This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andre Kritzinger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Friend of mine, Paul, was in Hartenbos over the holidays and took some photos of SAR 19D no 2749 (This one). The 19D article states that 2721 to 2770 was delivered by Robert Stephenson and Hawthorns, but the actual locomotive carries a North British Locomotive plate (photo). Any idea why this would be?
The NBL works plates were attached to the smokeboxes. And over the years, with boiler changes, they migrated between locos. Same way as the domeless boilers ended up on later model locomotives. André Kritzinger 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Boiler exchange during overhaul seems a very plausible explanation. It's probably the boiler originally fitted to SAR 3364 (this being the loco built by NBL as their no. 26084 of 1948). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was in Durban two weeks ago and photographed three apparently brand new large diesel electric locomotives EXX 3001/3002/3003 with the name Exxaro on the side. I have not been able to identify them on WP. Can you help please?--Das48 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Exxaro is in coal mining, but I don't have any info on these locos. I'm on the road right now, touring, so in the meantime I'd suggest you try asking on the World Diesel Locomotives (WDL) list on Yahoogroups. André Kritzinger 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It's one of those four, all right. The plate says JS Smit, so JJ Smit as mentioned in 2-6-0#Cape_gauge may be incorrect, but that's how it appeared in the reference I used (Holland, which has some typos in it). It's not on the list yet since I haven't done the SAR Obsoletes yet. That's my next challenge, along with the CGR, NGR, NZASM, CSAR lot. I've been preparing relevant pictures for uploading when I tackle the articles, but last December and my recent trip got in the way. Soon, though...
Thanks. Looks like one of a whole bunch of 4-8-2T and some 4-8-4T locomotives that were built for the gold mines. There's one (Freegold North no. 2) parked at Beaconsfield. They never saw SAR service, but according to John Middleton some of the 4-8-4T type saw service on East African Railways as their 13 class. André Kritzinger (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Locomotive no. 39-251
Hello, Andre Kritzinger. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here. If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}
I see you're a fellow railfan, perhaps even specializing even in these articles... but you restored an awful lot of ugly white space, in this edit here, and I worked hard to balance that text and pics side by side so it paginated and worked well. Please explain, for whilst I hate the process, I'm considering reverting your edit.
Also had deliberately retained the British 4-4-2T loco as they invented the class... had just added a pic (surprisingly hard to find) with a good side view showing the Whyte code arrangement. Thanks for that, but think the Brits deserve the place of honor.
Would you be interested in helping reclassify some of the photo libraries on the Commons? I'm gradually trying to park some stuff in a more consistent logical way and can use some help. A few of us got together back in 2006-2007 and did the same with maps categories there and it was a fun and fruitful co-operative process. Best regards // FrankB00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
H FrankB, I understand your pain - I often experience it myself, especially with picture plonkers who add images that are not even mentioned in the text and screw up the whole page layout in the process. (Spent months of 12 hour days last year virtually rewriting all the wheel arrangement pages that contain SA items and standardising the layout format.) Then I also found that different browsers display pages differently, which further complicated things. The only white space on most of these articles at present should be next to the index. (Sort of an invitation to the picture plonkers, I suspect...) Is that what you're talking about? I moved the Brit picture from there to where it's actually mentioned in the text and left the Milwaukee one at the top since it's a better illustration of the wheel arrangement, even though the Brit one is more pleasing on the eye. Larger pictures are not the answer, though. In loco articles an infobox prevents that white space from happening. But I've just tried another plan - take a look at 4-4-2 (locomotive) again and let me have your thoughts. If the WP:MOS folks don't object, this may be the way to go rather than enlarging the pictures. As to your invitation, thanks but not now. I've just started on the pre-SAR colonial era locomotives and have more than 60 more to do. Just the six NZASM locomotives "done" so far took me more than two weeks. Off to bed now. It's 02:55. André Kritzinger (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Hi Andre , I'm really impressed by how you wrote about the NZASM of water vaal boven , anyways i'm new on editing and making new articles but i'm facing problem with erros and stuff especially when i want to reference my sources what can i do to improve my editing ?? i also want to translate the page you did on NZASM to siSwati but i'm not sure if i can use the picture you've used there Bobbyshabangu (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
https://ss.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimela_Semalahle , after some busy schedules i've menaged to make a siSwati page , please take a look sir ,, i'm depressed because i can't insert pictures or make the appropriate referencing , i am however still gona come and play around the it and see if i won't win ............and hey tell me something , how do i send you a message without sending the Barnster everytime ?? , ( this is the only way i know how to send a message) Bobbyshabangu (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Bobby, to contact me here, go to the top of my talk page (this one), click on "New Section", fill in the section heading in the top editing block, then go to the larger editing block below it, start typing, end off with the four ~ signs in a row, click on the "Show preview" button at the bottom and fix errors or add info and keep on using "Show preview" until you're satisfied, then when you're completely satisfied with the result, click on "Save page". That should prevent more barnstars... A picture link comes out like this one here. To see how it's done, click on "[edit]" next to this comment and look for the bit that starts with "[[File:..." I can't see your article, the link you gave takes me to Abuse filter management. Even if I put "Stimela Semalahle" between double [ ] brackets, it comes out as a dead link: Stimela Semalahle. "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again." Good luck. André Kritzinger (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi André Kritzinger (talk) thanks a lot for your help, for the past couple of weeks i've been doing some thorough reading and editing on some other pages and i think the key is simple , the more you edit is the more you master your way around editing articles, so I'm gona run through your your work and see how i can't translate atleast half of your articles to siSwati before the year ends :). Bobbyshabangu (talk) 05:13, 08 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andre, I was looking for help on South African locomotives. Specifically the South African Class 3E.
