Talk:Steam locomotive/Archive 1

Archive 1

My edits

A well constructed and interesting article, but I found some of the language rather strange, sounded like it was a translation, so I reworded some small parts. The article started out with British terminology with (US:equivalent in brackets) and finished the other way around. I have no particular preference but thought a encyclopedic article should be consistant so changed the later references to the same form (Left one reference to "truck" where it pertained to a US loco). There was also a variation in tense between present and past when describing features of engines. I took the view that generally features should be described in the present tense as these features still exist on current steam locos. There was also a variation is spelling between US and UK, again the convention is to retain whatever the initial article used, I didn't actually check that, but most of the article was using US spelling so I converted the few exceptions to US as well - which of course seems contray to the UK vs US terminology standardised above! Oh well, each are internally consistant now! There are probably other changes which I've forgotten.
I note the todo list mentions adding other non US examples, and I agree it is very much about UK vs US practice without mentioning how things were done across the majority of the world :-). There are many areas that need expansion (eg super-heated vs saturated steam is mentioned but the actual difference isn't described, ie what is super-heated steam and why is it better). --AGoon 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Moved the see-also steam examples from the Locomotive page and spell checked back to UK English to match User:Mangoe's understanding that we were using Brit English (I think it was actually 50/50 before my first edits), which also matches the terminology which is UK with US in brackets. --AGoon 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Book list doesn't = references, added "unref=yes" to TrainsWikiProject entry. I'll go through and mark bits that I think are sufficiently important or controversial to need validating with some source (feel free to add/remove citation flags and/or citations themselves. I expect the book list will cover most things but readers need a pointer rather than having to read the lot ;-). --AGoon 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rocket" replicas

Running replicas have a shorter chimney than the original, because of loading gauge restrictions. Static museum displays are made with accurate proportions. This is too much detail for the picture caption, as Mangoe has pointed out. --Moonraker88 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Appliances

• Is this section in any particular order? If no other order is meaningful should we make it alphabetic - better for contents box.
  
• Also is 'Appliances' the best description for all of these, eg are 'Headlights' an 'appliance' ?
  
• Lastly should headings all be in 'title case' or just first word capitalised?

--AGoon 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the items, particularly on the boiler, would be called "fittings". You're right about the order in the list: it appears a bit random. Headings should be first word capitalized, as suggested in WP:MSH, shouldn't they? --Moonraker88 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As the instigator of this section I prefer "Appliances" but perhaps "Fittings and appliances" would be better. The original order was a rough combination of moving from more basic to more complex and older to newer, and I think such an order makes more sense than alphabetical. But it was probably imperfect from the start, and it does seem that items have been inserted without a clear awareness of the ordering principle.

Obviously the section titles need to be capitalized properly and I shall do that forthwith. Mangoe 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical order is a good notion, as it is in context with a lot of the rest of the article. If you went with this, perhaps an (<!-- invisible -->) note to editors to explain the convention would be useful. –– Moonraker88 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical order initially sounds good, except whose/what historical order? The order in which they were added in what country? Or are we taking their first usage world wide? Or date of general usage? Perhaps need dates associated with each paragraph so people know where to insert new features. Finally what about paragraphs that cover multiple variations eg 'Braking' or 'Lubrication', surely both were used very early on (!) but the variations arrived at different dates? --AGoon 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Mangoe is only suggesting "rough" compliance with the historical timeline. Moonraker88 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. The notion is basically that it makes sense to discuss the various items roughly in the order in which they became important to locomotive design, because the growing understanding of the reader would reflect the increasing sophistication of locomotive design. It's not meant to be a rigid guide; notice, for instance, that I pushed things like headlights which are extremely ancilliary fairly late in the list, though they originated before some of the other items which are listed before them. Mangoe 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask anyone reading the article if there is any structure to the list. I'm sorry but "roughly in the order in which they became important to locomotive design" is roughly disorganised to the general (non expert) reader :-). But it's not a biggy, if that's what everyone wants .... :-) --AGoon 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. If there's a problem with the actual order we can fix it. But I think alphabetical order is the wrong way here, because this isn't an index or glossary. Mangoe 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is not what order is chosen, but that the order need be apparent to the reader. The sentence "The most typical appliances are as follows:" might imply ordered 'most to least often' installed. The idea of increasing sophistication is good but is not stated and it gets blurred by the description of each item containing a miny history of the device. --AGoon 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "applicance" is mainly/completely a US term for what in the UK would be called "boiler fittings", or more generally "fittings". At least I never heard the term until I moved to the States. Is this just another American vs. British English terminology issue? Gwernol 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would understand "appliances" to mean more than just boiler fittings. THat's part of the reason why I suggested the joint heading. Mangoe 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The UK/US suggestion by Gwernol sounds right. I don't suppose the fact that, to most UK users of a certain age, "appliance" means surgical truss will present a problem! Moonraker88 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok 'Fittings and appliances' as per Mangoe's suggestion, agreed to then? --AGoon 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Support this title. Moonraker88 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

7 december 2001 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.13.43 (talk)

Syntax and editing

This article needs a solid edit. The grammar is poor and confusing. Have started to clean it up. Hope no-one gets put out. Tonyob 13:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lubrication: I've reverted in a few places, where the sense has been lost. EG: oil reservoirs don't feed pipes to the bearings, they feed oil; displacement lubricators aren't installed on the locomotive as it gathers speed. While agreeing that the article might benefit from a bit of a tidy, and really respecting your intentions to improve it, I can't see how your changes to this particular section (or your sweeping verdict on its grammar) represents a change for the better! Other regular contributors to the page will, I'm sure, hit the "diff" for comparison and make up their own minds.--Old Moonraker 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is adding the tabulated results of the famous New York Central steam-versus-Diesel trials OK?

