Jump to content

Talk:4-8-8-4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with Union Pacific Big Boy

[edit]

Given that the only examples of this class are the UP Big Boys why do we have two articles?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes -- Because the Big Boy is the only example of the 4884 arrangement and the wheel arrangement is an integral part of this locomotive and vital to understanding the function of this unique locomotive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.142.100 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No -- as has been mentioned, they are two different things. The information about other railroads that considered buying 4-8-8-4s would not fit on the 'Big Boy' article, and the Big Boy class specifics (gauge, leading wheel diameter, etc) would not fit on the '4-8-8-4' page. 91.110.70.125 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No -- the 4-8-8-4 was used significantly, but perhaps not exclusively, by Union Pacific, per the article. If the wheel arrangement isn't fully one and the same with a model of engine, they must remain separate...Cesium 133 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but there are others around the World"-- even if that's true (is it?) no need for a separate article just about UP's engines. There's a 4-6-6-4 article; are people demanding a dozen separate articles about UP's 4-6-6-4s and NP's and WP's and D&H's and DRGW's etc etc?
But probably UP's 4-8-8-4s were the only ones, so it's extra crazy to demand two articles on one class of engines. Do you want an article on 4-4-6-4s, and another article on the PRR Q2, which was the only 4-4-6-4? Likewise with 6-4-4-6 and PRR S1? Likewise with 4-6-4-4 and PRR Q1? Tim Zukas (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the 6-4-4-6 article.
"A 6-4-4-6 is a locomotive with wheels in four groups: a group of six, followed by two groups of four and another group of six. So far only one has been built: see the article on the Pennsylvania Railroad S1."
That tells everything there is to know about the 6-4-4-6, except for the stuff that the S1 article should cover. A shoo-in for Good Article status. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think there should be a 4-8-8-4 article "stating wheel arrangement and equivalent European classification", and a separate 4-6-6-4 article "stating wheel arrangement and equivalent European classification", and a 4-4-4-4 article "stating wheel arrangement and equivalent European classification"... and thirty or forty more such articles, none of which discusses the actual engines? Tim Zukas (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should figure out what the discussion is about before commenting. What you didn't understand is that you'll be going off topic, from wheel arrangements to the big boy or vice versa? Even if some of those wheel arrangement articles lack information now doesn't mean it won't be found later. Here is a little article demonstrates good set up in my opinion; 2-6-6-4. You should probably also read the 4-4-4-4 article, it does mention something about the locomotives. Someone also needs to correct the merger tags. I think you missed this part too

--Rent A Troop (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if some of those wheel arrangement articles lack information now doesn't mean it won't be found later."
There is no more information to be found about the wheel arrangements. There's plenty of info to be found about the locomotives, and it belongs in the articles about the locomotives. An article about a wheel arrangement, with nothing about the locomotives of that wheel arrangement, will be two or three sentences long. An article about the Whyte system and other notations, listing all known wheel arrangements-- that makes sense. But individual three-sentence articles about each rail arrangement that ever existed are utterly pointless. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the 2-6-6-4 article is fine-- because it doesn't limit itself to three sentences about the wheel arrangement. A 4-8-8-4 article that went beyond three sentences could only be duplicating material that belongs in the "Big Boy" article. In other words, a 2-6-6-4 article makes sense and a 4-8-8-4 article doesn't because only UP had 4-8-8-4s, while several railroads had 2-6-6-4s. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a some what interesting idea to merge the 2 articles for reading efficiency, but I'm standing by my original viewpoints. In my opinion with the 2 articles merged it would place 2 separate topics into one article despite the currently limited information of the 4-8-8-4 article. --Rent A Troop (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the merger tags to better reflect the on going process of voting for the proposed merger. --Rent A Troop (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Locomotive

[edit]

There isn't just the Union Pacific Big Boy which has a wheel arrangement of 4-8-8-4, there is also the Baldwin Baldwin DR-12-8-1500/2 Centipede which is a diesel locomotive. [This is my first time ever writing anything on Wikipedia] Kazakstan192 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whyte wheel arrangements do not apply to diesel locomotives. BudgieJane (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whyte-style wheel arrangement designations are sometimes used in talking about electric locomotives: I have seen a published statement to the effect that the R-1 was the Pennsylvania Railroad's only 4-8-4. And there were 4-8-8-4 (perhaps more commonly described as 2DD2) electric locomotives: General Electric's "Little Joe" type, for instance, originally built for the Soviet Union and subsequently operated by two U.S. and one Brazilian railroad. 174.3.201.191 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4-8-8-4&oldid=1197035628"