I'm looking at re-writing the Co+Co page, rather than merging it. It would become mostly a disambiguation, indicating the definition of Co+Co (two articulated frames) and how this is both rare and different from the Co-Co arrangement (two bogies beneath one frame). I would also list the slightly more common C+C (two frames, but not individual traction motors) and C-C (diesel-hydraulic with bogies). Historically there are some 1-C+C-1 (mostly electrics), such as the Pennsylvania Big Liz, which is a pair of six wheeler articulated frames rather than bogies, but even then it's a single motor per frame, and there are pony trucks. I think the GN Y-1s might have been 1-Co+Co-1 with separate traction motors, but more likely 1Co-Co1 with bogies.
Lots of South African locos are categorized as Co+Co at present, but I think these are incorrect and should be the much more common Co-Co.
So far I can't find a single example of a Co+Co ever existing. The closest possibility in the 3E, but I don't know this loco and the only photo is end-on.
Hi Andy, locally all diesels and electrics where the bogies are linked are described as Co+Co (All the six-axle diesels except the Class 34-500 and the Class 3E electrics.) Also the four-axle Bo+Bo Class 1E and Class 2E, and the 1Co+Co1 electric Class 4E and diesel Class 32-000 and Class 32-200. All of them are single-frame locomotives on bogies, with all axles except the pony axles having their own traction motors.
I don't know what the linkage looked like on the electrics - none are in service any more. The picture is from a Class 35-000, but it looks the same on the rest of the older diesels. When those things are removed to make room for a larger fuel tank, such as on the Class 35-000 family of GE locos working on the Sishen-Saldanha line, the arrangement is decscribed as Co-Co.
Thanks for that – it's more complicated than I realised. Now I wonder if any other non-South African locos are using a similar arrangement. I think the best thing now would probably be a merge to a section in an expanded Co-Co. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Some more info. All the electrics (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E and ES) had bogie-mounted drawgear and the argument was that, with the inter-bogie linkage, no push-pull train forces would be affecting the loco frame and body. They were all British-built, so maybe having a look at other Brit electrics may clear the picture.
Not so on the diesels. All their drawgear are frame-mounted, so the linkage probably has more to do with stability. They are all GE and EMD products, and some like the 34-000 are widely used elsewhere as well, such as New Zealand and South America.
I'm puzzled by the 34-200 / EMD GT26 Series (probably others) Seems to have been a conventional Co-Co in other countries, but a Co+Co with the bogie interconnection link for South Africa. I can see some of the advantages to this, especially with bogie drawgear, but I'm puzzled that it wasn't also necessary for the other versions elsewhere. The 34-200 had a shortened lightweight frame and different bogies, which explains some of it, but I can't see why this seems to be such a widespread practice in South Africa, yet so unheard of outside it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No, nominate all you want, please. I'm way too busy trying to get these articles done(ish) before the kids come visit over December to bother with nominations! And there are quite a few left to go still. Thanks for the nominations! André Kritzinger (talk)
* The first of thirty [[South African Class 15B 4-8-2|Class 15B]]] [[4-8-2]] Mountain type locomotives enter SAR service.<ref name="Paxton-Bourne"/>{{rp|60-61}}
Hello Andre Kritzinger. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of CGR 0-4-0ST 1881, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Fix the incoming links before the page can be considered for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andre Kritzinger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
)-.png){kind=icon}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South African Class 35-000 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.