I have the table, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_Niagara

Ozsteamtrain 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can, of course be bold and just add it. --Michael Johnson 08:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, quite true, but I always ask! Ozsteamtrain (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

"A steam locomotive is a locomotive powered by steam."

And I thought it was a superheated locomotive that got so hot it went directly from being a solid to gas, or a "steam"!

Seriously, couldn't we try for a bit of variation, such as, "A steam locomotive is a railway engine employing steam power," or some such?

Sca 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit obvious, isn't it? However it does allow direct wikilinking to the two most important terms in the article! A re-write would be wise, but must retain these wikilinks somewhere.

EdJogg 16:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it a few days ago, and I hope the result is acceptable. A steam locomotive is not powered by "steam," as in the previous wording. Steam is only one phase of the working fluid in a steam engine. KarlWK 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl, your suggestion, while better, still sounds a bit "clunky": A steam locomotive is a locomotive powered by a steam engine

Uh...the power is provided by the steam itself. The steam gets it's power from the fire. Your definition sounds like there's another engine in there, which supplies some means of powering the wheels (say, in a turbine-electric, like the Jawn Henry)

How's this as an alternative?

"A steam locomotive is a self- propelling device that uses the power of steam to impart a turning force to it's driving wheels and thus haul a train".

This allows for turbine locomotives as well as piston ones. I *think* it'll be OK with the Wiki definitions.

What say others?

--Ozsteamtrain 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried just replacing 'self-propelled device' with locomotive, but on reading that article, realised that most of the remaining sentence was redundant (that's why we have wikilinks!).

So, how about:

A steam locomotive is a locomotive that uses steam under pressure as its power source.

This also encompasses fireless locomotives!

EdJogg (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Tongue In Cheek) A steam locomotive is any locomotive that uses pressurised steam as its power source.

--Ozsteamtrain (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is 'pressurised steam' the same as 'steam under pressure'? Is either term more obvious to the average reader? EdJogg (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition I provided is technically correct. Unfortunately, the word "engine" is a bit overused in English. Many railroad enthusiasts use the word "engine" interchangeably with "locomotive," and the dictionaries acknowledge this. However, the general dictionary definition of "engine" is a machine that converts energy into mechanical force or motion. A reader following the existing link to "steam engine" will find in the first sentence there a link to "heat engine" which makes this clear.

The assertion "the power is provided by the steam itself" is iffy. The power is actually provided by the burning of fuel. The steam is used for energy conversion and transmission.

Ozsteamtrain's proposed alternative simply expands the word "locomotive" and "steam engine" to in-line text, but the existing wiki links do this more succinctly. Looking at the article on "steam engine," one finds this definition already include turbines, jet, etc., making the current wording more generic than the one proposed. Further, the proposed definition ties "locomotive" to railroads, when in fact it has alternate meanings, as demonstrated by the wiki article on "locomotive" linked in the current definition, and mentioned in the very next sentence in this article as well. Changing the tongue in check definition to a steam locomotive uses pressurised steam to propel itself is one way to avoid the technically correct term "steam engine," but I don't find it very satisfying.

-- KarlWK (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of a steam locomotive is a locomotive directly propelled by its steam engine? An earlier suggestion could be made more concise as a steam locomotive utilizes pressurized steam for propulsion, but this is still not so precise. Other suggestions?

-- KarlWK (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Water gin

I believe that gin in the sense of device (from engine) is sufficiently distant from gin in the sense of Aboriginal wife (Aboriginal language) to remove "racist connotations [not]withstanding" from the text without fear of offence. See this edit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Superheating

"Superheating increased the tractive effort of a modified locomotive over its prior saturated condition." I don't see how superheating could increase the tractive effort. 82.21.65.109 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tractive effort is a function of: cylinder bore and stoke, boiler pressure and wheel diameter; so you are right, it is not affected by superheating. Results to be expected are increased efficiency, and therefore, for the same grate loading, increased power. What are the credentials of the cited source (Frank M Swengel)? Bill F 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Frank Swengel and his qualifications. I've cited him in the article using his comprehensive book The American Steam Locomotive. According to his book he was born (1914-?)in Illinios USA. He was a mechanical engineer, a member of the Society of Mechanical Engineers, member of National Society of Professional Engineers, and was a Vice President and Consulting Mechanical Engineer for a company. Apparently he had considerable exposure to steam and diesel locomotives. Tonyob 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Article reverted in accord with suggestion by Bill F --Old Moonraker 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Please revert the article BACK again, guys...you've forgotten the fundamentals of steam locomotives, namely Mean Effective Pressure being always higher in superheated engines. Superheating a steam locomotive will "increase" the tractive effort, though sometimes not the locomotive's starting tractive effort; it almost always increases it's continuous tractive effort.

Starting tractive effort is the maximum load any locomotive can haul away from a standing start.

Continuous tractive effort refers to the tractive effort once the train has been started and is now moving. Mostly, Continuous tractive effort will be higher (sometime MUCH higher) with superheated steam than with saturated steam. I say mostly, because there were some TRULY heroic failures on this point, and Andre Chapelon was one to study the reasons for these failures.

