly relevant for an article on that specific class of locomotive which is why I recommend you create that article. It is also all irrelevant trivia for an article on 4-6-2s, as none of this is notable for an article on 4-6-2s as a type.

2/. South African Pacifics.

The information that would appear on the 4-6-2 page would be nothing more than a sentence or two noting that South African Railways ran Pacifics with the largest diameter driving wheels on any narrow gauge 4-6-2, and that these locomotives reputedly reached speeds as high as 148km/h. In the separate article, list only the information that can be cited, and do not list anything that is your own opinion or interpretation of facts. If you heard about something from someone who was told a story by someone, it's not something to post in Wikipedia, until that story gets published in a book or journal or website or similar. Only post what is already written in other published articles. That's not my personal rule, that's Wikipedia's rule, see WP:NOR.

If you can't cite references for the information, don't post it. Note Slambo's comments long ago about why there may not be a Tunisian Pacific section already - we don't post to Wikipedia when we know something personally, we post to Wikipedia when we can write an article that cites references. That's the way an encyclopedia is supposed to work.

3/. WAGR Pacifics

As for your long list of WAGR Pacifics, this is an utterly inappropriate level of detail for this page. It is a list, and should be put in a list page. Please refer to my earlier comment and example with Nobel Prize and List of Nobel laureates. Really - your list of locomotives adds NOTHING of value to the 4-6-2 page. It's not bad information or stupid information, it's just completely inappropriate information in this context. It belongs either in a list page, or included into individual locomotive class description pages. That is where it has value.

In summary:

There is just no justification for splitting the 4-6-2 article to accommodate individual lists of locomotives or detailed histories of locomotive classes. This page is a summary of the type, not an attempt to list every class. It is not a list page, and if you want a list page, you should create a separate list page. Just think if we attempted to list every type of 4-6-0 locomotive on the 4-6-0 page. It would cover dozens of pages, and noone would read it.

I encourage you to create new articles that deal with individual locomotive classes. Your contribution in doing so would be appreciated. But if you put that level of detail into this page, the most likely outcome is that someone will remove your edits as being too detailed and trivial.

Please note that my comments would also apply to the 4-8-4 page, which you appear to be editing in a similar fashion. I can't be certain it's you, because you refuse to sign your edits properly in accordance with WP:SIG.

Zzrbiker (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried but no success. I have always problems with the instructions. Could you open - on my behalf - a new section in Wikipedia titled List of Pacific type Locomotives built in 1901 - 1971. and reallocate as start there the W.A.G.R. Pacific list and other lists which belongs (in our opinion) there. I fullfill it with this style I have presented with sections Australasia, Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America. The more correct title for FS Pacifics would be Ferrovie dello Stato (FS) Class 691 Pacific locomotives Could you change the title and transfer the my short describtion there. Thanks. Then there is no conflict between the two different Wikipedia titles. Your edited Whyte notation 4-6-2 and another one showing more detailed information of all Pacifics. That page is really missing. I spent two whole days in internet trying to get a clear picture of Pacific type locomotives as whole in one summary, but I could not find such article. Some more detaided ones for certain railway or class exist, but no such a side where they are all collected under same title from where every one interested can easily pick up the information they need country by country. It is hard to believe that an ordinary American, European or Australian is common with Chinese and Japanese languages not to mention with more common French, German, or Spanish languages end less known languages like Hungarian, Serbo-Kroatian, Roumanian, Polish, Russian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish languages. If you manage to understand these all then you have some kind of picture Pacific locomotives which have been served there in more detailed form.

Then, I think you should even mention Indian Railways Pacific type locomotives. There were two largest Pacific type 4-6-2 classes ever built. Broad gauge (1676 mm) Class WP with 755 locomotives and even bigger metre (1000 mm) gauge Class YP with 871 built locomotives which, in fact, presents the largest single Pacific class ever built. Thus the correct version for Pennsylvanian Class K4 Pacifics should be: The largest single Pacific class built for standard gauge (1435 mm).

There are less than 100 peoples who can provide such a list for Pacific type locomotives with builder details in whole world. And (I believe) all aged 50+, having less interest to spend time with computer. Could you then check, when added, under this new title that they are in proper English language. Thank you. Greetings.