Why is a superheated engine deemed to have a greater starting tractive effort? Simple:The equation for tractive effort uses MEAN EFFECTIVE PRESSURE for determining Tractive Effort, NOT FULL BOILER PRESSURE. In a simple expansion engine, the following formula is used:

$TE={\frac {N\times D^{2}\times S\times P}{2W}}$

Where:

TE= Tractive Effort (measured in pounds), usually starting tractive effort unless specified otherwise

N= number of cylinders

D=cylinder diameter, in inches

S= cylinder stroke, in inches

P= MEAN EFFECTIVE PRESSURE, taken at 70% of boiler pressure in saturated engines and 85% of boiler pressure in superheated engines, in pounds per square inch (PSI)

W= diameter of driving wheels, in inches

Mean Effective Pressure is the "average" (more properly, the mean) of the pressure exerted on the piston face by the steam, which will start high, and drop off as the piston travels through it's full motion. The Mean Effective Pressure is always expressed as a percentage of Full Boiler Pressure. When using saturated steam a figure of 70% of full boiler pressure is used when calculating starting tractive effort, whereas with superheated steam, the factor is 85% of full boiler pressure. This figure is related to the way that superheated engines tended to have larger steam passageways and a lower back pressure. The ratio of expansion (so critical to Mean Effective Pressure) is also always higher in a Superheated Engine.

Reference: pages 12 to 26, Chapter 2 Steam Locomotive Design: Data and Formulae by EA Phillipson published in 1936. (and one of my favourite books!) Those who have driven steam locomotives (as I have) will note that "steam chest pressure" (the pressure of the steam just before it enters the cylinders, in the steam chests of the slide or piston valve assemblies) is always lower than the boiler pressure. In some miniature locomotives, the steam chest pressure is about 35% of the full boiler pressure.

One of the reasons that Andre Chapelon was able to effect such miraculous changes to his rebuilt engines was that he understood the ratio of expansion (and, hence Mean Effective Pressure) better than any of his contemporaries. His engines had truly enormous ratios of expansion, not just because they superheating elements which were larger and less torturous than the engines before they were rebuilt, which "expanded" the steam to greater volumes, but also because the locomotives had higher continuous steam chest pressures thus giving unbelievably high power, better than anything else then seen. If the research he'd started had been allowed to continue, the diesels would have been given a proper run for their money. His rebuilt 4-8-4 (the 242-A1) was more powerful than the electric locomotives which were being built to replace it, much to the embarrassment of the French railway authorities. It is said this is one of the reasons they hurriedly scrapped this most astonishing of steam locomotives. Ozsteamtrain 14:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is partly covered at Steam locomotive#Performance, later in the article, but Ozsteamtrain's point about the effective pressure delivered at the cylinder under superheated conditions isn't: a blanket figure of 85% of boiler pressure is given. If changes are to be made, editors will need to ensure that the two paragraphs complement and not contradict one another. --Old Moonraker 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the tractive effort will be lower if the Mean Effective Pressure in the cylinders is at 70% of the boiler pressure. This is what happens in a saturated steam locomotive. If the locomotive is a superheated one, the Mean Effective Pressure in the cylinders is taken at 85% of the Boiler Pressure. Because most American publications assume the locomotive will be superheated, they give the figure at 85% (or 0.85).

In British practice, which was followed in an awful lot of non-North-American countries, there was extensive use of saturated steam locomotives for short runs and shunting. This wasn't as bad as it sounds, as most times the runs were too short to give the superheater time to warm up. The use of saturated steam locomotives meant they had to take into consideration the factor involved in multiplying the Boiler Pressure by to get Mean Effective Pressure.

Saturated steam loses a lot of its energy to the cylinder walls when entering the cylinders, and also loses thermal energy to the walls of the passageways to and from the valves (called "clearance volumes"). This loss of energy is from the steam getting cooled, hence the steam's volume shrinks slightly. When the volume of the steam shrinks, the pressure of the steam (which is 100% dependent on the temperature) also drops. This is why the saturated steam locomotive has a lower Mean Effective Pressure in it's cylinders. A superheated engine has more thermal energy present in the steam as it enters the valve chests. This extra energy is supplied from the superheater. As a result, when superheated steam enters the clearance volumes and cylinders, the steam still loses the same amount of energy, but because it has a higher thermal energy, there's less shrinkage of the volume of the steam and thus more energy left to push the piston back and forth.

In short, a saturated steam locomotive has a lower calculated tractive effort than a superheated locomotive. I hope I haven't belaboured the point too much.

Note #1. Clearance Volumes on steam locomotives' cylinders could demand entire books on the subject. The relatively large clearance volumes in a steam locomotive are one of the reasons why they are less overall efficient than a diesel. There are ways around this problem, such as poppet valves, but few had the opportunity to be tried before steam was scrapped. If this "problem" had been resolutely tackled, the steam locomotive would have had a much better chance against the diesel.

Note #2. The thermal losses in the clearance volumes is one of the reasons for the invention of the Uniflow Engine [1]. The Skinner Engine company did a great deal of research into the "uniflow problem", especially for ship's steam engines. Any discussion on "saturated versus superheated" merits and demerits as applied to a steam locomotives, especially invloving the tractive efforts thereof, MUST involve an intimate understanding of Uniflow thermodynamics as versus counterflow thermodynamics. Normal steam locomotives use counterflow cylinders.

--Ozsteamtrain 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (Edited because of spelling...grrr...)

The above is a clear and persuasive account of the benefits of superheating. The seeming conflict may stem from the most common use of "tractive effort" to mean tractive effort at start (See Steam locomotive#Performance again) whereas Ozsteamtrain is specifically talking about continuous tractive effort. Now he/she has established the definitions, getting the phrasing right (and improving accuracy) should be possible.

There has been long-standing and justified criticism of the superheating paragraph in Boiler and there might now be an opportunity to sort this out as well. --Old Moonraker 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "he", sorry!

The benefits of superheating are many, it is true, but if the length of run the locomotive is to do is short (say, less than a mile; 1.6 km) and then stands still for a while (shunting locomotives do this all the time), the superheater simply won't have time to warm up. This is why in British practice, shunting locomotives (switchers in the US) were rarely fitted with superheaters. The superheater thus works best when the locomotive is worked hard. Given the increased tractive effort effect kicks in when the superheater is warm, there's a quandary about whether the locomotive should be given it's saturated tractive effort at cold, or whether the run from the depot to the yard to couple to the train is enough to warm the superheater up enough to consider it to be working in the superheated phase. One, the saturated phase, will give you a lower tractive effort than the other, the superheated phase. Myriad are the accounts of sluggish steamers until they warmed through.

The above superheated/saturated complexity is why steam locomotives were and remain a repellant puzzle for the modern "Nintendo-type" engineer, as I have heard them described. A diesel is easier to figure out and to predict what it will do if you change this or that piece. A steam locomotive not so - it really is more than the sum of it's parts, and has been described as more organic in nature than mechanical. Alter one bit and the rest now is altered, too. There will be those who describe this characteristic of the steam locomotive as "tail-chasing".

It should be noted that this very characteristic is the one I actually like most about steam. If one adopts a "I wanna learn" approach to steam, it'll be your life-long friend. If you approach steam locomotives as "I-Have-To-Bash-This-Thing-Into-Submission" it will defeat your every attempt.

--Ozsteamtrain 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LORDY that entire "superheating" section needs a re-write. I've just read it and - while factually correct - the section is put together is such a way as it makes litle to no sense. Sorry to the original author(s). I'll try to get around to this in the next few days.

--Ozsteamtrain 13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote the entire superheater section, I think I've improved it...--Ozsteamtrain (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's much better, but I just stumbled onto this article and I find the entire superheating discussion to be very very long. I suspect that the specific details of superheating might be better as a separate article, with a brief overview in this article. The length and level of detail is such that it is easy to forget what topic you are reading about! There's certainly enough material for a separate article - and a brief overview here would really improve this page's flow. Davidlwilliamson (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point: The relevant article has much less detail and what there is needs a re-write. Because Ozsteamtrain has put in so much effort here it might be a good idea to await his comments, but it does seem logical to transfer the material, with a "see main article" template. While we are at it, the "superheater" section of Boiler seems misleading in some respects and could be dealt with in the same way. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rising up (as the Irish say)

Hello, nice to see so many familiar names. I just found this article today and "rose up" immediately I saw this opening sentence. Before barging in and editing willy-nilly, I had a look at the discussion - good job I did! I really don't think the latest solution is at all satisfactory, precisely because the locomotive in question is not driven by a steam engine: it is a steam engine built to displace itself and other things with it. Don't forget that the word locomotive strictly means "is capable of changing it's position", therefore as a noun it is meaningless; originally when applied to this type of machine, the word was an adjective and part of the full early 19th Century term: "locomotive engine". That said, I don't see any obvious way out of this conundrum without coming in from a completely different angle.--John of Paris (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Rising up" again

Referring back to the discussion above on the use of "brilliant" It's the first I have heard of L.D. Porta "designing" the Class 26 Red Devil. It was a heavy rebuild of an existing locomotive carried out by David Wardale in close consultation with Livio Porta, mostly by letter (see Wardale, David: The Red Devil and other tales from the age of steam. Published by the author, Inverness, Scotland ISBN 0-9529998-0-3.) The credit for this loco should go well and truly to David Wardale and his close adherence to Porta's methods was the intelligent way forward and the key to success. That said, Wardale was and is very much his own man; I understand that one of his big disagreements with Porta was on the subject of the value of compounding. In this respect, I feel that this WP article suggests that compounding was just a stage in the development of the steam locomotive that superheating rendered unnecessary. This is historically incorrect as it does not take into account the work of Chapelon and others, including Porta who recommended compounding combined either with high superheat or superheat plus re-superheat for the low pressure stage. One more thing, so long as the temperature is below supercritical level, which it always is in a Stephensonian steam locomotive, there is always some water content in the steam, so the 100% dryness fraction advanced here seems doubtful to me (Another "first": it's the first time I've seen a percentage described as a "fraction" — but perhaps I'm being a little pedantic here).--John of Paris (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing a video is not always advertising rather it is evidence

G'day all readers. I was concerned by Gwernol edit and deletions on the South African section on the demise of steam. In historical writings, its appropiate to cite a film or video as evidence, especially where that film or video is recording an historical event. To refer to a South African video that recorded the last years of revenue service of steam locomotives is not of itself advertising; rather it is a verifable historical document, as much verifable as a photo, a primary newspaper article or book.

The Natal narow-gauge Garratts in the sub-article were called "toy" garratts. This expression existed in South Africa and is also cited in written sources see, Jorgensen & Lewis, The Great Steam Trek, Struiker, Cape Town, 1978, pp. 160-161; so why delete the term?

Other comments regarding a modified Class 19 and 25 were deleted.

I would like to rework some of the almost non-existant South African - demise of steam, plus some verifable video sources and texts. The last years of steam, in S.A. were historically important as they encompassed some of the high points in steam technologies. I hope there are no major objections as to how I word it. But happy to discuss with others before proceeding with alterations. Tonyob 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I agree that the demise of South African steam is an important topic. I'm not sure its one that should be covered in depth in this article though. There is already a Rail transport in South Africa article that needs serious improvement. That's probably the right place to go into more detail on this subject. It should of course be mentioned in this article.

On the specific paragraph you wrote:

An oil embargo combined with an abundance of cheap local coal prompted South Africa to continue using steam locomotives into the 1990s. In South Africa, a series of changes to a Class 25 (4-8-4),
saw the birth of a brilliant engine, the Class 26 "Red Devil", based on L.D.Porta's modifications. The modified engine's overall
performance improved, while its coal consumption decreased as did its water requirements.
The locomotive operated until the end of steam.
In that same country, in southern Natal, on the Banana Express route, a (2 ft)narrow gauged "toy" NGG Garratt also
received an L.D.Porta conversion.
Several South African steam videos covering the final period 1983-1990
are available internationally with considerable footage of a modified Class 19, the 'Red Devil' in its various colour schemes and the "toy" garratt.