Regarding the FS locomotive, I'd suggest the article be called Ferrovie dello Stato Class A691, or Ferrovie dello Stato Class 691, or if you wish FS Class 691. There's no need to put both a full and abbreviated name (this is redundant) nor is there a need to mention it's a Pacific or that it's a locomotive. This naming convention is widely used in all locomotive articles: Name of Railway, followed by Name of class. You'll note that all the major articles on individual locomotive classes adhere to this convention, and it's a good idea to ensure consistency.

I'd also suggest trimming the article name for the list as well. I really think that List of 4-6-2 locomotives is ideal, given the article it relates to is simply titled 4-6-2. Putting in date information to the title just makes it long and convoluted. Putting a date range in the title just leads to problems when you discover your original source information didn't have enough detail, eg, your list of builders numbers for Pacifics extending to 1971 is probably using source material that predates LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, a brand new Pacific locomotive nearing completion in the UK. It's better not to build in unnecessary limitations to things like page titles.

To create your articles, just click on one of the red links I've created, and start editing, and save.

Hope this helps.

Zzrbiker (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NP 2223

I reverted to re-include pic of NP 2223 in the U.S. section. Reason: Artistically and graphically, it's an excellent photo of a steam locomotive in the snow — much more interesting than the blah photo it replaced. Sca (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the subject of the article.
1. The article is abour the 4-6-2 wheel arrangement, not about locomotives in snow.
2. Interesting or not, the picture does absolutely nothing to illustrate the 4-6-2 wheel arrangement. In fact, the wheel arrangement of the locomotive cannot even be discerned in the picture concerned.
3. There is no mention of the NP or the NP's Q-4 or the NP2223 (or of snow) anywhere in the article.
Before turning the article into a picture gallery, please do some research and contribute something to the article about the NP's 4-6-2 Pacifics that would justify the inclusion of the picture. Even better, create an article on the NP's Q-4 locomotive class that is the subject of your picture. (Nearly 80 North American railroads/ways used Pacifics, but very few are covered in the article at present, so there's lots more potential contributions that can be added.)
About the blah photo that you keep on replacing with a picture of a locomotive in the snow:
1. It is an excellent illustration of the 4-6-2 wheel arrangement.
2. The locomotive depicted is pertinently mentioned in the article.
André Kritzinger 00:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me, Monsieur André — I didn't realize locomotive wheel arrangements were such a serious, scholarly matter, in which the unlearned should not meddle.

By the way, is there a reason you're (apparently) not a registered User?

Sca (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The copyright position regarding that file is unclear. It's at flickr with an all-rights-reserved tag and a date of February 1948, with no clear author attribution. Assuming that the photographer died just after they took this picture, it goes out of copyright in March 2018. Ning-ning (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I own the photo — it was given to me by my mother years ago — and I am the one who put it on Flickr, where my screen name is BroGuggs. The photo was one of two taken by a (to me) unknown photographer in February 1948, in Carrington, N.D. It shows the locomotive standing in front of the NP Depot, with my grandfather -- who was station agent -- in the background. I made it "all rights reserved" on Flickr because that is my practice there with family photos, to prevent them from being picked up and used commercially.

BTW, my grandfather worked for the NP for more than 50 years, retiring in Jamestown, N.D. He died in 1964. The original print of the photo in question is now in my son's possession. The image has become something of an icon in our extended family. The original of the other photo, which shows a side view of the locomotive, is somewhere in my 96-year-old Mom's stuff.

I like the photo not only for family reasons, but because it shows, from all the ice on the loc', how cold it got in N.D. in those days ("bitter cold," as Grandpa used to say). Notice also that it shows snow streaking across the page. Very evocative of a hard, proud life, in my opinion.

Sca (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Oaky, so the file's in copyright, the copyright being vested in the "unknown photographer" of 1948 or their heirs. Ning-ning (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Chances of a copyright claim on a photo taken in a small town 64 years ago are virtually nil. Sca (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what you've done is upload a photo to Flickr, tagged it with "All Rights Reserved" and a date of 1948, then transferred it to Wikipedia with a CC3 licence and a claim to be the copyright holder. That's going to attract the attention of the Wikipedia "image police"... Ning-ning (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_24#File:NP_Pacific.jpg Sort it properly or delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ต้นฉบับมิกาโดใหม่และแปซิฟิคใหม่.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

{{CN}} tag and {{more footnotes needed}}

I've added the above tags because it appears there are large swaths of the article that go unreferenced. I've opened this thread as a courtesy if anyone wants to engage in discussion or has concerns about these tags. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)