Phrases like "brilliant engine" should not be used, since they are a point of view. The rewritten paragraph contains the same basic content:

In South Africa an oil embargo combined with an abundance of cheap local coal prompted the use of steam locomotives into the 1990s.
Locomotive engineer L. D. Porta's designed the class 26 "Red Devil" which demonstrated an improved overall performance
with decreased coal and water consumption.
The single class 26 locomotive operated until the end of steam.
In southern Natal a 24 gauge NGG Garratt also received the L. D. Porta modifications.

The only substantial difference is the removal of the last sentence. As you say, videos can be used as a citation but that's not what you did here. To cite a video you can use the {{cite video}} template to cite a specific video that supports a specific point you are writing about. Saying that there are unidentified videos that show South African steam operations in their final years is not the same thing.

Finally, on the point of calling the Garratts "toy"s this is true. In fact a number of narrow gauge railways have received this designation, famously the Ffestiniog Railway and the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway. I just don't think its necessary to add this sobriquet here; it doesn't seem to do anything to the paragraph except diminish those fine locomotives. If you're going to use it, it should be made clear that it is a nickname, as the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway does in its lead.

Best, Gwernol 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

--

While I agree that citing a video is not the best of evidentiary standards, the "Red Devil" was a locomotive that nearly defied belief. To pick just a few examples - before the rebuild, the locomotive had about 2,200 hp (depending on source) in the cylinders. After rebuilding, the horsepower was around the 5,500 hp in the cylinders. The fuel consumption savings on the rebuild was of the order of 60%. The water consumption savings were of the order of 40%. The use of Herdner Starting Valves allowed 100% of the stroke to be under full Mean Effective Pressure, and thus vastly increasing the starting tractive effort. I, certainly, would call such improvements "brilliant".

If the word "brilliant" is not allowed to be used, how does one describe such an astonishingly good improvement? Please recall, this has to be immediately intelligible to anyone, so "brilliant" is certainly an easily understood word, if used a little too often.--Ozsteamtrain 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you, as a Wikipedia editor, cannot describe anything as "brilliant", as this is a pov. You can quote a publication that describes the improvement as "brilliant". You can even go out a write an article, and get it published, then we can use that article as a source. See the difference? --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

--

Included line breaks to make the above more readable--Ozsteamtrain (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins

I am unhappy about the "Origins" section of this article!

I feel the the author(s) should have taken more account of material like you find in "the Puffing Devil" section of the Richard Trevithick article. eg re information on the work of Ferdinand Verbiest, Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot and William Murdoch. Also info on Trevithick's "Puffing Devil" and "London Steam Carriage". I don't feel competent to do the editing myself. 23 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.59.125 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, but I am inclined to disagree with you!

The 'Origins' section DOES need work, but the history of steam engines is better covered on the steam engine (and related) pages. Rather than have an utterly inadequate cut-down 'potted history' here, this section should concentrate on the first attempts to apply steam power to rail-borne travel.

So, I shall do just that...

EdJogg (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, do we really need this section at all? Would not the blue links already there be sufficient if placed at the end of the first definition paragraph? WP is full enough of articles that duplicate themselves and this one's getting seriously bloated (No thanks to me, I know but we have to inflate a bit more it to be able to deflate it IMO).--John of Paris (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section describe the history of the steam locomotive itself? The blue link deals with the history of rail transport, which is a much wider topic. EdJogg (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is surely long enough as it is. Should we not start a new one on the history of the steam locomotive? - An enormous and fascinating story, especially if on a worldwide scale. This one should deal with the basic issues IMO, and serve as a glossary of technical terms that is lacking, or so it seems to me, in WP.--John of Paris (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you've found yourself a 'next project' :o)

Certainly there is scope for a separate article in due course, although my reference material would not be able to do it justice.

EdJogg (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Inside motion

It wasn't as inaccessible as is often believed especially with British locomotives from the 1880s which had quite a bit of clearance underneath the boiler and before the years of H&S, crews did not hesitate to go out onto the running board to observe the motion in action and if necessary drop a little oil on a warm bearing or a slide. (Been looking for the reference but can't lay my hand on it this evening).--John of Paris (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wood burners and their smokestack

I keep having to revert this persistent edit referring to "diamond-shaped smokestacks" in the Fuel and water section for two reasons: i) there is already a section dealing with the issue of spark arresting, ii) because it is just untrue - these smokestacks came in many different forms. Furthermore, the aim was not to "retard the sparks", but rather to accelerate them and lengthen their path inside the arrestor; in that way the embers burnt themselves out and became inoffensive. In older models they and broken up against a a cone-shaped plate at the chimney orifice, deflected downwards and allowed to float up through a screen. Later models set up a swirling motion inside the stack that was far more effective. I have tried to cover this in section 3.5 - Spark arrestor and self cleaning smokebox. If anyone feels that this need enlarging upon, then of course can be done , but please no more edits of this kind in section 2.5 - Fuel and water.--John of Paris (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Superheating section

This needs to be no more than one third of its present length. Perhaps Ozsteamtrain could take care of this or if he needs help we could offer to give him a hand.--John of Paris (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Recalling John of Paris's pithy but wholly justified view of the superheating section on boilers, might there be a home for some of the material there? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bulk of it go into superheater?? EdJogg (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this would need a lot of rewriting; also the article deals with wider aspects of superheating beyond the locomotive field (and there's probably a disproportionate amount of text on that already). For instance in a Doble-type contraflow monotube boiler, superheating is not done by a separate component but takes place in the section of the tube spiral nearest the burner. In the new Cyclone engine[2], the two processes: steam production and superheating take place in rapid succession in the same coil, so I would imagine it would not be easy to say (or worth worrying about) where the one ends and the other begins. There are lots of similar cases in water tube boilers, about which I for one know little - it may be better to create a specific and separate firetube superheater article.--John of Paris (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The current "Superheating" section is very poorly written, IHMO. It lacks proper sourcing for almost everything written there and needs a compete rewrite to bring it up to the standards expected of an encyclopedia. The first sentence alone: "Aspects of superheating as applied to steam locomotives could fill entire libraries, but here is a summary" is just horrible. Unless someone is prepared to rewrite this and source it adequately, I suggest it be moved out of the article into a sandbox until it can be substantially improved. Gwernol 10:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --John of Paris (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the whole section to: Talk:Steam locomotive/Superheating. It should be improved there and once it is in (much) better shape, it can be moved back into the body of the article. Best, Gwernol 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boiler image

Should anyone have a use for it: Image:Locomotive boiler sectioned.jpg. 1923, English, simple side-on sectioned loco boiler. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Performance (Measurement)

Again a fine example of US propaganda: "British railway companies have been reluctant to disclose figures for drawbar horsepower and have usually relied on continuous tractive effort instead." Reluctant? See- for example - O.S. Nock, The Premier Line, London 1952: it is (apart from interesting details of the construction) literally full with tables showing either clocked runs and indicated horsepower. Where did the figures come from - if not from the rwy companìes?? By the way, the use of dynamometer cars was established in the UK and Europe long before it was in the US! What was the intention of the quoted sentence above? US engines are the best, the greatest, the fastest; Americans are the best, the greatest .. the fastest .. One has only to view the claimed but never comfirmed "world records" for steam engines and whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.34.16 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Isn't the hatnote for this article much too specific? Coal-hauling trains have much wider usage than just the Powder River Basin; if such a disambiguation is necessary at all, it should be broad enough to encompass mention of things like the UK's 'thousand-tonne flyer' coal trains and the like. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hopes of revival"

In this chapter refurbishments of english locos are mentioned. It should be said that there is a specialized german workshop of the german railway comp which is used as a permanent "competence center" to refurbish steam locos, their boilers etc. from all over the world. This company is situated in Meiningen. It is a "big deal" and important for a lot of railway friends chapters to keep their steam locos running, related also to actual safety standards. See Meiningen Steam Locomotive Works. --23:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.242.26 (talk)

my guess is that you should add it and see what happens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.182.219 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jerkwater

I don't think this explanation of jerkwater is correct. I think it came from trains using the track pans to scoop or "jerk" water without stopping, which is what led to the term "jerkwater town," i.e. a town not important enough to merit a stop. I can't imagine people filling an engine boiler bucket by bucket. Brian 2/2/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.5.145 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coins section

I added mention of the Utah state quarter to this section. I figured that was a pretty big omission for a section about coins that honor the steam locomotive. However, I'm not sure this section is appropriate, as it's a tangent issue not central to the article itsself. Should this section be wiped out? Or perhaps made more generic as a section that discusses modern tributes to the technology? Or fine as is? Dave (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Drury's Guide

I wonder why George H. Drury's "Guide to North American Steam Locomotive - History and development of steam power since 1900" is not mentioned as a source. In the GER WP it is one of the literature references. The book contains excellent explanations to the technical circumstances, to nearly all loco types and railway company needs. -- 80.145.249.64 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Locomotive diagram accuracy

I'm concerned about the accuracy of some diagrams recently added. I've started a discussion thread at WikiProject Trains#Locomotive diagram quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Main image

Perhaps that the best image to use as a steamlocomotive is one of the Kriegslokomotive. These were mass-produced and very cost-efficient. 91.182.198.88 (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd incline to a modern colour image of a late 19th century outside cylinder tender loco, with an attractive colour scheme. This would be relatively simple in appearance, so the various components are clearly distinct and visible (i.e. the dome is obviously tall, not a squashed pancake).

Many recent German locos are nice though, as those bright red frames show up a lot of running gear details that are hard to see on a dark-painted loco. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Welded tubes?

I think that the description of "a hollow bundle of parallel tubes...welded to the front of the boiler" is incorrect. According to Jacob G. Arnold Meyer in Modern Locomotive Construction, 1904, the tubes are simply expanded in the holes in the tube sheet, and may further be surrounded by tapered ferrules and beaded over, but not welded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Standpipe

I made an edit to this article on 31 May 2007, but it was swept away rather quickly along with some fuel information. I had added the notion that a standpipe, not just a water tower, can be used for steam locomotive water supply at railroad stations. There is still a reference to standpipes in a photo caption in the article. I recommend that standpipe be restored to the article under fuel and water supply, and it should be provided an internal link to the standpipe (disambiguation) article. Someone might want to take a look at the fuel information that was lost in that edit, too. --Pat (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, standpipe does not really describe what a standpipe is, from a railway perspective, so it was not possible to incorporate it into the revised text. Perhaps if a sub-section of water crane were added to describe what they are, how they were used, and how they differed from supply systems that used a dedicated water tower to maintain pressure.

Your edit was valuable in highlighting a hole in the article -- provision of water -- and my edit increased the size of the coverage many-fold. As for the fuel information, none was 'swept away'. If you check carefully, the text was re-written and expanded. Since then, my edits have been changed substantially too...

The photo-caption reference to standpipes is unfortunate (for reasons described above). But it has highlighted the fact that there is duplication in the article concerning water provisioning, which needs to be resolved in due course.

EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No entry in glossary?

The term 'standpipe' has been added as an alternative name for water crane, although there is no redirect by that name to that article. (Standpipe already exists as a dab page, and now links to water crane noting it as the UK usage for the name.)

Is this another 'UK vs US' or 'US vs rest-of-world' terminology difference? I looked at the UK, US, and general rail terminology glossaries, and neither term is mentioned on any of the pages, which would seem to be an omission. -- EdJogg (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Garden steam trains

Perhaps that garden steam trains can be mentioned, ie at "Hopes of revival", or In Popular culture. See http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/486644-where-can-you-buy-kids-ride-train-garden.html , http://www.maxitrak.co.uk/ , http://www.rideonrailways.co.uk/products/index.html 91.182.175.107 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on garden railways, but these are mostly 32mm or 45mm gauge and electrically powered (LGB etc), so it's better balanced to just call them "railways" than to refer to their locomotive type. It's also more about the railway than the loco.

The larger gauge lines that are more commonly used for steam power and steam haulage are 3½" gauge, 5" gauge and thereabouts. Few gardens can accomodate one of these. Our present coverage is mostly under live steam, but we could certainly have a fork of this into the 2½"—7¼" range. This is the band between garden railways and the miniature railways of 10¼" and upwards. Although our current article of Ridable miniature railway goes from 1'8" to 2½", this is too broad. 7¼ is an overlap, but really there's little in common between the ground-laid miniature railways at the larger scale and the usually elevated display tracks for locomotive models of the smaller scales, even when they're ridable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Something should be listed that would make reference to The Polar Express, a newer book but nevertheless having a huge impact on pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane26510 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article has multiple instances of incorrect info, descriptions referring to different national practices not being noted as such and sloppy or imprecise language. It reads as if it was written by enthusiasts rather than experts (not a criticism, just an observation). e.g. 'bunch of tubes', _working_ level of water is _not_ in the top nut (far too high - leading to possibility of priming), firebox not only made of steel (traditionally steel or copper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.96.138 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic query

In the paragraph 'Running Gear': < Two drive axles had a lower reciprocating mass than three, four, five, or six coupled axles. They were thus able to turn very high speeds due to the lower reciprocating mass. >

I'm sure I don't understand why two axles have a lower reciprocating mass than 3,4,5 axles do. More axles seem to me (but I may have missed the point) to require only more rotating wheels, more crankpins (rotating) and more coupling rods (also rotating).

86.183.9.238 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That whole para is rubbish. Whilst it might be true that "axles were added to reduce axle loading until acceptable" for late US practice some time in the '30s, this is certainly not the case decades earlier, when the Atlantic was first developed.

I'm more familiar with UK practice than US. In the UK, most locomotives in the late 19th century were broadly either six-coupled goods engines or single driver express passenger locos. The Atlantic grew from adding a second driver to the passenger loco single tradition, not by changing the axle count of the coupled goods engines. The goods engines were 0-6-0s, because they were intended to put all of their adhesion weight onto useful drivers. Earlier examples (Bury) had been 0-4-0, the LNWR also used many 0-8-0. Passenger locos needed speed, and good riding at speed, so used large drivers (high "gear ratio") and other carrying axles. They avoided coupled wheels, with the problems of "slogger" in imprecise rod joints at high speed. They didn't need as much adhesion or tractive effort, because they were fast, yet low power (engines were still small). Although a "Lady of the Lake" might only have a single driver and thus be at risk of slip when starting, it didn't have all that much tractive effort to offer in the first place, so its limited adhesion weight was actually adequate. This didn't become a problem until fast passenger locos were also more powerful. That in turn (at least for the LNWR & Midland) was discouraged by the continued "small engine" policies, and the preference for double-heading with small locos, rather than developing the single powerful locos that appeared in the North East. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

File:KFNB Austria.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:KFNB Austria.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Top of page diagram

The intent of the top image on the page is to provide a more or less universally recognizable depiction of the subject. For this purpose, a 4-6-2 engine would be a better choice than the 4-6-0 shown here. I will search for a good photo to use, but any help here would be much appreciated by this very new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.62.61 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How Steam Trains Heat Coaches

what they do is put a pipe running from the loco to the nearer coaches. For the further ones the have they're own boilerto heat them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.226.106 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with trains?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.226.106 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 

Vapor Pressure

Infotmation about the range of working vapour pressure will be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.80.65 (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "vapor pressure" isn't really used with steam locomotives. They have a "working pressure" which in the earliest designs was in the region of 50 pounds per square inch (345 kPa) but by the end of development in the UK (the 1950s), 250 psi (1,724 kPa) was commonplace, with some designs having higher pressures. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

End of Steam in Germany

I did an edit on the section "The end of Steam in general use" about the end of steam in Germany. Please understand, I wouldn't say it was perfect (I'm not a native speaker of English of course), but I had to say that I'm a bit dissapointed that those additions I made had been removed by Wiki-user Gareth Griffith-Jones without naming any comprehensible reason. I think it's interesting to know for the Wiki-users that there was such a big difference about phasing out steam locomotives in both German states after WWII (German Federal Republic and German Democratic Republic), so I couldn't see any violation of the Wiky-laws in my work-over on this section! Where have all the times gone when an edit was audited and reloaded instead of being removed wihtout any proper look at it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.116.132 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just too big, and in some ways too negative, to be in the top-level article for steam locomotive. This one article has to go all the way from Trevithick to LD Porta, and it has to do it in around 100k max. A section this long and this detailed is too much. This is almost too much to cover the international demise of steam post WW2.

It's a good section, but it belongs under Germany railway history and certainly it belongs in Dieselisation or whatever article(s) we have on the worldwide demise of mainline steam. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We should not summarily delete good material. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If the End of Steam section is too long, maybe it should have its own article of be merged with Dieselisation as you suggest. Until that happens, I restored the section and made a pass at cleaning up the English. It doesn't seem excessive given it really covers two countries, both with an interesting and unusual phase out, vs the typical stories which are pretty much the same, except for details on which lines were the last to go diesel.--agr (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

German builders?

It seems odd that the section on "Manufacture" contains an entry on Sweden, but none on Germany, where tens of thousands of steam locomotives were built by such firms as Henschel, Schwartzkopff, Krauss-Maffei, Borsig and others. Sca (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Steam railway

Steam railway redirects to this article. This article in my mind fails to explain what a steam railway is. Closest one gets is when one's told to also see Steam railroad, an article which cites no sources. I hope someone might know a definition for a Steam railway, as it seems to be a term thrown around quite alot. Junior Woodchuck (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like we could use an article at steam railway then. Fancy writing it?

Thinking about it, I think that title should remain a redirect but should point to History of steam railways. Again, this needs writing. The difference between a "steam railway" and a "railway" is historical. Steam railroad is, as you say, a different sub-division. We already have history of railways and also dieselisation (which needs expansion), but history of steam railways is a good enough topic to stand in its own right. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What does 'railway' mean anyway? As there's no article with that heading, creating articles with the same heading accompanied by an attributive noun can be problematic. In Wiktionary, ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/railway ) there's two meanings. Railway (disambiguation) propably needs some work first. Junior Woodchuck (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Intro photo

I've added a photo to the top of the article. I think some photo of a complete steam locomotive is needed at the lede. While there are a vast number of photos that could be used, this one is somewhat unique in that it is a high resolution (3239 by 2784) color photograph of a locomotive in actual use over a century ago, not a museum engine. There are a couple of others by the same photographer, but this has the best viewing angle for an establishing shot. Almost all other photography from that era is black and white, or low resolution.--agr (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulsating sound of a steam locomotive

I notice (in live or in films) that a steam locomotive has not only a pulsating sound when it is moving (this is obvious) but also when it is not moving, waiting in the station for instance !

Is this pulsating sound due to the steam system used in the boiler ?

--AXRL (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

perhaps the steam actuated compressor for the braking system ? --Dave Rave (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Early steam

At the top of the 3rd column on the first page of the New Orleans Bee for April 14, 1804, a steam locomotive trip is advertised by the New Orleans and Carrollton Rail Road Company between those respective destinations. I wonder why I do not see mention of these earlier uses of steam trams anywhere. Can someone enlighten me? BTW the newspaper is at news.google.com/newspapers and the link is [3] 98.227.120.112 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fairly straightforward typo - it's 1840 (as is hand annotated on it).

April 14 was a Saturday, not a Tuesday, in 1804 - but it was in 1840.

The New Orleans Bee was founded in 1827, putting the XIII edition into 1840. The railroad was founded in 1833. 82.132.230.176 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

World Steam Magazine Reference

Does anyone know World Steam Magazine? There is a parenthetical reference to it in this section, in the second paragraph (World Steam Magazine #101). I tried to convert it into a footnote (per CITEVAR), but couldn't find the mag online. Does it mean Steam World Magazine? And does anyone happen to have issue #101? The citation needs more details, such as author, date and article title. Until then, I've added a tag to it. Cheers, Dairy_{talk} 09:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And another one: (Kautzor 2010). I found references to a Thomas Kautzor connected to steam locomotive reports online, but couldn't find the actual reports. Dairy_{talk} 09:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Steam Train.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

another UK new-build

there will be a gresley v4, LNER 3403, being built at Darlington hopetown works by the A1 steam trust 49.182.21.36 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to cite a reliable published source for that. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 07:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

First steam locomotive - Britain

The opening paragraph under 'history' is misleading and inconsistent. It begins by stating that the earliest railways employed horses to draw carts along rail tracks, setting up a context for rail travel, but then immediately goes on to say that William Murdoch built a small-scale prototype of a steam road locomotive in 1784. This was a road vehicle, and a model one at that, incapable of carrying a person. In my opinion this is given too much significance in the article. People are quoting this on various websites, claiming that William Murdoch was the inventor of the steam locomotive.

I propose this section be worded better, so as to play down the significance of Murdoch's work to something more accurate. Steam wagons no doubt played a part in the development of the steam locomotive, but we can't have a situation that implies Murdoch's model was first. What about Cugnot's steam wagon, a few years earlier, that could carry a person? By the same logic we could claim this to be the first locomotive. --Jason210 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. As you'd expect in a "history" section, the first paragraph lays out context by introducing the concept of railway (albeit horse-drawn), experiments with steam-powered vehicles (clearly stating this was for road, and was a working model rather than the full thing), then the merging of the two when the technology was developed to do so. What does muddle the text is the out-of-place 3+1⁄2 sentences about Fitch in Ohio, so perhaps the text ought to exclude this, with Murdoch's "locomotive" replaced by "carriage", as it is given in his article:

The earliest railways employed horses to draw carts along rail tracks. In 1784, William Murdoch, a Scottish inventor, built a small-scale prototype of a steam road carriage in Birmingham. A full-scale rail steam locomotive was proposed by William Reynolds around 1787, but a full-size workable steam train would have to await the invention of the high-pressure steam engine by Richard Trevithick, who pioneered the use of steam locomotives.

References

See also section needs a major cleanup

I was flabbergasted today when I saw the size of the see also section. Per MOS:SEEALSO, see also links "should be limited to a reasonable number." Before my recent revert, there were about one hundred links in "Historic steam locomotives", which is also an ill-defined list prone to grow forever. Maybe splitting some content out to standalone list articles is called for here? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)